>CNN is on in living room, mom asks, "anon who are you going to vote for"
>"I don't know"
>Are you voting for Trump?
>"maybe"
>"Anon don't you know he's against women and doesn't care about the "gender gap'!?!"
>"B-but I just like his economic policies."
>Never reveal your power level robots
I will tell anyone to their face including my mom and hillary's death squads that the gender pay gap is a myth
Why should people be paid more or less based on the jobs they choose? Who chooses how much a job is worth?
>>27434323
Maybe I'm too naive but I just don't understand how "liberal" people are actually supporting someone who is a literal stalinist who openly hates democracy and supports wars in the mid-east.
>>27434296
He has policies?
>>27434428
I literally have never talked to anyone who supports hillary, all the retard feminists I know are obsessed with bernie
going to be a goodone when she rigs the election in broad daylight and no one does anything about it
>>27434427
It's not an issue in 2016.
The free market decides how much people make depending on commission and hourly wages.
Do you really think corporations would purposely pay females less?
The reason woman make less overall is because of muh empowerment says you can be a parent and still work, but complain when working part time doesn't pay as much as men working full time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fely6gd2Q-k
just watch Milo and then have some arguments against these faggots. Trump is still the best option the US could hope for many, many reasons.
>Hillary's health isn't the best, she's corrupt and criminal as fuck on top of that
>Bernie is a marxist and communist KIKE, which is disgusting as fuck
>literally nobody cares about Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz
Trump can't be stumped.
>>27434323
Stats Canada just put out a big thing about the wage gap. Women DO make less for the same jobs and work more unpaid work. Turns out feminists were totally right.
>>27434427
This, why is it allowed that someone investing their time in feminist art pedagogy get paid less than an engineer designing cars or a farmer harvesting crops. Obviously all these three jobs are equally important.
>>27434470
I don't care about women being paid less as women, I care about why the jobs women choose to do pay less.
>>27434502
Are you able to tell my why one is more important than the other? Is there any way that importance can be measured? Also I'm talking about generally female jobs like nursing, not academia or anything like that.
>>27434478
>people don't realize that Trump is actually the most moderate candidate
>doesn't support foreign invasion
>wants to lower taxes on business owners and decrease unnecessary regulation
the only "radical" thing he supports is strict border control and immigration reform
>>27434428
>conservatives are war-mongers
>I'm voting for hillary who will continue the war in ME all throughout her term
Liberals are truly fucking retarded no matter where you go
>>27434502
don't fall for the bait you newfag
>>27434519
Jobs are paid based on demand, training, and amount in the workforce
There is no conspiracy which wants to pay women less.
>example: doctors (which happen to be mostly men) get paid more because there are few of them and are in high demand
>>27434428
They are not liberals. They're just liberal themed bullies. They will support any war if it's about imposing their will on others.
These are the modern equivalents of the people that wanted to ban rock music and board games because they were satanic in the 80s and the peasants who burned witches and heretics in the 16th century
>>27434486
if thats true than either men are worth more or companies would switch to woman only and save millions. also how they take the statistics is a big factor and canada is so liberal they probably took it the retarded way
>>27434534
exactly. christ, I hope people wake the fuck up and finally snap out of their regressive leftist brainwashing.
my mom for example hates Trump but she's unironically brainwashed beyond redemption. she has no arguments that go deeper. she just thinks that Trump is somebody only hooligans would vote, completely ignoring there is a right wing elite as well while she knows virtually nothing about his policies. not like it matters much, since we're european anyway. I just really hope /r9k/ is smart enough to vote Trump too. /r9k/ is dangerously apolitical at times to the point where this board lacks enough knowledge about current politics and is brainwashed as well while cursing on /pol/. some of you guys aren't, obviously, but the other half still eats up all the leftist dogshit and would vote for Bernie. big mistake.
>"Anon, who do you support?"
>I don't know. Bernie has a lot going for him but I feel Trumps plans are more realistic and are the shot in the arm this country needs, given the economic climate.
>"What? I meant Bernie or Hillary, you support Trump?"
>Like I said I don't really know, swinging between the two.
>"I didn't know you were a racist, bye"
>Liberal douche has blocked you
Real conversation I had online with some faggot.
>>27434587
I'm talking about SJWs in general btw, not Hillary supporters.
