Yeah he's going to be real clever when Trump busts his ass like he's done everyone else who has tried to challenge him.
Printable View
Yeah he's going to be real clever when Trump busts his ass like he's done everyone else who has tried to challenge him.
Cruz has a tomorrow. Enjoy 2017.
cruz has a what tomorrow?
what i find funny is all the donks who criticize the gop candidates' tax plans. right, because it's so wrong for the government to take less money from people. if a guy buys a house then goes under and knocks on your door and tells you that you need to pay his mortgage, you tell him to gtfo. but apparently when it's the government, when you acknowledge that the government debt and deficit are an analogous scenario, you're not being serious.
god has got nothing on the god that is government.
This is awesome. I've been trying to do my best to take note of my own biases. It's way harder than you'd think it would be, and even if you can identify them, it's hard to act on that knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
But yeah, I just think that .gif is so amazing, and really it works for any candidate who makes an embarrassingly bad campaign ad, but there's a nice layer of racial (not racist imo) humor added on in this case.
Also, some of my fondest memories are watching the GOP debates in 2011 with you guys in CM.
Whether I agree or disagree, you often post insightful or at least interesting analysis. This, however, is not one of those times.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
A political tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Trump is my boy. But he's not cut for this game like Hillary is. By 2017, Cruz is still gonna ride his and Trump's wave, while Trump'll be off doing "Great" things.
that's because i kept it short, not expounding on why how a tax policy affects the government's budget is the wrong frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
it's looking like carson is finally on the down. it has to do with him not being so hot on foreign policy and cruz taking his supporters. it's also looking like cruz is getting the key iowa endorsements.
i wouldnt be surprised to see this happen: cruz gets first in iowa, trump second, rubio third. the establishment all rallies behind rubio and trump bows out and endorses cruz. stage set for the showdown between two highly competent senators, one the establishment hates and one they're okay with; one the conservative base loves and one they're skeptical of.
eh but that's not going to happen. several are not going to bow out until after new hampshire. bush, christie, kasich will all stay. trump woudl stay as well if he didnt lose badly in iowa. he's unlikely to lose badly even though he is likeley to not get first
Who wants to bet on Trump winning Iowa? I would, but I don't think it's fair to bet with people who are delusional about Canadian Cruz's chances.
it's not about believing in any individual candidate. it's about understanding that even on rare occasions, the endorsed christian conservative candidate still wins the iowa caucuses. even fucking santorum did it.
the writing is NOT on the wall that trump should be able to beat this. he's not getting christian conservative backing and he doesn't have much gotv infrastructure. while it is possible to expand the iowa caucus-goer electorate, trump looks to be only doing half of what it takes. also it may be less possible to do that for the gop than it was with obama and the democrats, in that expansion of the iowa caucus-goer electorate could easily just be about more christian conservatives.
anyways, the goal among the iowa evangelicals is to find a christian conservative candidate to rally around much earlier than happened with santorum. cruz has a more clear path to iowa victory than trump. not by a lot, since if trump can get magical turnout and around 30% of the vote, he can still win the caucus. but if the evangelicals do what they're trying to do and they endorse cruz instead of trump, trump is going to have a hard time beating cruz. it's looking like carson won't be getting the endorsement. rubio could get the endorsement. there is an outlier chance that trump gets the endorsement, but that would be strange. all signs point towards it being cruz.
a trump cruz showdown would be interesting. theyre both among the best messengers possible. either one could be out of the league of the other one, but it's hard to say if or which at this point.
Trump >>>>>>>> Cruz
All the Cruz nuthuggers in this thread are hilarious.
it's no fun when you dont try
Trump continues to stomp Cruz's nuts in Iowa in every poll out there.
theyre going to hit this approach hardcore just before the primaries. it's gonna work. sorry spoon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TATnH9bhLg
Check it out, a highlight of shit that made Trump's poll numbers surge.
except they didnt, and there's a very reasonable rationale for why perpetual mocking of him close to the primaries will work.
i know one trump supporter irl. he's in it for the lols. when it comes time to sign the card, he's changing and so are others.
