Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Have the FunnyJunk newsletter e-mailed to you
Level 203 Comments: Comedic Genius
Send mail to ryendan
Invite ryendan to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Content Level Progress:
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress:
Level 203 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 204 Comments: Comedic Genius
Total Comments Made:
5'11, 175lbs Full time job plus college online full time and in the Army Reserve for 5 years now. Hmu if you want
What people say about ryendan
Video Game Music...
Stuff I have on...
Dark souls Comp
Movie Music Comp
History of Westeros
Dark souls comp #15
Cursed Powers cyoa
Dark Souls Knight...
latest user's comments
- I use quite a bit and have a campaign going right now on it. …
The Fourth Wall
- Commentin to come at dem best art collections at another time
Magic the Gathering Art Vol...
- It's kind of like a betting thing. 10/1 means if I put $1 on i…
The Year of the Underdog
- The Watchmen
- Don't white females count as being white?
Laci Green on white people
Not anymore apparently
Why are they not considered a minority then? Is there a chart on this? Also I feel like "white" is a metric that should be split if the other metrics aren't just "brown" and "yellow"
I mean slavic, Germanic, Celtic, Gaelic, Greek, etc etc, surely grouping people into one category because the colour of our skin is racist?
So if :
>white America is 50% of the vote
>50% of the vote went to trump
>Trump is allegedly planning to kill/exile all non whites
Either EVERY white person voted trump (including these crying fgts) or a bunch of black people are to blame, either way not sure how this bitch can blame "white America"
- This hit me...hard. The day i finished 8th grade we h…
- Can hear you daddy
- Dear christ yes
- id rather anyone other than trump or hillary
Do gifs work?
- thats why there's more than 2 people to choose from
Do gifs work?
Oh yeah, because they're even better.
You should phrase that as a question.
It wasn't intended as a question.
Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are better options than Trump and Clinton.
Gary Johnson supports government regulation of businesses, thinks Hillary is a good person, wants open borders, and would sign TPP.
Jill Stein believes in homeopathic medicines, healing crystals, and hates nuclear energy.
Nobody's a perfect candidate.
Nearly everyone supports some regulation of business, including me and all of this year's Presidential candidates. The market can't solve all problems by itself.
I don't really care about his opinion on Hillary, and I don't know enough about the TPP to support or oppose it.
Source on the open borders thing?
I don't support open borders but immigration issues are not usually one of my priorities, and Congress will prevent Johnson from implementing anything too radical.
I'm not a fan of Jill Stein but she's still far more trustworthy and accountable than both Clinton and Trump.
You seem to not understand what a Libertarian is. Minimal government, period. "A government so small you can't even see it."
“I would make it as easy as possible for those illegal immigrants to get a work visa as long as they haven’t committed any crimes.”
"For the record, in my opinion, if a young woman is enterprising enough to sneak across the border for the purpose of having a child who will then be eligible for citizenship in the U.S. — and who can, 21 years later when he or she has reached adulthood, perhaps sponsor family members for legal status, that might be a family who will make pretty good Americans."
Jill Stein's highest position is a town-meeting representative in Lexington. She has no real accountable skills and despite being a physician she actively supports the anti-vax movement and healing crystals.
There's no need to be so condescending, I know perfectly well what a libertarian is.
It's not important to me whether or not Johnson is a "true" libertarian. As it happens, I am sympathetic to the free-market, small-government principles of libertarianism but do not think it's reasonable to support no regulation on business at all. Nor do I support a "minarchist" model of government that exists to protect people's natural rights and has no other function.
Johnson is still a small-government candidate, vastly more so than Clinton or Trump or Stein.
Johnson is lax on (illegal) immigration but as I said that's not a major priority for me. I don't think we should tolerate people sneaking across the border, and we should certainly deport violent criminals and gang members who are here illegally, but I do still support a path to citizenship for productive, well-behaved illegal aliens.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with granting foreigners work visas.
Even if we assume he'll be able to perfectly implement his vision for immigration, I'm willing to overlook my disagreements with him on that issue because I align with him on many more issues, including issues that I consider more important.
