Printable View
But actually that's an interesting point. He doesn't generally keep after his enemies after he attacks them, he moves on to the next fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
He's like Abraham Lincoln during the Trent Affair 'One war at a time' only with Donny it's 'One twitter war at a time.'
He was too busy dicking around on Twitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Certainly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No wait, it's because it's mentally unfit. He was probably texting the Russians.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Putin told him to sit still beforehand.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I don't know but it would have been funny and not entirely surprising if he had.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Edit: maybe he didn't want a secret service takedown and knee in the back on his political resume.
When has he done something that would make such behavior unsurprising?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
What else have I not said that you'd like to call me out on? ;)
I was joking...Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If CNN reported this, how many people would believe it?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
A young up and coming general is marching his army along a road when they encounter an unmanned wall erected straight across the road. He brashly orders his engineers to dismantle it. His men cheer him for his decisiveness as they march through the newly opened hole in the wall. A wise old general happens into the same situation. He orders his engineers to study it and report back their conclusions as to its purpose. His men groan as they setup camp to await the engineers' findings.
With regards to political etiquette, I'm with the second general, which interestingly enough would make me the conservative.
To be less vague and esoteric: politicians do display this fetishization of humility, and it can be off putting, and it's understandable how a politician who does away with it can feel refreshing. However, there are likely all sorts of benefits to assuming this manner in the political realm. If not, it would be highly unlikely that it would not only be a trait that survives the constant tests of fitness, but one that has come to dominate modern politics.
I agree with the general sentiment of your first paragraph.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
With that having been said, when everyone acts like that to an extreme, they're very easily exploited by someone who does not act like that, whether or not it's the optimal thing to do or not.
For a random example, remember when Obama was caught on tape calling Kanye a fucking jackass? That helped his image a fair amount at the time. It was an accident, but it still worked.
Related:
Machiavelli's point here is not about moderation. It's about doing the right thing at the right time whether it's the "good" thing to do or not. Whether Trump is doing this intentionally or not, he has a massive advantage because he doesn't feel the need to be as politically chilled the fuck out.Quote:
Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.
It's a good point and I mostly agree. I think we will return pretty quickly to it once Trump is out of the picture. Some may try to mimic him (some already are) and they will probably fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Ways in which I push back are that humility in the political sphere isn't perfect; we still have stuff to learn. It can be the case that the humility fetish has led to a lot of problems even as it is stable. It can also be that the discarding of the humility fetish is a response to corruption in media. The day that the media stops being an extension of the Democratic Party may be the day that Republicans want to return to humility. But as of now, the GOP being humble might actually be hurting them (and the country).
One way of looking at is that you're only at war for a little while, but when you're at war, you're at fucking war. You want peace, and most of what you live is and will be peace. But when you're at war you're at fucking war.
Right now, the citizens that support Trump are at war.
Why are they at war? The government keeps taking, the media keeps lying, and the blame keeps getting put on the shoulders of the makers and the doers and the decent.
War will end as soon as that changes.
Spoon, while we may differ on how to implement these notions, I agree with your elaborations completely. As I was writing, those ideas were kind of bubbling up, but I couldn't solidify them.
Similarly, wuf, I mostly agree with what you've said. Trump is probably more like Stu Ungar than Jamie Gold in this respect. After Ungar the game snapped back to a bunch of weak tight old men, but Ungar opened the door for a new way to think about the game, and slowly but surely the game evolved to include elements found in his play.
The thing that gives me pause with your posts, wuf, is that I don't think virtually any of the soldiers in this war know what they're fighting for or towards. And due to the nature of the grievances and the war, strong leadership is unlikely and the soldiers are prone to unknowingly taking up the cause of an enemy.
I personally think the risks of putting a troll president in office are too great-- he's not just trolling the American political establishment, he's trolling allies, nuclear armed enemies, etc. But that's actually besides the point if the soldiers in this war are without a clear win condition, which leads to unending war, and without adequate leadership/safeguards against their cause being hijacked. If the cause was filled with a bunch of wuf's and spoons and led by Ben Shapiro, maybe I'd rest a little bit easier-- but as is?...