So now your logic is his supporters won't actually vote for him. l-o-fucking-l
You're like that guy who keeps arguing 9/11 was an inside job.
a majority probably will vote for him. clearly you havent been paying attention if you think it's unreasonable to think that a larger proportion of those who support him in polls are unreliable supporters when the vote comes relative to the supporters of other candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Yeah the government would never lie or kill innocent people to get into a war cough Gulf of Tonkin cough.
Trumps supporters have remained more steady than those of any other Republican candidate.
what irony that you'd use an example of a conspiracy that was revealed because it leaked to suggest the veracity of a different conspiracy at a grander proportion of several magnitudes that hasn't leaked.
you're looking at the wrong metrics. they're not likely caucusers. he performs unusually well in the most unreliable polls (non-random volunteer internet polls). he performs unusually poorly in live polls.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
plus he doesnt have gotv. he only wins this thing if harry potter is real life. sure, he could win it, but we'd have to throw out the book because it would mean that basically everybody who studies this stuff is very wrong.
So what you're saying is that he performs poorly with people who don't use the Internet, which is ridiculous. Do you even know what a caucus is?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
He performs "unusually well" because he's not the usual candidate. You can keep hand-waving away how much he's kicking everyone's ass straight to the White House. On the day of his inauguration you'll probably be like, "Actually this is just a PR stunt and the real inauguration is happening behind closed doors with Bernie Sanders in his socialism clubhouse that Obama built."
you don't know me that well if you think i would deny something in the face of new evidence.
and no, he doesn't perform "unusually well" because he's an unusual candidate. he does so because of non-response bias. in the polls in question, the samples are adult volunteers, not of random registered/likely voters.
i won't repeat the other issues he has because you're ignoring them. the last thing to look at on the issue is that his supporters are people like you, people who are typically disengaged from politics. while it is possible to make a coalition around those people, it's hard because those people are less likely to do things like stick it out after a barrage of negative ads or to attend a caucus.
there is still theory in the campaigns that trump is planning to pull out pre-iowa, because he's doing fuckall when it comes to gotv. a trump win with his strategy would be a thing of wizardry. you don't win elections by getting people to agree with you; you win elections by finding the people who agree with you and driving them to the polls. otherwise too many will simply forget. since the results of elections depend on the margins, you kinda can't win without gotv.
People like you are the reason why this country is in the sorry state it's in. Winning is winning is winning is winning. What do you have against winning?
about as much as i have against bad trolling
I posted a picture of me wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat. What more do you want?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
i could see myself wearing a "make america grate again" cap.
That's because you hate people having jobs.
looks like trump won the "michael keaton was better" primary.
First it was Bush who everyone said Trump could never beat. Beta bitch boy Bush was no match for the superior alpha male.
Then Trump pissed off Megyn Kelly, and they thought "oh shit, we could put a woman against him!"
Along comes Fiorina propped up by the media, and she was quickly smacked down by the Donald.
"Well fuck," they said. "Let's send in a black guy. Republicans would love to show they can vote in a black guy too."
Trump chuckled and let Carson gain some black guy ground. Then when Trump got bored with him, he smacked him down as well.
"Maybe he was too black for Republicans," they thought. "I know! We'll send in a guy who looks white but who can claim to be Hispanic."
Now Trump is watching Canadian Cruz and licking his chops. Another Republican media creation to butcher and destroy.
Who will be next in the path of Trump's destruction? The Republicans aren't going to have anyone left if they keep feeding him people left and right.
Reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/stump-speech/
Fun read on stump speeches.
The reality that he's been the best-polling candidate with the correct views on nearly everything? Who's going to stop him, Bernie Socialist Sanders? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Anyway the whole Trump thing is fun, but I'm going to try to be responsible and stop spending so much time on forums, so here we go.
If anyone thinks that the elections are anything more than entertainment, then I feel sorry for you.
Hilary, obv.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
But Jeb/Rubio before that.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-trumps-polls/
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Rubio has 100x more chance than Jeb, and Jeb has no chance.
