Meshugger

Bush the elder was a gentleman. I hope Obama is nicer than Bill: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/12/us/white-house-vandalized-in-transition-gao-finds.html

Agreed, the basket of deplorables are people too. I never argued for the deportation of deplorables. What would you want to do with them without turning the situation into a violent one? Install economic policies that actually help with their living situation? Poor rural white people have been shat on by both parties for a long time; no wonder they're growing angry and desperate. Give them someone else than racist buffoons who upholds their interests and whom they can see as a credible representative of themselves, and maybe their support for racist buffoons will dwindle. As the article say, there is no one else even if the author goes overboard with his policies being racist. Elect Hillary and let the cycle down the drain continues. And how will Trump stop this? Also, can always choose neither. Choosing neither will still elect either even if you have different priorities (libertanian/green) or no interest at all. Trump is simply a sign of the times, because otherwise he would not have gathered support in the first place. Just like Obama was back in the day after the politics of Bush and his neocons. As for Trump, he wants to throw the illegals out, build the wall and focus on business that will (maybe) be in the economic interest of the mostly the white middle class, but effectively most americans despite their ethnic background. By having effective border control he will not only hinder the perpetual inflow of low-skilled labour undercutting the lower and middle class but also soften the demographic displacement which is a ticking timebomb if it isn't slowed down to sane levels. But most importantly, the most paramount reason of them all still stands. I want you to listen very, very carefully: He is the kryptonite to SJWs and their salt and tears will refresh the tree of sanity. By If he fails in his goals, then atleast there was a chance to try.

Agreed, the basket of deplorables are people too. I never argued for the deportation of deplorables. What would you want to do with them without turning the situation into a violent one? Install economic policies that actually help with their living situation? Poor rural white people have been shat on by both parties for a long time; no wonder they're growing angry and desperate. Give them someone else than racist buffoons who upholds their interests and whom they can see as a credible representative of themselves, and maybe their support for racist buffoons will dwindle. As the article say, there is no one else even if the author goes overboard with his policies being racist. Elect Hillary and let the cycle down the drain continues. Yeah, well, tough ****. You asked what I would do, not whom I'd vote for. I was referring to the people mentioned in the article you linked.

Agreed, the basket of deplorables are people too. I never argued for the deportation of deplorables. What would you want to do with them without turning the situation into a violent one? Install economic policies that actually help with their living situation? Poor rural white people have been shat on by both parties for a long time; no wonder they're growing angry and desperate. Give them someone else than racist buffoons who upholds their interests and whom they can see as a credible representative of themselves, and maybe their support for racist buffoons will dwindle. As the article say, there is no one else even if the author goes overboard with his policies being racist. Elect Hillary and let the cycle down the drain continues.

[citation needed] Booooring! Give a counter-argument instead. I can definitely see the merit of the argument that a conservative movement which uses coded language to pander to bigots and socio-economic policies that just so happen to have a disproportionately negative impact on people of color would probably garner the support of the far-right and racist crowd, thus preventing them from becoming a force of their own. The problem is that this isn't as much stifling the rise of said movements as it is legitimizing them. Much better! But perhaps as you have noticed, despite living inside Orban's Wall, that the forces at bay are much larger than stormtroopers seeking legitimacy but rather large squats of people becoming disenfranschised from the very society that they are a bulk of. Just look at the rise of Swedish Democrats in Sweden and many others; such things do not simply happen in vacuum. Compartmentalizing them into the same group as the real ant-democratic ones will just add further fuel to the fire, instead of reaching out to the underlying issues with empathy, where i think paleo-conservatism is one of many ways to do so. I am afraid that Trump is the olive branch concerning the circumstances. The pendelum is swinging and as some famous guy said: "if you make peaceful revolution impossible, you will make a violent one inevitable". I care little to differentiate between people who personally want to get rid of "undesirables" and those who merely wish others would do that for them. Agreed, the basket of deplorables are people too. I never argued for the deportation of deplorables. What would you want to do with them without turning the situation into a violent one?