Besides that, he's easily more competent and qualified than Trump or Jill Stein, and he's more trustworthy/a better person than Trump or Hillary Clinton.
As for Stein, meh. So she's slightly more qualified as Ben Carson. I'm not going to vote for her regardless.
Trump i way more libertarian than Johnson. What issues do you support Johnson in? Personally, I can't think of one as a libertarian myself.
Trump is not a libertarian at all. What are you basing this on?. I have never heard him talking seriously about limited or small government, about cutting spending, about the Constitution, about government overreach, or anything that libertarians care about. he says whatever shit pops into his head (or whatever he thinks will appeal to his voters) and then contradicts himself later that day.
With Johnson I agree on ending the drug war (one of my most prioritized domestic issues, since it has such a far-reaching impact), social issues like LGBT and religious rights, education policy (should be controlled at the state/local level), free trade, abortion, some aspects of immigration policy, freedom of speech/press/religion, some aspects of foreign policy, and probably a few other things I'm missing. I also like his ideas on healthcare on principle (though I'm skeptical of the plan's effectiveness).
Perhaps more importantly, though, I think Johnson is fundamentally trustworthy, unlike Trump or Clinton. He has a good record of governing experience, genuine political principles, and no history of lying, corruption or scandalous behavior that I'm aware of.
"I have never heard him talking seriously about limited or small government" Yeah, the guy who constantly complains about establishment candidates doesn't want to take away power from said officials. Makes sense.
The drug war would be done in a day with Trump building a wall if that's your big concern. Trump has supported LGBT rights and wants to get rid of common core. Trump supports small businesses with a flat 15% corporate tax. Trump is the biggest proponent of freedom of speech when he says that political correctness is the problem. Trump is also a bigger proponent of second amendment rights.
I can't trust someone who was a republican, calls themselves a libertarian, and acts like a democrat.
Being anti-establishment is not the same as being small-government. Wanting to take power from "the establishment" only to seize it for yourself does not make you libertarian.
Trump routinely tries to silence people who criticize him and has said that he'd like to expand libel laws so he can prevent the media from criticizing him. He is not in favor of free speech. (Being against "political correctness" is not the same as being in pro-free speech.)
He opposes gay marriage - not as stridently as the Religious Right, but he's still not exactly a proponent of LGBT rights.
He supports NSA surveillance.
He wants deep tax cuts but no cuts to government spending - that's not libertarian, it's just fiscally irresponsible.
He's extremely protectionist on trade, which is not libertarian.
His stance on the second amendment is really just pandering imo, but even if it isn't, Trump has implied he'd support banning people on the no fly list from owning guns. Johnson opposes such a ban and also appears to oppose all or almost all regulations on gun ownership, so idk why you think Trump is a bigger proponent of gun rights.
Trump has been a Democrat, calls himself a Republican, and acts like a lunatic, so it seems like you've got some serious double standards going...
He's also lied and flip-flopped countless times and his business history is riddled with scandals, lawsuits and unethical behavior.
As for the drug war, the notion that a wall can somehow end it is laughable.
The drug war is a matter of US policy. The US government is the one waging this "war". Ending the drug war means legalizing marijuana, decriminalizing all drug use, and releasing prisoners who were convicted for nonviolent drug use. The drug war is one of the main reasons the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, it fuels racial tensions and tensions with police, and it's responsible in many ways for the cesspools that are our inner cities.
Based on this comment of yours alone, I really don't think you are a libertarian.
I don't mean that as an insult, just a matter of fact.
I think Trump understands that he's not president forever so obviously if he's anti-establishment he'd want to take power from those who could be establishment presidents later.
No, he wants to stop the press from knowingly lying about him. Why would you want press to knowingly lie? That's also freedom of press, not speech. Being anti-PC is being against the social rules that dictate how you must speak. What has Johnson done in this field?
No, you're flat out wrong. He has openly and avidly supported gay rights for even longer than Hillary.
I haven't heard him speak about the NSA at all, actually. Could you provide a source?