Ben Shapiro is a fucking cuck.
I would totally have a gay marriage with Lauren Southern though.
Just yesterday I described Shapiro as half a cuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
What happened?
nm i see it was in reponse to boost
It's funny how Shapiro is a Nazi sympathizer to the left and a jewcuck to the right.
I think he's wrong on a lot and leans to heavily on his tactical ability to eviscerate lesser opponents in debate-- but I find myself drawn to at least listen to people who draw the ire of both sides like this. They tend to be making a lot of sense on at least a few issues.
I'm very conflicted because I think LS is hot AF and I love sassy gals who don't take shit. On the other hand I'm not super hot on the white nationalist part.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8HsQC_MBhc
This is a pretty good LS meme.
1. Lauren Southern is a man.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
2. White nationalism and white supremacy are not the same thing, but in the Venn diagram of people who prescribe to the two, the overlap is definitely greater than either of the individual sides. With that having been said, virtually all white nationalists who are not white supremacists are also black nationalists and nationalists of various other races and ethnic groups.
That's Shapiro.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I think he is partly masquerading. His site is set up so that he can be the "conservative that anti-Trump conservatives can get behind" while Andrew Klavan is the pro-Trump guy. Meanwhile, Trump has done more conservative policy than Shapiro could have imagined in Shapiro's wildest dream for Shapiro's dream candidate. I want honesty, not somebody playing to their crowd.
On Lauren Southern
I can't fuckign stand her and it's purely personal wugy reasons. Just the way she sounds when she speaks. Same with Faith Goldy. Other than that she's great. Also yes 10/10 would go gay for her. Also would probably try to date her though I bet I would jam a pen in my ear after ten minutes.
On whiteness
It's more of a culture than anything. Postmodern neo-Marxism needs that culture to die off in order to usher in Utopia (the same Utopia at a philosophical level that the world realized was an unbelievably destructive force back in the 70s and 80s).
I think he is honest. He does not knock Trump for the conservative stuff he does, he openly says he's thankful for it. However, I think he's of the opinion that Trump is not fit for office. These views are not mutually exclusive. I can be happy that hurricane dropped a full chest of long lost sunken pirate treasure in my backyard and still not want hurricanes to continue making landfall.
Can't be unfit for office if you fucking won. Sucka sucka dick y'all.
That's reasonable enough. By now you probably know more current Shapiro than I do. I used to be a big fan of his though. Him and his weaselly voice.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Sound's like you're assuming that if I only were to realize that a white nationalist is not necessarily a white supremacist, I'd go: Oh! That's not retarded then!Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Well, no, it still is really retarded. We can talk about that if you want. But no trollerino pls. I'll get sufficiently triggered by whatever your real arguments are, I promise.
Well I guess this means Trump must be very genius (and stable)
https://i.imgur.com/rh2sKdJ.jpg
I wonder if today will mark the end of the ctrl-left flipping a lid every time Trump goads them into giving him a helping hand. I just get that impression, given how many people have been saying it.
Naw who am I kidding? Orange Clownies gonna Orange Clown.
You know my avatar. Every time I look at it all I see is Uncle Nige. I mean Trump's jakt arms and delts are cool, but Uncle Nige is one suave motherfucker.
The most basic argument for white nationalism is that there is benefit in allowing different people to have their own homelands without having them forced into diversity for the sake of diversity. There are reasonable arguments and data to support this argument. Logically, you cannot be a white nationalist without also being an [insert race/ethnicity] nationalist. It's ultimately a sub-set of liking to have well-defined borders between things.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The problem is that a majority of [insert race/ethnicity] nationalists of any type aren't necessarily logical and don't necessarily give a shit about the reasonable arguments. When any type of [insert race/ethnicity] nationalism is combined with [same race/ethnicity] supremacy, it results in wanting to kill off everyone else and to create a master race and all of this other ridiculousness. Since most white nationalists, for example, are also white supremacists, it's easy to see how that's a problem.
For what it's worth, there's also the odd group who are white supremacists but who are not white nationalists. They tend to be the least violent or aggressive towards other racists/ethnic groups, and they also tend to feel they are simply being realists and that they have no reason to be hostile to other groups due to being the best or whatever.
