Is it 2005 again?

what a Retard!

I really hope he doesn't get the nomination. Because as much of a moron as he is, I still prefer him to any of the democrats.

I loathed when other people starting name dropping fascism to give drama to their butthurt and outrage over Trump.

But yeah, this is honest to god fascism.

>>7144
>“We have to go see Bill Gates,”
"And then the thousands of CS-background citizens laughed. And laughed. And laughed. As a result, they all suffocated and died. That, little Jimmy, is how America changed."

>YFW pol realised they aren't Trump's target demographic

>>7205
"We're off to see the wizard"

I really can't tell whether Trump's a manipulative sociopath, a poe, a cunt, or a mixture of the three. He shamefully plays into American hysteria. I don't think he really cares what he says; he just wants to drive people into a furore, whether they're for or against him.

>>7225
He's a shill to drive hard core conservatives to vote for him when he goes independent. This will guarantee the vote for Hilliary.

>>7231
Did he actually win them, or did he just bluster and play to the public's unspoken insecurities, whilst insulting the disabled in the process?

Serious question; I haven't really been keeping up.

>>7233
He did exactly that AND he won.
Anyone who engages him has suffered severely on polls and anyone who doesn't is seen as coward. He controls the entire narrative.

There's been hundreds of explanations to justify why he keeps leading, but none want to just state the obvious that he's leading because people of genuinely like him to be the head of this country.

>>7246
https://youtu.be/MZcuWba_HgU?t=18s

Hurr

He refers to him as 'poor guy', and I think you and I both know what he meant by that.

He's a demagogue. Whether or not the way he carries himself is all part of an elaborate ploy remains to be seen.

>>7237
Not the fact that he can pay off all the news outlets or anything. That couldn't possibly be where his "leading" statistics come from.

>>7144
>we're losing a lot of good people because of the internet
Where's ytmnd when you need it? This could have been the next "a series of tubes."

>>7302
The Bush echoes are uncanny.

>>7303
I think Trump is in a league of his own.

http://time.com/4139998/dick-cheney-trump-muslims/

How can people take this asshat Trump seriously? Just the other month Trump was saying he "loved" Muslims, now this week he says he wants to ban all Muslims from the U.S.

Idiocracy predicted another aspect of the American culture of the future, people using the term "love" casually and ingeniously. >>656311166

>>7307
>now this week he says he wants to ban all Muslims from the U.S.
He said he wants to temporarily suspend muslims from entering the country. That does not mean throwing every muslim in the US out.

>>7237
>he's leading because people of genuinely like him to be the head of this country.

He's literally the president from the fucking sheep look up. If he's what the American people want then Americans are fucking stupid

>>7307
>Idiocracy

For fuck's sake don't use that shit movie as a talking point. I hate trump too but using "Idiocracy" as a point in anything politics related makes you look like a tool

>>7310
I never implied they weren't.

The American people have always been extremely reactionary. It's why we always get roped into stupid ideological wars half a world away. Except now the "enemies" are so vague and intangible, that everyone's got blue balls and are willing to vote for the loudest , most annoying voice that promises things they know will never come true.

>>7190
Why are you such a faggot holy shit anon?

>The White House on Tuesday said Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's call for the United States to ban Muslims from entering the country disqualified him from becoming president and called on Republicans to reject him immediately.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-donald-trump-disqualified_566720a3e4b08e945ff123cc
Good thing we won't have to worry about that retard anymore, hopefully.

Except he's just talking about sites frequently used by terrorists. But dumb people like OP twist this into 'OMG HE WANTS TO SHUT THE INTERNET DOWN'. Even dumber people believe it.

ITT: reddit

Keep shilling for the establishment and corruption you mindless faggots. Hard to believe that there are people satisfied with the state of things.

>>7321
Listen I've been an edgy atheist since before you were born probably. I'd love to see Islam extinguished, but you won't do that by fighting conventional wars.

They're stupid and uneducated, but they've got the sense to play dumb civilians the second we get boots on the ground.

"Banning Muslims" is also a pretty terrible idea, but I'm not saying that because I love Muslims. Anytime any government has tried to ban religion it's never worked. Ever.

Not to mention it's an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent to set because in 20 years when liberal millennials actually start voting, they'll see a world without a first amendment , and have no problem taking away the second, forth, fifth, etc. Obama's excessive use of executive action was justified by Bush, and even though he only invoked things because we were at war, it didn't matter, because precedent was set. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

>>7305
I see it like Al Qaeda and IS fighting each other. Whoever loses, we still win.

>>7333
>dumb civilians the second we get boots on the ground.

That's fine for foreign countries but I'm more concerned about places like Deerborn, Michigan where natives have to endure the call to prayer being broadcasted. Fuck that shit.

>>7331
I don't like the establishment either. I actually support both Bernie and Trump, simply because they're such a breath of fresh air to the entire american political system. But I still they're both complete morons, each in his own way.

>>7340
You don't understand how this war works.
The more the countries in which the battles take place are torn apart, the stronger the terrorists become. The terrorists don't have a big terror industry. They have cheap bomb manufactories and all that they need is more recruits. That's why bombs are such a shitty idea. The less people can go about their lives, the more they are inclined to do other stuff - like killing infidels.
You want order there, not Muslims killing Muslims, or Christians killing Muslims, or atheists killing Muslims. Because for as long as people continue killing Muslims in that lawless territory the longer this shit will escalate.

>>7343
Finally, someone who read his book!

