The #Never Trump thread [Archive]

Judean Zealot

May 8th, 2016, 02:47 AM

Why are they against him? Arent Trump's politicies and positions exacly the same then what all other Repuplicans are for? The racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, homophobia, incest, pedophillia, how is that different then the other repuplicans? how his policies on economy, abortion, eviroment, immigration, health care... different then the other repuplicans? hes exacly what they want they shouldnt be leaving they should be on the fucking party they have someone like them who incredibly has a chance to win

Maybe this is an indication that your puerile conception of what drives the Republican Party is wrong?

I would also appreciate examples of Republican sanctioned incest and pedophilia. Thank you.

sqishy

May 8th, 2016, 05:53 AM

I join you in this opposition :D .

dxcxdzv

May 8th, 2016, 08:20 AM

http://nsa37.casimages.com/img/2016/05/08/160508033044559564.jpg

http://nsa38.casimages.com/img/2016/05/08/160508033119448014.jpg

Vlerchan

May 8th, 2016, 08:31 AM

Romney and Ryan are hardly 'pseudocons'.
Anti-statist, internationalist, anti-nationalist interventionists, with a penchant for anti-environmentalism.

Here's also an old phuckphace thread I dug up for background, pseudoconservatives (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=22082).

sqishy

May 8th, 2016, 09:10 AM

Here's also an old phuckphace thread I dug up for background, pseudoconservatives (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=22082).

The link's invalid for me.

- - - - - - - -

I will say that I'm not included in this 'psuedocon list' of phuckphaces'.

Porpoise101

May 8th, 2016, 02:40 PM

Why are they against him? Arent Trump's politicies and positions exacly the same then what all other Repuplicans are for? The racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, homophobia, incest, pedophillia, how is that different then the other repuplicans? how his policies on economy, abortion, eviroment, immigration, health care... different then the other repuplicans? hes exacly what they want they shouldnt be leaving they should be on the fucking party they have someone like them who incredibly has a chance to win
I'm not a Republican, but you are wrong in some ways. Trump is actually more left leaning in terms of welfare, abortion, homosexuality, and more. He is only an extremist in immigration and the economy. That doesn't mean I like him. Those few categories that he is an extremist are enough for me to dislike him. He is also too unpredictable.

Judean Zealot
I think Ryan will not oppose Trump because even though Ryan can't work with him, Preibus will start making a hissy fit if Ryan attacks Trump.

Judean Zealot

May 8th, 2016, 02:52 PM

Porpoise101

I don't think Priebus will be very relevant in the event of an explicit schism. I see it as more likely that Ryan will stake his career on a principled stand

Vlerchan

May 8th, 2016, 03:59 PM

I imagine Ryan will continue to position himself right where he is at. He's not in opposition to Trump - but all also position himself as the heir to Old Republicanism.

In the case that Trumpism becomes to dominating intellectual strand within the Republicans, Trump wins the election, or otherwise, he can probably maintain a not-too-reduced position in goings-on.

In the case that Trumpism dies, he's set to run for 2020 and - in all likelihood - beat Clinton.

Porpoise101

May 8th, 2016, 08:12 PM

I imagine Ryan will continue to position himself right where he is at. He's not in opposition to Trump - but all also position himself as the heir to Old Republicanism.
This is the ultimate irony of the Republican Party. It's been building before our eyes, and its been cultivated during Obama's Presidency. Originally, Ryan came up as a young, grassroots Tea Party Politician. As time went on, he has slowly assimilated into the Mainstream GOP. Now that he is trying to represent that faction, I can only laugh.

mattsmith48

May 8th, 2016, 08:31 PM

Maybe this is an indication that your puerile conception of what drives the Republican Party is wrong?

I would also appreciate examples of Republican sanctioned incest and pedophilia. Thank you.
Well the catholic ones and the ones that got caught do. For Trump I dont know if he did it but its pretty clear he wants to fuck his daughter
I'm not a Republican, but you are wrong in some ways. Trump is actually more left leaning in terms of welfare, abortion, homosexuality, and more. He is only an extremist in immigration and the economy. That doesn't mean I like him. Those few categories that he is an extremist are enough for me to dislike him. He is also too unpredictable.

Judean Zealot
I think Ryan will not oppose Trump because even though Ryan can't work with him, Preibus will start making a hissy fit if Ryan attacks Trump.

well he change opinion all the time on alot of things yes he used to be on the right side of somethings like abortion and homosexuality but during his campaign he said he was against it

Judean Zealot

May 8th, 2016, 11:20 PM

Well the catholic ones and the ones that got caught do. For Trump I dont know if he did it but its pretty clear he wants to fuck his daughter

Putting aside your absurd assertion that they condone incest (?) and pedophilia, American Catholics lean Democratic.

Vlerchan

May 9th, 2016, 02:46 AM

Trump discussing raising top-rate taxation.

Pressed on the contradiction between his latest comments on taxes and the September tax plan, Trump said he viewed his original proposal as "a concept" and that he expected it would be changed following negotiations with Congress.

"By the time it gets negotiated, it's going to be a different plan," Trump told ABC. He emphasized in separate interviews with ABC and NBC that his priorities were lowering taxes on the middle class and businesses.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0XZ0I3

We should have a seperate thread where we attempt to predict where Trump will land when he's finished flopping around.

dxcxdzv

May 9th, 2016, 04:16 AM

Trump probabilities, normalization of his behavior and statements by the Pearson coefficient!
I'm already on it.

Judean Zealot

May 9th, 2016, 05:26 AM

Trump lapdog Sarah Palin is threatening to wreck Paul Ryan in the congressional primary for refusing to back Trump. Honestly, Palin is one of those people who, if they agree with you, it's a pretty good indication that you're doing something wrong.

Bull

May 9th, 2016, 09:20 AM

Trump is a documented failure. He will also fail to become president. What we hear from him is a lot of bs and not much substance on solving problems. Building a wall, rejecting people on basis of religious affiliation, negotiating with debt holders to not pay our contractual obligations are not going to be well received by Americans and the global citizenship. Remember, more Republicans voted for someone other than Trump in the primary election. I am with the true leaders of the Republican Party who have publicly rejected Trump. America-the World-does not need this Bully in any place of power! I will vote in November, but it will NOT be for Trump if he is indeed my Party's nominee!