100 * 0 = 0
bush's team thought this. few else did.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
nobody caredQuote:
Then Trump pissed off Megyn Kelly, and they thought "oh shit, we could put a woman against him!"
neither caused any damage to the otherQuote:
Along comes Fiorina propped up by the media, and she was quickly smacked down by the Donald.
polls with more rigorous standards than the ones you like have told a different story. right now, carson isnt doing so hot because of isis, but back when it was "him vs trump", the iowa numbers were bad for trump. there's reason to believe (but not confirmation) that trump had less than half the support of carson.Quote:
"Well fuck," they said. "Let's send in a black guy. Republicans would love to show they can vote in a black guy too."
Trump chuckled and let Carson gain some black guy ground. Then when Trump got bored with him, he smacked him down as well.
likely scenario: cruz gets evangelical iowa endorsement, wins iowa. trump underperforms iowa (which is almost certain to happen regardless of anything). trump's new hampshire numbers fall after everybody sees the paper tiger for what it is. trump tucks tail.Quote:
"Maybe he was too black for Republicans," they thought. "I know! We'll send in a guy who looks white but who can claim to be Hispanic."
Now Trump is watching Canadian Cruz and licking his chops. Another Republican media creation to butcher and destroy.
or, as some insiders think, trump knows this is coming, so he's planning to pull out pre-iowa
it's entertaining at least.Quote:
Who will be next in the path of Trump's destruction? The Republicans aren't going to have anyone left if they keep feeding him people left and right.
the latest string of polls show trump in the best position he's been since he entered the race. it's the syrian refugee/anti-immigration stuff hitting the spotlight again. nationalism is as enticing as it is detrimental.
AND TRUMP CONTINUES TO DESTROY EVERYONE IN HIS PATH
Trump Trump Trump Trump
Can you imagine the absolute hell that this guy would put Congress through? That alone is worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayToWin
Trump speaks the truth on a lot of things, especially regarding politics and politicians, that would make for exceptional entertainment for the next eight years.
fwiw the ability for trump to win the nomination is gradually, slowly creeping up.
The Trumpening continues.
Thought I was in that WWF thread for a second.
The election is roughly the same thing, and I mean that 100 percent sincerely with no sarcasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
i now think trump can actually win. an underperformance in iowa might not hurt him a whole lot. the evangelicals might not coalesce around one candidate, as they have intended to, because they're okay with rubio if rubio is the establishment favorite. nobody yet knows how many trump poll respondents will actually be able to caucus (caucusing is quite hard), but a primary, especially a new hampshire primary, works in trumps favor.
i kinda wanna read the art of the deal. i feel like trump is a pure marketing man and everything about his persona is affectation for purpose of optimizing superficial public support.
that said, trump's support is VERY superficial. it seems that as people learn more about him and more about others like cruz, they go to cruz.
Thanks, fag.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
cruz carson fiorina and trump may be the only people im comfortable voting for. the ethic of statesmanship is a fucking virus. even those who have their heads on straight but are deeply embedded in the ethic of the state, like bush, don't seem to get it. the statesman cannot imagine a solution that doesn't involve government control. i can't imagine any of the establishment candidate supporting an amendment to the constitution that says "the legislature shall pass no law that...", but i could see one of the outsiders doing that. i also can't see any establishment figures, even rubio, understanding that judicial interpretation of the commerce clause is the main subversion of constitutional principles. but i could see the outsiders understanding that. while rubio could possibly understand that, if he got elected by the establishment, he wouldn't touch the subject.
I like Cruz because he's a slippery motherfucker. I respect the game he's playing because it's a power-play. He holds himself infront of his people like he's wearing flowing robes of white and he's crisp enough to handle himself if anyone tries to corner him. I think he's completely bonkers though.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But the important thing to notice is that it is a power-play. The gov't of the Unites States of America wields a lot of practical power in the world. It can change lives accidentally. No one is going to get a law through the legislature that handicaps its power because every step of the way is littered with people who love power. If you want a better system, you have to win a war and bake it in day 0. And don't forget, winning a war is the ultimate power-play.