>>27434582
It doesn't make sense to me though that it's completely based on belief that some people are paid a certain amount and others differently. It's fine if you can actually prove that people doing a certain job contribute more or that it's a harder job to do, but just leaving somebody's entire livelihood up to popular demand seems a bit ridiculous. I don't believe that there's a conspiracy against women or anything like that, it's just the whole argument has brought up the fact that different jobs are valued more or less than others and there's no real knowledge behind it, just belief.
>>27434519
>Are you able to tell my why one is more important than the other? Is there any way that importance can be measured?
Yes, utility. You cant tell me that designing vehicles is less important than making videos on sexism in video games because that is just nuts.
>>27434665
But how do you prove the usefulness of something like that? It seems to me that cars are the opposite of useful. They kill thousands of people for no real reason and cause traffic jams. That's just an example, but you could argue that actually trying to get behind some idea and find the truth about the world is better than just staying on the side of what's immediately visible.
>>27434486
>Canada
Stopped reading there.
>Which side are you, anon?
>I dont fucking care, I'm not american. why the hell should I even choose a side? no one cares this much about our own politics
>o-oh..
>>27434519
You're absolutely right, there is no way to measure, political propaganda really helps people and makes their lives better, unlike those useless engineers, doctors and scientists.
>>27434296
I just flat out told my feminist mom I'm gonna vote for trump, no regrets.
>>27434649
To some extent it is belief but you have to look at the bigger economic picture. Everybody wants to earn more, but there is a limit to how much someone can make in a certain profession.
>"different jobs are valued more or less than others and there's no real knowledge behind it"
The consumers are the ones who really control peoples wages, the more people shop at a store, the more the owner can pay his workers. If the demand is low in a certain profession then they will get paid less, it's how capitalism works.
>>27434519
How much a job gets paid depends on stuff like how hard it is to do, how many people are able and willing to do it, and how much of a demand there is for people there is to do that job.
So for example nurses get paid less than doctors because they don't have learn and understand as much, and so therefore becoming a doctor is harder to do, so there's less people to do it. Now, questions like why nurses are typically female are a lot more open to debate though. If I had to guess it's because women see it as an easy way to be around well paid doctors, and being more naturally inclined than men to care for others.
>>27434704
>cars are the opposite of useful
Okay now you're just trolling. Everything you buy in a store was delivered by a truck. Are you going to tell me everything that is provided to your spoiled ass isn't useful? Go live in the middle of nowhere then, faggot.
>>27434730
You can't say engineering has inherent value. If you're a brilliant engineer, but you're working on the wrong things it can create an opportunity to do things much worse than would have been done otherwise. I could argue that there's more value in the discipline that finds out what role engineering should fill in society, that being political philosophy I guess.
>>27434812
So nothing should ever be improved or criticised? Maybe you should go live in the middle of nowhere.
Girls do better in school. Every subject, every grade. Always have since we kept records.
Now, girls get admitted more to college and are more like to graduate. Ratio of female to make graduates is 3:2. Women get preferential selection for jobs in government and tech.
There is still a pay gap.
At what point can we just admit the obvious - women aren't as productive as men. Women tend to be illogical, emotional, social, and unwilling to take risks or be aggressive. These qualities fit, or don't fit, different women, to differing degrees, but on average the trends are reliable.
>>27434649
>just leaving somebody's entire livelihood up to popular demand seems a bit ridiculous
WTF? No it isn't. If you can give something to people that most people want, you deserve to be rewarded for that. Yes, sometimes what's in popular demand is stupid but a lot of it isn't.
>>27434617
loool very nice
i honestly didn't care for trump at all but then i got into the memes and realized he's the ultimate anti-pc cuck troll, i can't help but like him a little. even if he is just a democrat plant, i enjoy the fact he's really rattling or the lefties and sjws out there.
>>27434738
Brave soul.
I pressed F to pay respect.
>>27434883
What people want is a different matter to what's right or good. That's why it's silly to see what the most people want as what's just.
>>27434855
I didn't say anything about what can't be improved or criticized, I just commented on the usefulness of automobiles. They are very fucking useful, and not useless like you said they are.
>>27434738
What was her reaction, anon?
>>27434917
If we take as the standard that cars could be replaced by other modes of transport cars are completely useless. They're only useful if you go in from the start trying to justify their use.
>>27434914
>what's right or good
And who decides that? You?
