fox really doesn't want trump elected. :/
I really like the black neurosurgeon though. I'd prefer rand Paul, but he'll never get elected. (Same with trump)
Trump screwed up bad. Never gonna get elected, never should be elected. #FeelTheBern
I really hope trump stays in it for as long as he can. Really make the republicans look like ass hats.
I'll put money on it that trump doesn't get elected.
He said something like this: 'I've taken advantage of the laws of this country in four occasions, that shouldn't be allowed! This country needs someone like me to stop people like me!'
Obviously not an exact quote, but seriously?
I mean
People take the republican debate seriously?
Quote from: Taysby on August 07, 2015, 03:14:59 PM
Quote from: MuggyWuggy on August 07, 2015, 02:28:24 PM
I mean
People take the republican debate seriously?
People take democrat debates seriously? :/
People care about this sh💩t in general? Either way we're getting a puppet. Yay.
Well, since the man who came with a plan didn't work out...
Either way, whatever party's guy is getting that job, I think at the next election for congress, the other party will get the house...
Clown show
Quote from: InfinitiveDivinity on August 07, 2015, 03:43:53 PM
Quote from: Taysby on August 07, 2015, 03:14:59 PM
Quote from: MuggyWuggy on August 07, 2015, 02:28:24 PM
I mean
People take the republican debate seriously?
People take democrat debates seriously? :/
People care about this sh💩t in general? Either way we're getting a puppet. Yay.
Quote for emphasis. Changing our president isn't enough. We need to change the paradigm.
Really tho: Bernie sanders
Quote from: MuggyWuggy on August 08, 2015, 04:20:30 PM
Really tho: Bernie sanders
Bernie nut myself but if he gets elected, he's never gonna have the house and senate on his side.
Fire them. They are all collecting paychecks that they aren't earning.
Both dems and repubs : 2 party .politics. has wasted the american people's time and money
Your all way to optimistic
You want to change the government
Fine, but you have to change the people electing them first
Sure, some people have values
But let's face it
At the end of the day, we're all going to vote the way that supports our own agendas best
Bernie Sanders or Ben Carson.
Those are the only two, in my opinion, that care about the people and are intelligent enough and honest enough to have a legitimate conversation on and off camera.
It's sad that Trump has been so immature with his campaign not that I'd want him in but he's a very intelligent man and might have been good.
Note I said maybe and might lol not saying Id want him in but there's no denying his intelligence. Too bad he's so damn arrogant :(
Quote from: Mattao19 on August 15, 2015, 03:35:16 PM
It's sad that Trump has been so immature with his campaign not that I'd want him in but he's a very intelligent man and might have been good.
Note I said maybe and might lol not saying Id want him in but there's no denying his intelligence. Too bad he's so damn arrogant :(
Well, I wouldn't call it very smart to say he would rather have Clinton win than any other conservative.
I'd chalk that up to his arrogance/immaturity. Think of what he's done with his life you can't be that successful by luck that takes hard work and some brains :P
Quote from: Rass on August 07, 2015, 01:15:02 PM
I'll put money on it that trump doesn't get elected.
How much and what odds?
Quote from: MuggyWuggy on August 08, 2015, 07:47:07 PM
Fire them. They are all collecting paychecks that they aren't earning.
Both dems and repubs : 2 party .politics. has wasted the american people's time and money
Do not antagonise people if you do not have to. Do not fire them, change their powers from 'we can change the rules of the game' to 'we can change level* of taxes'.
* number, %, whatever you decide, then stick to it and let the congress change it based on what justice, intelligence, police, army and administration needs, and do not change anything else. Do not let them change the laws, let them change the measurable level of oppression.
In practice this can be done as next constitution amendment, adding 'this is the entire law, all the rest is just commentary to be or not to be struck down by the judiciary.' etc.
Also please note that with my presence in this political thread your chances of getting banned rise from almost zero to almost zero ;)
Unless you lie
Quote from: MuggyWuggy on August 31, 2015, 04:17:50 PM
Unless you lie
Indeed, but we always do warnings so all is always clear and nobody can claim that they did not understand what they are asked to stop doing ;)
Bernie seems the most rational choice at the moment. But Americans see the word socialist and freak out, so he doesn't stand a chance. What we need is a rehaul of the whole system. I think a technocracy with a highly educated parliament( required phd's in a wide range of fields) would be the most efficient government. Or just straight up free anarchy, but that dream of mine will never be met till the end of days lol.
