those whom the God-Emperor would destroy, he first makes mad

[phuckphace]

pop quiz for y'all, just to see if you're smarter than a certain set of malcontents:

if somebody was running for prez that you didn't like, and let's say he was a big fat racist who accuses you and your crew of being violent troublemakers, would you:

A) engage in peaceful demonstrations and rally behind the opposition while invoking the Proposition Nation and America's glorious patchwork of diversity, making a serious effort to disprove the accusations and encourage others to do the same

OR

B) chimp out while waving the Mexican flag and maybe set a few police cars on fire, thus instantaneously validating the very same accusations that have you all steamed to begin with?

if you answered A, congratulations, you have 1000% more common sense than the average Trump protestor in California and Chicago. these anarchists are helping the God-Emperor to the White House, one burned car at a time. hail victory!

[DriveAlive]

I know so many people who had previously said that they would ever vote for trump, but after the protests in Chicago have now said that they realize that trip is right and they are supporting him.

Also, I know several people who went to the trump rally with the intention of provoking a fight so that they could post it on social media and make trump look bad.

[sqishy]

This pop quiz is one of the most loaded one's I've come across, but I'll suspend mostly everything for this.


Through one type of logic, I would choose A, as it has fewer words in it that speak of bad stuff.

Through another logic route, I choose neither, as it's like asking me if I was to choose raw onion or raw garlic for lunch, which I both do not like.

(Note I'm keeping strictly to what's in this thread.)


'God-Emperor'?

[Stronk Serb]

Same is with migrants in Germany, a friend of mine told me.

[mattsmith48]

even though B sound a lot of fun I think A is a better option :p

[phuckphace]

the point of my rhetorical question is to discuss why anyone would think being violent and disorderly in response to accusations that you are...uh...violent and disorderly is a very wise political move. Donald Trump a.k.a. The God-Emperor, Imperator Americanus, Supreme Commander of the Realm is running on a campaign which posits that certain immigrant and minority groups are inclined to criminality and generally an untenable nuisance. his opposition is having an increasingly difficult time denying these charges when anyone with functioning eyeballs can instantly verify that, much like a certain central European leader of the mid 20th century, he was right all along.

normal everyday Americans, who are Trump's base of support, despise anarchy and disorder and these kinds of riots will only serve to cement their support even further while gaining new support as well.

[Kahn]

Any reasonable person will choose option A.

The behavior of anti-Trump "protestors" is absolutely despicable. Their actions are criminal, really. These are some accounts taken from this New York Post article. (http://nypost.com/2016/04/29/hundreds-of-protesters-gather-outside-trump-speech-after-night-of-violence/)

Protesters threw eggs at police officers and shouted obscenities at those entering the luncheon to hear Trump’s speech.

At one point, a Trump donor was slugged in the in the face as he attempted to enter the *luncheon.

Outside the rally, protesters caused chaos, destroying a police vehicle in the process.

A rowdy demonstrator jumped on the vehicle, smashing its front and rear windows and denting the roof. Other protesters sprayed graffiti on a police car and the venue’s marquee.

I don't understand them at all. They say they're for equality, peace, and freedom of speech, but these people seem like the staunchest opponents of those three virtues. Out of hate (one of their biggest problems with Trump!), they attempt to prevent the leading Republican candidate from speaking to an audience who wants to hear him, shout obscenities at/attack people going to listen to him speak, and act like general heathens. Can you imagine the media backlash if conservative "protestors" were to act like this at a Bernie Sanders rally or a Hillary Clinton rally (do people willfully go to those?)? Mainstream media would be having a fit if shit like this were to happen to either of those candidates.

Then there's this.

n8L00gv3Qqs

I'm looking forward to a leftist's rationalization for those "protestors" ridiculous behavior.

Reason once flourished here. Not so much anymore.