It is very interesting to read comments from VT friends from around the world on this. It is impressive that you are so well informed and interested in American politics. I wish some of my American friends were so involved and knowledgeable.

Vlerchan

May 9th, 2016, 09:47 AM

[...] negotiating with debt holders to not pay our contractual obligations [...]
This was actually scarily hilarious. Talking about defaulting on debt - to reduce the debt burden - signals to investors that US bonds are riskier, thus making borrowing more expensive, and increasing the debt burden. It's worrisome that he's an investor himself, and for whatever reason doesn't realise this.

Luckily, the markets don't seem to believe him, and yields remained stable.

Remember, more Republicans voted for someone other than Trump in the primary election.
In fairness, second-place Cruz is arguably nuttier, so it's safe to argue that Republicans voted anti-establishment, whether that was embodied in Trump or otherwise.

dxcxdzv

May 9th, 2016, 09:50 AM

This was actually scarily hilarious. Talking about defaulting on debt - to reduce the debt burden - signals to investors that US bonds are riskier, thus making borrowing more expensive, and increasing the debt burden. It's worrisome that he's an investor himself, and for whatever reason doesn't realise this.
He is above all a real estate agent, even billionaire I'm not a hundred percent sure he has any real knowledge of markets' mechanisms. Perhaps it's just a strategy.
Although the only statement I've found yet on the "elimination of national debt" is from 1999. The rest is about renegotiating deals with China & Co to reduce the deficit over 8 years.

Luckily, the markets don't seem to believe him, and yields remained stable.
Who would believe him anyway?

Vlerchan

May 9th, 2016, 09:57 AM

Although the only statement I've found yet on the "elimination of national debt" is from 1999.
Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said in an interview with CNBC Thursday that if the economy were in a prolonged slump, he might use his business skills to reduce America’s debt burden by pushing creditors to accept write-downs on their government holdings.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-06/trump-s-comments-on-u-s-debt-seen-as-non-starter-by-bond-market

That's from three days ago.

Who would believe him anyway?
Apparently about 40% of the American electorate.

Edit.

Top Republican political leaders aren’t the only ones shunning their party’s presidential nominee — a vast number of highly skilled managers and policy experts, veterans of recent GOP administrations who would normally be expected to fill key positions for a new White House, are also vowing to sit out a Donald Trump presidency.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-administration-transition-222944#ixzz48BXynsgf

It gets better.

Edit2.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Monday backtracked on his remarks about raising taxes on wealthy Americans, saying the rich might simply get a smaller tax cut than he originally proposed.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSKCN0Y01J4

Surprise surprise.

I'm glad to see his promises remain in the conceptional stage though. Always important.

Porpoise101

May 9th, 2016, 04:57 PM

American Catholics lean Democratic.
Maybe that was true in the days of Kennedy, but I'm not so sure nowadays. The Catholic vote is no longer a unified bloc. Latinos, Filipinos, and maybe liberal Catholics vote Democrat, but many of the more conservative ones are Republican. Especially where I live in the Midwest, many Catholics have the same political leanings as evangelicals. These Midwesterners are mostly descended from Poles or Irishmen, so that may give some insight on their cultural/social background.

These are just my observations, but I live in an interesting part of the country.

BlackParadePixie

May 9th, 2016, 07:50 PM

Didn't they just say they wouldn't ENDORSE him? When it comes down to it they will still probably vote for him if they have to.

Porpoise101

May 9th, 2016, 08:46 PM

Didn't they just say they wouldn't ENDORSE him? When it comes down to it they will still probably vote for him if they have to.
The GOP politicians themselves will probably vote for him. Voting for a Democrat is traitorous. As for the actual people, I'm not sure. It will be interesting to see if Trump boosted voter turnout or if people will stay home because they hate the two options. Clinton and Trump are supposedly the most hated candidates ever.

Judean Zealot

May 9th, 2016, 11:34 PM

Didn't they just say they wouldn't ENDORSE him? When it comes down to it they will still probably vote for him if they have to.

Romney, Jeb, and Graham have said they will vote for a write in if need be.

phuckphace

May 10th, 2016, 04:25 AM

Anti-statist, internationalist, anti-nationalist interventionists, with a penchant for anti-environmentalism.

to understand how we ended up with Trump it's important that we understand exactly what conservatism is and is not. for starters it's none of the above listed positions, although good luck explaining that to GOP Inc.

once upon a time nationalism and conservatism were interchangeable, and one didn't need to make the redundant distinction of "national-conservative" because by the actual definition, nationalism is implicit in it. although if you take away borders, ethnoculture and add amnesty and internationalism you can still call it "conservatism" as GOP Inc. is doing, but it remains something else entirely. to put it into perspective, being an open-borders amnesty shill while declaring yourself a conservative is like calling yourself a Christian even though you don't believe Jesus ever existed. the mere fact that we now have Republicans using the term "nativist" as a slur shows just how traitorous and off-base they've become.

GOP Inc. is attempting to distance itself from Trump and defend True Conservatism® (all rights reserved) from Trump's "divisive rhetoric", however it's the case that GOP Inc. created Trump by ditching conservatism and swapping it with a mutated cuckoo of warmongering, max-level corporate oligarchy, disastrous trade deals, and empty culture-war posturing in place of true social conservatism. instead of a candidate promoting national stewardship and policies geared toward same, we got presented with the Lovecraftian nightmare Ted Cruz fondling the Constitution with a slimy tentacle.

that's really what this is about: if the Party had done their jobs in the first place there would be no nationalist/populist void for someone like Trump to fill. GOP Inc. had one job (nation-first policy) and fucked it up, so now the working class is turning on them in droves. at this point I don't even care about Trump himself, it's how we got to this point that is the biggest concern. how telling is it that the most conservative figure in politics right now isn't even a conservative?