Why don't you just skip to the part where you say it should be entirely up to only you to decide who gets paid what.
>>27434981
The best thing to do is meant to be known and not believed. It shouldn't be something subjective that's decided in principle by any one or more people.
>>27434936
>cars could be replaced by other modes of transport
Okay? Who's going to do that? I'm sure whoever comes up with a superior alternative will end up richer.
>cars are completely useless
Are they not better at moving things than your legs? Seriously how the fuck are you seriously saying this.
>>27434486
>canada
m8 im from canada. Shut your fucking mouth this place is fucked.
>>27435029
>Okay? Who's going to do that? I'm sure whoever comes up with a superior alternative will end up richer.
That's the point I'm making. What's better and what's preferred isn't necessarily the same thing. Capitalism and democracy are founded on a false principle.
>Are they not better at moving things than your legs? Seriously how the fuck are you seriously saying this.
No other mode of transport makes itself slower. In big cities bikes are faster than cars because there are too many cars.
>>27435029
>Seriously how the fuck are you seriously saying this.
They're a feminist. Logic and feminism cannot co-exist.
>>27435011
So where is this knowledge of what is right and good that the universe decided and not humans?
>>27435059
I don't know, that's why I'm asking these questions. I want to find out the truth.
>>27435074
Almost everything is subjective anon, including right and wrong. There's your truth.
>>27435085
But how do you know that, and the problem with political systems isn't that it recognises the subjective as subjective but that it treats subjective views as what's actually right.
>>27435074
Well until you have an answer to that then, humans will continue to collectively decide what is right and good by themselves without your shitty input. Deal with it.
>>27435108
I'm not forcing anybody not to, I'm just saying that it would be good to know what's right before we just assume that we know and do it anyway.
>>27434617
lol i hate people like that. i cant really explain it but whats with these people? just say a one liner and then block you. always passive aggressive cunts too
>>27435102
>But how do you know that
I don't know that. But I sure as hell haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, and neither has anyone else as far as I know.
>and the problem with political systems isn't that it recognises the subjective as subjective but that it treats subjective views as what's actually right.
What the fuck else are they supposed to do? Hold out for this "objective right" that probably doesn't exist? That's fucking retarded.
>>27435056
>What's better and what's preferred isn't necessarily the same thing.
I can agree with this, but then how do you decide what's "better"?
>No other mode of transport makes itself slower.
What are you talking about?
>bikes are faster than cars because there are too many cars.
Okay but bikes can't transport much more than a person. Cars can carry stuff that's a lot heavier.
>>27435134
>I don't know that. But I sure as hell haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, and neither has anyone else as far as I know.
You can say anything you like about what people don't know and then say thee's no evidence to the contrary. When you're making a claim it's the claim that needs to be proven.
>What the fuck else are they supposed to do? Hold out for this "objective right" that probably doesn't exist? That's fucking retarded.
Obviously not, because no matter what anybody does it'll always be doing something. The point is that we need to do the best we can to find out what's actually right, and point out things that seem wrong or unjustified where we can.
>>27435118
>I'm just saying that it would be good to know what's right
And how do we find out? You yourself don't even know what you're talking about because you have no answer to that. So why should anybody listen to you at all?
>>27435139
>I can agree with this, but then how do you decide what's "better"?
I don't know, but the point is that it doesn't make it any easier to find out what's right if we teach that what's right in principle is something else, whether it's what's decided by most people or some other authority.
>What are you talking about?
Since cars are completely disorganised, the more there are the slower the average car goes.
>Okay but bikes can't transport much more than a person. Cars can carry stuff that's a lot heavier.
A train or something else like that can carry much more.
>>27434617
>Add this dude, cause he's pretty chill and cool
>Tell him I support Trump
>Instant removes me with leaving a message
>"I have no interest in hanging out with edgy teenagers, also he is a right winger, even more so not to hang out with him"
Best part is I didn't even say anything "edgy", nor am I a teenager.
>>27435132
Apparently this article shows that these faggots unfriend people by their political beliefs more than the ones who posses opposite beliefs of them:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/21/liberals-are-more-likely-to-unfriend-you-over-politics-online-and-off/
>>27435155
I never claimed that I knew what was right. Only that by any stretch of the imagination it would be beneficial to find out.