>>7358
>I mean, come on, it's 2015, read a book already.
It's funny you say that...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/28/upshot/matching-candidates-with-the-books-they-sound-like.html

>>7343
Except even though Saudis and Qataris are the absolute worst Muslims, they're not really the ones doing the mass emigration .

I understand the principles of bargaining and negotiation. What you don't understand is that you don't go to car salesman and offer to take a 2015 Charger off his hands if he pays you $35 and gives you a sloppy BJ behind the dumpster.

If your positions are just outrageous, no one will take you seriously, and that hurts you more than it helps. I'm sure it works in business when he was already in a position of power, but he's insulted and alienated so much of his party and in politics that's the only source of power he has. They're already fighting between Tea Party and Neo Cons, they can only be split up so many times.

And It's first amendment related because the first amendment says " congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion " which is clear as day. By calling out Muslims specifically he's conveyed that it's acceptable to breach the constitution. Whether that's actually his position or not, it's polluted the argument. There's no way to accept any position he bargains because his justification would set an irrevocable precedent.

>>7144
I want this guy to get elected just for the bantz

>>7246
>The base that Trump caters to has been ignored by the entire political establishment for going on a few decades now, and Trump says exactly what they not just want, but NEED to hear, so he not only wins their votes, he basically wins their undying loyalty, as he is the torch in the dark for their economic and cultural future. These people have been seeking a champion for a long time, and the lack thereof for the length that it's been results in a feverish loyalty to the one that takes them up, especially in the capacity Trump has.
What is this base? Who are these people?

>>7227
How's it going, Scott?

>>7333
>in 20 years when liberal millennials actually start voting
They already vote, they just only vote for presidential elections. It's why Obama is a two-termer and Sander will be a two-termer, and why for the next generation or so the president will be a Dem and Congress will be GOP.

>>7354
To add to this, Al Qaeda has been toothless for half a decade now.

>>7372
But when did we specifically deny Catholics or Jews on grounds of them being Catholic or Jewish?

>>7344
Al Qaeda is a Saudi-backed insurgent organization which is used by them to fuel an American foreign policy which puts money in their pocket by handicapping competitors and ensuring American presence in the region.
ISIS is a doomsday cult which sells artifacts and oil on the black market through Turkey.

>>7381
Master wizard hypothesis.

>>7364
>The Legends of King Arthur
>simple
So they never even tried to read L'Morte d'Arthur or The Once and Future King or really any of the Arthurian stuff, huh.

>>7386
What? The Irish and Italians came here legally. I think you're misunderstanding what US immigration policy was at the time. In fact many of the Irish were here before the revolution.

>>7386
It was never based on religion, though. In fact, one of the prime motivators of the creation of the IQ test is the provision of a reason other than religion to deny those dirty Cathos and Orthos and Krauts and really everyone, basically.

>>7379
Okay, thanks.
Funnily enough, the only rabid Trump supporter I've ever encountered is a Black guy.

>>7383
Not growing up is part of being a Millennial.

>>7394
>With the Arabs we can just cite national security and accomplish the same thing.
They're mostly Levantine, not Arab.

>>7381
I've read enough of your writing to recognize your style.

>>7397
Interesting thing is he's a Visual Basic teacher at the local CC.

>>7397
The DNC needs Howard Dean back if it wants a chance.

>>7394
So what you're saying is, we didn't do something like what Trump is suggesting? I'm kind of confused. I don't think anybody was arguing that nobody ever supported such policies, just nobody ever got denied admission to the country based on their belief. So your whole "nobody batted an eye" statement is meaningless, there was nothing to bat an eye at. And the viewpoint that they should wasn't unchallenged in the least. Seriously, there was a reason nobody ever enacted those policies.

>>7405
But the point is we made up another reason besides religion, even if it was just for appearances. Denying people entry on the basis of religion alone is by literally contrary to the basis of which this country was founded.

You're right that no one would bat an eye if Trump had just said we need to keep out all immigrants for the sake of national safety. But instead he chose to single out a specific religion. And the argument can be made that, that is a first amendment breach. "Shall make no laws" is pretty strong and unambiguous. If you try to add "buts" to that it'll only be a matter of time before they poke holes in "shall not be infringed".

>>7405
But we didn't do that. Not for most of those, at least. The only significant instance where we did was the Chinese Exclusion Act, and even then it wasn't on religious grounds.

>>7414
Do you have any evidence that such a system existed?

What are Trump's chances of winning the nomination, really?

I need to hear something objective beyond the echo chamber of /pol/ children who think they'll get to be in the SS.

>>7427
Pretty high, actually. He makes himself look like a putz but he makes everyone else look weak.

>>7388

"Filled with mixed rage and fear, the king called for the astrologers and wizards, and took counsel with them what these things might be, and how to overcome them. The wizards worked their spells and incantations, and in the end declared that nothing but the blood of a youth born without mortal father, smeared on the foundations of the castle, could avail to make it stand"

Yah boi is more blake than coleridge.

I'm not saying this as in "TRUMP IS THE BEST I WANNA SNIFF HIS TOUPEE" but seriously, who is a better presidential candidate than Trump?

Who has actually decent ideals and plans for when they become president? Is there literally anyone in the 2016 election on the Repubs side that can actually be worthy of holding the title of president? Dems are fucked there's nobody on that side who matter. What do Carson and Rubio bring to the table?

>>7144
Between "Let's go see Bill Gates about closing up the internet" and "vaccines are bad" this fucking guy has let down a LOT of people. I really thought he was going to be the guy to shut down political correctness once and for all, and do a lot of good things but now he's just coming across as stupid.
VERY fucking disappointing.