I think Bernie is a great choice also, for once I feel I can trust an old white man running for president
Quote from: Distriimuir on August 31, 2015, 05:02:23 PM
Bernie seems the most rational choice at the moment. But Americans see the word socialist and freak out, so he doesn't stand a chance. What we need is a rehaul of the whole system. I think a technocracy with a highly educated parliament( required phd's in a wide range of fields) would be the most efficient government. Or just straight up free anarchy, but that dream of mine will never be met till the end of days lol.
Well, about a decade ago no-one would have seen a black man in the White House. Not saying he has a shot now, but there could come a time that the citizens of the USA decide they want a new deal...
Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2015, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: Rass on August 07, 2015, 01:15:02 PM
I'll put money on it that trump doesn't get elected.
How much and what odds?
Never said anything about odds. Just a bet
Quote from: Distriimuir on August 31, 2015, 05:02:23 PM
Bernie seems the most rational choice at the moment. But Americans see the word socialist and freak out, so he doesn't stand a chance. What we need is a rehaul of the whole system. I think a technocracy with a highly educated parliament( required phd's in a wide range of fields) would be the most efficient government. Or just straight up free anarchy, but that dream of mine will never be met till the end of days lol.
Americans are right to hate socialism as this is the system which has been proven to do tremendous damage to the people.
Your idea of technocracy with a highly educated parliament is wishful thinking based on nothing. You can as well wish that everybody were you, rich, healthy and high. In other words, keep your dreams to yourself, .politics. is art of making change in reality as we share it not in reality as you dream it.
Quote from: Rass on August 31, 2015, 06:08:18 PM
Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2015, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: Rass on August 07, 2015, 01:15:02 PM
I'll put money on it that trump doesn't get elected.
How much and what odds?
Never said anything about odds. Just a bet
So a default 1:1? Not very good odds as I can get 13:2 after a quick google, so I'll pass ;)
Quote from: Piotr on September 01, 2015, 03:08:36 AM
Quote from: Distriimuir on August 31, 2015, 05:02:23 PM
Bernie seems the most rational choice at the moment. But Americans see the word socialist and freak out, so he doesn't stand a chance. What we need is a rehaul of the whole system. I think a technocracy with a highly educated parliament( required phd's in a wide range of fields) would be the most efficient government. Or just straight up free anarchy, but that dream of mine will never be met till the end of days lol.
Americans are right to hate socialism as this is the system which has been proven to do tremendous damage to the people.
Your idea of technocracy with a highly educated parliament is wishful thinking based on nothing. You can as well wish that everybody were you, rich, healthy and high. In other words, keep your dreams to yourself, .politics. is art of making change in reality as we share it not in reality as you dream it.
While I agree a lot of harm has been done by "socialist" .politics. (I don't have to tell you, Piotr, you lived it while I only saw the slightest hints through history classes & a visit to Hungary and Tsjechia after the collapse).
However, the fear of any movement towards the left is very strong in America. Would it really be so bad to divide things a bit more equal?
Right now the corporations seem to dictate .politics. through lobby. I don't think that's the healthiest system either. However, looking at China, I can understand it is hard to get a proper system. Humans are humans after all.
Quote from: Piotr on September 01, 2015, 03:08:36 AM
Quote from: Distriimuir on August 31, 2015, 05:02:23 PM
Bernie seems the most rational choice at the moment. But Americans see the word socialist and freak out, so he doesn't stand a chance. What we need is a rehaul of the whole system. I think a technocracy with a highly educated parliament( required phd's in a wide range of fields) would be the most efficient government. Or just straight up free anarchy, but that dream of mine will never be met till the end of days lol.
Americans are right to hate socialism as this is the system which has been proven to do tremendous damage to the people.
Your idea of technocracy with a highly educated parliament is wishful thinking based on nothing. You can as well wish that everybody were you, rich, healthy and high. In other words, keep your dreams to yourself, .politics. is art of making change in reality as we share it not in reality as you dream it.
I did not make technocracy up, it's a form of governing that is in theory possible, just hasn't been implemented anywhere yet. I get your hate of socialism, but Norway seems to be doing well for itself. And you did exactly what most Americans have done, hear that one word about Bernie and react negatively( he's actually a democrat, they just like to demonize the people that us in our early 30's would vote for)
Quote from: Piotr on September 01, 2015, 03:19:07 AM
Quote from: Rass on August 31, 2015, 06:08:18 PM
Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2015, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: Rass on August 07, 2015, 01:15:02 PM
I'll put money on it that trump doesn't get elected.