He has advocated for a decrease in government spending numerous times. Every time he proposes something he emphasizes how cheap it'll be and stresses the importance of lowering our dept. Obviously he is going to lower spending if he's trying to institute his policies as cheaply as possible an d the president is fully in control of government spending.
Yes, but he is very in favor of free trade in the US.
That's not true. Johnson actually says that he's against gun control but advocates for mentally disabled gun control as well as no-fly list restrictions.
Trump doesn't act like a lunatic, but Trump before was a Democrat for social reasons and a Republican for economic ones which is echoed in his stance today.
Where did he flip-flop? The only time I know of is on abortion but unlike most, he actually had a reason for this. These are scandals, most have no evidence.
The drug war would be over if there wasn't such an availability of drugs from Mexico.
I'm an alt-rightist but politically I am a registered libertarian because they side most with my beliefs. I am a little more conservative in things like immigration, but I do understand libertarian policies at their core and Johnson does not represent that. He's too wishy-washy trying to get votes from both sides without being too distant from his party.
See, I don't think Trump genuinely cares about being "anti-establishment" and is just portraying himself that way to get votes. His personality and behavior naturally clash with the established rules of civil discourse and politics so it's easy for him to argue that because he's "not PC", therefore he's anti-establishment.
He says he wants to stop the press from lying - but of course, he's not going to outright say he wants to censor criticism. The press has generally been anti-Trump, but imo much of that has been 1. accurate, despite Trump's denial or 2. brought on by Trump himself. What I mean is that Trump either intentionally says controversial things to attract media attention, or he says things (or agrees to things) that he doesn't understand, or that make him look bad, and then cries libel when the media takes him at his word (at which point he denies ever having said what he said, despite video evidence).
Social rules restricting what people are
to say in public don't violate the First Amendment and don't restrict anyone's rights. They can certainly harm honest public discourse, and prevent more conservative (or at least non-conforming) people from speaking out, which is a bad thing, but it's not as bad as outright restricting freedom of the press through laws.
>longer than Hillary
lol Hillary hasn't supported gay rights for very long.
Trump is less anti-gay than many Republians, but he still said he opposes gay marriage:
Here's my source on NSA:
Trump's campaign website says nothing about spending cuts, only about tax cuts. It's not enough to pay lip service to "the importance of lowering our debt" or simply to claim that his policies will be cheap - he has to actually show this to be true by providing details and making sure the math adds up. Because as it is, his tax cuts alone are projected to nearly double the national debt within two decades.
His suggestion for dealing with the debt was to renegotiate it to allow us to pay back less than we owe: "I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal."
A disastrous idea that he later denied having advocated.
Free trade means free trade with other countries. Trump is not in favor of this. Instead, he's proposed heavy tariffs on some of our trading partners to "fix" our trade deficits.
Johnson has said he's open to debate on mental-health restrictions on gun ownership, yes. Didn't really take a solid stance as far as I know.
Trump flipflopped on abortion, healthcare, mass deportation, the Muslim ban, refugees, the minimum wage, and taxes on the rich. Here's one of my comments giving sources on that:
We discussed the scandals before but you dismissed the evidence I provided. Nothing more to say there, I think.
The primary problem with the drug war is not the availability of illegal drugs, it's that we punish people for nonviolent, victimless crimes and thus ruin their lives, depriving them of job opportunities and often driving them into more serious criminal activity afterwards. That is wholly a problem of US policy. Also, walls aren't impenetrable.
Johnson's strategy is to appeal to disaffected voters on both sides by emphasizing common ground (rather than his more "pure" libertarian positions). He's a politician, I get it.
I have to admit, you've done a lot of research and this is probably the most educated debate I've had so I have to applaud that. Sorry if these responses aren't that great, I've kind of had a long day and been driving a lot so if I need to explain in more detail, I'll do so tomorrow.
Seperate comment because I ran out of space.
He's not (just) anti-establishment because of not being PC. He's anti-establishment because he's not a politician. He's a Reaganite-style candidate.
Yes he does stuff for attention but he rarely contradicts himself. First article, the tweet wasn't even clearluy in reference to the Orlando shooting. There's only so much speculation you can squeeze out of 140 characters.