Vlerchan

May 10th, 2016, 04:47 AM

so now the working class is turning on them in droves

However, while Republican turnout has considerably increased overall from four years ago, there’s no sign of a particularly heavy turnout among “working-class” or lower-income Republicans. On average in states where exit polls were conducted both this year and in the Republican campaign four years ago, 29 percent of GOP voters have had household incomes below $50,000 this year, compared with 31 percent in 2012.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/

I'm imagining it's more-so scared middle-class whites. The median Trump voter income is higher than the median income in all states polled.

phuckphace

May 10th, 2016, 05:17 AM

yeah I should've said "middle-class" instead. if GOP Inc. gets their way the middle-class will be extinct very soon and they can finally live the coveted lifestyle of the Brazilian ruling class - driving around in armored cars with private security while lording it over a writhing shapeless mass of starving proles (as long as we have the Constitution it'll be fine).

also just to add I think a declaration of opposition from the Bush dynasty is pretty much the best endorsement Trump or anyone else could ask for.

Bush Sr. was a shitty one-term president whose accomplishments range from starting the Gulf War to spearheading NAFTA - because there's nothing more conservative than warmongering and sending Americans to get maimed and die in some arid shithole, or lining the pockets of corporations at the expense of American jobs. we have this guy to thank for the Clintons.

Dubya's record speaks for itself but I can't resist again pointing out that there's nothing quite so conservative as starting yet another war to kill more Americans still and then lying about it over 9000 times. I shouldn't need to point out that this is also the same guy who rekt the economy with a shit-eating grin while giving your dad's boss a tax cut. truly a paragon (Pentagon?) of conservative virtue.

and there's Jeb! who is a totally forgettable hack and only wanted to be prez because his dad and brother got to be prez so it was supposed to be his turn. he married a 3 ft. tall garden gnome who bore him a creepy coke-addict son. in any other era this guy would be laughed out of the GOP for declaring that True Conservatives love open borders and giving jobs to foreigners, but it's the GOP Inc. and they're haplessly out of touch so I rest my case.

Posts merged, please use the Edit Button. ~Giygas

Vlerchan

May 10th, 2016, 04:48 PM

[...] if GOP Inc. gets their way the middle-class will be extinct very soon [...]
This - once again - is where I disagree.

The middle-class doesn't compete with immigrants - and international trade results in real income gains for college graduates. The issue is automation.

http://www.tutor2u.net/_legacy/blog/images//uploads/USmanuf_emp.png

Jobs that the former middle-class occupied tended to be orientated around learned-computations that were simple to teach machines.

dxcxdzv

May 10th, 2016, 04:58 PM

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said in an interview with CNBC Thursday that if the economy were in a prolonged slump, he might use his business skills to reduce America’s debt burden by pushing creditors to accept write-downs on their government holdings.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...by-bond-market

That's from three days ago.
Thanks!

Apparently about 40% of the American electorate.
Hmm, yeah, haha.
I meant on the markets. The fact that govvies remained stable even after such an announcement probably means that the markets don't even believe in Trump's election, as we know they are subject to anticipation (and therefore speculation) and the political and economic behaviors of the next head of state and his/her government are pretty important.
Such a thing has been observed on the French market shares during the months preceding the arrival of a left-sided government or of a right-sided government.
If markets don't believe in Trump it'd be pretty interesting to see their reactions after Hillary's or Bernie's announcements.

Porpoise101

May 10th, 2016, 10:55 PM

that's really what this is about: if the Party had done their jobs in the first place there would be no nationalist/populist void for someone like Trump to fill.
I agree. The Democrats used to appeal to the rural lower/middle class American, but they were abandoned for the urbanites and minorities. Trump voters are right to hate the liberal establishment for the destruction and worsening of rural areas. Trump voters are also right to hate the GOP crew now, as even with a majority in Congress, nothing changes for the betterment of the people and the only (major) benefits have gone to the corps. I've seen this rural degeneration happen before my eyes, as my white family comes from Illinois. My uncle is lucky to even have a manufacturing job after what has happened there.

Vlerchan

May 11th, 2016, 04:29 PM

[...] probably means that the markets don't even believe in Trump's election [...]
Or believe he's full of shit.

Considering he's flip-flopped on almost every topic of consequence this election cycle, that might be closer to the truth.

Such a thing has been observed on the French market shares during the months preceding the arrival of a left-sided government or of a right-sided government.
I remember there was a real interesting working paper published about this time last year, after the British elections. Someone had tracked the price of bonds, stocks, etc. to the trends in incoming election data, as it emerged on results-night.

I can't remember the name at all, but if I come across it again, I'll link it to you. I'd imagine you'd find that stuff more interesting than me.

I've seen this rural degeneration happen before my eyes, as my white family comes from Illinois. My uncle is lucky to even have a manufacturing job after what has happened there.
Is there a reason to believe that politics is responsible for this? The primary- and secondary-sectors of the economy were doomed.

I can, of course, realise the impression this puts into the minds of voters. Though the point of mine is that voters are misguided.

Porpoise101

May 11th, 2016, 10:45 PM

Is there a reason to believe that politics is responsible for this? The primary- and secondary-sectors of the economy were doomed.

I can, of course, realise the impression this puts into the minds of voters. Though the point of mine is that voters are misguided.
Yep, I'd say that politics has a huge role to play. At least on the liberal end of things, the politicians set up the expectation that workers and farmers would be able to live good lives. This still happens today. Americans want to pretend they are a frontier people, but the politicians haven't helped shift that attitude. Rural degeneration has been going on for the larger part of 20 years now, and the government hasn't really said, God forbid act, o on any of the issues. In other countries, lower skilled workers have been able to be retrained to be service-sector people. In others, they can move into the cities and make a new life for their kids. In the US, neither of these things have happened, leaving a large group of people in a worse off condition. The politicians promised, and they haven't delivered. You say they were misguided, I don't think that's true. Initially, the progressives were relevant and their safeguarding of middle America was justified. But, now it's not. The voters and the politicians both perpetrate this backwards idea because the alternative, radical lifestyle change, is too much to handle.

That being said, I doubt any American can fix this situation in a lifetime, Trump least of all.

Body odah Man

May 12th, 2016, 02:37 AM

So far we've got Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, and possibly Paul Ryan who will not back Trump for president. Let's see who else joins.

While I find the chance of Trump becoming president highly deplorable, the world is so fucked up that I highly doubt that Trump will fail to become president. It would fit perfectly with how messed up the world is at the moment.