How much and what odds?
Never said anything about odds. Just a bet
So a default 1:1? Not very good odds as I can get 13:2 after a quick google, so I'll pass ;)
I'm sure you can. But to do that you have to pay money to place a bet.
So I'll make you that bet at 13:2 I'll only bet a dollar but to make the bet you first have to sign up and send me $20 enrollment fee
Quote from: Kaylesh on September 01, 2015, 09:18:16 AM
Would it really be so bad to divide things a bit more equal?
Right now the corporations seem to dictate .politics. through lobby. I don't think that's the healthiest system either. However, looking at China, I can understand it is hard to get a proper system. Humans are humans after all.
Yes, it always was and always will be bad to 'divide things equal' as humans are humans after all and therefore humans whom we select to 'divide things equal' will exploit the opportunity. It only takes one to steal a billion dollars. It only takes one to steal 10 billions, there is no limit in theory. As observed by Donald Trump, they will bribe politicians to change rules of the game as it is being played. It is called 'lobbying' and was described in details by Ayn Rand in her best selling book Atlas Shrugged, which I recommend as it provides interesting point of view which not a lot of people had a chance to share.
People want it fair, if I made it I sell it, not the ones who 'divide things equal'. 'Dividing things equal' leads to mass thievery in reality.
The system which is healthier than democracy is nomocracy, the rule of unchangeable law. You have to remove power to change the rules of the game from the participants of the game to cure the current system.
Quote from: Distriimuir on September 01, 2015, 10:05:33 AM(...) technocracy (...), it's a form of governing that is in theory possible
I call a lie on this claim*. Technocracy is not possible, as proven by theory.
* this means if you repeat it here without providing scientific proof you will be banned for 10 days, because I know that scientific proof** confirming your claim as false exists. Am I clear?
** To make it easier for you, my proof assumes that the participants of technocracy have free will. Disprove free will and my current proof is invalid.
EDIT:
The same as the guy who said 2+3=4, his theory was also wrong.
Theory that Technocracy can work in practice when the participants are human is wrong as proven by real life experiments in the past. Many failed experiments in which the participants did not behave as described by the failed theories, this proving the theory wrong. Theory which does not describe reality is WRONG. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Technocracy and communism work in theory when the participants have no free will and no self preservation instinct. This is what scientific theory says. In other words, 2+3=4 works in theory, when 3 is 2. For people like me and Donald Trump, practical people, this is insulting because 2 is not 3. I do not want to be insulted on my own property, so I warn people that they will have to leave if they never learn. I hope this is fair enough?
In political discussions on this forum, in which I am present, we are going to have a serious debate which moves the body of science forward, with or without you. 10-days ban warning is real, as proven by past experiments ;)
Quote from: Rass on September 01, 2015, 01:30:05 PM
Quote from: Piotr on September 01, 2015, 03:19:07 AM
Quote from: Rass on August 31, 2015, 06:08:18 PM
Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2015, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: Rass on August 07, 2015, 01:15:02 PM
I'll put money on it that trump doesn't get elected.
How much and what odds?
Never said anything about odds. Just a bet
So a default 1:1? Not very good odds as I can get 13:2 after a quick google, so I'll pass ;)
I'm sure you can. But to do that you have to pay money to place a bet.
So I'll make you that bet at 13:2 I'll only bet a dollar but to make the bet you first have to sign up and send me $20 enrollment fee
I never traded with you before so I would like to use middle man ;)
In all seriousness though, I can see this guy winning. He is a winner type. He strikes me as a person who would not sit to play a game without knowing that he is going to win it. He will be running against Hillary Clinton.
If she was running against an inanimate object, I would bet on her opponent (not because I do not like what she represents, but because I see her as unelectable in US similar way as Ed Miliband was unelectable in recent UK parliamentary elections). Anyone will win agains Hillary - I would not be surprised to learn that Hillary is Democratic nominee because 'everybody loves Trump' as he claims, and he just made it so. He has a lot of friends, I understand? ;)
I just thought that perhaps political betting may be a better use of my political knowledge, precognition powers and my time in general - than banning greenhorns in political discussions ;)
Quote from: Piotr on September 02, 2015, 03:33:05 AM
Quote from: Kaylesh on September 01, 2015, 09:18:16 AM
Would it really be so bad to divide things a bit more equal?
