Donald Trump just hit a critical threshold for the GOP nomination, first candidate to qualify for GO - Polidicks

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49938425]Donald Trump is the result of 16 years of political mismanagement by the republican party. For years the republican party was the Mitt Romney-type business guys sitting around going "money money money" while smoking illegal cuban cigars. They went to washington and did fucking nothing and now all the blue collar racist conservatives who lost their jobs to illegal migrant workers are coming out of the wood work and trying to fuck the republican party. Donald Trump does best among racists and in states with higher than average unemployment. The Republican party has been stepping on their very voter base for nearly 2 decades and now they're angry. Hopefully John Kasich will save our country and these blue collar pieces of shit will fade back into the unemployment line where they and their 20th century mentalities belong. [editline]15th March 2016[/editline] He who wins the delegates does not necessarily win the RNC. Party leadership is scrambling to save their party from being overtaken by those who would see our country go back 60 years in race relations. Regardless of how Donald Trump does, the GOP is dead after this year.[/QUOTE] "Fuck the establishment! I'm gonna elect a corporate CEO directly into office!" Meanwhile, back in reality, Sanders is the only candidate that would actually help them.

[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49939311]This sentiment has no place in Western civilization.[/QUOTE] Right so preserving our way of life is illegitimate but allowing someone to actively try to marginalize minority groups is perfectly fine.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49939323]Right so preserving our way of life is illegitimate but allowing someone to actively try to marginalize minority groups is perfectly fine.[/QUOTE] Are we still talking about Illegal Immigrants and other foreigners who have no legal right to be in the country?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49939154]K so if there were a strong Islamic group in the US that said christians should pay taxes to muslims, women should have to wear a niqab, and homosexuals ought to be stoned to death, you think we ought to tolerate those opinions and give them serious thought and discussion?[/QUOTE] Here's the thing, unless you actually talk to them and explain why what they're saying is wrong, they're not going to change their opinions, you'll make them hold those opinions more strongly and they'll stop taking you seriously if all you do is laugh in their face and call them sub-humans. So yeah, you have to actually discuss why what they're saying is wrong if you want to change their opinions, not claim you want to strip away their rights.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49939271]Yeah, I understand the issue just fine. Blue collar people have been stepped on by the Republican party for the last 20 to 30 years and are now fed up with it. Regardless of their feelings, they're wrong if their solution is to elect a far right racist who scapegoats Mexican immigrants and Muslims as the solution to their problems rather than genuine political reform.[/QUOTE] weimar problems, weimar solutions

Proboardslol what would you do if Trump wins? Literally shake? Cant even? Or move out of the country?

Why is it such a bad thing to leave a country if you don't like where it looks like it's going?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49938882]I think growing up on the beltway has made me sympathetic towards the aristocracy/status quo in this country. Also. Since I see my comments have blown up, I'll admit I'm being partway facetious. Yes, I recognize the irony in calling trump a fascist and then advocating taking away people's political agency. Of course, I think everyone ought to have the legal right to vote. Even felons. However, I think that in real society, we can expect to find only a few classes of people who will actually vote. I think that it's our duty as responsible members of society to not tolerate the type of rhetoric coming from donald trump and his followers. I think that their legal political agency should be guaranteed but I think their real agency (the legitimacy we assign to their beliefs in political discussion and popular culture) should be absolutely stripped bare. I think we're being irresponsible if we allow the rhetoric about race and violence from trump to become a mainstream part of our political culture in this country, and I think that the parties have a responsibility to maintain some semblance of status quo when selecting their candidates for the simple fact that giving legitimacy to donald trump gives legitimacy to entering racist beliefs into the realm of serious nationwide political discussion. [editline]15th March 2016[/editline] As I explained, I was being a bit facetious but I'm probably a lot more right than you would think I am.[/QUOTE] Okay, what point were you trying to illustrate by essentially pretending to be retarded? Usually when employing irony to form an argument (which is just satire, by the way) you are intending to make the opposing side look stupid or irrational. What exactly is satirical about "take away the rights of racists" when your opposition is Trump? That makes literally no sense.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;49939431]Okay, what point were you trying to illustrate by essentially pretending to be retarded? Usually when employing irony to form an argument (which is just satire, by the way) you are intending to make the opposing side look stupid or irrational. What exactly is satirical about "take away the rights of racists" when your opposition is Trump? That makes literally no sense.[/QUOTE] He didn't even realize he was being ironic. He just claimed he was being "facetious" when it was pointed out to him.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49938544] If they support the racist and violent drivel that Trump shits out of his mouth, then they don't deserve a political voice.[/QUOTE] This is coming from a person living in the country that made democracy mainstream. Heavily ironic.

