Prelude to the Apocalypse

[quash]

I think the best thing about Donald Trump is how he inadvertently gets people to realize how fucked up things are.

I remember some months ago I saw a headline on the news that read: "Trump: I have a secret plan to defeat ISIS". Someone next to me in the gym (back when I was visiting home, so it was a public gym) laughed and said "What, by no longer funding them?".

[Skykid]

And you know what? If it ever came to it, I say let Japan remilitarize and even give them nukes. China is completely disregarding the US because of our weak leadership, so why not let Japan handle things their way?

Lol, just give them that chance!

A Japan militarily independent from the US is China's wet dream. One hint of fuss and the entire island will go up in a mushroom-shaped puff of smoke in the blink of an eye.

[quash]

That's one reason I don't see the US leaving any time soon. But if it ever got to the point where the US could no longer support Japan, what other option would there be? They'd need to expand the SDF's naval capabilities something fierce to even stand up to China on their own, no doubt about it.

[Durandal]

Donald Trump, a scion to family fortune who golden parachuted his way from one failed business to another until on name recognition alone he failed all the way to the top? He's George Bush jr. part 2 and you know it.

How many businesses did he fail then? According to Wikipedia he currently owns 515 subsidiaries, which seems like a fairly high success rate to me, unless all those failures were massive blunders and the remaining subsidiaries are meaningless in the grand scale anyways.

[Bitter Almonds]

He cares about it enough to ensure that his family won't be left in a third world country.

Wealthy oligarchs and their families in third world nations live very, very well, actually.

Everyone says Trump is completely loony with his conspiracy theories and such, but I'm old enough to remember when the same things were being said about presidential candidate Ross Perot - He was labeled completely insane at the time, and a good number of his "theories" and predictions have come to be true. Somethingsomething 1992 Bill Clinton... I feel like I've seen all of this before.

Yeah, remember all those companies Ross Perot bankrupted? Oh wait. No. He ran a profitable business. And he stayed on message and had a clear platform.

If you want a Ross-Perot-like candidate who has a long record of publicly making correct predictions that was Bernie Sanders.

Donald Trump, a scion to family fortune who golden parachuted his way from one failed business to another until on name recognition alone he failed all the way to the top? He's George Bush jr. part 2 and you know it.

So why am I settling for Hillary? Because every awful thing people say she MIGHT do, Donald Trump PROMISES to do.

Wrong. We won't vote for shrillary because of her record for supporting shit that goes against the interests of US citizens and world citizens alike.

- Iraq invasion and perpetual wars
- "free trade" deals
- goldmansacks
- bankruptcy laws that shaft the poor
- mass incarceration of the poor and people of colour
- fucked up foreign policy that smacks of henry kissinger
- using public office for personal gain
- "patriot act"
- fracking and drilling, and other big oil shit


We don't believe for a second she's changed her mind. She's only saying all those lies now because she's running for higher office. shrillary will flip-flop, as she usually does.

[Lord Satori]

And Trump is gonna be the guy to make all of that go away, right?

[Bitter Almonds]

I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is shrillary is just as bad or worse. They're the same douchebag. Would you rather get testicular torsion on your left or your right? That's the kind of choice shrillary/trump voters are looking at.

[Ed Oscuro]

I liked the part of the thread where quash pretended to take me down with FACTS! but then brought up nothing other than some half-remembered old posts of mine that he didn't follow through on.

Top chatbot material right here.

According to Wikipedia he currently owns 515 subsidiaries,

It actually says the organization lists involvement with that number. I would bet that a large number of those organizations are holding companies, and it's not clear how much of that refers to defunct programs or licensed use of the Trump name.

I've already disproven Bitter Almonds' false equivalence argument on the Iraq War, don't even bother trying to argue that one.

[Bitter Almonds]

You've not proven anything. shrillary supported the invasion of Iraq before she was against it. She's proven to be an incompetent plutocrat.