>>7305
not based on religion.
be serious

>>7321
not a reason to erase the principles the fucking country was built on, ffs.

people who want to change the fundementals of America because of fucking terrorists, don't deserve to be American.

>>7438
Go make love to your vaccines somewhere else...

>>7434
Carson doesn't give a fuck about political correctness AND he doesn't want to limit the freedoms this country was built on.


>>7440
>How non-Yuros didn't start coming over en masse until 1965?
Please learn some history, ffs.

>>7446
If you understand the basics of science it should take you about 5 minutes online to figure out if vaccines are bad or good.
You're a smart girl, go figure it out for yourself instead of getting your science from Jenny fucking McCarthy.

There are ZERO differing opinions about vaccines among actual scienctists and doctors - this isn't like global warming, ffs, this shit is signed, sealed, and fucking delivered and if you are anti-vaccine and have children you are a real threat to everyone in the country. (Not to mention a dumbass townclown.)

>>7449
>this isn't like global warming, ffs
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

>>7227
If that's the case, a looot of people are going to be really pissed when he doesn't force all the Mexicans and Muslims to go home.

>>7459
It's inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.

>>7467
Seriously? You think that an excerpt from a poem inscribed on a statue from France makes it an American law?

Did you know that the author of the poem was a Jew that wrote that because of her desire for America to take in Jewish refugees and immigrants after becoming interested in her Jewish heritage. She also argued for the creation of a Jewish homeland, a land for the Jews. She had somewhat conflicting values there, yes? Why should we follow the word of a hypocrite?

>>7459
>Trump respects the country's founding values

On free speech:
>Somebody will say, 'Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people

On mass surveillance (aka unreasonable searches):
>We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule
>And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.

On freedom of religion:
>Nobody wants to say this and nobody wants to shut down religious institutions or anything, but you know, you understand it, a lot of people understand it. We’re going to have no choice.

>>7144
oh wow, he's serious?

>>7395
Sorry, Ethan - Generation X played that one out. Try something original. So far you guys haven't contributed anything except a few sports figures and worthless actors. How about some scientists or artists or authors or something worthwhile?

>>7459
>Show me where it says that the country was founded to allow in every barbarian and mongrel that wants to dump themselves here.

OMG
I'm a fucking Canadian and I could show you.
You don't deserve to be American, lady.

>>7478
>some scientists or artists or authors
usually don't become heavy-hitters until their forties.

>>7491
>This has been a European country since before it was a country

This is advanced pooposting

Also every American soldier outside of the revolution and civil war died for no reason

>>7492
>There are a lot of Muslims and a large percentage of them are hostile to the west

>not a reason to erase the principles the fucking country was built on, ffs.
>people who want to change the fundementals of America because of fucking terrorists, don't deserve to be American.

>Where does it say America has to let in every single immigrant that knocks on the door? **

>Here's a list of times he suggested unconstitutional policies in response to terrorism, including one from the article in the OP

** This post assumes for no apparent reason that the previous one was referring to Trumps desire to stop Muslim immigration. That's not even what the thread is about, and it hadn't been mentioned before in the reply chain. The point of it seems to be "It's not illegal to stop Muslim immigration, therefore Trump doesn't want to change American values in response to terrorism".

Which of us is missing the point?

>>7507
I have no idea what exchange you think you've chronicled here. It's certainly not one the happened in this thread. Point me to the post where immigration is mentioned in that reply chain.

Is it your opinion that none of Trump's policies are unconstitutional because one of them isn't, or isn't it? If not, how do you think pointing out that one previously unmentioned policy isn't out of line with historical American values is a meaningful response to the idea that Trump wants to abandon American founding values in response to terrorism?

>>7508
Surely marxism could flourish even there?

>>7512
They don't want to do that because they want to be seen as good people.

Virtue signaling--look it up, it's killing the west.

Anyway, they're safe from the consequences of their self-serving decisions, usually being rich people who live in isolated neighborhoods and whose workplaces have gates and guards to keep the middle class out.

>>7512
>The thread became about immigration roughly halfway through.
It had yet to be mentioned in the reply chain and was completely irrelevant to the post that it was replying to and to the larger conversation that that post was a part of, which had been more or less relevant to the OP.

>Internment camps, "voluntary" repatriation, suspension of habeas corpus, the draft, trail of tears, PATRIOT Act, etc.
I wouldn't vote for anyone who included any of these things in their political platform. All but the PATRIOT Act are seen by historians as mistakes, and the PATRIOT Act will be as well, although perhaps not by American historians if we continue on the path towards an orwellian dystopia that it has put us on.

>Islamic terrorism can be shut down here and now
I don't think so.

>if we take a hard stance and explore our available options, #1 being not allowing any more of them into the country.
Many of the recent attacks were by people who had been living in the U.S. since before they were radicalized. Stopping immigration might reduce it, but it wouldn't eliminate it and you can't stop immigration permanently. It's not a fix for anything.

>So no, I think in light of recent, and ancient, history, I'm perfectly fine to strike Islam off the list of peaceful religions and treat it as the hostile entity it is, because the facts outright support it, and if you don't do anything people will die, that's just a fact.
I agree. Islam is a violent religion and something should be done about it. I don't think all Muslims are violent, but I also don't think that absolves them of responsibility. When you indoctrinate children with the idea that it's a virtue to accept facts without reason or evidence, people with delusional world views are the inevitable result. It happens in every faith based religion, but Muslim crazies are uniquely violent, and that is the direct result of the content of their holy text.