[phuckphace]

strong post from oakbro, I concur with your sentiments

the shouting obscenities part I'm not bothered by (although it's not likely to get you anywhere) but as far as normal people are concerned you've crossed a line when you start breaking shit and assaulting people. it's never occurred to me that I should go rough up some Bernie or Hillary supporters even though I think Hillary would ruin what's left of the country it's not going to change anyone's mind to hurl abuse at them.

on the subject of anti-Trump violence being counterproductive, the absolute worst fuck-up on the part of the taco crew I think has been to rally behind their hero El Chapo, a murderous cartel kingpin who exemplifies every negative stereotype about Mexicans and their presence in our country. you've got cholos sharing memes on FB and Twitter depicting El Chapo shooting Trump in the head with the caption "U SAY WHAT ABOUT MEXICANOS?!" the joke writes itself.

[Vlerchan]

Pointing to the actions of an unrepresentative minority is a diversion from the actual issues we should be discussing in any presidential debate.

Like this one.

... running on a campaign which posits that certain immigrant and minority groups are inclined to criminality and generally an untenable nuisance.
Latin-americans and Mexican-american immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than whites.

There was also no 'rally' behind El Chapo.

[phuckphace]

yeah aside from the thousands and thousands of Mexican-Americans following El Chapo on Twitter with an outpouring of support, including George Lopez himself, it's insignificant. I guess I'm the only one who finds it disturbing that at least some of these "people" can vote? I suppose I'm also alone in assuming that this sample is a reliable indicator of broad opinion given the much higher degree of ethnic solidarity the minorities enjoy.

there's also a notable absence of Trump supporters disrupting Hillary and Bernie events by rioting. aside from an occasional 1v1 confrontation with fists or pepper spray, most of the people attending a Trump rally don't care about the haters and just want to hear Trump speak.

I joke about race war but it's not something that I or any sane person actually wants - but it's looking like if a full-blown race war ever occurs it will be provoked by these same people. if and when Trump gets elected I expect at least one or two cities to burn (bookmark this).

[Vlerchan]

yeah aside from the thousands and thousands of Mexican-Americans following El Chapo on Twitter with an outpouring of support, including George Lopez himself, it's insignificant.
Mexico has a population of upwards-122 million and a large diaspora relative to that figure. Whatever figure is recorded in the "thousands and thousands" isn't significant. Odds are on an issue such as supporting a cartels the opinion of one Mexican isn't sibstitutable across the nation.

Put in relative terms: 60 million people voted in the last US presidential election in 2012 and upwards-1 million voted Libertarian.

---

I can also agree on the point of Trump supporters not disrupting rallies of opposition candidates.

The point I'm making is that I consider this a non-issue.

[Xiao.Z]

America politic confuse to me. Why not better candidate? Are this best America can choose?

[Porpoise101]

yeah aside from the thousands and thousands of Mexican-Americans following El Chapo on Twitter with an outpouring of support, including George Lopez himself, it's insignificant. I guess I'm the only one who finds it disturbing that at least some of these "people" can vote? I suppose I'm also alone in assuming that this sample is a reliable indicator of broad opinion given the much higher degree of ethnic solidarity the minorities enjoy.
To me this is kind of funny because I even followed him for a bit because I thought he was cool for breaking out of a prison. People will always support those who defy authority, especially when the authority is unpopular. Right now, many Mexicans are unsympathetic to their government and they are also not on great terms with the US either. I am fairly certain that most Mexicans are against the atrocities and crimes he commits, as am I.

About ethnic solidarity, I disagree. The majority ethnic group of the US is bathed in its own culture, almost to a disgusting amount. And they do this to others as well, which is another issue. Minorities reach out to their ancestry because they can and it comforts them. The old Poles in Detroit still read and speak Polish as much as a Mexican will speak Spanish. The Mexicans are different from the Poles though because their strength as a community is stronger. In fact, it was the majority culture, that you call weak, that destroyed the Polish one. Eventually, the same will happen to the Mexican one as well*. Already, I have realised that the Mexicans who do not know Spanish are effectively white. They do not reconnect to their culture because they can't and also because the Mexican community casts them out.