[QUOTE=kyle877;49939419]Why is it such a bad thing to leave a country if you don't like where it looks like it's going?[/QUOTE] It makes you look like you don't care about your country. If you truly care about it you'll stay with it, whether you think the direction is good or bad. I could have left when Obama got his second term but I didn't, because I want to see the country made great again and I care about it.

[QUOTE=Fat White Lump;49939605]It makes you look like you don't care about your country. If you truly care about it you'll stay with it, whether you think the direction is good or bad. I could have left when Obama got his second term but I didn't, because I want to see the country made great again and I care about it.[/QUOTE] Why should I care about a country that doesn't care about me? If a place doesn't support my ideology why should I stick around?

[QUOTE=Fat White Lump;49939605]It makes you look like you don't care about your country. If you truly care about it you'll stay with it, whether you think the direction is good or bad. I could have left when Obama got his second term but I didn't, because I want to see the country made great again and I care about it.[/QUOTE] I'd rather jump ship and move somewhere else than stick around waiting for the ship to sink so I can drown

proboardslol, just move to North Korea, I'm sure you'd agree with their government there.

[QUOTE=Fat White Lump;49939605]It makes you look like you don't care about your country. If you truly care about it you'll stay with it, whether you think the direction is good or bad. I could have left when Obama got his second term but I didn't, because I want to see the country made great again and I care about it.[/QUOTE] Make the "country great again". By electing a guy who goes against our ideals. 1.) Trump was one of the major fears of the framers. They used the term "democracy" with some measure of disdain. They were making a republic, not a democracy, for the explicit reason that fucking snakes would be elected, like Trump, if mob rule were permitted. Edmund Randolph, one of the delegates at the constitutional convention said in regards to the state constitutions: "none of the constitutions have provided sufficient checks against democracy." Democracy was something to be kept in line because the unwashed masses were idiots. Their solution was to create the electoral college and let the states elect the president. We fucked that up later. The point of the entire system was to elect a politician who was above the partisan bullshit and sought only to do what was right. You know, like Sanders, who has been doing what was right for thirty fucking years. Popularity wasn't even a concept until several presidents in. Up until Jefferson, it was all about how good you were at the job. We've shat all over their system, which they fucked up from the start due to having to pander to certain groups, and are now going down the path towards one of their greatest concerns. 2.) Barring access to the nation based on their religion. In what fucking world does the United States determine access based on religious affiliation. Fear over terrorism? Fucking cowards. Content to do the right thing until you are faced with some adversity? Pathetic. 3.) Illegal immigration? How many studies have to point out that this isn't really a problem for us? It is a problem for the illegal immigrants. Not for people in the US. Contrary to fear mongering about cartels, who have the resources to bypass all this bullshit either way and appreciate any opportunity to raise the price of their product, illegal immigrants consume almost no government resources and commit basically no crime because they are afraid of being deported for the most minor of offense. Meanwhile their jobs automatically deduct taxes from their payroll. They pay into a system that they can effectively never benefit from. Mexico isn't going to pay for a wall. Forcing this issue will sour relations with our closest neighbor over an issue that isn't even a problem for us (beyond the morality aspect of abusing illegal immigrants). 4.) He wants to defund the EPA and Department of Education. How can anyone seriously support this? Like what fucking psycho is down with either of these? 5.) Still believes vaccines cause autism. How is this moron going to make anything "great again"?