Politifact is suuuuuper biased against Trump, but I can debunk these if you want me to.
Third link, the first one he called for a ban on Muslim immigration and then says he didn't call for a total ban on immigration. Both of these are true. There's no contradiction. Again, I can debunk all of these if you want.
PC culture eventually leads to bans. Look at the far left calling for it in feminist culture. PC culture also restricts what people can say in that it makes it so if you say anything non-PC you're basically barred from all further political discussion and made into a laughing stock. It's not a legal restriction, but a restriction nonetheless. Freedom of the press is freedom to report not to lie.
Funny thing, Trump actually takes a MORE libertarian response by not supporting same-sex marriage by saying he'd rather give that power to the states, although he does support the LGBT movement.
Thank you, I will look into his NSA stance tomorrow, kinda late and I gotta get up early.
He talks about this in a lot of his policies, look at his page on the wall and spending for that for example. Either way, I feel like we are in good hands economically with a billionaire businessman.
He didn't really elaborate he could be making a deal to pay it back over time.
I understand and agree that he's not as libertarian in this regard, however, I think that his stance is better.
Okay, this is a long-ass comment so I'm gonna break it down a bit.
Healthcare: If you read his plan he's still advocating for the same thing which is to have a safety net to cover the poor who can't afford healthcare. Nothing in the first video contradicts that.
Abortion: He gave a reason for switching and I can respect that citing a family he knows that was gonna have an abortion and didn't.
Migration: Okay, yes he contradicted himself here, however he does say there are problems in Europe over this yet think something needs to be done on a humanitarian basis. The next day he made a more firm stance on the issue of which, before, he seemed unsure of how best to handle it. He has since stated that, essentially, the humanitarian way he wants to deal with it is to end the problem by defeating ISIS.
Mass deportation: Not really a contradiction, but I will defend that these "American citizens should not have been born in America in the first place. The second part doesn't seem like much of a contradiction.
Muslim ban: yes, he did make his point a bit more moderate. I don't think he's really contradicting himself if he explains it.
By closing the loopholes and taxing overseas transfers, it does in essence increase taxes on the rich,
Minimum wage: My take is that he suggests states to raise it, but wouldn't himself, as Bill's questioning was a bit leading, but I can agree to this one, at least, being a contradiction.
You have yet to actually provide evidence of scandals, but I've debunked a number of these, so have at it. The only thing you said was "his business history is riddled with scandals, lawsuits and unethical behavior," unless you're talking about a different comment thread and if it was you, I apologize for not remembering.
The thing is, there would be no problem to begin with if there were no drugs. That's the best solution. Walls work really, really damn well. Look at Hungary and Israel.
Not being a career politician doesn't inherently make you anti-establishment either. It's really more about whether you
the established order, really. Your average Jeb Bush voter is not anti-establishment even if they've never held political office. On the other hand, Ron Paul has been in politics for decades and I'd definitely call him anti-establishment.
(Reagan had already been governor of California by the time he was elected President, by the way, so he was a politician.)
Trump contradicts himself very frequently, which I think I've shown. But I'd be interested to see you debunk Politifact.
PC culture sometimes leads to bans, which libertarians oppose. But it's not just PC culture that has this authoritarian streak: various groups on the right want to ban pornography, punish flag-burning and other unpatriotic behavior, censor certain books (at least in schools), etc. Oppose restrictions on free speech - that's enough.
I don't think that stance on gay marriage is very libertarian. State governments are still governments - if you think gay marriage is a matter of personal liberty, then it shouldn't make a difference whether the government banning it is a federal, state or local government.
I think the "he's a businessman" argument is a cop-out. First of all, historically there's no correlation between Presidents being successful businessmen and being good for the economy.
Secondly there's no reason to fall back on his experience when you can read and analyze his economic proposals for yourself (or at least, read what experts say about them). And the general consensus is that Trump's economic policies are just bad economics. In some cases they'll even do the opposite of what he claims they will do. I can explain this in more detail (maybe I already have at some point?).