Actually, i think that you like Trump quite a lot in a bad-boy kind of a way.

[citation needed] Booooring! Give a counter-argument instead. I can definitely see the merit of the argument that a conservative movement which uses coded language to pander to bigots and socio-economic policies that just so happen to have a disproportionately negative impact on people of color would probably garner the support of the far-right and racist crowd, thus preventing them from becoming a force of their own. The problem is that this isn't as much stifling the rise of said movements as it is legitimizing them. Much better! But perhaps as you have noticed, despite living inside Orban's Wall, that the forces at bay are much larger than stormtroopers seeking legitimacy but rather large squats of people becoming disenfranschised from the very society that they are a bulk of. Just look at the rise of Swedish Democrats in Sweden and many others; such things do not simply happen in vacuum. Compartmentalizing them into the same group as the real ant-democratic ones will just add further fuel to the fire, instead of reaching out to the underlying issues with empathy, where i think paleo-conservatism is one of many ways to do so. I am afraid that Trump is the olive branch concerning the circumstances. The pendelum is swinging and as some famous guy said: "if you make peaceful revolution impossible, you will make a violent one inevitable". I care little to differentiate between people who personally want to get rid of "undesirables" and those who merely wish others would do that for them. Agreed, the basket of deplorables are people too.

[citation needed] Booooring! Give a counter-argument instead. I can definitely see the merit of the argument that a conservative movement which uses coded language to pander to bigots and socio-economic policies that just so happen to have a disproportionately negative impact on people of color would probably garner the support of the far-right and racist crowd, thus preventing them from becoming a force of their own. The problem is that this isn't as much stifling the rise of said movements as it is legitimizing them. Much better! But perhaps as you have noticed, despite living inside Orban's Wall, that the forces at bay are much larger than stormtroopers seeking legitimacy but rather large squats of people becoming disenfranschised from the very society that they are a bulk of. Just look at the rise of Swedish Democrats in Sweden and many others; such things do not simply happen in vacuum. Compartmentalizing them into the same group as the real ant-democratic ones will just add further fuel to the fire, instead of reaching out to the underlying issues with empathy, where i think paleo-conservatism is one of many ways to do so. I am afraid that Trump is the olive branch concerning the circumstances. The pendelum is swinging and as some famous guy said: "if you make peaceful revolution impossible, you will make a violent one inevitable".

[citation needed] Booooring! Give a counter-argument instead.

The day the neocons disappear would be beneficial for everyone. That's probably the best part of this election on how they have been exposed and are on the way out. Paleocons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism) are less radical in terms of economical policy and foreign relations + they also stiffle the rise of far-right and racist movements. I see some resemblence of such policies in Trump.

Yeah because dismissing a legitimate election result within an established Democratic system should only concern " moral busybodies " Time to face facts my captious friend....Trump is going to lose the election Oh, i wasn't talking about you even if you spew the same talking points in verbatim. No, I was talking about those who claim that it was unprecedented, how outrageous it is to even suggest that their holy temple is corrupt and how concerned other people must be by such comments, all while ignoring, downplaying or even accepting the methods shown in the wikileaks documents. Hell, you don't even need a leaked document, you can always ask the FBI on what they think on page 56 in the following document: https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-04-of-04/view

The impotent rage of moral busybodies caused by what Trump says is the fuel for fun.

It depends, I imagined the news room more akin of a scetch from a Mel Brooks movie instead of a scene from The House of Cards.

I can almost picture the producer pressing the red button to the feed and loudly proclaim "Ooops! Well would you look at that! *Again* my clumsy finger got there. I just don't get it. How on earth does it happen all the time?"

And it took you so long to 'Got it'? xD Oh, i knew that from the start. I just needed some entertainment.