None of that makes stopping immigration an effective policy.

>>7524
Well Arabs grow in cunts.

>>7524
>we can absolutely stop immigration permanently from those countries
>from those countries
And if every other country on the planet doesn't do the same thing, guess what happens? They come here by proxy. The move to the UK first, and their kids come here. To stop that, you have to stop all immigration from everywhere.

Might stopping immigration reduce attacks? Yeah, maybe, a little, but I already said that. Is it a permanent and complete solution? No. Obviously not.

A better solution would be to try to foster political and economic stability in the middle east, so that people don't feel the need to flee, and to foster scientific value here at home so that fewer people think blowing themselves up will earn them extradimensional pussy.

>>7524
>>7527
That's to say nothing of the fact that compassion for the sane ones should probably outweigh fear of the crazy ones for a morally decent person, since statistically the risk involved with allowing middle eastern immigrants is pretty low.

>>7399
If you stay on /news/, in a few weeks you will recognize every single person here.

>>7527
>A better solution would be to try to foster political and economic stability in the middle east
That's been tried. The people there aren't amenable to it-- neither their temperament nor their religion allows it.

The muslim world was actually pretty stable as recently as the 1950s. We can't go back to that time-- that bird has flown. See, what happened is that after a couple of centuries of constant warfare and strife, the warlike people killed each other off, leaving behind lots of people with cooler temperament. The same thing happened in Japan, which is why they're such a meek and polite people today. It's possible something similar happened with the Nordic peoples. In the same vein, WWII has been offered up as a possible explanation for why Europe is so cucked today -- the honorable, warrior code types just marched off into a hail of machine gun fire. Aggressive tendencies just become maladaptive in an industrialized or agrarian society and mother nature responds by removing them from the gene pool.

But we had to go in and start meddling again, first the British then the communists. And the Imams of that era had stumbled upon a very important fact of human nature--those who make babies conquer the future!

So they commanded their followers to have lots of children, and those previously well-adapted moderates found themselves crowded out in their own homelands by the bloodthirsty devout. And now, as it was in Muhammad's day, the ME is a powder keg again.

My solution is to disentangle. Interfere if it looks like they've got some WMDs or something, but otherwise leave everything alone. Seal them off. Let them kill each other off again. Let the peaceful, smarter ones survive. Then, in another 800 years, we may be able to re-establish diplomatic and commercial ties.

Either that or stage a mass spaying and neutering program for those pesky stray a-rabs.

>>7541
>The same thing happened in Japan
The Japanese changed their tune overnight, not over generations, in the face of eminent defeat. They thrived afterwards thanks to the fact that the west didn't hang them out to dry after fucking their shit up. It didn't take them long to figure out that having someone else's military defend you is a huge economic advantage. They are "meek and polite", as you put it, which is to say that they are relatively altruistic and not generally a violent people, because their culture places a high value on rational thought and is extremely secular, and because they enjoy relatively good political and economic stability. They continue to consider honor a virtue to a relatively high degree.

>those who make babies conquer the future!
That didn't work for the Catholics, and it doesn't seem to be helping the Mormons much.

>previously well-adapted moderates found themselves crowded out in their own homelands by the bloodthirsty devout.
Another interpretation is that overpopulation leads to political and economic instability, which in turn leads to higher poverty, crime, violence, and ignorance, all of which exacerbate the problem, and a downward spiral ensues. Keep in mind that the threshold for a problematic population density moves as a society becomes more advanced. If they could water their crops with water from nuclear powered desalination plants, the threshold for problems would be much higher. (I don't think installing nuclear power plants in the middle east is a good idea; the point is that these problems perpetuate and escalate themselves, but are possibly amenable to intervention.) If a historic drought lowers crop yields and makes drinking water scarce, the threshold lowers.

>>7541
Back then they were all Syria/Iran tier dictators backed with foreign money/arms and intelligence agencies' hands up their asses enforcing stability with murder.

>>7541
So the honorable Europeans went to war and died while the tame Europeans stayed behind?
How come humanity isn't super tame after all the wars that happened over the years?

>>7547
>secular
>emperor wants them to attack the US even when the guy in charge knew they were probably going to lose
>still thought the emperor was divine or some shit
Also,
>Create radar but decide it has no strategic value
>tried to copy the US and the UK for carriers and ended up with something kinda top heavy and not very protective

Furthermore,
>Inherently not violent
>Forgot about all the stuff right before the US knocks the stuffing out of them

I have no idea why they didn't end up irrelevant like Laos or vietnam.

On the surface, this is a terrible plan.

But looking further... This would curb almost all of the social problems that arose in the 21st century.
>Tinder would be gone, removing some of the incentive to cheat on spouses.
>Propaganda echo chambers would lose their primary method of recruitment. SJWs, stormfags, birthers, ignorant BLM activists. The list is endless. People could stand a better chance of thinking for themselves.
>Porn would shrink in prevalence to the same levels it exhibited in 1990.
>You would finally be able to talk to people face-to-face without them burying their heads in their phones.
>Local businesses wouldn't have to compete with Amazon's price-gouging algorithms.
>The female ego would shrink to a reasonable depth without global exposure over social media giving every woman hundreds of worshipers.

>>7570
>extramarital affairs
>propaganda
>narcissism
>distraction
>economies of scale
>all 21st century problems

Your dumb and Trump is dumb. Just the ability of listing this smut marks you as a degenerate. That you want to enact a social prohibition in favor of your misguided sensibilities is what makes you a douche.