[quote]The point of the entire system was to elect a politician who was above the partisan bullshit and sought only to do what was right.[/quote] That would be wonderful, but that hasn't been happening. Look at who the parties props up; look at the DNC pushing Hillary over Sanders. If a perfect system could somehow exist where indeed the best people for the job were elected I would be all for that. But that's idealistic to say the least; money talks and it drowns out any voice of reason.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49939993]What a short-sighted & selfish attitude to have.. When you live in such a influential nation as the US, picking up and leaving is the absolute worst thing you can do, it does nothing but make the situation worse for everybody involved, including yourself. Do you guys seriously think that things falling apart in America would be self-contained? Hell no it wouldn't.[/QUOTE] How does it make it worse? If I've already voted and my candidate lost, why should I stick around for the fallout brought on by the majority? At that point I've already done all I can.

[QUOTE=Fat White Lump;49939605]It makes you look like you don't care about your country. If you truly care about it you'll stay with it, whether you think the direction is good or bad. I could have left when Obama got his second term but I didn't, because I want to see the country made great again and I care about it.[/QUOTE] America is great right now. Fuck Trump and fuck his shitty slogan.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49940082]America is great right now. Fuck Trump and fuck his shitty slogan.[/QUOTE] Not really, it's not all that great.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49938694]Why though? So we can let uneducated racists try to make the country worse?[/QUOTE] Please explain who is a better candidate