When cheering for those in power, is it the only time when it you feel like you are part of something larger than you? Making history? Finding meaning or purpose? Just curious. I support a certain ideology like we all do. Assange is a parasite and a very divisive personality who has a personal grudge against the West and particularly the USA Of course I feel like Im part of something greater when someone like Assange is unable to continue his cyber attacks on the USA, one less source of propaganda to worry about And the current administration doesn't do cyber attacks and indulge in propaganda? What is the difference? Define " indulge in propaganda ", you need to be specific and give examples ? You mean something that you can just enter in wikipedia so you can discern on what propaganda you find acceptable? Not going that route, sonny. Again, if that's the only reason for cheering for those in power, then "why?" if they are doing the very same thing as you claim Assange to do. All countries use a degree of propaganda but Assange isn't a country, he isn't a president ....he isn't much actually Assange quite simply represents a group of people that are opposed to the West and of course the USA and they seek to undermine the West whenever opportunity presents itself. HIs usage of propaganda surely cant be seen the same as when a country uses it ? So cyber warfare and propaganda is a-ok as long as it serves your interests and your preconcieved notions of the "west". Got it.

When cheering for those in power, is it the only time when it you feel like you are part of something larger than you? Making history? Finding meaning or purpose? Just curious. I support a certain ideology like we all do. Assange is a parasite and a very divisive personality who has a personal grudge against the West and particularly the USA Of course I feel like Im part of something greater when someone like Assange is unable to continue his cyber attacks on the USA, one less source of propaganda to worry about And the current administration doesn't do cyber attacks and indulge in propaganda? What is the difference? Define " indulge in propaganda ", you need to be specific and give examples ? You mean something that you can just enter in wikipedia so you can discern on what propaganda you find acceptable? Not going that route, sonny. Again, if that's the only reason for cheering for those in power, then "why?" if they are doing the very same thing as you claim Assange to do.

When cheering for those in power, is it the only time when it you feel like you are part of something larger than you? Making history? Finding meaning or purpose? Just curious. I support a certain ideology like we all do. Assange is a parasite and a very divisive personality who has a personal grudge against the West and particularly the USA Of course I feel like Im part of something greater when someone like Assange is unable to continue his cyber attacks on the USA, one less source of propaganda to worry about And the current administration doesn't do cyber attacks and indulge in propaganda? What is the difference?

Bernie losing in itself is not problem since there wasn't enough people voting for him; and i am not taking into account the discrapencies found in Lousiana and Arizona either. The problem was that the party had practically chosen Hillary had was working against Bernie from the inside. A pack of snakes who should be routed out, i would say. As for the rest of the apathy of the media always being like this and that is was what politics are, if it doesn't change now, then it definately will later as the forces at bay will not be controllable anymore. They are sitting on the throne of Louis XVI without even realizing it. Both Eisenhower and Kennedy warned against complacency of the public trust.

When cheering for those in power, is it the only time when it you feel like you are part of something larger than you? Making history? Finding meaning or purpose? Just curious.

Did you miss the DNC rigging the primary and the video of the DNC staffer talking about busing groups around to vote in multiple polling stations? I'm not saying that its assured that the election will be rigged, but its hardly beyond belief. The DNC has done so much shady crap this election you can't really dismiss anything. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/activist-who-took-credit-for-violent-chicago-protests-was-on-hillarys-payroll/ Turns out that the agent provocateurs were on Hillary's campaign payroll. In other words, the very people starting the riot in Chicago at the Trump rally are working for the opponent.

Considering what you can read in the documents of the Podesta-leak, it is "rigged" in the way of journalists from WaPo, NYTimes and Politico admitingly create narratives that benefit the democratic party, how the DNC actively worked against Bernie during the primaries and how much time spent on Trump "scandals" (in this case Trump is playing them, but they are guilty as in taking the bait in the first place) by the media at large. So not no, it is not rigged in the way on who is counting the votes (electronic voting in itself is ****, but that's another issue), but how the odds are stacked against him due to how the media works with those in power.

Oh ****, i posted from the wrong account!

Has there been any signs of the guy since the cut off? Anyhow, despite Garrison's metaphor of Trump: ...i do not think that he will ever recover from this:

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton Part 4, Page 56 John Kerry is according to the FBI part of something called the "The Shadow Government" or referred as "The 7th Floor Group". Quite interesting and ominous description i would say.