[Giest118]

You are aware that her name is Hillary, aren't you?

[Ed Oscuro]

Actually, I have, and you've incompetently tripped over your fingers. Clinton's statement on the Resolution proves that she was not in favor of going to war first. This is completely different than what you think. This isn't even getting into all the circumstantial evidence which any sane person would still have to admit gives the benefit to Clinton.

We also know that Trump was before the war before he was against it, of course.

Sidebar: I've noticed the thought process of opponents in a lot of these debates about our foreign policy goes like this:

1) Believe a reasonable person would do things a certain way
2) Believe that if that happened, then a conflict would go away
3) Refer to one's own belief about what a reasonable person should have done and ignore statements explaining aims or a decision

The obvious points of breakdown are the leap from 1 to 2, and the inability of people like quash and Bitter Almonds to believe things given their unshakeable belief that people should do things the way some random people on the Internet would.

[Bitter Almonds]

This only makes sense in the minds of people who'd vote for something or someone they're against. This rationalisation of war mongering doesn't apply to people who can think critically about the evidence (or lack of) and the consequences of voting for something/-one they're against. I mean, who the fuck would trust "the lesser of two evils" to actually be any good at this point? Does the past not bear any relevance in demonstrating it's a losing strategy? shrillary is not even the "lesser of two evils." This self-serving douchebag is just as evil and people are just deluding themselves if they think otherwise.

[Mischief Maker]

Does the past not bear any relevance in demonstrating it's a losing strategy?

I know you better than you know yourself. Because I once thought as you do and had most of the same arguments when I voted for Nader in 2000.

And believe it or not... I didn't get any pussy for voting Nader!

[ED-057]

Dear Big Pharma,
I hope you are working on a pill to treat Stockholm/Democrat Syndrome. We desperately need it. Thanks.

Sidebar: I've noticed the thought process of opponents in a lot of these debates about our foreign policy goes like this:

1) Believe a reasonable person would do things a certain way
2) Believe that if that happened, then a conflict would go away
3) Refer to one's own belief about what a reasonable person should have done and ignore statements explaining aims or a decision

The obvious points of breakdown are the leap from 1 to 2, and the inability of people like quash and Bitter Almonds to believe things given their unshakeable belief that people should do things the way some random people on the Internet would.

Democrat politicians should be forgiven for the bad decisions that they made which lead to the bad results that they were warned about, because they honestly believed the BS excuse they used to justify it. Democrats are pure of heart and their blunders are always due to incompetence and not to malice. So vote for Democrats, because they mean well (really!). Incompetence 2016.

[Lord Satori]

I kinda want this country to be literally divided in half. Dems on one side, Reps on the other. Whoever runs their side into the ground first has to admit they're wrong.

[Specineff]

Were you sent by Mexico? No? Were any of your friends? Then his statement doesn't apply to you or anyone you know.
He also said that he has talked to many "border guards". I assume here that he's talking about the militarized police force that rides around on ATVs in the middle of the desert - not the guys that check your passport at the crossing. Where do you meet border guards? At the border, guarding places you most likely should not be. Why would you encounter a border guard? Because you're somewhere you shouldn't be.
Trump also says "they're not sending us the right people" which implies that there are "right people" in Mexico.

Sugarcoat his words all you want. He says that Mexicans who come to the USA are criminals and rapists (with some, by his assumption, being good people), I'm Mexican, I'm going to take issue with that. Just as you would if a PM candidate in Japan who ran on the platform of calling American Gaijin, people who go there and commit crime and rape Japanese women (You know, like it's happened in Okinawa many times now?). Let's call a spade a spade.

Therefore he doesn't hate you "ONLY BECAUSE I'M MEXICAN."

Judge Curiel was born here, and yet Trump states his ethnicity is enough to be a conflict of interest when it comes to fairness in hearing the case against Trump U. Last time I checked, that's called "bias".