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49940140]How does it make it worse? Are you serious? First of all, it gets worse is because next time there will be even less people around to fight back against people like Trump, and Hillary, in turn you're fucking over the people that either can't afford to leave or don't want to. You should really stop right now and look up just how massive America's influence is on the world, terrible economic and foreign policies will affect everyone on Earth, there is no where to go, your ~perfect new home~ won't stay that way if America's economy weakens or we get dragged into another war.[/QUOTE] How dare I seek a better quality of life? I should stick with the boat, even at the cost of my own life/livelihood? That mindset is absolutely self-destructive. Yeah, America's influence is massive. Again, if I've voted to try and keep it afloat and it failed, I'd rather move somewhere with better stability than stay in the line of fire.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49939962]1.) Trump was one of the major fears of the framers. They used the term "democracy" with some measure of disdain. They were making a republic, not a democracy, for the explicit reason that fucking snakes would be elected, like Trump, if mob rule were permitted. Edmund Randolph, one of the delegates at the constitutional convention said in regards to the state constitutions: "none of the constitutions have provided sufficient checks against democracy." Democracy was something to be kept in line because the unwashed masses were idiots. Their solution was to create the electoral college and let the states elect the president. We fucked that up later. The point of the entire system was to elect a politician who was above the partisan bullshit and sought only to do what was right. You know, like Sanders, who has been doing what was right for thirty fucking years. Popularity wasn't even a concept until several presidents in. Up until Jefferson, it was all about how good you were at the job. We've shat all over their system, which they fucked up from the start due to having to pander to certain groups, and are now going down the path towards one of their greatest concerns.[/QUOTE] The "system" you refer to has already been broken for a long time. It was designed for a agrarian country with about a million people living there. It was formed just before the onset of the industrial revolution, a society in which about 90% of the population farmed for a living and had virtually no experience of (or need for that matter) of any complex political system. Since then, America has grown into a vast and wealthy empire administered by a large federal bureaucracy that serves as an arm of the reasonably powerful central government. It has had a civil war, an industrial revolution, and massive sweeping social and economic changes that has produced a very different country. The America of 2016 shares little with the America of 1783, beyond the name and a few other superficial similarities. Claiming that the framers would be trying to prevent somebody like Trump completely ignores the fact that the America of today is entirely different to the America of their day. The population has grown 300-fold. There has been such an advance in technology and science in addition to the proliferation of knowledge and expansion of political activity that the typical university student is better equipped to deal with socioeconomic and political questions than the founding fathers ever were. It is a country with massive numbers of people who don't speak English as a first language, while there are huge numbers of religions new and old that hold a lot of influence (from Mormonism to Catholicism). If anything, the system that the framers set up is constricting the United States in a straitjacket, which is part of the reason that the political system is in deadlock and breaking down under the strain of populism. It's held up admirably so far, but now its a clunky and cumbersome leviathan that is slowly falling to pieces because it was created to rule an entirely different country - certainly not the America of 2016, which has a political system it is totally unsuited to. Oh yeah, the framers also disagreed a lot on the whole "democracy is bad" thing. Besides, I think they would have been more worried about blacks and women voting anyways.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49940245]The "system" you refer to has already been broken for a long time. It was designed for a agrarian country with about a million people living there. It was formed just before the onset of the industrial revolution, a society in which about 90% of the population farmed for a living and had virtually no experience of (or need for that matter) of any complex political system. Since then, America has grown into a vast and wealthy empire administered by a large federal bureaucracy that serves as an arm of the reasonably powerful central government. It has had a civil war, an industrial revolution, and massive sweeping social and economic changes that has produced a very different country. The America of 2016 shares little with the America of 1783, beyond the name and a few other superficial similarities. Claiming that the framers would be trying to prevent somebody like Trump completely ignores the fact that the America of today is entirely different to the America of their day. The population has grown 300-fold. There has been such an advance in technology and science in addition to the proliferation of knowledge and expansion of political activity that the typical university student is better equipped to deal with socioeconomic and political questions than the founding fathers ever were. It is a country with massive numbers of people who don't speak English as a first language, while there are huge numbers of religions new and old that hold a lot of influence (from Mormonism to Catholicism). If anything, the system that the framers set up is constricting the United States in a straitjacket, which is part of the reason that the political system is in deadlock and breaking down under the strain of populism. It's held up admirably so far, but now its a clunky and cumbersome leviathan that is slowly falling to pieces because it was created to rule an entirely different country - certainly not the America of 2016, which has a political system it is totally unsuited to.[/QUOTE] The clunky leviathan is the point. In order to restrict the authority of the government, it was designed to be slow. Red tape by design. It was a clumsy, but possibly unavoidable, mechanism for preventing the spread of corruption. Anyhow, the system they set up didn't work from the start. It was a terrible one. They had hoped to create a system that would elect a George Washington every time, but it failed pretty much out of the gate. The problem was that changing it at that point was impossible. Their points, however, remain valid. Allowing mob rule is dangerous. The bulk of any population is shockingly bad at voting in their own interests, much less the interests of the nation. Marx pointed out throughout his career that the working class has a terrible habit of voting for things that support the ruling class. [editline]15th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=kyle877;49940192]How dare I seek a better quality of life? I should stick with the boat, even at the cost of my own life/livelihood? That mindset is absolutely self-destructive. Yeah, America's influence is massive. Again, if I've voted to try and keep it afloat and it failed, I'd rather move somewhere with better stability than stay in the line of fire.[/QUOTE] Unless you have an advanced degree, you probably aren't going to really go anywhere better. EDIT: Except Canada. They are probably pretty chill.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49940275]What is so hard to understand about the following: [B]there is no where to go.[/B] You're trading short-term stability for long-term disaster.[/QUOTE] If I've already voted and my candidate lost the election, how am I trading anything? I don't think you fully grasp what I'm saying. It's not jumping ship before it sinks, it's jumping ship after hitting the iceberg. Atleast then I'd be in a life-raft, instead of fruitlessly trying to patch up the hole in the Titanic. It's trading being at the epicenter of a long-term disaster for being on the sidelines of it. Also Canada is where I'm aiming, GunFox.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49940385]The clunky leviathan is the point. In order to restrict the authority of the government, it was designed to be slow. Red tape by design. It was a clumsy, but possibly unavoidable, mechanism for preventing the spread of corruption. Anyhow, the system they set up didn't work from the start. It was a terrible one. They had hoped to create a system that would elect a George Washington every time, but it failed pretty much out of the gate. The problem was that changing it at that point was impossible.[/quote] If it failed from the get-go then why should we listen to the framers? They created a system that ultimately broke down barely 80 years after independence, which resulted in a bloody civil war that tore the country apart. Even before the 18th century was out, the American aristocracy was having to put down peasant rebellions because they refused to pay taxes to Washington. How has it prevented the spread of corruption? The early American government was notoriously corrupt, even under George Washington and his immediate successors. The same governmental model was directly copied over to a bunch of South American nations and all of them ended up collapsing into civil war or bloody revolutions. [quote]Their points, however, remain valid. Allowing mob rule is dangerous. The bulk of any population is shockingly bad at voting in their own interests, much less the interests of the nation. Marx pointed out throughout his career that the working class has a terrible habit of voting for things that support the ruling class.[/QUOTE] Or maybe they were wrong on democracy? By "Poor people not voting in their own interests" do you mean black people voting for Hillary or Trump instead of Bernie? It's always people like yourself that has to be the one to govern. It's not enough that you have all of the political and economic advantages, but you have to be officially in charge too. The peons and proles don't matter since they don't have college degrees (the shame of it!) Imagine people who don't have your education, wealth, privileges, and knowledge actually having a share of the power. It's enough to make the stomach churn.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49940639]And what will you do when that life-raft hits something? Running away from your problems isn't going to solve anything in the long-term.[/QUOTE] Stick with the life-raft, because the life-raft didn't elect an imbecile as a captain?