>>27435154
>You can say anything you like about what people don't know and then say thee's no evidence to the contrary. When you're making a claim it's the claim that needs to be proven.
Can you write this sentence in english please?
>Obviously not, because no matter what anybody does it'll always be doing something. The point is that we need to do the best we can to find out what's actually right,
How could we possibly do that?
>and point out things that seem wrong or unjustified where we can.
Everyone has a different subjective opinion on what "seems" wrong or unjustified.
>>27434486
>Women DO make less for the same jobs
Yeah, it's called "overtime". You make time and a half pay for doing it, so that after collecting it you get paid more per hour than your colleagues that didn't do it. So when the boss comes to me and Brenda and offers us both the chance to work over, and I say "Hell yeah, whatever doesn't kill you makes you wealthier", and she says "No thanks, I need to go home and coat my tampons with Vagisil", I make more money than her.
>and work more unpaid work.
Ooh, you volunteered to do stupid social shit like arrange the Christmas party and you didn't get paid for volunteer work? Oh that's so sad, you're right, we need to smash the patriarchy.
>>27434930
She tried the old "but hitler" "but the wall"
I quickly shot her down that hitler wasn't alive when that wall was built and you cannot compare trump to hitler as trump may sound like him to you but he isn't if you just want to look outside your narrow vision.
She was silent as this point.
>>27435190
When you're saying something, it's the person who puts forward the claim that needs to give the proof.
>How could we possibly do that?
I don't know, and I never claimed to know.
>Everyone has a different subjective opinion on what "seems" wrong or unjustified.
Exactly, but it comes down to what does and doesn't have proper reasoning behind it.
>>27435184
And that is an entirely stupid and useless suggestion when you can't even begin to describe HOW anyone is supposed "find out" your idea of "what is right".
>>27435230
It's not "my idea" that needs to be found out. It's the truth. Philosophy, mathematics and science all exist to find what the truth is.
>>27434296
I lost most of my libtard friends because I support Trump. It's better to be a robot anyways :)
>>27435242
>Philosophy, mathematics and science all exist to find what the truth is.
Wrong. Philosophy has nothing to do with truth, if truth is defined as an objective observable reality of the universe. Things like what is "good and right" does not belong in that discussion at all, because those concepts themselves are abstractions created in the minds of humans.
Unless you are operating off some different definition of truth that you care to share.
>>27435285
Any claim made by a philosopher is meant to be taken as a truth. Philosophy has everything to do with truth.
>>27435221
>When you're saying something, it's the person who puts forward the claim that needs to give the proof.
I'm not claiming anything. You're claiming that there's an objective good.
>I don't know, and I never claimed to know.
Then why bring it up? It's ridiculous.
>Exactly, but it comes down to what does and doesn't have proper reasoning behind it.
No. For example, I hate social programs, I think that they're essentially forced charity and it should be left up to the individual whether or not they want to help those less fortunate, and it's just completely wrong to make them help. Someone else might think that it's all of our "societal duty" to help those less fortunate, and that it would be wrong to ignore them. We've both thought our positions out and have "proper reasoning" behind them. What do you even mean by "proper reasoning"?
>>27435293
Okay then I have declared myself a philosopher, and say that you are a retard, whose comments here are absolute trash. TRUTH
>>27435319
I'm not claiming that there is an objective good, because if I was I'd know what the objective good was. I know that we have this concept of "good", and I want to find the truest form of what the good is if it exists.
>Then why bring it up? It's ridiculous.
Because I'm claiming that we should try to find out what's actually good instead of just assuming it's something different.
>No. For example, I hate social programs, I think that they're essentially forced charity and it should be left up to the individual whether or not they want to help those less fortunate, and it's just completely wrong to make them help. Someone else might think that it's all of our "societal duty" to help those less fortunate, and that it would be wrong to ignore them. We've both thought our positions out and have "proper reasoning" behind them. What do you even mean by "proper reasoning"?
By proper reasoning I mean for example that we need to look at whether the posessions being given away by the programs are justified. Personally I lean towards the view that says they aren't, because to me it seems that basic needs are much more measurable and grounded in reality and that if we take somebody as having a right to live they should have a right to their basic needs from there.
>>27435329
I said meant to be taken as truth, not necessarily actually true.
>>27435384
So why are you not taking my comment as truth?