Right now the corporations seem to dictate .politics. through lobby. I don't think that's the healthiest system either. However, looking at China, I can understand it is hard to get a proper system. Humans are humans after all.
Yes, it always was and always will be bad to 'divide things equal' as humans are humans after all and therefore humans whom we select to 'divide things equal' will exploit the opportunity. It only takes one to steal a billion dollars. It only takes one to steal 10 billions, there is no limit in theory. As observed by Donald Trump, they will bribe politicians to change rules of the game as it is being played. It is called 'lobbying' and was described in details by Ayn Rand in her best selling book Atlas Shrugged, which I recommend as it provides interesting point of view which not a lot of people had a chance to share.
People want it fair, if I made it I sell it, not the ones who 'divide things equal'. 'Dividing things equal' leads to mass thievery in reality.
The system which is healthier than democracy is nomocracy, the rule of unchangeable law. You have to remove power to change the rules of the game from the participants of the game to cure the current system.
I agree that the communist way, the way you describe socialism, where the state (aka a dictatorial elite group), divides, is too much, and will always fail. Humans are humans and power corrupts, thus causing the system to collapse into what was beautifully described by George Orwell: "all animals are equal, yet some are more equal than others".
Yet, within a system where each controls sale, and production, still the wealthy could be asked to contribute for those who aren't as fortunate.
In the case of the USA, I think of the veterans, who fought for their country, yet get set aside like used paper towels afterwards.
(Yeah, I know asked is to kind a word, but I just don't know a proper one).
Quote from: Kaylesh on September 02, 2015, 04:39:06 AM
I agree that the communist way, the way you describe socialism, where the state (aka a dictatorial elite group), divides, is too much, and will always fail. Humans are humans and power corrupts, thus causing the system to collapse into what was beautifully described by George Orwell: "all animals are equal, yet some are more equal than others".
Socialism is the very same mechanism but applied to only part of free market, not the whole of it as in communism.
Quote from: Kaylesh on September 02, 2015, 04:39:06 AM
Yet, within a system where each controls sale, and production, still the wealthy could be asked to contribute for those who aren't as fortunate.
(Yeah, I know asked is to kind a word, but I just don't know a proper one).
I hope you do not believe that wealth is sourced from 'fortune and good luck'. In reality wealth is made by the makers.
(The word is 'extortion' ;))
And man, the makers they do share ;) Try this google search: 'voluntary charity numbers'.
Quote from: Kaylesh on September 02, 2015, 04:39:06 AM
In the case of the USA, I think of the veterans, who fought for their country, yet get set aside like used paper towels afterwards.
Agreements must be kept. Whatever was agreed with the veterans, must be delivered.
Quote from: Distriimuir on September 01, 2015, 10:05:33 AM
I get your hate of socialism, but Norway seems to be doing well for itself.
No you do not get my hate of socialism, you can not even start comprehending it.*
Norway is doing well in comparison to what? Free market Norway or even more socialist Sweden? Use Norway or any other non-sustainable northern country propped by 'hooray we strip the lands of iron wood fish and what not and we have 4 million people to sustain so it will take 300 years to run out so we use these failed states as an example forever.' Not on this forum.
If you want to use scientifically valid examples, use territories which are mostly the same and only differ at what you want to study. Take German speaking lands of central Europe divided by WWII, take Korean speaking lands of Far East Asia divided by current Korean war and compare what happens when you move away from free market on a mass scale.
* My hate for socialism is so huge, that it trumps everything else ;) When you think about my hate for socialism, think about the biggest hate ever because when you hate something you may as well hate it big. I want socialism destroyed and removed absolutely and totally, with the use of science and logic so that there is nothing left of this big lie. My hate for socialism is so big, that it eats up all the hate reserves I have and I have to love everything else by default. I love my guests, I love my customers, my business partners, I'm a nice person. But when you are tickling my hate for socialism, negative things can happen ;)
Having said that ;), I watched a couple more youtube videos with Trump and I learned a bit more about the guy. He has lots of master skills in his brain, his capability to speak without prompters and have the best one-liners is easy to understand now when I take 12 years of Apprentice into consideration.