After Trump body bags Cruz's off-brand 16% ass, Hillary's next. Bernie doesn't have a chance against her.
Nothing gets my dick more rock hard than attractive women, some unattractive women, certain twinks, sexual situations that move toward sex, and Hillary Clinton's lockdown 4 year campaign.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-...-rape-suspect/
MyQuote:
"When I was a 27-year-old attorney doing legal aid work at the [University of Arkansas] where I taught in Fayetteville, Arkansas, I was appointed by the local judge to represent a criminal defendant accused of rape," she said when broached with the topic in an interview with British online network Mumsnet. "I asked to be relieved of that responsibility, but I was not. And I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did."
girl.Quote:
In a sworn affidavit aiming to coerce a psychiatric evaluation of the sixth-grade victim, Clinton during the case nearly 40 years ago called into question the girl's emotional stability, arguing she had exhibited "a tendency to seek out older men and engage in... fantasizing." She added, citing a child psychology expert that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant, are even more prone to such behavior."
i get that. my hypothesis is that cruz is not one of those people, at least not to the degree that standard washington is.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
im not ready to say that his oleaginous front is due to nefarious motives. it's probably just his own form of social awkwardness. the guy is possibly the closest to actual genius of anybody who has run for president since inception of the office.
part of me thinks that trump might not be too inclined to attack cruz since he probably wants to pick cruz for his running mate.
also if attacking anybody can hurt trump, it's cruz. because cruz will respond to it all by saying how right mr trump is. cruz's jabs will only be the super subtle ones that trump can't really hit back on, like cruz saying that he agrees with trump on loads of stuff but he thinks that a different demeanor will win the race. there's not much trump can do with that, partly because it's not a direct attack on trump. and partly because trump knows it's partly true.
cruz demonstrates that he really isn't like other politicians, that he actually understands important, complex issues
http://qz.com/566019/texas-tea-party...deral-reserve/
the short of it is that the federal reserve is responsible for the financial crisis and the great recession due to its unusually contractionary response to the market contraction of the sub-prime recession. for political reasons, mainstream economists have not accepted this, even though they accept the theory as true. but they are coming around rather quickly because other economists have been beating them over the head about their idiocy in ignoring well-established theory.
to date, cruz is the only politician who has voiced an opinion consistent with the economic theory. normally this would be a mundane thing, but the policy is among the most important things in the world. that doesn't just mean most important right now, but most important ever. an ignoring of the theory that cruz's statements indirectly accept is the primary factor in creation of the great depression, great recession, and pretty much every modern long-term recession not created by supply shortages of commodities. which makes sense since when central banks act in ignorance of the theory, they create supply shortages of money, in effect creating a recession that lasts for however long as they continue their shortage of supply of a necessary economic input, exactly as what happens with supply shortages of commodities.
a president who could influence the fed to adopt a rules-based nominal level target would have done more good for the world than if you took every other issue combined and passed politically-reasonable, positive legislation on it. monetary policy is just that important.
I think the fat faced twat meant to say that many Americans nursed a hatred towards Muslims.Quote:
Mr Trump said many Muslims nursed a "hatred" towards America.
It's probably fair to say I "hate" America, at least the nation state repsonsible for the imperialist foreign policy which I see in action today. So, Trump is going to ban all British because of me?
Or is he ok with me hating what America stands for because I'm white and not religious?
So you're saying many Muslims don't hate America?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I mean 9/11, ISIS, "kill the infidels," the shooting just a few days ago by Muslim extremists, etc.
If you deported all Muslims right this second, then mass shooting deaths would go down by something like 30-40 percent (I forget the exact number).
But it's not just America they hate; it's freedom. I mean look at what's happening in the Socialist State of Sweden right now. The rape rates went up like 1500% since they started letting the fuckers in by the boatload.
Somebody's doing the raping.
Of course not. I'm saying that if you're going to punish all Muslims because of a few, then you should punish all british because of a few, and all Canadians because of a few.Quote:
So you're saying many Muslims don't hate America?