>>27435408
The way the writer of something intends that thing to be taken and the way that it's taken by the reader isn't always going to be the same.
>>27435369
>Because I'm claiming that we should try to find out what's actually good instead of just assuming it's something different.
You have no evidence that it exists. It's like me telling everyone that we all need to focus all of our efforts into finding a purple unicorn that only lives in the space between galaxies. It's fucking stupid.
>if we take somebody as having a right to live they should have a right to their basic needs from there.
I don't think that people have a right to live. I think that we should help someone if they are going to die, but we're in no way obligated to.
>>27435447
>You have no evidence that it exists. It's like me telling everyone that we all need to focus all of our efforts into finding a purple unicorn that only lives in the space between galaxies. It's fucking stupid.
By making any decision we assume that decision to be right or good. There's always some conception of what's good involved in any action.
>I don't think that people have a right to live. I think that we should help someone if they are going to die, but we're in no way obligated to.
If people don't have a tight to live, what property rights do they have other than what they can bring into their influence? How are social programs not justified then?
>>27435481
>By making any decision we assume that decision to be right or good. There's always some conception of what's good involved in any action.
No we don't. I got really, really drunk yesterday. I was, and still am under no illusion that it was a good decision.
>If people don't have a tight to live, what property rights do they have other than what they can bring into their influence?
Those two things have nothing to do with each other.
>>27435523
>No we don't. I got really, really drunk yesterday. I was, and still am under no illusion that it was a good decision.
You can hold more than one belief at the same time, there's more than one aspect to a person's thinking. You might not have thought rationally that it was good, but since you thought it would be pleasurable the part of you that wants things overrode the rational part.
>Those two things have nothing to do with each other.
If people don't have a right to live how can they have a right to anything else? Other than just saying that might makes right.
>>27434738
BASED BASED BASED
I told her the same because fuck not being able to do what you truly want.
>>27435558
>You can hold more than one belief at the same time, there's more than one aspect to a person's thinking. You might not have thought rationally that it was good, but since you thought it would be pleasurable the part of you that wants things overrode the rational part.
I thought that it would feel good, not that the decision was good. Pleasure isn't necessarily good.
>If people don't have a right to live how can they have a right to anything else? Other than just saying that might makes right.
People don't have intrinsic rights. There's nature, and there's laws. Laws give people the right to own property.
>>27435664
>I thought that it would feel good, not that the decision was good. Pleasure isn't necessarily good.
That was my point, the appetitive part took over the rational part.
>People don't have intrinsic rights. There's nature, and there's laws. Laws give people the right to own property.
What are the laws founded on? This is why it's important to find out what's right.
>>27435671
>That was my point, the appetitive part took over the rational part.
And? What of it? I wasn't taking what's good into account.
>What are the laws founded on?
They're founded on different people's subjective views of how things should be.
>This is why it's important to find out what's right
We can't though. If it's even a thing, no one has any way to do that. I have no idea why you keep going on about finding it out. It's impossible. To know for sure, we would have to know all.
>>27435700
>And? What of it? I wasn't taking what's good into account.
You did, just not rationally.
>They're founded on different people's subjective views of how things should be.
So what gives them any justification at all there?
>We can't though. If it's even a thing, no one has any way to do that. I have no idea why you keep going on about finding it out. It's impossible. To know for sure, we would have to know all.
We should try to know everything, that's the most important task for humanity collectively. Do you think one day all the scientists and philosophers should just stop without having figured out everything there is to figure out?
>>27435722
>You did, just not rationally.
No, pleasure isn't necessarily good.
>So what gives them any justification at all there?
The fact that most of the people living under those laws agree with most of them and are willing to abide by them, instead of changing the laws through either peaceful, or violent means. In nature, might makes right.
>We should try to know everything, that's the most important task for humanity collectively.
I disagree. There is no purpose, and I don't care about humanity collectively. The individual is what matters.
>Do you think one day all the scientists and philosophers should just stop without having figured out everything there is to figure out?
If they want to. That's none of my business. Anyway, scientists work to discover objective truths, philosophers deal with subjective opinions.
>>27435802
>No, pleasure isn't necessarily good.
says the RATIONAL part
>The fact that most of the people living under those laws agree with most of them and are willing to abide by them, instead of changing the laws through either peaceful, or violent means. In nature, might makes right.