>>7547
>The Japanese changed their tune overnight
I'm not talking about the ability to form organized, well-trained armies and follow a commander's orders. I'm talking about a tendency towards violence that is inherent in one's temperament.

The Japanese willingly went to war when their emperor asked because they're extremely agreeable people. They were able to fight on a unified front (unlike the muslims--even ISIS and al-quaeda who early on were total bros with each other couldn't cooperate in the end) and they were intelligent enough to realize that they had to match the west's military capabilities rather than just grabbing an AK and shooting from the hip WITHOUT FUCKING AIMING.

>That didn't work for the Catholics, and it doesn't seem to be helping the Mormons much.
The mormons are the only group of whites that are increasing in number. Give it a couple of centuries, and they may very well be the majority of whites, along with the mennonites (who have doubled in population over the last 30 years). I don't know what you're talking about that it didn't work for the catholics-- they've had centuries as the most influential institution of the western world.

> Another interpretation is that overpopulation leads to political and economic instability
It's an OK interpretation except that most of these new muslims were in fact born for the express purpose of spawning the caliphate and shoring up its numbers.

contd

> which in turn leads to higher poverty, crime, violence, and ignorance
Your response to this is going to tell me whether you're an honest commentator giving me an alternate opinion or just a shill for the current western narrative.

It's become pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that genetics do in fact have a huge impact on culture and the decisions a society makes. Concentrations of black people have much the same life outcome whether they live in Abuja or Detroit. Chinese laborers immigrating into southeast asian societies that hate them end up local business leaders while the native population flounders. Much of human history, from the industrial revolution to the discovery of agriculture can be traced to genetics.

>Trump mocked anyone who would object that his plan might violate the freedom of speech, saying “these are foolish people, we have a lot of foolish people.”

see ¡
>“We have to go see Bill Gates,” Trump said, to better understand the Internet and then possibly “close it up.”

lol wut?
He sounds a bit foolish

>Trump characterized the problem of Internet extremism by saying, “We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet.”

I use the Internet for porn, news, this shitty site, googling what to do when i accidentally build a shelf and info on repairing my car, im gonna go join isis.

>>7573
The current model is unsustainable. Feel free to name-call if it assists your mental gymnastics.

>Extramarital affairs
Affairs and subsequent divorce are having visible consequences compounding with each generation, especially for boys who lose their fathers. The long and short of it is that infidelity separates families, usually leaving the offspring with a woman who WILL NOT discipline or guide them.
>Propaganda
Social media has become the target of radicalized astro-turfing campaigns that undeniably influence the impressionable minds that use these networks. It's why our prospective candidates are a socialist and a fascist.
>Distraction
There's a time and a place for distraction, and it's not 10 hours each day in a public setting.
>Economies of scale
No prospect of monopoly has ever threatened mercantile diversity as much as Amazon. The site has not only reduced brick-and-mortar Black Friday sales by 10% over the course of a single year; It's also absorbing sales from all other online marketplaces.
>All 21st century problems
The potency of these problems and the convenience with which they're propagated is very much a 21st century problem. But I mean you called me a douche so maybe they're not...

>>7573
>a douche

You spelled autist wrong.

>>7586
Dad, it's time to get off the internet.

>>7588
If you know you're wrong, at least you can meme the other guy's argument.

>>7573
>douche
Go back to facebook.

>>7590
He'll have to watch a Spike Lee marathon to wash the taste of reality out of his mouth.

>>7589
First post in this thread, but great job, regardless. The others are doing a good enough job of telling him he's an autist.

>>7158
i hope this post is ironic

>>7566
Nordic countries seem pretty damn tame to me.

>>7459
>We didn't even want blacks here

Of course you wanted them there, you literally had them brought over by the boatload. You just didn't want to admit they were human beings.

>>7622
White and blacks living together isn't an issue outside of the US and other slaver countries.

The reason US (and general slave ) blacks are such an "issue" is because they were quite literally selectively chosen and bred FOR strength, which comes with violence due to the way biology works.

Most blacks outside of those areas are pretty fine. The biggest exception being those in militias in Africa that have gained a foothold through corruption and power, which happens with literally every race.
De-facto governments and governments ALWAYS have corruption somewhere when there is no oversight and proper consequences for their actions.

>>7397
>Trump of all people could rob the Democrats of their voting base

Trump is deliberately dragging the GOP far far far to the right in order to secure a victory for his friend Hillary Clinton.

>>7541
It's almost like we keep knocking off dictators who offer a semblance of stability in the region.

Everyone in this thread is acrually listening and believeing all the cnn bullshit theyve been fed for years and its very saddening. The only reason trump looks so bad 24/7 is because cnn despises the guy. They only let the public know about his mistakes and rude comments while they refuse to let the public know about hillary's. I cant believe you all believe that bullshit.

>>7626
You are literally blaming whites for niggers nigging.

>>7641
Offer something of the contrary then 'you are all blue pilled xD' is not a counterargument.

>>7641
Even if you put Hillary aside, surely it's a concern that he's making these dumb "mistakes" in the first place? I mean he IS running for president

>>7473
>>7470
>>7459

Her "conflicting values" aren't conflicting, they stem from the same basic idea: the oppressed need a place to be free from oppression. The "barbarians and mongrels" coming in from the Middle East are fucking actual people who likely live near or within the chaos going on, and many of them know someone who's died as a result of ISIS or counter-ISIS activity, or just any of the general fuckery that's been plaguing the politics of the Middle East for some time. They're not terrorists, they're not dog-fuckers or whatever slang you cocks use to describe poor brown people, they are in the middle of a developing catastrophe and they're trying to get out.