EDIT: I just bought one of his books, he is a cunning, clever man, I respect him. I can see myself doing business with him, not like with some other candidates who seem to believe that 2+3=4 ;)
Looks like other people noticed early too: http://dilbert.com ;)
I can say honestly that I had Theory of Master Persuader after I watched less than hour of video footage with Trump. I somehow managed to miss his brand completely, and did not know it exists prior to Trump's presidential 2016 run. He really is very good at making people agree with him, as proven by the amount of wealth he amassed and by his approval pools.
I discussed "the matter of Trump", in terms of "I do not necessarily agree with the man, but here's why he will be the next POTUS" with my friend Feminist and she responded with something along the lines of "OMG, they will kill him".
What Trump is saying, including his proposal to "ban all Muslim people who openly advocate themselves as Muslim" is something which is not as outrageous as many people would say. I think so far he is in line with the combination of Common Law of property + http://ultimatelaw.org if you treat USA territory as property of the people. I think the other Theory of Lucky Hitler, which Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has, is not confirmed yet.
I feel a lot about Trump, but I will try to take this moment and use reason instead.
You state Trump would act in accordance with Ultimate Law. Pretty much all he does (what I've heard of) violates this law, however.
Banning of people based on a faith, is not something these people would wish for themselves. Unless they have engaged in actions others would not wish upon themselves, or conspire to do so, this punishment cannot be enacted.
I know plenty of Muslims who would define as not violating the law. They allow me to eat my pork, smoke, let their women walk around without a "leash" or veil.
So, the error he makes, is failure to discriminate. The world doesn't fit in neat tables anymore.
That leads me to a second problem, which is more speculative.
I have read an analysis on the new democracies somewhere, while I fail to recollect the source. The bottom line was that "we" in the west continue to dictate the terms of "civilization" to the world. This is referred to in the article as "neo-colonialism". This tendency is the seed of all anti-western sentiment in the world, according to said article.
It sounds logical, since we still supplant our values, formed in our history as "right", over the values and history of for example the African tribes.
Continuing on this premise: Trump is the ultimate Old White Man. Used to getting what he wants, using his resources/power.
Having Trump as face of the western world will likely increase the hate, as he's already proven quite capable of fanning the flames, instead of building bridges.
Conclusion: we would do well with leaders who lead with logic, act in accordance to ultimate law, rather than acting in accordance to fear, populism, their gut or their wallet.
I FEEL Trump is guilty of following those four before anything else, presiding like Berlusconi in Italy. Making sure the path of their friends stays paved. (Note, this is me violating my own statement. Rich guy fobia I'm still working on).
Bottom line, I fear for the state of the USA & the world if Trump takes office, yet I agree with you, Piotr. Trump could even pull off having Sarah Palin as running mate..
On the other hand, even in the USA he represents a minority, which could limit the amount of momentum he can gain to (fairly) win the elections. (He does have enough friends to pull a Bush Jr. or random African president though. Go to court until you get it your way).
Quote from: Kaylesh on December 20, 2015, 07:33:58 AM
You state Trump would act in accordance with Ultimate Law. Pretty much all he does (what I've heard of) violates this law, however.
Banning of people based on a faith, is not something these people would wish for themselves. Unless they have engaged in actions others would not wish upon themselves, or conspire to do so, this punishment cannot be enacted.
Property laws are important here. The people outside of the USA territory (territory = property) who are not USA citizens do not have any right to be on the property of USA in the first place, therefore banning them from being on the property which does not belong to them is not punishment as far as my understanding of Ultimate Law goes. Ultimate Law is rather simple, really. What makes things complicated is misunderstanding about the definitions: what is property? What is a right?
That is not true. If you have proper documentition (passport) and not on some list you are allowed to pass our borders freely.
Quote from: Rass on December 20, 2015, 03:41:09 PM
That is not true. If you have proper documentition (passport) and not on some list you are allowed to pass our borders freely.
I'm discussing http://ultimatelaw.org not US constitution. In the future, maybe it is gonna be the same, but it is not yet.
Didn't Trump also want to enforce this banning for US citizens with ties to said nations?
Also, it would make the state "own" the country, over individual properties in said country.
Banning an individual who owns a piece of your country seems to be setting the state above the individual.
And with the state deciding who they view as unwanted, a slope towards a dictatorial state threatens.
"You speak against me, I don't want you around." becomes: "I want your land, so I'll invent charges to disown you."
Plenty of examples of that happening in history.