I noticed that as well, and it seems to be fairly common. "My country" is Mexico, but I'll stay here in Arizona / Texas where there's a bit less chance of being beheaded by drug cartels and there's a nice social safety net. Pride in a country they fight like hell to get away from and stay out of by any means necessary.

Again, I called hipocrisy here because this sounds like you were referring to all immigrants. Particularly since you didn't say you were talking about illegals. Please address this.

[rancor]

Judge Curiel was born here, and yet Trump states his ethnicity is enough to be a conflict of interest when it comes to fairness in hearing the case against Trump U. Last time I checked, that's called "bias".

Right. Because nothing like that would ever happen under Democratic leadership. Oh, wait. But it did:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ican-judge

... Or does that not count, because she's not on "your team"?

Again, I called hipocrisy here because this sounds like you were referring to all immigrants. Particularly since you didn't say you were talking about illegals. Please address this.

I'm talking about people like this:

https://youtu.be/XGOIpgFny7s

Sorry, but I'm not marching in Tokyo holding my American flag with English placards demanding that the government "recognize me", and the struggles of my people after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile I'm at home telling everyone how much Japan fucking sucks, and is a racist country that persecutes my people. Go home? Hell no - I secretly like it plenty here - in fact, I'm trying to get my whole family (direct as well as extended) over here. But I'M A FUCKING AMERICAN, BRO! 9-11 NEVER FORGET! THESE COLORS DON'T RUN!
I know you're going to bring up some particular point about that specific video, but you know very well the types of demonstrations I'm talking about.

Just as you would if a PM candidate in Japan who ran on the platform of calling American Gaijin, people who go there and commit crime and rape Japanese women (You know, like it's happened in Okinawa many times now?). Let's call a spade a spade.

I'd go so far as to say that foreigners (percentage wise, not total numbers) probably commit more crimes in Japan than Japanese nationals. You know why? Because I go by facts, not feelings. If that hypothetical Japanese candidate said that "some of these Americans are good people.." I'd put myself in that category - not align myself as an equal with the rapists and murders as you seem to do.

Why can you not admit that some Mexicans who come to America are criminals and rapists? Statistically, wouldn't this be likely? Why do you feel it's a personal attack? If someone says to me "I don't feel safe in Okinawa after dark because of all the raping and murdering American soldiers do..." I'd reply with "That's probably a good way to feel, and may just keep you safe..", because of the facts - not because I feel it's a personal attack against me personally, "my people", or my heritage.

[Bitter Almonds]

Does the past not bear any relevance in demonstrating it's a losing strategy?

I know you better than you know yourself. Because I once thought as you do and had most of the same arguments when I voted for Nader in 2000.

And believe it or not... I didn't get any pussy for voting Nader!

The reason Ralph Nader got your vote is because Al Gore failed to provide compelling reason for you to vote for him. Besides, Gore won that election and the "party establishment" nullified it. Now, Bernie Sanders's campaign may not have been usurped or undermined at that level, but the party establishment opted for shrillary. People should feel like shit right now because they left themselves with no choice - they're indistinguishable from each other; shrillary is just a poorer, less, um, "charismatic" trump. That kleptocrat, worthless politician could run uncontested and still face a difficult, very expensive election.

[greg]

Sorry, but I'm not marching in Tokyo holding my American flag with English placards demanding that the government "recognize me", and the struggles of my people after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

Very true.

Why can you not admit that some Mexicans who come to America are criminals and rapists? Statistically, wouldn't this be likely? Why do you feel it's a personal attack? If someone says to me "I don't feel safe in Okinawa after dark because of all the raping and murdering American soldiers do..." I'd reply with "That's probably a good way to feel, and may just keep you safe..", because of the facts - not because I feel it's a personal attack against me personally, "my people", or my heritage.

There is a fabulous aquarium in Okinawa I would love to visit someday, but I will likely never go there because of how Okinawans feel about Americans. I think their perception is justified. I visited Sasesbo once to enjoy the famous Sasebo burgers there and in that town is the only time my wife and I experienced overt racism. Some old man insulted my wife for being with an American such as myself. Why? It's an American naval base town.