There are no serious spending cuts in his platform. The wall would constitute new spending if he didn't promise to have it paid for by Mexico. The ICE agents he wants to employ and the mass-deportation he's advocated would cost a shitton of money and he hasn't explained how he'd pay for it.
Paying the debt back over time is already what we do. I don't see what other deal he could have meant.
Why do you think Trump's trade policy is better than free trade?
On healthcare he initially said that he (as the government) would make a deal with hospitals to treat uninsured people at the expense of the government. No? But then, what incentive would anyone have to buy private health insurance if the government will cover all uninsured people? Trump said everyone must be covered.
But I could give him the benefit of the doubt and say he didn't have a plan at the time and was talking out of his ass as usual. A lot of his flip-flops can probably be explained that way.
On abortion I'm not talking pro-life vs pro-choice, I'm talking about "women must be punished" vs "only doctors must be punished" for abortion.
It's hard to tell. But has has absolutely advocated deporting all illegals, which the website says nothing about and he said he wouldn't call it "mass deportation" (what else would it be?)
That they "shouldn't have been born here" isn't an argument for deporting American citizens. They're still American citizens. I also oppose mass deportation in general.
"ban all Muslims from entering" is not compatible with "ban immigration from countries compromised by terrorism". It's a contradiction on two fronts: no longer a ban on all entry, and no longer a ban on all Muslims. So he changed his position, clearly.
Closing loopholes "raises taxes" somewhat but his actual plan still lowers them to 25% for the rich.
I think we had this conversation in a different thread.
Drugs themselves are not my problem, incarcerating nonviolent offenders is my problem. Most drugs can be produced domestically anyway.
8. If we're gonna call him condemning the woman who called Cruz a pussy mock then why not when he tells people to knock the crap out of people who throw tomatos. Throwing tomatos is on a technical level, assault, so I think it's justified. I mean, Obama says punch back twice as hard. He never promised to pay the legal fees. He said he was considering it. It wouldn't be rewarding violence, since a reasoning could be that he strongly believes in that cause and is expressing it and Trump may stand up for that frustration in the American people.
I wrote #8 and realised I was over limit. I'll do some more later if you want, but I think I've proven some bias and untruths.
1. All of these were settled. There's no conclusion of guilt. Innocent until proven guilty. No evidence. He also said this: "Let’s say that they do a job that’s not good, or a job that they didn’t finish, or a job that was way late. I’ll deduct from their contract, absolutely,” Trump said. “That’s what the country should be doing," which I think makes a lot of sense. Both sides need to hold up a contract.
2. This one I have seen and if it is true (which it seems to be) is kind of a dick move by Trump. This is the one I do agree on when it comes to Trump scandals.
3. No real evidence and (unpopular opinion) I don't have a problem with trading with the mafia. At the end of the day, it's business. It's not like Trump paid them to knock someone off.
4. I recommend watching this:
5. I've seen this site. A lot of silly quotes, like this: "A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage.” That's true, there's quotas. Another is that there still is some question to Obama's birth because he did spend his youth in Kenya and there was an issue I remember with the school he claimed to go to in Hawaii. The biggest one is the O'Donnel quote which there is no evidence he said. If you want, I can go through all of these, but I really don't think it's important. I can go deeper into the O'Donnel one if you want.
7. He said he'll release tax returns after his audit. If he doesn't then, then I'm fine with complaints, but let's wait and see. Now, it's not really clear whether he donated this money through his charity or not and it could have been personally donated which would explain it. Even so, I see no problem with a billionaire being uncharitable. They earned the money.
8. citation needed
9. politifact, to do below
10. He's refering to actual lies, not just critiicsm. I'm not 100% on this policy, but I don't think it's that bad. No reason to let the press lie.
11 & 12 I don't feel are really important.
None of these are conclusive so if you want to draw your own conclusions, fine, but I prefer to base my judgement on evidence. I'm sure he's done some things wrong and I'm not saying he's perfect, but I can't really prove he's not.
I also wouldn't mind debating some of your other comments in that thread cause I differ from you on your stance on Hillary's scandals, too.