The Statue of Liberty's inscription doesn't have to be a law for it to say something about our principles. In the poem, the Statue of Liberty is christened "Mother of Exiles". If America can't care for exiles of war and refugees seeking refuge, but our most iconic monument does, surprise: we're the hypocrites.

>>7626
The reason US blacks are such an "issue" is because they have mainly lived in poverty since they were given "freedom", and when you add automatic weapons and an illegal get-rich-quick scheme (selling drugs) to a poor community, you get an entrenched and violent shit sandwich. It's not genetic, you twat, it's environmental

>>7669
Well, if you don't give a shit about them, why should you give a shit about people affected in terrorist attacks? Why give a shit about any tragedy or loss of human life? If you don't have basic fucking principles, then you have no principles, as your more complex principles will have no basis.

>>7144
There is no constitutional issue here. Donald Trump is talking about shutting down ISIS websites. Well, ISIS are not American citizens so they don't have freedom of speech.

>>7324
>>7600
Care to actually prove how he isn't a fucking retard?

>>7144
We don't need to restrict speech of dangerous foreigners--we just need to, as a culture, get rid of our notions of political correctness so that we can properly call this shit what it is. So that we can call muslim business owners who sell a few happy tolerant books on Islam in english, while all the stuff in arabic etc... are hard-line kill the infidels crap. We need to be more xenophobic.

>>7668
This.

>>7568
They may not always have been, but they are now both one of the most secular countries and one of the countries with the lowest violent crime per capita. They are in the top ten on both lists. The fact that they wouldn't necessarily have been on either of those lists at the end of the war only supports my point that violent countries with stupid ideologies can be reformed.

>I have no idea why they didn't end up irrelevant like Laos or vietnam.
I pretty much explained it. They got a lot more western assistance after the war, including a treaty which obliged the U.S. to provide them with national defense, a huge economic benefit for them.

>>7726
Rand Paul with a lot of Trump and a little bit of Kasich would be the greatest president ever!

>>7580
>I don't know what you're talking about that it didn't work for the catholics-- they've had centuries as the most influential institution of the western world.
>they have had
I would say they DID have. They are in decline, and probably permanently so. They may not all be in decline individually, but overall religion itself is in decline in the west. It's not because people are changing their mind, for the most part; that does happen, but more commonly it's because people are failing to convert their children. Every generation is less religious than the last. With ubiquitous communication and transportation technology it takes a more willful kind of ignorance to grow up in an echo chamber these days, which is probably why fundamentalism is on the rise even while religion is on the decline.

Mormons may be increasing in number, but it isn't really spreading. That is, they haven't really been able to gain a serious foothold outside of Utah, at least not within any developed countries. They probably never will. If mainstream Christianity in the U.S. goes the same way that it did in Europe it'll get even harder, and that's the beginning of the end for them. They won't be able to breed their way out of a societal shift in values, and neither would any movement within Islam.

>It's an OK interpretation except that most of these new muslims were in fact born for the express purpose of spawning the caliphate and shoring up its numbers.
I would argue that this strategy only really works within the context of the cycle that I described, and is in fact a part of it. Having more kids in an impoverished country increases poverty and all of the problems that go along with it.

One thing that it's important to note, though, is that genes are not necessarily the only thing that we inherit from out parents. That'll be important in a minute.

>>7581
>It's pretty obvious that genetics have a huge impact on culture and the decisions a society makes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

This is a correlation/cause fallacy. "A particular genetic lineage correlates with success, therefore that genetic lineage causes success." Genetic lineage certainly -can- be a factor in success (That's the basis of the theory of evolution), but without more data this is still flawed reasoning. An obvious example of something that correlates with genetic lineage but isn't caused by it is something we've already been talking about: Religion. If you're born to Islamic parents you have a much higher than average chance of growing up to be Islamic yourself, but the name "Mohamed" isn't encoded into their DNA. Religion is trait that can have a massive effect on a person's psychology and behavior, and on the behavior of a society, but which is passed from generation to generation by a mechanism other than genetics. Obesity is an example of a trait that's passed on by learning without willful teaching. Fat people have fat kids, but it's a behavioral problem, not a genetic one. Fat people don't teach their kids to be fat on purpose, but their kids do learn from them about how to make various lifestyle choices.

Could certain behaviors be genetic? Yes, certainly. Are all behaviors genetic? Definitely not. If a fat family adopts a random kid with random genetics at infancy, is that kid likelier than average to be fat? If a middle class white family adopts a random black kid at infancy, is that kid less likely than average to get involved in gang violence? These are questions that have answers. I think the answers are probably "yes", but without the data you can't claim to know, and I don't think it exists.

I think looking at kids who have been completely transplanted from one culture to another at birth is enough to demonstrate that culture isn't genetic.

>>7754
>but without more data this is still flawed reasoning.
We have that data though. While it's not possible without unethical experiments to definitively establish a causal link, the evidence is overwhelming.

We know from twin studies that certain dimensions of personality, things from openness to new experiences, extraversion, agreeableness all the way to the degree to which they feel disgusted by gross images and the political party they're likely to join are greatly, in fact mostly genetic. While it's of course impossible for a certain ideology to be encoded upon one's genes, one's behavior can definitely be amenable to one ideology than another.