Statistically it is likely, but the mass media ignores it because it doesn't fit the anti-Trump narrative. Our taxes pay for the criminal justice system to prosecute these criminals. Prosecuting criminals who have the right to be in the USA is one thing, but prosecuting criminals who shouldn't even be there to begin with is even worse.

Even if Mexicans are not statistically more likely to to rape and steal than US citizens, the fact that inevitably there will be rapists and thieves in the group who comes to the US illegally means that there are now more rapists and thieves in the USA then there ought to be because they are ILLEGAL and therefore shouldn't be there to begin with! So Spec, stop taking it personally because you are not a rapist or a thief!

[Specineff]

I stopped well before you asked me to, though I really don't see why we shouldn't be comparing our two choices for president.

Because we don't need to compare dog shit against horse shit to establish it's shit.

He literally said not all Mexicans are criminals.

Of course. Only some are good. The rest could be conspiring to rape you in your sleep. Also, "literally"? Where and when?

Yeah, Trump probably did willingly dupe people into attending a university he had no intention of funding. Again, he's no saint. But there is most certainly a conflict of interest with the judge, seeing as he's a member of a legal organization called La Raza (oh, but of course, it's not that La Raza, so it's all kosher. Just don't judge anyone that claims membership to the Kool Kidz Klub, either).

Exactly, and since Trump or his attorneys haven't filed a motion to have a judge reassigned based on whatever different organization the judge belongs to, the only thing that remains is bias due to his ancestry. You know, just like when he said that the judge, despite being born in Indiana, is still of Mexican heritage (this is accurate), and that was the cause for the "very, very unfair rulings", given he was going to build the border wall.

It is not hateful or racist (and certainly not baseless) to point out that immigrants from Mexico commit crime. For many, their residence in the country puts them in a dubious legal status to begin with.

Of course not. What is racist and hateful is to say or imply (Since we always have to find the hidden meaning in his words, so prone to misconstruction), that when Mexico sends their people, they send rapists and criminals. And scapegoating them. And running a presidential platform on that.

I guess it's racist to say white people commit crimes too, then? Because I have no problem admitting that. And if it's crime statistics you want, it's crime statistics you'll get.

Well, go ahead and say it in public the way he does, and report back with the reaction. I'll be waiting.

I said at worst, meaning it's a possible worst case scenario, not that it's certainly the case. Maybe one of these days I'll dig down this rabbit hole, but right now I frankly have better things to do with my time.

Then stop spewing unfounded hearsay.

You think a native Californian doesn't know this already? Citizens aren't the only ones who can't afford to live in the state anymore.

Then there's no reason to sustain that the government of Mexico is sending people to the USA, as you stated.

He hates that he US government doesn't enforce the immigration laws it has on the books and that it lets American companies manufacture in Mexico with little to no penalties.

And that's why he gets his campaign hats from China (No way they couldn't be made here), opens a golf resort in Scotland, and hires H1 Visa holders over qualified US citizens. Glass house, rock.

Jesus Christ, that is literally not what he said. He said it is not limited to Mexico or even South America.

You keep on using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Post quotes instead, please.

La Raza, Brown Berets, etc. A good portion of Mexicans who aren't associated with these groups seem to feel the same way, and, unfortunately, so do some of the politicians allowing them to stay in the country.

California is nearly a Hispanic majority state; I'd say they're well on their way to achieving this. If someone as smart as you gets this defensive over someone simply stating that immigrants commit crime, imagine how easy it'll be to control a bunch of idiots into fighting for a cause that works against their best interest.

Cali certainly didn't become that way through the actions of those groups. And again. He didn't say "immigrants commit crime". He said "People coming from Mexico are bringing their problems with them. They're not the best from their country. They are criminals and rapists."