1. Trump said he's only a war hero because he was captured. That is admitting that he's technically a war hero even though he disagrees that he should be one.
2. eh, I can accept this. I don't know the exact quote, but its fine. There is a surprising amount of slander here, where they mention the lawyer who was going to pump breastmilk during a trial. It was pumping not feeding and during the proceedings, too. That's really unprofessional and frankly, kinda gross to have to watch.
3. Again, another one with virtually no context and I wasn't even aware he said this, so I can't really refute it without research, but I don't have the effort to do so for such a small issue.
4. There is the possiblity of other countries joining the TPP such as China. This isn't wrong.
5. He said he didn't want to debate if Kelly was there. That's not the same as saying she should be removed. How politifact can think these two things are the same is beyond me.
6. He said it was terrible. He clearly denied it. Obviously he may have actually agreed but said that so the statement could not be used by the press against him. So technically he didn't say it. He's right.
7. HE claimed a faulty earpiece. It genuinely seemed like he had trouble hearing and if not it's still not beyond reasonable doubt.
Yeah, I disagree with authoritarian rightists too.
I think the most libertarian thing is to ban all marriage as a legal institution and that starts with preventing same-sex marriage's legalisation. State power is a core facet of libertarianism and the states do disagree, so I say giving them a say in it is a libertarian thing to do.
I've seen economists say good and bad this about Trump's plan. It's all partisan. I think Trump's economic plan is good and, like you, can get deeper into it if you want.
You do make a point about the deportation agents. Maybe he does have a plan and I haven't read it, but some spending cuts he's proposed are abolishing the department of education, Obamacare, as well as keeping money in the US by deporting illegals which significantly lowers remittances and renegotiating NAFTA, just to name a few.
No, we don't really pay it back. We just let it pile up. It's kind of at a point where we're running out of options. Trump predicts another crash like the housing and dotcom crashes and hopes it doesn't happen when he takes office. I also believe we'll have a credit crash soon and that's really worrying, but at least he recognizes the issue there unlike the other candidates.
Trump's trade policy brings jobs back to Americans as companies will be hard-pressed to host factories in Mexico or overseas with the taxes applied to them. I personally believe in only trading for needed products, art, and technology so that anything that can be made in the US is.
Trump will cover those who have to be uninsured. The people who can't afford it. This is elaborated on in his healthcare plan where this acts as a safety net.
I don't think that's a very important issue persay, but I think both sides do bad when it comes to abortion so I think both are valid even if they do contradict. Women shouldn't get abortions and doctors shouldn't give them. I assume this change may be to not insult people who do support abortions and instead place the blame on doctors, but that doesn't mean I think saying something for voting reasons is justified.
I don't know why he wouldn't call it a mass deportation. Maybe there's some technicality in the way it will be done or maybe it isn't by definition a deportation if they're illegal. They are American citizens, but they shouldn't have been. I think they should be deported, but that's a personal view and you don't have to agree. I have plenty of resources if you do want to debate the pros and cons of mass deportation, though.
He changed from all Muslims to all Muslims from X countries. Posibly this is taking a more moderate approach on the issue for voting reasons, but this was a policy change and he made that clear. Rather than flat-out contradicting himself, he made it known that his old policy was one thing and this is his new one so I wouldn't count it that much against him.
Yes it does, but on the whole the rich will be paying more and that's what I think he meant, but that's subjective. I support a flat tax, so I'm fine with this.
They can, but aren't. I think it's a win-win if we can stop drugs coming in and as a result stop people from being on drugs. I know Trump hates drugs on a personal level so I don't expect him to end the war on drugs regardless of incarceration rates.
I'll respond to scandals and politifact in another comment cause I'm running out of space.
Donald Trump is an anti-vaxxer and has repeatedly praised Putin's leadership.
Here he is next to a retired neurosurgeon saying that the problem is too large of doses in too short of a time, and the neurosurgeon agrees.
Donald Trump called him a strong leader and wants a better relationship with russia.
Then vote for them.
yes, that's the point.
id rather anyone other than trump or hillary
Show Comments (2)