Sure. Also, if you were to intern everyone into forced labour camps with an IQ below 100, then you'd improve the economy.Quote:
If you deported all Muslims right this second, then mass shooting deaths would go down by something like 30-40 percent (I forget the exact number).
Also, if you deport everyone of Spnaish origin, then noone of Spanish origin can break any of your laws.
Also, if you shoot any ginger people in the face, then no ginger person is likely to assasiante the President.
Yes well it's not Islam. It's people who might call themselves Islamic, but they might also call themselves smokers. Does that make all smokers rapists?Quote:
Somebody's doing the raping.
For fuck's sake.
fwiw, here's a fact.
Many British people hate America.
Not American people, or American Culture. America the nation state. America the aggressive imperialists.
But the word "many" would certainly apply. I don't think there's many whites here who hate America enough to celebtrate your citizens getting murdered, but I'd certainly celebrate if you people had a revolution and overthrew your government.
And yes, I hate Britain in equal measure, in case I offend any of your patriotic insensetivities.
If you flooded a country with smokers and then then rape rate went up over 1500%, then it would be reasonable to kick all smokers out of the country. Would you kick out some of the innocent smokers? Sure. But they did nothing to keep the other smokers from raping countless women, so fuck them.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Convert who protested outside Parliament over Syrian airstrikes with poster saying 'I am a Muslim... do you trust me enough for a hug?' now faces jail for threatening to bomb MP's house
#religionofpeaceQuote:
A Muslim convert who protested outside Parliament with a sign saying 'I am Muslim, do you trust me enough for a hug?' is facing jail for threatening to bomb an MP's house.
Craig Wallace used the sign as Stop The War protesters came to Westminster for the vote on military action in Syria last week.
It stated: 'I am Muslim, I am labelled a terrorist, I trust you, do you trust me enough for a hug?'
But the 23-year-old, of Willesden Green, north London, is now facing a possible prison sentence after he threatened Tory MP Charlotte Leslie online following the vote.
Wallace, who calls himself Muhammad Mujahid Islam online, wrote on Facebook: 'I'm going to smash her windows then drop a bomb on her house while she's tucked up in bed. You dirty f****** pig-s******* s***.'
Also, Cruz wants a 19 percent national sales tax. Fucking idiot.
Oh look, one more idiot who represents an entire culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Also, saying you're going to bomb someone is not that same as intending to bomb someone.
Did you ever say to anyone something to the effect of "I'll kill you motherfcuker, I'll rip your fucking eyes out"? Did you then actually kill them and rip their eyes out? Or did you slap them about a bit and shout a bit more?
lol oneQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
"Also, saying you're going to bomb someone is not that same as intending to bomb someone." much wow so analysis
And no, I don't make threats that I don't intend to follow through on.
Ok so for the sake of exposing manipulative figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Let's assume there's a community of 1000 people, and there was one rape last year. The next year, 500 Gypsies set up camp, and one gypsy goes on to rape four local women before getting caught.
So we just had an increase of, what, 400% thanks to the actions of one bad egg from a community of 500.
The correct figure to work with is the % of the inlux of immigrants that are raping or otherwise causing serious problems, not the % increase in reported cases, because that number tells us nothing about if this is the repeated actions of a minority or not.
It's not a case of making threats and not following up on them, or whatever. It's the case that some people, when they are angry, say stupid shit that they don't mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
"I'm gonna kill you" is probably the most common example. While many people do make that threat seriously, the vast majority of the time it's hot air.
I assume this muppet who threatened to bomb the dude's house was just being a dick, rather than actually being a terrorist.
I'm not sure what alternative world you come from, but threatening to kill someone is a big deal. The definition of terrorism is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims," and since this was over a vote that didn't go the way he wanted it to, it's easily under the umbrella of terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ok, so some gobshite who uses stupid language is a terrorist, but USA and UK are not terrorists, despite the fact we're using violence and intimidation aginst the Syrian regime in an effort to enforce regime change.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I'm definitely in an alternative world to you.