Awfully presumptuous, don't you think?

I couldn't get a job in high school because I wasn't fluent in Spanish. I was told on several occasions that it was the reason I couldn't get an entry level job. Even if it was a lie, it's one with enough basis in reality that they felt comfortable using it on myself and others.

That's sad and regretable, though not the result of some crazy weirdo groups' actions, more because of the changing demographics.

Seriously dude, stop with the false equivalencies. Home Depot isn't running for political office. The consulate is a function of the government, not a special interest. Moreover, there are laws that are supposed to prevent foreign political parties from advertising in the US, but I guess there's some loophole being used to run PRI ads in California.

http://www.fronterasdesk.org/content/us ... candidates Here's your answer. Now you stop with the red herrings.

I don't dodge anything. I will ignore things that are either irrelevant or not worth changing the subject for.

Same difference.

Nobody has poked a hole in anything. I offered cash to anyone who could poke a hole in some things I said earlier and nobody even tried.

Bullet Magnet already did several times, and I just showed you there's no reason to believe the Mexican government is sending people here. All you keep on doing is going back to the "But look at Hillary!" game or posting unfounded hearsay. So, how much do I get?

How am I supposed to know? You could just as easily be from Ecuador, El Salvador, etc. and simply immigrated through Mexico.

From your prior replies, it seemed you had grasped it. Fine, though. You know now.

[Specineff]

Right. Because nothing like that would ever happen under Democratic leadership. Oh, wait. But it did:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ican-judge

... Or does that not count, because she's not on "your team"?

First. Rancor. Take a deep breath. Your rabid typing is almost palpable even on this side of the globe.

Now, about that link. The judge sued for discrimination because she was told not to hear cases related to Iranians, being of Iranian descent, while attending a White House meeting with other Iranian-American community leaders. No one presented an accusation of bias, and she won her case. Trump has accused a Mexican-american judge of being biased against him because of his ethnicity, since Trump wants to build a border wall. But his legal team has not presented a request to have the judge recuse himself in case there's such bias, and judge Curiel has been hearing the case since at least 2014. Way before Trump announced his bid. If he thinks judge Curiel's ethnicity causes a conflict of interest, why hasn't he requested to have another judge assigned? He can't complain there.

I told you I can't vote since I'm not a citizen. So I can't vote for Hillary even if I wanted. So please stop making assumptions along with that polarizing rhetoric that I'm somehow on the opposite team just because I don't like Trump. K?

I'm talking about people like this:

https://youtu.be/XGOIpgFny7s

Sorry, but I'm not marching in Tokyo holding my American flag with English placards demanding that the government "recognize me", and the struggles of my people after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile I'm at home telling everyone how much Japan fucking sucks, and is a racist country that persecutes my people. Go home? Hell no - I secretly like it plenty here - in fact, I'm trying to get my whole family (direct as well as extended) over here. But I'M A FUCKING AMERICAN, BRO! 9-11 NEVER FORGET! THESE COLORS DON'T RUN!
I know you're going to bring up some particular point about that specific video, but you know very well the types of demonstrations I'm talking about.

Good. If you were not talking about legal people, I take my statement back. Now, you realize that Chicanos are descendants of Mexicans, and born in the USA? These guys are not immigrants nor my compatriots. They're yours. I'll watch the rest of the video later on. I have laggy internet right now.

I'd go so far as to say that foreigners (percentage wise, not total numbers) probably commit more crimes in Japan than Japanese nationals. You know why? Because I go by facts, not feelings. If that hypothetical Japanese candidate said that "some of these Americans are good people.." I'd put myself in that category - not align myself as an equal with the rapists and murders as you seem to do.

Why can you not admit that some Mexicans who come to America are criminals and rapists? Statistically, wouldn't this be likely? Why do you feel it's a personal attack? If someone says to me "I don't feel safe in Okinawa after dark because of all the raping and murdering American soldiers do..." I'd reply with "That's probably a good way to feel, and may just keep you safe..", because of the facts - not because I feel it's a personal attack against me personally, "my people", or my heritage.