Vlerchan

May 12th, 2016, 08:08 AM

Americans want to pretend they are a frontier people, but the politicians haven't helped shift that attitude.
It's worth posing the question as to what extent the electorate self-selects for politicians that reaffirm that attitude. Being a frontier people is fundamental to their identities. Look at the numbers that have flocked around Trump for reaffirming those identities. So, that raises the alternative hypothesis, that in other states, politicians could help because those politicians weren't bound by the dynamics of their own political culture.

I feel as if you at least tend towards this interpretation in the final line, 'voters and the politicians both perpetrate this backwards idea because the alternative, radical lifestyle change, is too much to handle', so apologies if you feel like I'm repeating you.

The politicians promised, and they haven't delivered.
The entire basis of these promises, is that the electorate are misguided about their own destinies.

Porpoise101

May 13th, 2016, 11:57 PM

It's worth posing the question as to what extent the electorate self-selects for politicians that reaffirm that attitude. Being a frontier people is fundamental to their identities. Look at the numbers that have flocked around Trump for reaffirming those identities. So, that raises the alternative hypothesis, that in other states, politicians could help because those politicians weren't bound by the dynamics of their own political culture.

I feel as if you at least tend towards this interpretation in the final line, 'voters and the politicians both perpetrate this backwards idea because the alternative, radical lifestyle change, is too much to handle', so apologies if you feel like I'm repeating you.

The entire basis of these promises, is that the electorate are misguided about their own destinies.
Yep, I agree with the above interpretation. In my view, people tend to want to conform to a comfortable ideal rather than a foreign reality. It doesn't help that in the US, every solution has to be 'unique'. Americans want everything tailored exactly to them, and it's just stupid in some situations.

And yes, the electorate is certainly misguided. Political parties should line up with the desires of their partisans, currently that isn't the case. Of course, after a few generations the constituent population buys into these false hopes. You also get a few minor politicians and peons who buy into the idea. Eventually reality and struggle wake them up, which is what happened after 2009.

Uniquemind

May 16th, 2016, 02:41 AM

Yep, I agree with the above interpretation. In my view, people tend to want to conform to a comfortable ideal rather than a foreign reality. It doesn't help that in the US, every solution has to be 'unique'. Americans want everything tailored exactly to them, and it's just stupid in some situations.

And yes, the electorate is certainly misguided. Political parties should line up with the desires of their partisans, currently that isn't the case. Of course, after a few generations the constituent population buys into these false hopes. You also get a few minor politicians and peons who buy into the idea. Eventually reality and struggle wake them up, which is what happened after 2009.

I agree that few are "woken up". They are only slightly stirred and roused.

I find the term "woken up" in this context to mean a mass populace intellectually and fluidly understands the complete origin and conclusion of a drama with all the minute details of who, what, where, why, and how of something.

All I see are people acknowledging their inner anger, and recognition of a general sense their getting screwed.

But "woken up" as in clear understanding?

No, otherwise they wouldn't be supporting Trump.

Those who support Trump are doing it because they know the system will be "shaken up", but they don't consider how it will be shaken, and they don't consider the consequences of that shake-up; they just blindly trust their venting of anger.

Vlerchan

May 16th, 2016, 11:24 AM

phuckphace

May 16th, 2016, 12:56 PM

phuckphace

Trump is floating Palin (and Cruz and Rubio) as possible vice-presidents. I understand it's all about immigration - but there must be some stage where you'll join the rest of us in denouncing him as a disingenuous opportunistic schmuck.

if it's either of the latter two I certainly will (screencap this).

though, I highly doubt Cruz or Rubio would accept, due to being massively shitter-shattered over their embarrassingly huge defeats. you can tell Cruz in particular will be having Trump nightmares for the rest of his life.

JohnJack

May 17th, 2016, 06:37 PM

Porpoise101

May 18th, 2016, 09:08 PM

I agree that few are "woken up". They are only slightly stirred and roused.

I find the term "woken up" in this context to mean a mass populace intellectually and fluidly understands the complete origin and conclusion of a drama with all the minute details of who, what, where, why, and how of something.

All I see are people acknowledging their inner anger, and recognition of a general sense their getting screwed.

But "woken up" as in clear understanding?

No, otherwise they wouldn't be supporting Trump.

Those who support Trump are doing it because they know the system will be "shaken up", but they don't consider how it will be shaken, and they don't consider the consequences of that shake-up; they just blindly trust their venting of anger.
Yes I mostly meant woken up more in the sense that "someone woke up a hibernating bear oh no" and less in that "the population has realised their inferior condition and has decided to enact meaningful change".

You are correct that many are not aware of the implications of Trump. There are some that do, and I find that worrying quite honestly.

Uniquemind

May 18th, 2016, 09:39 PM

Yes I mostly meant woken up more in the sense that "someone woke up a hibernating bear oh no" and less in that "the population has realised their inferior condition and has decided to enact meaningful change".

You are correct that many are not aware of the implications of Trump. There are some that do, and I find that worrying quite honestly.

The problem is that you listen to these people, who aren't all that wise in my
view, call others who don't feel like they do, "sheeple" and it's incredibly offensive because that's not necessarily the case, they just disagree with that opinion or analysis of thought.

That's the problem with conspiracy communities, they are good at speculating but at a certain point they make it personal because anger tends to be the fuel of motivation for them. People are also defensive when they're angry too.

CoolGuy108

May 24th, 2016, 03:28 PM

So, quick question, Ive been pretty out of the loop with politics, but am willing to educate myself. What did Trump do that was wrong? Because all I seem to hear about are the violent protests, especially in Cali. And Make America Mexico again..didnt seem too nice to me. Plus burning the American flag. I wouldnt want to be associated with those people

CheerLeaderDana96

May 25th, 2016, 12:30 AM

Politicians are liars!

Tim987

May 29th, 2016, 05:13 PM

Guys its ok if he gets elected he will be the quickest to get assassinated president so its ok but hs not going to get elected

CoolGuy108

May 31st, 2016, 10:50 AM

Guys its ok if he gets elected he will be the quickest to get assassinated president so its ok but hs not going to get elected

I dont think you know how the secret service works lol. Wherever a president goes, they shutdown and monitor stuff for miles in a very large radius. They check everyone kek.

Flapjack

May 31st, 2016, 10:54 AM

Guys its ok if he gets elected he will be the quickest to get assassinated president so its ok but hs not going to get elected

Hopefully not!! I would like an Impeachment.

lliam

May 31st, 2016, 07:20 PM

I dont think you know how the secret service works lol. Wherever a president goes, they shutdown and monitor stuff for miles in a very large radius. They check everyone kek.