If the state is acting in accordance to ultimate law and ascends petty human behavior, this power could be trusted upon them, but until that time, power like that should be wielded carefully.
Quote from: Kaylesh on December 21, 2015, 06:54:50 AM
Didn't Trump also want to enforce this banning for US citizens with ties to said nations?
No he did not, as far as I understand, he's too clever for that. People do themselves great disservice underestimating the man. Do not portray sharp and clever man as dumb and retarded, all will see through it. What Trump proposed is fully legal as far as Ultimate Law and even US Constitution goes, regardless of whether it would have the desired effect if implemented, or not. He has shown legal documents to back it up, including examples of similar bans by previous president, Democrat I believe?
In any case this is missing the point, Trump's proposal was meant to stage him as leading the national debate, and it did just so. He is just doing his job, and good at it.
Quote from: Kaylesh on December 21, 2015, 06:54:50 AM
Also, it would make the state "own" the country, over individual properties in said country.
Banning an individual who owns a piece of your country seems to be setting the state above the individual.
State do indeed own the function of border control, so they trump whatever individual embedded private property laws say. Trump says about it: "if you don't have border, you don't have a state" and he has a point. This is passive thing though, they cannot force anyone to settle on your sub-property, they can only ban someone at the borders, so no worries.
Shows how much value I should put in what I read.
He's definitely not retarded. He's smart and calculating, that's what scares me about him.
Ultimate Law
Logic is the ultimate law.
Do not do to others what they would not want to be done to them, or you will be punished regardless of your will.
So you don't mind that if I do not agree with your religious views I can keep you out? The United States was biased in religious freedom. Now the president can up and change it? What if he changes his mind on something else?
Quote from: Rass on December 21, 2015, 05:44:02 PM
So you don't mind that if I do not agree with your religious views I can keep you out?
Logic is consistent. If I want to keep the right to ban unwanted guests from my internet forum because I'm the creator and owner of the forum, it is only fair that I agree to grant the same right to the representative of The People Who Hold The Property Right To Their Country, be it UK, USA or else ;)
Quote from: Rass on December 21, 2015, 05:44:02 PM
The United States was biased in* religious freedom. Now the president can up and change it? What if he changes his mind on something else?
He cannot change it, if only because of 2nd fix, but the proposal was meant to show Obama doing nothing in response to Trumps proposal, it was not meant to be immediately executed by president Obama, who currently wields such powers as shown by examples of less glorious past ;)
Perhaps you are making the mistake of discussing the wrong tool? :D
* I replied as if you were autocorrected from 'based on [principle of]'.
Yes thank you fat fingers
I can see how my call to stop insults thrown at the future POTUS was a right one. How do you feel about Trump being the next POTUS, as all seems to lead into this version of the future? I feel optimistic.
One of the others who correctly predicted Trumps win very early is Scott Adams of the Dilbert fame, good reading too: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/139541975641/the-trump-master-persuader-index-and-reading-list
Quote from: Piotr on February 25, 2016, 02:20:19 AM
I can see how my call to stop insults thrown at the future POTUS was a right one. How do you feel about Trump being the next POTUS, as all seems to lead into this version of the future? I feel optimistic.
One of the others who correctly predicted Trumps win very early is Scott Adams of the Dilbert fame, good reading too: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/139541975641/the-trump-master-persuader-index-and-reading-list
I for one think it is WAY to early to be calling this. I could see even see a Sanders-Trump election happen. I could even see Sanders tag Clinton as running vice, then Sanders dying and Clinton taking the throne. Likewise I could see Trump's running mate become the power.
All is speculation at this point, with just 5 states having had their elections for the candidates. Anything could tip the scales violently in the coming year.
A lot of folks thought GW Bush was going to be a great president also.
There are several countries that don't like trump. Even if he wins the Popular Vote, there is a chance that the Electoral College will choose the other candidate. It would not be the first time a candidate has lost with the Popular Vote.
Quote from: Kaylesh on February 25, 2016, 06:08:57 AM
Quote from: Piotr on February 25, 2016, 02:20:19 AM
How do you feel about Trump being the next POTUS, as all seems to lead into this version of the future? I feel optimistic.
I for one think it is WAY to early to be calling this.
Prophets tell the future as soon as they see it, no matter how distant it is ;]
Not all of the future is clouded, you see.