There's a difference. They're referring to American soldiers. Not Americans in general. And it's your average Japanese citizen, not a presidential candidate preaching a divisive rhetoric.

When did I say "Mexicans don't commit crimes, at all, ever!". They do, and I've seen them. And they're prosecuted. There. Happy now? Good. Now, drop this polarizing Us. VS Them attitude. (Seriously, you're putting words in my mouth.)

The issue here is, (AGAIN...) That. Trump. Didn't. Say: "Illegals from Mexico come and commit crime." He said "People coming from Mexico are not the best from their country. They bring their problems. They bring crime. They're rapists." Generalization. Broad strokes. I am not aligning myself with the murderers and rapists. He's classifying Mexicans in general as rapists and criminals, and making that a big part of his presidential bid. And that's what I'm against. Please read this statement slowly before your next reply.

[rancor]

There's a difference. They're referring to American soldiers. Not Americans in general.

I can use that logic as well:
.. Trump specifically said "Mexicans sent by their government", not Mexicans in general.

Please read this statement slowly before your next reply.

Again - this is going nowhere, and doesn't amount to anything - but thanks for your input. I'll see myself out.

[quash]

Dear Big Pharma,
I hope you are working on a pill to treat Stockholm/Democrat Syndrome. We desperately need it. Thanks.

I honestly feel bad for the Ed Oscuros of the world: they're perpetually stuck in the mid 00's era of optimistic neoliberalism. Back when Bush and the Republicans were doing such an awful job that not even the people that voted for them could defend them anymore.

It certainly was the best time to be a Democrat in recent history. You'd see the Republicans screw something up on the news by day, then you'd see John Stewart make a laughingstock of it by night. Everywhere you went, it was reaffirmed that you were right, that the other side were a bunch of poop heads, and only your side could fix things.

The 2008 election was handed to them on a silver platter. Using Obama that year was overkill, if you ask me. Nobody wanted anything to do with the Republican party at that point. This was around the time the Tea Party was starting to form, the first of many fractures within the GOP base.

Unfortunately, this isn't 2006 anymore: you can't just blame Bush for everything, and in fact it was your president that led the nation to its current state.

Bush didn't pull out of Iraq precisely because of the power vacuum it was going to leave. Kind of a dick move to leave that to your successor, but that was hardly a justification to take advantage of it the way Obama has.

Obama created the conditions in which a group like ISIS could be created and then he funded them. Plain and simple. If the incumbent president during this time were a Republican, you'd be crying for his impeachment. If the former head of the DIA said as much on live TV, that would be sufficient evidence for you. But because it's a Democrat destabilizing nations and setting the stage for large scale wars, he's immune to any criticisms, any evidence presented is a conspiracy theory, etc.

It's fine. Continue to believe that Democrats are only looking out for your best interest. Keep rationalizing over the fact that they had their chance to stop the invasion of Iraq and blew it. Conveniently ignore that Obama has set the stage for a war against the two nations who actually pose a threat to the US, or just blame it on Bush. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[BulletMagnet]

The reason Ralph Nader got your vote is because Al Gore failed to provide compelling reason for you to vote for him.

The whole "invented the internet" falsehood every outlet at the time was pushing didn't help. And the "he lied about where he was raised" one. And the "had to hire a woman to teach him to be a man" one. And the "lied about Love Story, and Love Canal" ones too. And the "no matter what outfit he's wearing he's clearly using it to pander" one. Basically, the fact that he was cast across the board as a mendacious, desperate cartoon character who'd do or say anything to be President, despite the fact that his proposals made infinitely more sense than the baldly plutocratic dreck Bush and company were peddling. As we soon found out. And, since so many of us refuse to admit we've seen this episode before (and, may I remind you again, they've had it out for Hillary even longer than they have for Gore, Trump's insufferable whining about the "unfair" media notwithstanding - they still can't let go of Whitewater, Vince Foster, or Benghazi, just to mention a few), may well find out again.