*Given that Mexican immigration decreases.

[Stronk Serb]

America politic confuse to me. Why not better candidate? Are this best America can choose?

Well, Trump is the only Republican presidential hopeful now. To give you a summation:
Donald Trump- getting everybody a job will lower crime rates, also decreasing taxes to an extent will give people more money to spend. Also stamp out illegal immigration.
Hillary Clinton- status quo, no changes. Not to mention she was involved in so many scandals and openly lied. She lied especially about that time she visited Bosnia. She said she was greeted with Serb sniper fire, but she just landed and no complications arose. Thankfuly she redacted that statement.
Bernie Sanders- "Autism- the ideology", he plans to raise the taxes for everyone and it's an estimate that 6 million workers will lose their jobs. He constantly rants about white privilege, even though he as a white career politician is privileged, according to BLM definition of "white privilege". Hypocrisy at it's finest.

To sum it all up, all of them are crap, some are crap a bit less than the others though.

[Vlerchan]

The people that - for whatever reason - feel that Trump is good on economics baffle me. I'm sure he'll chart a not-so-nuts course with the help of advisors - he's not-ideological: unlike what Cruz would have been - but as a candidate he brings nothing to the table himself.

Of course all the candidates want to increase the number of jobs available. You can't just blanket-state that Trump will be the one to do it.
Trump's tax plan doesn't benefit the lowest-income households who - at the moment - have a miniscule tax burden. I of course agree that less taxation will leave people with more to spend - this is almost-definitional - but the important point to discuss is the trade-offs. Even the US can't run a structural deficit forever.
The statistic predicting 6 million lost jobs fails to account for the relief of the health insurance burden for firms. This is expected to offset this.
I'm also more than willing to accept the statues-quo to a line-up of bad policies.

---

You can also be privileged and still care about privilege. That his privilege is structural means that there is nothing he can do to combat it other than pointing it out.

[phuckphace]

Trump's tax plan doesn't benefit the lowest-income households who - at the moment - have a miniscule tax burden. I of course agree that less taxation will leave people with more to spend - this is almost-definitional - but the important point to discuss is the trade-offs. Even the US can't run a structural deficit forever.

I think I know the answer already but what would happen if the US gov't were to just zero its debt and say something along the lines of "world power, deal with it"?

it's starting to look like the toughest century-long austerity wouldn't be enough to even put a dent in it. not to mention hiking taxes gets tricky because the super-wealthy can just move it offshore.

[Vlerchan]

I think I know the answer already but what would happen if the US gov't were to just zero its debt and say something along the lines of "world power, deal with it"?
It would still need to finance the deficit. That means it would need to go ask for loans from the investors it just defaulted on [or print].

This time US debt is - as one might presume - a lot riskier. The price of bonds fall - Yields rise through the roof. Interest rates increase and cripple both long-run investment and short-run financing. This would lend itself to fears of a debt-interest spiral: it becomes impossible to begin to cut debt without harming growth and thus undermining tax revenue. Yields rise again. World markets - at the same time - are beginning to prepare for the moment when the US needs to turn to the printing press to fund it's deficit: Mass disinvestment from dollar denominated-assets and all the consequences that presents.

I imagine more. But it's difficult to be certain. I'd guess the dollar would also be replaced as the global reserve. It would also be real bad for the financial sector.

This also cripples other economies through a number of channels.

Lots of U.S. citizens have also lost their pensions and life savings because half of US debt is owned by them.

it's starting to look like the toughest century-long austerity wouldn't be enough to even put a dent in it.
The best means of dealing with high levels of debt is to grow gross-production in tandem with efforts to cut spending. The aim should be to create an environment where there is less reliance on government spending because people are creating more wealth than before - which can be directed to relieve the debt

The problem figure is in fact Debt as a percentage of GDP.