Also, it's important to realize that environment and genetics form a feedback loop. Read about the peppered moth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Asking if its change from white to black coloration was environmental or genetic is a meaningless distinction. This is what you need to understand about human evolution, in fact the evolution of all species. You resemble your parents, whose reproductive success was influenced by their environment. Humans are definitely a product of their environment, but that influence starts to take hold before they're even born.

The most important data point (besides the actual understanding scientists have acquired about the mechanism of action of the genes involved), and what gives genetic theory traction, is that when babies are adopted from backwards environments, they tend to more closely resemble their genetic parents in life outcome than their adoptive parents. It makes it clear that just exposing a certain group of people to a new stimulus is *not* necessarily going to have the change on their behavior that you want. It may take a few generations of selective pressure for any change to be made manifest.

>>7754
Also, I think it's charming that you trot out "logical fallacies" to support your argument, but it would really help if you actually bothered to learn anything about the stuff you're trying to debunk.

Strong inductive arguments are central to formulating scientific theory. You never say that correlation always equals causation, you say that the correlation gives you probable reason to believe there's a link. So people make up theories to explain the observations-- parts of theories can be tested, and the outcome can either strengthen or weaken them. This is basic shit.

So he wants USA to be only 1st world without the internet and also thinks that Bill Gates is the man in charge of internet?
I'm really starting to believe all that illuminati shit and that they just wanted to put this crazystupid character against Hilary so she would get a sure win but didn't realize how people would buy into him and now they make him make even more retarded/stupid/offensive/rasist statements so he surely wont win.
I don't know though why wouldn't they be okay with him in the office since they are both their pawns obviously but I'm sure it has something to do with human sacrifice and satanic rituals that require first female president.

>>7793
Couldn't really give a shit about ISIS. Don't you braindead 'murrican know that ISIS is created by illuminati to keep you affraid?
Also
>And he wants to get people LIKE Bill Gates, big software giants, to help him.
that's every bit as retarded. "hey big software giants! wanna become bankrupted? help me make you!"

Also stop interpreting what he says and saying "this is what he meant" and let him speak for himself.

>>7793
>>7797
It would have been pretty easy for him to say "people like Bill Gates". He wouldn't even have had to use any big words. That's not what he said though. He's supposed to be a great businessman, and he can't articulate such a simple message properly?

There's no good reason for him to have used Bill's name at all. Bill didn't even make his fortune with Internet tech. He wrote part of an operating system once in 1980 and spent the next twenty years as a CEO, so he's going to have some insight on how to shutdown Tor? Nobody "like" Bill Gates is going to be helpful. Trump wanted to give people the impression that he has connections in the tech industry, so he dropped a household name that was completely unrelated to what he was talking about. It was a small minded move aimed at a small minded audience, and he is out of touch if he thought that most people wouldn't see it that way.

>>7190
Bernie ain't that bad

>>7812
We all understand what the guy was saying because we understand basic implications. At best he articulated his idea horribly, at worst he has no idea how internet security works.

>>7227
So, let's assume that he is just doing this to get in a position of strength to barter with and that he really doesn't want a full scale ban on Muslims and Mexicans and all that jazz. Fair enough. The thing is, I doubt his voter base gets that. You see all these degenerate Stormfronters and Neo-Nazis and Klansmen giving their support for this man because they genuinely think he's going to do all these things. This gives them a foot in the door to recruit more extremists from Trump's voter base.

>>7630
>trump stealing away Hispanic voters
AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
Oh god you're delusional aren't you
Hispanics fucking hate Trump m8.

>>7767
Human evolution is a lot more complex than you seem to think. It takes humans a few thousand years to change color in new environments, and that is much faster than most changes happen. For a group to develop significant psychological differences would take far more time than has passed since your most recent middle eastern ancestor, or African ancestor for that matter. Humans do not evolve on thousand-year timescales.

The peppered moth is interesting because it's an example of natural selection which happened on an unusually short timescale, due to the extreme nature of the environmental forces at work. The idea that environment and genetics for a feedback loop isn't mistake, but the moth isn't a good example of that. Its genetic color doesn't significantly effect environment that it has to compete in.

I "trotted out" logical fallacies because you demonstrated one. No amount of extra knowledge makes your "if A then B" argument sound. It doesn't make a difference, regarding whether or not that particular argument is sound, whether or not there are other more legitimate arguments for B, and neither does a simplistic and incomplete explanation of the scientific method.

Personality traits can be genetic and might make someone more or less likely to be religious, but the implication here seems to be either that genetics might make someone more likely to chose one monotheistic religion over another, or that Muslims behave according to their holy text and the accompanying contemporary theology for some reason other than the reason that people of other faiths do the same thing. All religions, after all, have their crazy people, but Islam is the only one where "God wants you to go to war" is a plausible interpretation. Is that a coincidence? Your point is that Muslims are genetically violent because they exist in a world of violence. Does that mean that you think suicide vests would still be a thing if all knowledge of Islam was deleted from everyone's minds?

>>8054
> Humans do not evolve on thousand-year timescales.
Wanna bet?

>>8054
>Human evolution is a lot more complex than you seem to think. It takes humans a few thousand years to change color in new environments, and that is much faster than most changes happen. For a group to develop significant psychological differences would take far more time than has passed since your most recent middle eastern ancestor, or African ancestor for that matter. Humans do not evolve on thousand-year timescales.
I'd posit that you don't understand evolution at all. Evolution is possible in VERY quick increments when the alleles for a certain trait already exist in the population. The reason the peppered moth was able to change color so quickly was because there were already a few black moths in their gene pool. The expression of black coloration probably rarely occurred in the moths before the forest got covered in soot, but when selective pressures ramped up, the species was ready to respond.