This didn't work for JFK, right?

mattsmith48

May 31st, 2016, 07:54 PM

Hopefully not!! I would like an Impeachment.

If he gets elected he will most likely get impeached for doing something stupid and illegal like trying to start WWIII or something like

This didn't work for JFK, right?

That was over 50 years and hes the last one to be killed while in office theyre doing a pretty good job

Flapjack

May 31st, 2016, 07:55 PM

If he gets elected he will most likely get impeached for doing something stupid and illegal like trying to start WWIII or something like

That was over 50 years and hes the last one to be killed while in office theyre doing a pretty good job

Yeahhh but I am very worried about the few months he will have...

Unfortunately, whilst his assasination is unlikely, it is possible, esspecially with the amount of guns in the USA.

mattsmith48

May 31st, 2016, 08:02 PM

Yeahhh but I am very worried about the few months he will have...

Unfortunately, whilst his assasination is unlikely, it is possible, esspecially with the amount of guns in the USA.

Its not due to the lack of trying alot of people did tri to kill the presidents in the past but failed. The secret serivice who are looking after the president are the best at doing their jobs thats why they have that job and there always learning from past attempts. But your right its possible especially how easy it is to get a gun.

CoolGuy108

June 1st, 2016, 01:01 PM

This didn't work for JFK, right?

That was before they could monitor all calls within entire states. Havent seen people trying to harm Obama?...There were plenty of people who were terrible people and who hated the idea of a human with darker colored skin to be in office. There were and still are death threats via letters to the White House...and yet he is still here.

mattsmith48

June 1st, 2016, 05:14 PM

That was before they could monitor all calls within entire states. Havent seen people trying to harm Obama?...There were plenty of people who were terrible people and who hated the idea of a human with darker colored skin to be in office. There were and still are death threats via letters to the White House...and yet he is still here.

People tried but got caught before they could do anything. With the technology they have its becoming less probable it will happen

DerBear

June 2nd, 2016, 07:32 AM

Everyone with common sense.

Exactly!

CoolGuy108

June 2nd, 2016, 07:46 AM

John Katich essentially joined the 'Never Trump' movement today by essentially saying that he could not endorse Trump and would not take a VP offer from him. Also, I don't know if anyone has mentioned Mitt Romney's strong anti-Trump position.

Which is bad for the republican Party. By letting people not support the Nominee, whomever it may be, they are handing Hillary the victory.

mattsmith48

June 2nd, 2016, 07:51 AM

Which is bad for the republican Party. By letting people not support the Nominee, whomever it may be, they are handing Hillary the victory.

Its the only way she could have a chance to beat Trump is if Republicans start voting for her

CoolGuy108

June 2nd, 2016, 12:31 PM

Its the only way she could have a chance to beat Trump is if Republicans start voting for her

Which is the problem of this "Never Trump" movement.

It means "Im going to vote for someone else, meaning Trump has one less vote against Hillary"

Considering the system is rigged for Clinton to win, and even without a rigged system, the superdelegates put her extremely close to the nomination already, It will be a Trump v Hillary election.

Hillary already has like 13.5 million votes alone, Donald has around 11. Of course that was with other contestants as apposed to Hillary's 1 contestant.

So either you vote for a businessman who said words you dont like(twigger warning), or you vote for a lady with a terrible record of literally criminal behavior.

Judean Zealot

June 2nd, 2016, 01:21 PM

No. Either you vote for a crook with stable policy ideas, or you vote for a crook who's an unstable, raving lunatic.

mattsmith48

June 2nd, 2016, 10:00 PM

Which is the problem of this "Never Trump" movement.

It means "Im going to vote for someone else, meaning Trump has one less vote against Hillary"

Considering the system is rigged for Clinton to win, and even without a rigged system, the superdelegates put her extremely close to the nomination already, It will be a Trump v Hillary election.

Hillary already has like 13.5 million votes alone, Donald has around 11. Of course that was with other contestants as apposed to Hillary's 1 contestant.

So either you vote for a businessman who said words you dont like(twigger warning), or you vote for a lady with a terrible record of literally criminal behavior.

Most of the republicans who said wont vote for Trump have announce they will vote for Trump.

The toughest thing for Hillary if she gets the nomination will be to convince the Bernie supporter to vote for her.

Trump too currently as some legal problems, plus its not only hes racisim, hes also been lying and changing his mind every day, on almost every topics possible since he got in the race

Vlerchan

June 3rd, 2016, 02:38 AM

Speaking of Trumps legal problems. He claimed in an interview that the presiding judge in the TrumpU case has a 'conflict of interest' because of his 'Mexican heritage'*. The fact that he's made no move to ask for a change of judge means that I imagine it's meant to be political. He's painting himself as the poor oppressed white man which is going to be relied on when he loses the case - which seems inevitable from what I've read.

But more important than that is the thinking that underlines his actual claim. He's questioning whether non-whites can be objective. That is - whether the likes of Geurin can - furthermore - ever become integrated into the mindset of an American and disassociate from past allegiances (let's be clear though - Geurin was born to Mexican immigrants in the US - he's not Mexican). Or if - through virtue of their non-whiteness - there decisions should be forever cast as dubious and beholden to potential ulterior motives.

In other news Paul Ryan endorsed** Trump. I hope he loses his political career for this.

---

* He means immigrant. His defence is that he's tough on borders - which applies to a wider scope of individuals.

** He claims it's not an endorsement.

Judean Zealot

June 3rd, 2016, 03:22 AM

In other news Paul Ryan endorsed** Trump. I hope he loses his political career for this.

I thought the man had principles - turns out he doesn't. He can go hang for all I care.

Vlerchan

June 3rd, 2016, 09:03 AM

Because I'm interested enough in this that I'm willing to talk to myself

University of Pennsylvania law professor Stephen Burbank said it was “absolute nonsense” that the judge shouldn’t be able to preside over the case because of his ethnicity.

“If this continues, I would hope that some prominent federal judges would set Mr. Trump straight on what’s appropriate and what’s not in our democracy,” Mr. Burbank said.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442

In other words, Trump doesn't have a leg to stand on. The article also indicates that this line of reasoning has been implicit for a while.