Who said that?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Oh so we do agree on that then? That's good.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I'm confused how you could support the xenophobic rhetoric coming from Trump, if you agree that our foreign policy amounts to terrorism.
No, it'd be completely unreasonable. First, two things happening doesn't mean one caused the other. But even if you could show this, denying a citizen the ability to live here is a huge deal. If we just decided to do something like this, we'd be eroding or eliminating so many of the fundamental principles that define us as a country and spitting on the graves of our ancestors.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Show me the statistic that says american muslims (or Syrian refugees) are so terrible. Last I checked, they account for a very small amount of deaths...something like 50 in the last 10 years. IIRC, that's with a sample of over 700,000 muslims.
We're also ignoring that muslims are productive members of our society and culture. That 1 bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch. We might as well kick all the blacks out to decrease poverty.
Muslims here tend to be more productive than locals.
They run the majority of the non-corporate grocery stores, newsagents and boozers.
And make us curry.
That's because you people would rather sit on your ass and collect a check.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Terrorism isn't inherently bad. It's just a tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Whenever you hear people call America an empire, stop listening to the words that come out of their mouths, for they know not about empires nor America.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It would not. It would be abysmal for the economy. Forced labor is just that unproductive.Quote:
Also, if you were to intern everyone into forced labour camps with an IQ below 100, then you'd improve the economy.
If it was added to current taxes, it would be terrible. But if it's the only tax, it would improve the health of the economy and peoples' lives several times over. Cruz's plan is overall fantastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Consumption taxes are the least destructive of all taxes.
Yep. It goes against two of the key principles of a free society, that guilt is not assumed and that people are responsible for their own actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
That said, we've gone way over the top is not using or discrimination facilities. Profiling is a good thing. It's highly productive, it's a philosophy we use for everything else, and it doesn't violate civil liberties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
noun: imperialism
a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.
Yeah probably, I didn't actually think about this for more than a second or two, I was just talking shit in rebuttal to spoon. There's a vague point there somewhere, even if it's not entirely accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Laugh away, but if you think people go ape shit when we threaten their guns, imagine if we threatened their homes.
@wuf: sure, profiling can be good. But you gotta make sure it's actually useful and not needless discrimination. Pulling every black person over and searching them just because there are lots of black people in prison is not effective profiling. However, keeping track of people who have friends/family in known terrorist groups is. Watching out for gang members is.
I know what's coming. "Look at their holy book, these guys are crazy wackjobs". No. Some are, yes. But that's how non Christians see the WBC. There are people who take religious views to absurd extremes, but that does not represent the whole. I read somewhere that 90% of American muslims strongly believe in women's rights, and support them getting careers and education and not wearing their hijab (or whatever it's called).
Should we vet ppl coming in? Of course. And we do.
the definition has undergone some rewriting, probably for the political purpose of making modern US look like an empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
even then, going with this definition, the US still isn't imperial (at least not by much). it's not trying to extend its power, at least not in an imperial sense. the last time it did that was the aftermath of ww2.
in fact the US's current foreign policy is anti-imperial. under obama, it has been lessening its power at a quickened pace. under bush (and the truman doctrine), the US's foreign policy was never about expanding influence, but about protecting security interests that everybody has relied upon for many decades. it can be said that one of the reasons the iraq war failed was because the bush administration was so anti-imperial in its efforts. it took no power for itself, and an unintended consequence of doing so was that iraq would fall into less capable hands.
well the writing is about as on the wall as it's going to get at this point. the nominee will be rubio.
it not being effective profiling is why it wouldn't be an adopted method.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
still, problems arise from governments profiling, not because they're profiling, but because they're governments and they have undue power over people. a cop in the security monopoly can fuck over people very effectively, but an employee in a security market couldn't so easily.
it should also be noted the not profiling creates more bad things. when policy is to search every grandma at the airport as much as every jihadi-profile person, time and energy is wasted on the worthless examination of grandmas, which detracts from the time and energy put into potential jihadis.
young white men are one of the groups that should be profiled for terrorism more than others, fwiw
Idk, I feel like bouncers and private security fuck up and over pretty regularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And by feel, I mean I've read enough cases about a guard doing dumb shit and someone dying or being injured because of it.