Besides, Gore won that election and the "party establishment" nullified it.

No, a bunch of conservative Supreme Court justices (including one suddenly-not-so-"originalist") did, one more reason I sure as hell don't want another Republican (cue the "but Trump's an outsider! BS ) appointing more of them.

People should feel like shit right now because they left themselves with no choice - they're indistinguishable from each other; shrillary is just a poorer, less, um, "charismatic" trump.

Sorry, but no matter how much you might dislike Clinton, that's nothing short of lunacy. Seriously, compare the proposals they've put out and tell me how similar they are (cue the "but they're both lying about everything anyway, why bother?" cop-out).

[quash]

I kinda want this country to be literally divided in half. Dems on one side, Reps on the other. Whoever runs their side into the ground first has to admit they're wrong.

I can tell you how this would end.

The Democratic nation would have open borders and at first would operate under capitalism. They'd take in qualified workers from India and China to fill tech jobs and unskilled labor from South America to work the farms. Then these workers would all start asking for more: more pay, more benefits, more representation in government. The rich oligarchs that run the state would give it to them, but unbeknownst to the general public, would also be rigging the system against them so as to prevent them from eventually displacing the existing oligarchy. That extra $10 an hour you're getting? We're going to tax it by 50℅ (but of course, not all at once, and not all in one tax; can't have people catching on, you see). That healthcare you want? Sure, the state will pay for that too; just don't look too closely at your pay stub. And representation in government? You got it! Just stay at the local level and let us continue to pull the strings.

Eventually, this population would become demoralized, as everything they've worked towards has been slowly taken away from them by the very leaders who told them they were trying to help them get there. Opportunities that were once promised are now nonexistent. Potential squandered for the sake of giving everyone everything they want. The generation after the one who was robbed blind would begin to utter one of the most dangerous falsehoods there is: "Real socialism hasn't been tried yet".

Now for the Republican state. It would be closed off from much of the world, and as such would be mostly white, working class people. It would operate on a gold backed currency and gun control wouldn't be an issue, as every citizen would be required to know how to operate a firearm from childhood. The population would be predominantly Christian, though the leaders would most likely be closeted nonbelievers.

While productivity in this society would be high, wages would likely be low. It would take some level of effort to break into the upper class, but it wouldn't be impossible. If worst came to worst, and you no longer liked the people running the country, you could just shoot them.

Note that this is not necessarily an argument for or against either: both can be described, at best, as necessary evils. And now you know why we have a two party system.

[Lord Satori]

I kinda want this country to be literally divided in half. Dems on one side, Reps on the other. Whoever runs their side into the ground first has to admit they're wrong.

I can tell you how this would end.

No you can't. You're even less informed about politics than I am. The only difference is that you can't keep your mouth shut when you should.

[quash]

Haha sick burn bro. I bet it took the collective sense of humor of #shmups to come up with that one.

[quash]

Really though, you have to love the backwards perspective of people nowadays. I am in the top 1℅ of the most informed people on the planet, and nobody even considers that I might know something they don't.

[Bitter Almonds]

The difference in their policies is that shrillary is lying. She was for it before she flip-flopped on those matters. Voting for that shit is tantamount to voting for dick cheney. She will double-down on wars and invasions, protect goldmansacks and vote for "free trade" deals, jail more people under the auspices of the "war on drugs," appoint more of her corrupt cronies to positions of higher power, put up the White House up for the highest bidders, not do shit about the working class, etc.

shrillary has the record to back this up.

[seattlexc]

Really though, you have to love the backwards perspective of people nowadays. I am in the top 1℅ of the most informed people on the planet, and nobody even considers that I might know something they don't.

Sorry I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. If not, why are you using your informed superiority to make arguments on this half-dead forum?