Quote from: MuggyWuggy on February 25, 2016, 06:52:30 AM
A lot of folks thought GW Bush was going to be a great president also.
That one was a disaster. How about Obama, disappointment or not?
I hear Trump used KKK to get $45 millions worth of free air time. Can't confirm as I do not watch US TV other than via youtube...
Quote from: Piotr on March 01, 2016, 01:56:50 PM
I hear Trump used KKK to get $45 millions worth of free air time. Can't confirm as I do not watch US TV other than via youtube...
I hear many a disturbing thing about his affiliations. If I were to believe them he'll use anything to get more time in the spotlights. However, I'm unsure what is real and what is propaganda.
When you use a hammer to nail something, are you really affiliated with the hammer, or are you just using it? Do you think the KKK were happy about being used and discarded the way Trump did it to earn air time?
Quote from: Piotr on March 06, 2016, 02:02:51 AM
When you use a hammer to nail something, are you really affiliated with the hammer, or are you just using it? Do you think the KKK were happy about being used and discarded the way Trump did it to earn air time?
I apologize. I read it as "used his connections within" instead of "used".
If Trump used them as machinations, I'd figure they wouldn't be too pleased once they were discarded. People tend to not like being used in that way, as "kruiwagen" as we call it in Dutch.
(Edit: literal English translation being "wheelbarrow")
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on March 07, 2016, 10:30:34 AM
Quote from: Piotr on March 06, 2016, 02:02:51 AM
When you use a hammer to nail something, are you really affiliated with the hammer, or are you just using it? Do you think the KKK were happy about being used and discarded the way Trump did it to earn air time?
Do you think anyone should care if the KKK are happy? I don't agree with him using them or what he said Newsflash: he didn't condemn them as the racist extremists they are.
He did condemn them, post one more lie in political thread on this forum and you may get hurt more than just 10 days ban.
Quote from: Taysby on March 11, 2016, 04:20:38 PM
If you are going to call him out, site your source. I have also not heard him condemn them.
If you are not qualified to do a quick google search and find it for yourself, Taysby, do not open your pawhole anymore on this forum. I gave you enough time to learn. Next time you make a total moron of yourself you will have your account purged from this place. I'm getting ready for new app so this is serious, backup your posts.
Quote from: bravado883 on March 13, 2016, 11:59:39 AM
***Removed SEO links.***
---------------------------
These could be useful. I hope someone actually reads them. From my understanding, he has since disavowed the support of the former KKK member
You have no right to speak for Democrats and Republicans, in particular you have no right to claim to know their beliefs. You have no right to spread false information.
Quote from: Taysby on March 14, 2016, 08:29:19 PM
You deleted my post. That leaves me to believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you know I was 100% correct, but didn't want to acknowledge it. ;)
I created this forum so I can test and experiment with various scientific theories linked to .politics. and maths in general. Are you accustomed with the works of the great Isaac Asimov?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory
I do not mind if you SEO wikipedia :P
Quote from: Piotr on September 02, 2015, 03:45:02 AMI would not be surprised to learn that Hillary is Democratic nominee because 'everybody loves Trump' as he claims, and he just made it so. He has a lot of friends, I understand? ;)
After a few months of observing this from outside of US, I see he has and made a lot of friends indeed. It would be easy for {Donald Trump} to support Hillary, and not unprecedented. Better to run agains her than Biden, I suppose?
Quote from: Piotr on May 06, 2016, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: Piotr on September 02, 2015, 03:45:02 AMI would not be surprised to learn that Hillary is Democratic nominee because 'everybody loves Trump' as he claims, and he just made it so. He has a lot of friends, I understand? ;)
After a few months of observing this from outside of US, I see he has and made a lot of friends indeed. It would be easy for {Donald Trump} to support Hillary, and not unprecedented. Better to run agains her than Biden, I suppose?
I think Hillary will be a much better race for him than Bernie would have been, as much as I would have loved to see the race between two opposing extremists.
As the Republican primary resulted in premature knockout, I shifted my focus on Democrats and studied Hillary and Bernie as they speak during their rallies.
Hillary speaking skills are terrible in comparison to Trump, it is a weakness.
Her strength is her role power, she commands a powerful organisation.