i was referring to institutional effects. racist cops can get away with shit to a degree that racist employees cannot. this is one reason why the main issues people have with profiling are in fields where the government has a monopoly. profiling is a net positive in markets (it's used all the time in every field), but monopolies are so conducive to oppressive institutional policies that profiling as a concept looks terrible when governments are involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
as they should.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
it's ironic that the crowd that thinks the government should have all the guns is also the crowd that highlights how terrible all the abuse from government officials with guns is. meanwhile, citizen firearm ownership does not correlate that well with increasing violence, but it does correlate well with decreasing violence.
Nah, the government is actually more scrutinized. In addition to title 7 that applies to all employers, government agencies must also abide by the 14th amendment. That's just legal scrutinty though. They're also obv more politically scrutinized and that includes 24/7 constant news footage whenever they fuck up.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But the reason people only have issues with government profiling is because that's the only profiling they're aware of. Go walk down the street and ask someone what profiling means, and most (if not all) will tell you it's police stuff
they only appear to be more scrutinized because there are a lot of laws about it and whenever a big story comes up, there's a ton of scrutiny that follows. contrast this to the markets, where the scrutiny isn't highlighted because we rarely get to a place of problematic behavior in the first place. the hardest thing in the world is to not get fired without question if your racism comes out at your job. this level of deterrence of negative profiling is tough to come by in monopolies.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
and why is this the only profiling they're aware of and have a problem with? profiling is prolific among everybody everywhere, among every level of dynamic thing. yet it only seems to be a problem when the government is involved, regardless of what that thing is. this is what it looks like when the government is the problem, not a specific industry.Quote:
But the reason people only have issues with government profiling is because that's the only profiling they're aware of. Go walk down the street and ask someone what profiling means, and most (if not all) will tell you it's police stuff
Nah. There's tons of problematic behavior. Look at at-will employment. Half the reason people get fired over stupid shit is because they're allowed to be. Companies are permitted to do so, and do in fact do so by an overwhelming margin. Why bother risking bad publicity when you can just fire them?
What else. BP oil spill, in fact any time a company has done something to justify having an EPA. The Jungle. Ecoli scares at taco bell. The shop that refused to make a gay wedding cake. The college that suspended kids for black face.
Both companies and governments are heavily scrutinized, but governments are still more so. Hell, half our laws are to facilitate such scrutiny! There is no reason to have public records or open courts but for challenging the gov.
As far as criminal profiling being the only thing they're aware of...it's got nothing to do with hate for the government's use of it. Some director somewhere makes a movie, a bunch of tv shows follow. You can't go two episodes into law and order or the wire without hearing about profiling. It's incredibly widespread, and often is attached specifically to racial profiling...something sjw are quick to spread animosity towards.
But, while this is the most common type of profiling and the most well known by far (due to media coverage, nothing more), I can think of one other type thay ppl may know. And that is advertising profiling. But as to your point that criminal profiling is the only one ppl hate... I disagree. Loads of people can't stand the idea of ads catering to them and learning and storing info about them.
Just to jump over the conversation to share two things:
On Netflix, Best of Enemies is a great documentary about the Robert F Buckley Jr / Gore Vidal televised debates that forever changed how the news media covered politics.
Buckley was a masterful debater who was pushing a new form of combative conservatism via his publication The National Review and Vidal was a brilliant author who had just published a satire about the sexual exploration and exploits of an MTF transexual. They were both on the cutting edge of what both ends of the political spectrum would later become.
Through 10 televised debates shown after news coverage of the R/D conventions, they had forever changed how the news media would cover politics - no longer centrists who merely cemented the truth, the News would become the argumentative punditry we all know and love today.
On top of that, Cruz has an interview on NPR this morning where he argues against the science of climate change. If you want to see why I love this guy so much, just listen to him stand a bit taller than reality itself. (I'll link it later when NPR publishes it online).
If ever you needed two reasons why I constantly say that argument is fundamentally empty, look no further than these.