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49940713]And how do you know it'll never elect an imbecile? In case you haven't noticed other countries are fully capable of electing morons and have done so many times. You have a very.. optimistic view of other nations.[/QUOTE] Donald Trump wouldn't have lasted a [I]minute[/I] in any election held in another country. He's literally a joke.

[QUOTE=kyle877;49940759]Donald Trump wouldn't have lasted a [I]minute[/I] in any election held in another country. He's literally a joke.[/QUOTE] Don't be so sure. While the state of your democracy is a bit sad, it's nowhere near as bad as in other democratic nations across the world.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49940653]If it failed from the get-go then why should we listen to the framers? They created a system that ultimately broke down barely 80 years after independence, which resulted in a bloody civil war that tore the country apart. Even before the 18th century was out, the American aristocracy was having to put down peasant rebellions because they refused to pay taxes to Washington.[/quote] The electoral college failed. Not the entire system. As a whole, their framework has done remarkably well for being largely experimental at the time. We listen to them because there is a surprisingly amount of elegance in how they designed each system. Are you serious suggesting the civil war was a failure of design? Every nation can be subjected to a civil war regardless of national design. [quote]How has it prevented the spread of corruption? The early American government was notoriously corrupt, even under George Washington and his immediate successors. The same governmental model was directly copied over to a bunch of South American nations and all of them ended up collapsing into civil war or bloody revolutions.[/quote] The American government ranks fairly low on basically all measures of corruption. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the US government is actually far more transparent than you might believe. Early government being corrupt and the system managing to fix that corruption is a point in the system's favor. Traditionally corruption had to be removed through force. Government isn't one size fits all. We can't really use our model in the middle east either. [quote]Or maybe they were wrong on democracy? By "Poor people not voting in their own interests" do you mean black people voting for Hillary or Trump instead of Bernie? [/quote] What do you mean "wrong on democracy"? The majority of the Republican party is comprised of poor people. The Republican party, objectively, does not help poor people. Quite the opposite. [quote]It's always people like yourself that has to be the one to govern. It's not enough that you have all of the political and economic advantages, but you have to be officially in charge too. The peons and proles don't matter since they don't have college degrees (the shame of it!) Imagine people who don't have your education, wealth, privileges, and knowledge actually having a share of the power. It's enough to make the stomach churn.[/QUOTE] Annnnnd right there you've made my point. You can fight in favor of the proletariat, and they will accuse you of doing the opposite. Nevermind that we're all members of the proletariat and that I'm fighting for my own interests as well.

[quote]The American government ranks fairly low on basically all measures of corruption.[/quote] Just because corruption is legal doesn't make it any better. Just because the majority of people aren't hassled to pay bribes doesn't mean this country is completely controlled by money.