She should stop campaigning in person altogether and focus on being the CEO of her organisation. Delegate public speaking to speakers. If she focuses on two things at a time, she will fail, because her strong organisation already shows signs of weakness: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/144298567696/the-mother-of-all-campaign-errors
Trump won because he was more fun than the rest of the Republican wannabes. Hillary can delegate being fun to someone else. I'm sure there are plenty of stand up comedians who are more funny than Trump and naive enough to believe in Socialist lies, it should not be difficult to hire them for the right money for the campaign.
She can steal a lot of Trump's steam by adopting his positions. It would be easy.
I'm offering my services to stop Trump at the same price as Scott Adams -20% discount. I know how Trump thinks, and I think he will win. I want to see America great again because I wanted to move to USA since I understood how unique it is. Unfortunately after 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush, 8 years of Obama, USA is no longer unique great country, it sucks almost as bad as UK. It is very simple to make it great again, and Hillary can do it too. Unfortunately for Socialists, she would have to adopt free market positions similar to these taken by Trump. Fortunately for her and the organisation, Trump would be defeated.
Otherwise, I will endorse Trump for free.
Scott Adams sees no path to victory for Hillary. I think she can still win if she distanced herself from herself as a person (to be presidential: character of whom America do not appreciate that much) and advocate herself as just a delegate, successful CEO of powerful political organisation, whom she is. Surrogate of powerful powers. She can still win by removing her weakness of perceived dishonesty from the minds of America by distancing herself from herself.
Quote from: Piotr on May 20, 2016, 07:48:46 AM
Scott Adams sees no path to victory for Hillary. I think she can still win if she distanced herself from herself as a person (to be presidential: character of whom America do not appreciate that much) and advocate herself as just a delegate, successful CEO of powerful political organisation, whom she is. Surrogate of powerful powers. She can still win by removing her weakness of perceived dishonesty from the minds of America by distancing herself from herself.
So, the vote turns out to corporate America or corporate America?
I think Hillary needs something more than just being a good captain, as Trump can say the exact same thing, and be a persona.
Hillary just needs to text on her bb more while wearing sunglasses
Quote from: Kaylesh on May 20, 2016, 12:07:46 PM
So, the vote turns out to corporate America or corporate America?
I think Hillary needs something more than just being a good captain, as Trump can say the exact same thing, and be a persona.
Yes I think America wants to try CEO for a change, not a sweet talking liar. Previous POTUS said the people will be able to keep their plan and their doctor. They feel lied to.
Well I would not bet a dollar on the lady, I prefer the gentleman. I just see a tiny slight possibility of a path to her winning if she sells herself as CEO not a politician, so not a total zero. Very difficult. If she continues what she is doing, Trump wins in a record landslide.
Move along ;]
You still need to learn much 😂😂👍
BTW he won in a record landslide but the elections were totally rigged for Hillary 🤑
Quote from: Piotr on December 20, 2015, 06:07:00 AM
What Trump is saying, including his proposal to "ban all Muslim people who openly advocate themselves as Muslim" is something which is not as outrageous as many people would say. I think so far he is in line with the combination of Common Law of property + http://ultimatelaw.org if you treat USA territory as property of the people.
Watch someone repeat this argument on national TV: https://youtu.be/CISoGx8qzCE
Quote from: Piotr on March 01, 2016, 01:56:50 PM
I hear Trump used KKK to get $45 millions worth of free air time. Can't confirm as I do not watch US TV other than via youtube...
TL;DR: I was spot on.
The full story here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
From the article:
In 2000, Trump was already considering running for President. His friend Jesse Ventura suggested he seek the Presidential nomination of Ross Perot's Reform Party. Trump agreed and started putting together a small campaign (interesting historical trivia: he wanted Oprah Winfrey as a running mate). But after some infighting in the Reform Party, Ventura was kicked out in favor of a faction led by populist Pat Buchanan, who had some support from David Duke. Trump closed his presidential bid, saying: "The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep." Later he continued to condemn the party, saying "You've got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party."
While Obama is on record saying on rallies in the last week before POTUS 2016 elections that Donald is with KKK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULWdFjqGV78
We do not want to be lied to.
I do not like people who violate 9th Commandment while claiming to be Christians.
I do not want to be friends with people who are friends with David Duke or Barrack Obama.
Cognitive Dissonance step 1:
(http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/trumpw_lgbt.jpg)
If you label someone who displays many non-bigoted behaviours and none of the bigoted ones as a Bigot, you are doing to me what I do not want to be done to me, you are lying to me. As such you will be permanently banned from Gathering community.
I'm glad he won