Porpoise101

June 3rd, 2016, 04:40 PM

I thought the man had principles - turns out he doesn't. He can go hang for all I care.
He could still resist Trump in the Congress when he gets elected.

About the judge, I feel that this does not build up any sympathy with him. Trump will probably lose the case and he will pull a "told ya so, he WAS a Trump-hater!" It's just to distract from his actual wrongdoing in my opinion.

sqishy

June 3rd, 2016, 06:38 PM

Vlerchan

How fun that he now appears to be visiting a nearby golf course to me within the month. You've heard already I'm sure; I'm interested to see what reception he'll be getting when he arrives.

Nice sometimes when you don't have to examine something closer by going to it, because it comes to you instead.

Kyle37

June 3rd, 2016, 09:42 PM

mattsmith48

June 3rd, 2016, 10:36 PM

I'm here to annex this thread into a #NeverHilary thread. Here's how this goes. We support Bernie. And then if all else fails, well Trumps not as good as Bernie but he'll probably figure it out. Anyone with me?

There is alot of issues with Hillary but atlease she wont start WWIII, there is a pretty good chance Trump will. Also someone corrupt is bad, but a racist con man is worst

Porpoise101

June 4th, 2016, 12:09 AM

Anyone with me?
Hill no!

Sorry but I just had to. I think that they are both crooks , but Clinton is more will connected and has good friends in Washington. Trump is an incompetent outsider. Plus, Trump will appoint Republican judges, not just to the Supreme Court, but to federal courts as well. And those people serve a long time. So Hillary is the obvious choice between the two.

lyhom

June 4th, 2016, 12:19 AM

I'm here to annex this thread into a #NeverHilary thread. Here's how this goes. We support Bernie. And then if all else fails, well Trumps not as good as Bernie but he'll probably figure it out. Anyone with me?

no

like for as much shit I could give hillary she's at least competent, which is more than what I could say for trump

Stronk Serb

June 4th, 2016, 01:54 AM

There is alot of issues with Hillary but atlease she wont start WWIII, there is a pretty good chance Trump will. Also someone corrupt is bad, but a racist con man is worst

Really? Trump has been against any US foreign intervention since 2000. Hillary has supported any foreign intervention since she became a politician. Besides, even if she gets elected, she will not get re-elected. There will be so much false promises, that she will come under worse flak than Obama.

I'm here to annex this thread into a #NeverHilary thread. Here's how this goes. We support Bernie. And then if all else fails, well Trumps not as good as Bernie but he'll probably figure it out. Anyone with me?

Trump forever. Hillary sends shivers down my spine. Some times I regret we didn't shoot her down at the Sarajevo International Airport, probably the only time any side respected the Geneva Conventions in a warzone. We didn't shoot at her, as she claimed to once, that's a big minus. Also Bernie is a demented old man, not a socialist. If there exists a tax heaven, Bernie will make the US a tax hell. Trump has some good ideas too.

Vlerchan

June 4th, 2016, 05:23 AM

Trump has been against any US foreign intervention since 2000.
He supported Afghanistan. He's also in favour of deploying ground forces against Islamic State.

In a March 2016 debate, the candidate seemed to indicate he would be willing as president to deploy on the ground tens of thousands of U.S. troops to battle the Islamic State. "We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS," he said. "I would listen to the generals, but I'm hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000."

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/donald-trump/on-islamic-state

He's also oscillated between giving a host of different states nuclear weapons, and pulling out of NATO.

Like most policy-areas though, his views on foreign-policy are dangerously underdeveloped. It seems rather a game of feeling out the electorate - and when he gets something correct: doubling down.

---

Oh, and echoing the above on #NeverHillary, fuck no.

mattsmith48

June 4th, 2016, 10:31 AM

Really? Trump has been against any US foreign intervention since 2000. Hillary has supported any foreign intervention since she became a politician. Besides, even if she gets elected, she will not get re-elected. There will be so much false promises, that she will come under worse flak than Obama.

If Hillary or Trump become president they wont be re-elected

CoolGuy108

June 6th, 2016, 09:19 AM

Please tell me what Trump has said that was racist....

Note:
Muslim isnt a race
Illegal immigrant isnt a race
Mexican isnt a race

CoolGuy108

June 6th, 2016, 09:23 AM

He supported Afghanistan. He's also in favour of deploying ground forces against Islamic State.

In a March 2016 debate, the candidate seemed to indicate he would be willing as president to deploy on the ground tens of thousands of U.S. troops to battle the Islamic State. "We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS," he said. "I would listen to the generals, but I'm hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000."

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/donald-trump/on-islamic-state

He's also oscillated between giving a host of different states nuclear weapons, and pulling out of NATO.

Like most policy-areas though, his views on foreign-policy are dangerously underdeveloped. It seems rather a game of feeling out the electorate - and when he gets something correct: doubling down.

---

Oh, and echoing the above on #NeverHillary, fuck no.

He never said he would "give" anyone nuclear weapons. If you are referring to Japan, if they made their own nuclear bombs, so what. They are on our side and great people.

He was for Afghan for a reason below:
"I have always been in favor of going into Afghanistan because it sits next to Pakistan which has nuclear weapons. I have not been in favor of going into Iraq," he said. "When I made the statement about not going into Afghanistan, I thought Chris was referring to Iraq."

And as for pulling out of NATO, i believe he has said either the US pulls out of NATO because it is made for the Soviet Union which isnt a thing anymore, or we Reform it to face problems that are at present like Islamic Extremism.

Vlerchan

June 6th, 2016, 05:22 PM

He never said he would "give" anyone nuclear weapons. If you are referring to Japan, if they made their own nuclear bombs, so what. They are on our side and great people.
US nuclear policy since the war has been centred around stopping the spread of nuclear arms. Diverting from this policy is the equivalent of granting other states rights to access nuclear arms - i.e., giving it to them.

Furthermore, Japan is on your side at this moment. The Japanese are also looking to become more assertive in East Asia which could possibly draw some distance between them and the US.

He was for Afghan for a reason below:
"I have always been in favor of going into Afghanistan because it sits next to Pakistan which has nuclear weapons. I have not been in favor of going into Iraq," he said. "When I made the statement about not going into Afghanistan, I thought Chris was referring to Iraq."
Please note the comment I was responding to. It stated that Trump didn't support any interventions.