Humans have a wide variety of personalities. In the population where I live at least, some people are boisterous and aggressive, others are pensive and careful. If a society changes to favor the reproductive success of one personality or another, the makeup of the next generation will reflect that. It's the exact same thing.

A Farewell to Alms by Gregory Clark makes a pretty convincing case, using historical records such as town registers and censuses, for how the selective pressures of medieval England led them to kickstart the industrial revolution. I highly recommend it if you want to know more about this subject.

And one more thing... I know you're the same guy from the other thread. Your tactic of just making shit up wholesale in these arguments is really tiresome.

>>8011
I actually like Trump. I can't wait till all the fucking illegals leave and free up jobs for us in California.

>>8064
>And one more thing... I know you're the same guy from the other thread. Your tactic of just making shit up wholesale in these arguments is really tiresome.
I've made sporadic comments in other threads but this is the only continuous conversation I've had on this board. I haven't made anything up. Your tactic is to use vague allusions in place of key details, and you act like demonstrating basic knowledge of a topic is a reasonable replacement for supporting your claims with reason and evidence. It isn't.

Societal traits do not exert anywhere near same amount of evolutionary force as, for example, a force that cause nice people to be eaten, and nice people exclusively. They may exert some force, but in most societies most of the time, temperament does not significantly affect your likelihood of surviving long enough to mate.

If the gene pool was that fluid, we would see temperament drift significantly over time. Ideologies do, values do, learned behaviors and cognitive tools drift wildly, but there have always been boisterous people and there have always been meek people, and there's no evidence to suggest that the ratios have ever changed, or at least you haven't presented any.

>>8068
One of the biggest distinctions you consistently fail to catch on to is the difference between formal logic (the If A then B shit you keep trying to attack me with) and scientific reasoning. It's like you took an intro to philosophy class, but dropped out before they got to the chapter about inductive reasoning.

Scientific reasoning is inductive. It doesn't simply stop at "This is what I've directly observed." It attempts to read more out of the situation than is immediately available through the creation of a theory. It uses this theory to propose testable hypothesises (this is where formal logic comes in) that can strengthen or disprove the case for the theory.

Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

It's not as black-and-white as formal logic, but it's the basis of the modern world. When you want to figure out the underlying workings of a natural phenomenon, this is what you use.

Theories are not measured by vaild/invalid or sound/unsound. They are measured in terms of their strength, or how convincing they are. Pointing out that there is a lack of evidence for one aspect of a theory doesn't invalidate it. It only demonstrates ways in which it is unconvincing.

This makes arguing with you especially frustrating because you're only using half of the available tools, and deriding anything else. You seem to think that setting up then knocking down an easily proven and non-sequiter proposition is a legitimate argument strategy. I suppose the most damning thing is that you never even try to dig up any evidence for any of the claims you make. All you do is demand I do so in order to disprove some nitpick you have with it. At best, you've proposed an experiment that could potentially be tested to disprove or strengthen the theory, but which data doesn't exist or I just haven't yet taken the time to dig it up for you. At worst, all you do is distract from the core argument.

>>8091 (me)
>I suppose the most damning thing is that you never even try to dig up any evidence for any of the claims you make.
No, no, that's not true. The *most* damning thing is that you keep attempting to fabricate explanations for phenomena wholesale without even going to the trouble of making sure they're supported by even the basest common sense.

>>8068
So, lets get this argument back on track. I'm going to try the socratic method on you.

Do you agree that temperament *could* possibly be genetic?

>>7144
>close up the Internet
Does he realize that that would basically fuck the economy?

>>8091
Any reasoning, including inductive reasoning, can be logically unsound, and yours was. I never claimed that your theory was wrong because you used a bad argument in support of it, only that your argument was bad.

When you "attempt to read more" out of an observational truth, as you put it, you have to do so in a way that makes sense, or the result will be meaningless. Think "religion".

>I suppose the most damning thing is that you never even try to dig up any evidence for any of the claims you make. All you do is demand I do so in order to disprove some nitpick you have with it.
You made the claim that set this thing off. The valid ways for you to support your claim are with reason and evidence. You've dropped a few improbable facts here and there, but given me no good reasons to believe them. All that's left is your reasoning, and yes, I've been trying to pick it apart, because it doesn't make sense to me. If you've had any problems with any of the claims I've made, you haven't pointed them out.

>>8097
Certainly.

>>7630
>and potentially hispanics
How the hell is he managing this one, exactly?

>>8104
His articulation of the idea was as retarded as he is, but the idea that he was attempting to express is probably that we should prevent people from using security and anonymity tools and restrict when and where publicly accessible WiFi is allowed. France briefly had the same discussion after the recent attack, but it was all shot down by their prime minister, among other reasons because the "free internet" is crucial to the economy.

Or maybe he was trying to say that we should have a national firewall, a la China. It's hard to tell because his speech is dumbed down to the point that it's barely intelligible.

Nobody who understands the issue would articulate it that way. His understanding of the issue of online privacy and its implications for law enforcement probably begin and end with the fact that it's an issue.

>>8110
>>8111
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260401-poll-trump-unpopular-with-hispanics

According to this, 80% of Hispanics view Trump unfavorably, and 5% have no opinion.

He is apparently slightly more popular among them than Romney was, but that does not equate to "stealing them from the democrats".

>>8113
>Romney
I thought he was liked by Mexicans because of some Mormon connection with the country.

>>7144
Except Obama is ahead of him with the omnibus spending bill