You said just above that pleasure isn't necessarily good. How can you turn around and say that whether the laws are voluntary or not matters?
>I disagree. There is no purpose, and I don't care about humanity collectively. The individual is what matters.
The purpose is to find a purpose, you said that pleasure wasn't necessarily good, remember?
>If they want to. That's none of my business. Anyway, scientists work to discover objective truths, philosophers deal with subjective opinions.
Philosophers do work to discover objective truths. Just because they might be proven wrong doesn't mean that that wasn't the intention.
>>27435835
>says the RATIONAL part
It's the only part that matters.
>You said just above that pleasure isn't necessarily good. How can you turn around and say that whether the laws are voluntary or not matters?
That last sentence makes no sense. I don't even know what you're talking about there.
>The purpose is to find a purpose
I disagree. You can try to find a purpose if you want, but in the end it doesn't matter, we'll all be dead.
>you said that pleasure wasn't necessarily good, remember?
Yeah, and?
>Philosophers do work to discover objective truths.
Maybe some try, but it's still all just subjective opinions.
>Just because they might be proven wrong doesn't mean that that wasn't the intention.
How would they be proven wrong? It's all opinions.
I'm voting any demo because I'm not white
/end
>>27435891
>It's the only part that matters.
If it's the only part that matters then obviously you didn't get drunk.
>That last sentence makes no sense. I don't even know what you're talking about there.
How can you claim that whether people support something or not matters when you yourself said that pleasure and goodness are two different things?
>I disagree. You can try to find a purpose if you want, but in the end it doesn't matter, we'll all be dead.
So then what's the point of the laws?
>Yeah, and?
what do you mean by "the individual" if you don't mean "individual pleasure"?
>Maybe some try, but it's still all just subjective opinions.
You claimed that they didn't work to find them though. Also, if what you're saying here, being philosophical, is just subjective too then why even post it?
>How would they be proven wrong? It's all opinions.
If something is an opinion and not a fact it's already not proven. Philosophers deal in facts. It's a philosophical fact that there is a number "1" for example. Nobody questions what "1" it is because it's a philosophical concept we all understand as true that there is a number 1, 2, 3 etc.
>>27435900
Stay on your leash and gibsmedats, cattle
>>27435938
>If it's the only part that matters then obviously you didn't get drunk.
I mean it's the only part that matters in deciding what you think is and isn't good.
>How can you claim that whether people support something or not matters when you yourself said that pleasure and goodness are two different things?
Those two things have nothing to do with each other. I have no idea what you're on about.
>So then what's the point of the laws?
The "point" is that some people want them, so they exist. Not everything has a point.
I'm done. It's 6:00am here, and I woke up at 9:00am yesterday. I can't even think straight enough to argue anymore.
Mostly around women's issues as I'm a socialist but basically
>conversation leads to women on the workplace
>"well you'll get paid more than a woman in the same job anon"
>"well, uhm, the pay gap isn't really a thing... I mean"
>semi shocked looks around
>"what do you mean it's not real? It's a fact!"
>sane friend is also there so we start explaining how it's a broad statistic that doesn't take into account the different career choices women make etc.
>silence
>"well thank god you two just said you aren't sexist"
Sigh
>>27436038
>I mean it's the only part that matters in deciding what you think is and isn't good.
what you think rationally, not what's assumed as good regardless of rationality
>Those two things have nothing to do with each other. I have no idea what you're on about.
You said that what people immediately want isn't what's good. Then you said the law gets its legitimacy from being representative of what people immediately want.
>The "point" is that some people want them, so they exist. Not everything has a point.
But you were arguing that property owners shouldn't giver their property to the poor because they have a right to it.
>I'm done. It's 6:00am here, and I woke up at 9:00am yesterday. I can't even think straight enough to argue anymore.
Goodnight man, it was good talking.
>>27434296
>"Anon don't you know he's against women and doesn't care about the "gender gap'!?!"
Shouldve called her out for that shit
mom asks
>rayyycist!
>sexiiiist!
All leftards can do is stick to their isms and gibsdatses, anything else costs too many neurons that they could never afford.
>Dad starts up conversation with me about politics
>"So who ya voting for son?"
>"Uh im not really sure, but probably not Trump."
>"What are you some sort of liberal dopesmoker? Trump is going to save this pussified country and raise it from the fucking dead."
>O-Okay dad