And as for pulling out of NATO, i believe he has said either the US pulls out of NATO because it is made for the Soviet Union which isnt a thing anymore, or we Reform it to face problems that are at present like Islamic Extremism.
It was designed to contain Russia (a thing), which has been a central focus of European foreign policy since the 17th century, regardless of incarnation.

StoppingTom

June 6th, 2016, 05:53 PM

He could still resist Trump in the Congress when he gets elected.

About the judge, I feel that this does not build up any sympathy with him. Trump will probably lose the case and he will pull a "told ya so, he WAS a Trump-hater!" It's just to distract from his actual wrongdoing in my opinion.

"Knew Twerpy Gonzalo was a hater! Trump University made lots of people lots of money, something he wouldn't know about! Sad!"
---My prediction, following the trial.

mattsmith48

June 6th, 2016, 09:50 PM

Please tell me what Trump has said that was racist....

Note:
Muslim isnt a race
Illegal immigrant isnt a race
Mexican isnt a race

For you what is a race?

mattsmith48

June 6th, 2016, 09:53 PM

Furthermore, Japan is on your side at this moment. The Japanese are also looking to become more assertive in East Asia which could possibly draw some distance between them and the US.

I though Japan was neutral?

DriveAlive

June 6th, 2016, 11:00 PM

I though Japan was neutral?

No, we have a very good relationship with them, especially because of Chinese aggression. However, it is time that they step up their own defense.

mattsmith48

June 6th, 2016, 11:06 PM

No, we have a very good relationship with them, especially because of Chinese aggression. However, it is time that they step up their own defense.

If they get attacked by China we can all agree they dont have a chance they would need help from someone else

CoolGuy108

June 7th, 2016, 01:24 PM

At the time of creation it was meant for the Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation....

Vlerchan

June 7th, 2016, 05:08 PM

At the time of creation it was meant for the Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation....
I understand the immediate context of the formation of NATO.

What I'm claiming is that containing Russia has has persisted as a specific security aim of the rest of Europe, regardless of Russia's incarnation. To claim that NATO was designed with the specific intent of just containing the USSR, is to forget several hundred years of history.

I though Japan was neutral?
Japan is constitutionally committed to non-offence - This was weakened last year but remains pretty airtight. Odds are that Japan will remain committed to non-offence insofar as its security needs are provided for beneath American hegemony, which is good because most Koreans - for example - are still more worried about it than China.

No, we have a very good relationship with them, especially because of Chinese aggression. However, it is time that they step up their own defense.
Question, is this intended to implicate restoring geopolitical independence to Japan?

I'm also down with containing China in the East but referring to its actions as those of aggression sounds pretty dubious to me.

mattsmith48

June 7th, 2016, 07:02 PM

Japan is constitutionally committed to non-offence - This was weakened last year but remains pretty airtight. Odds are that Japan will remain committed to non-offence insofar as its security needs are provided for beneath American hegemony, which is good because most Koreans - for example - are still more worried about it than China.

What do you mean by non-offence?

Vlerchan

June 7th, 2016, 07:06 PM

What do you mean by non-offence?
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is a clause in the national Constitution of Japan outlawing war as a means to settle international disputes involving the state. The Constitution came into effect on May 3, 1947, following World War II. In its text, the state formally renounces the sovereign right of belligerency and aims at an international peace based on justice and order. The article also states that, to accomplish these aims, armed forces with war potential will not be maintained.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution

In other words, militarily, Japan can only act defensively, and can only maintain an armed-forces to match those intentions.

DriveAlive

June 7th, 2016, 10:50 PM

I understand the immediate context of the formation of NATO.

What I'm claiming is that containing Russia has has persisted as a specific security aim of the rest of Europe, regardless of Russia's incarnation. To claim that NATO was designed with the specific intent of just containing the USSR, is to forget several hundred years of history.

Japan is constitutionally committed to non-offence - This was weakened last year but remains pretty airtight. Odds are that Japan will remain committed to non-offence insofar as its security needs are provided for beneath American hegemony, which is good because most Koreans - for example - are still more worried about it than China.

Question, is this intended to implicate restoring geopolitical independence to Japan?

I'm also down with containing China in the East but referring to its actions as those of aggression sounds pretty dubious to me.

Yes, Japan needs to step up and defend itself instead of relying on America to be the world police. With that said, we need to thwart Chinese expansion through the the South China Sea area and the military intimidation of the surrounding countries, including Japan.

dxcxdzv

June 8th, 2016, 02:52 AM

Yes, Japan needs to step up and defend itself instead of relying on America to be the world police. With that said, we need to thwart Chinese expansion through the the South China Sea area and the military intimidation of the surrounding countries, including Japan.
I'm not sure Japan ever wanted to be "unarmed".

DriveAlive

June 8th, 2016, 03:08 AM

I'm not sure Japan ever wanted to be "unarmed".

Japan does not want to have to spend their fair share of defense costs.

Vlerchan

June 8th, 2016, 03:26 AM

Japan needs to step up and defend itself instead of relying on America to be the world police.
You didn't answer the question.

The question I asked is if Japan should have its geopolitical independence restored as it requires to project itself and uphold it's defence interests.

Furthermore - Nukes?

---

It's also worth noting that Japan contributes about half of the costs required to maintain U.S. troops in Japan. The U.S. gets quite a good deal here because it can project itself from these bases - and as was noted with Chinese ambitions in the South China Sea this region is of increasing importance.

In fact - Even disregarding the the benefits of stationing troops abroad it is relatively uncontroversial that it's cheaper for the U.S. to station them in Japan and Korea (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/trump-troops-korea-japan-cheaper-abroad/).

mattsmith48

June 8th, 2016, 10:11 AM

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is a clause in the national Constitution of Japan outlawing war as a means to settle international disputes involving the state. The Constitution came into effect on May 3, 1947, following World War II. In its text, the state formally renounces the sovereign right of belligerency and aims at an international peace based on justice and order. The article also states that, to accomplish these aims, armed forces with war potential will not be maintained.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution

In other words, militarily, Japan can only act defensively, and can only maintain an armed-forces to match those intentions.

Its not being neutral but its the best thing after, more countries should be like that

Japan does not want to have to spend their fair share of defense costs.

No they just dont want to get involved in stupid and unnecessary wars

Porpoise101

June 8th, 2016, 04:21 PM

I fear that an independent Japan could scare the Koreans toward the Chinese. The Chinese are already influential traders for SK.

Vlerchan

June 8th, 2016, 04:23 PM

I fear that an independent Japan could scare the Koreans toward the Chinese. The Chinese are already influential traders for SK.
On this, polling data indicates that the Koreans are considerably more worried about Japan than they are about China.

So, I concur.

TrailerParkJihad

June 9th, 2016, 05:17 PM

sqishy

June 9th, 2016, 05:19 PM

I can't wait to see all your reactions when Trump wins in November, globalist shills.

Trump willMake America Great Again, you people are just too blinded by the mainstream media to see it. Don't believe anything you hear on the TV anymore.

Funnily enough, most if not all of what you have heard from Trump is from mainstream media, through the said TV or internet.

I also hope I happen to be on the opposite side of the ilsand from you - another tonymontana-ist has arrived, closer than ever before! Vlerchan, run!

Judean Zealot

June 9th, 2016, 05:22 PM

I can't wait to see all your reactions when Trump wins in November, globalist shills.

I'm one of the most nationalist ROTW posters. I'm also one of the most vehement Trump opponents. Trump is a fool.

Trump willMake America Great Again, you people are just too blinded by the mainstream media to see it. Don't believe anything you hear on the TV anymore.

May I ask which Trump policies will make America great again?

TrailerParkJihad

June 11th, 2016, 10:27 AM

I'm one of the most nationalist ROTW posters. I'm also one of the most vehement Trump opponents. Trump is a fool.

May I ask which Trump policies will make America great again?

-Against TPP
-Shits on PC Culture
-Will repeal common core
-Wants to Audit the fed
-NRA member, owns a CCW, very pro- 2nd Amendment
-De-fund sanctuary cities
-Pro-Nuclear Energy
-Lower taxes, while at the same time closing tax loopholes for Wallstreet bankers such as Carried Interest.
-Tangible, wholesome answer to illegal immigration
-Pro-medical marijuana
-Wants to end corporate inversion and discourage offshoring
-Understands the threat of Sharia Law and Radical Islamic Terrorism
-Wants to end healthcare monopolies by promoting competitive bidding
-Resistant to lobbyism and special interest influence
-Redpilled on 9/11. Wants to release the 28 Pages.
-Wants to be Bros with Putin and Russia instead of adversaries
-Knows how fucked up the Saudis are like the rest of us
-Knows firsthand how dishonest, biased and corrupt MSM is
-Wants to end the incompetence and corruption at the VA
-Knows about the Shadow Government (Muh Globalist Banker Elite Lobbyist buying our puppet politicians conspiracy)
-Bring a practical Golden Age to the US military
-Anti-Globalist
-Fair Trade + Free Trade (Prefers competitive fair trade to lopsided “free” trade)
-Wants Peace between Israel and Palestine
-NATO is obsolete and a decades-old relic that needs to be rejiggered to focus on terrorism instead of just countering Russia and bombing countries
-Wants to limit U.S. Hegemony via not being the world’s police, building nations, and focusing on #AmericaFirst
-Is going to build a wall on the Mexican border to decrease illegal immigration.

How's that for ya?

Vlerchan

June 11th, 2016, 02:09 PM

Against TPP
I find it bizarre that Trump can pose as 'tough on China' and still manage to oppose TPP, which is designed to economically contain China.

Because if the US doesn't take the lead on regulatory standardisation, who do you think will?

Wants to Audit the fed
The FED is already well audited in the conventional sense. What audit-the-fed people want to do is open monetary policy decisions up to congressional pressure.

Pro-Nuclear Energy
Nuclear Energy markets pose significant barriers to entry which only lends itself to a poorly competitive market and economic centralisation.

Solar power is the future.

Lower taxes, while at the same time closing tax loopholes for Wallstreet bankers such as Carried Interest.
I can get behind lower income taxation.

The emphasise on Carried Interest is highly misleading though. It at the moment allows investors to halve the tax that would have otherwise been owed on that income. Under the Trump tax scheme, being as the level of income taxation is severely reduced, you'd have investors only forced to make up about 2 - 3%.

Wants to end corporate inversion and discourage offshoring
Offshoring results an increase in wage levels for mid-skill level and high-skill level labour, and modern - i.e., service sector - offshoring tends to result in a balancing of job losses with job gains.

His solution to corporate tax inversion is also to just lower tax rates - Though probably not low enough. Being as I believe corporation tax should be at 0% this doesn't bother me.

nderstands the threat of Sharia Law and Radical Islamic Terrorism
Doesn't understand that this isn't a threat to the U.S. in any realistic sense.
Resistant to lobbyism and special interest influence

The Congressmen he has to deal with aren't - and you'll find that the President is generally weak.

Wants to be Bros with Putin and Russia instead of adversaries
Being as US and Russian interests clash literally everywhere (Central Asia, the Arctic, the Middle East, Eastern Europe) the security-establishment isn't going to let this happen.

Knows how fucked up the Saudis are like the rest of us
No-one deals with the Saudis because they actually like the Saudis.

Fair Trade + Free Trade (Prefers competitive fair trade to lopsided “free” trade)
I'm actually just not sure what this means at all. Fair-trade tends to be a pretty meaningless descriptor, from experience. Would you mind expanding?

Wants Peace between Israel and Palestine
I think everyone wants this.

NATO is obsolete and a decades-old relic that needs to be rejiggered to focus on terrorism instead of just countering Russia and bombing countries
I have no idea why people think that all of a sudden Russian isn't a strategic threat.

Would you also be comfortable with countries pooling the powers of their intelligence services to the end of confronting terrorism? Because that would probably be required.

Wants to limit U.S. Hegemony via not being the world’s police, building nations, and focusing on #AmericaFirst
You don't believe that the US always but #AmericaFirst when it was conducting itself as the world police? Because I'm aware of very little activity to this end that wasn't undertaken in their interests.

How's that for ya?
I skipped over the kulturekampf and immigration-associated claims because I know I'm not going to be able to convince you there.

Out of interests, anyways, who do you support in Ireland?