For myself, I'm not a white nationalist, but I am a nationalist.
Edit: I want to point out also that the overwhelming majority of white supremacists are in the bottom 50 percent of the intelligence and socioeconomic pool.
Edit 2: Random but perhaps interesting, most people I have seen wanting to incorporate race play into their sex lives have been black women wanting to be degraded by a white man. Second place is white men wanting to be degraded by a black man, usually by fucking his wife/significant other in a cuckold arrangement (I suspect porn has something to do with this). Third place is Asian girls wanting to be dominated (note the difference in the verb) by white men.
A nation is a set of ideas. Some ideas are better than others.
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/...81fd86ee1c.jpg
Remember the Animaniacs segments "Good Idea, Bad Idea."Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I feel like those have a lot of meme magic potential.
Depends on whether or not I am a sexist for saying hello to a nurse.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I can literally see both sides of this hahaha
How many times will I see the word "nationalist" not preceded by the word "white" in 2018.
I don't care where you set the post....I will bet the under.
Can someone explain to me why non-white people can't be Nationalist?
This is a media trick to associate anyone with conservative, America-first values, as a racist.
And wuf....YOU FELL FOR IT.
When you say shit like "white nationalism is different from white-supremacy", you're just feeding the narrative that anyone who shirks the policies of globalization and open borders is really just a racist and xenophobe.
There is no such thing as "white nationalism". There is "nationalism" and there are white people. That's it. Any attempt to marry the two is just a spin-game that is attempting to broad-brush an entire conservative movement as racist and hateful.
Trump knows this. That's why he blamed both sides in Charleston. How did the media react to that?? They eviscerated Trump because his truth doesn't fit their phony narrative that Nationalism is anti-black, rather than simply pro-america.
Kwanzaa was established as an anti-white, black nationalist holiday in the 60s.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ever hear of the Nation of Islam? Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammad, some boxer guy? They were black nationalists who wanted to create a nation for black people (somewhere in America presumably).
Essentially if you want a nation made up entirely of one colour people, you're a [insert colour here] nationalist.
Also, you can be a nationalist without being supremacist or racist in any way, though they tend to go together since anyone who has supremacist/racist leanings will see nationalism as taking those views to their logical conclusion.
The reason you don't hear much if anything about black nationalism in America is because blacks will never have enough power to enact it, so it's about as big of a threat as gay nationalism or mormon nationalism - i.e., it ain't gonna happen. White nationalism on the other hand has the latent power to make itself realized if enough people got on board.
That's why liberals go ape-shit over white nationalism and not black nationalism. If blacks were the majority in America, liberals would be going ape-shit over black nationalism and not worry about white nationalism. It's a question of which type of nationalism poses the most tangible risk of coming true, and that depends on who holds the power.
Poop, you just perverted the definition of Nationalism.
Also, even if everything you just said is true.....I haven't heard any of the people who identify as nationalist, ever say anything about an all-white America.
Rather, I've heard them argue for an all-american-america. By your definition, they are American-nationalists. What's wrong with that? How is it racist? How do you get from there....to "all-white america"
Just because they happen to be white, doesn't mean that you get to super-impose a racist agenda on to their platform.
?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Black nationalism isn't some foreign concept that's never been a major topic in the US lol
You're mind-reading again.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I was talking about white and black nationalists and you somehow took that to mean I think every type of nationalist bases their idea on colour.
An anti-immigrant American nationalist is more commonly referred to as a nativist. So why would anyone go ape-shit over nativists? I suspect it's because they (rightly or wrongly) correlate that attitude with racism/intolerance/other bad stuff.
If you take Trump as an example; he doesn't rail against immigration in general, he mainly rails against immigration from countries whose people happen to be a different colour and/or religion than white/christian (e.g., Mexico, the Middle East). I've never heard him say 'don't let in any more white protestant europeans, they're fucking this country right up! Build a Wall on the border of Canada!' or the like.
Perhaps this is mere coincidence, and one could argue that Mexican immigration is more important to control due to the sheer numbers involved, and non-christian immigrants don't share christian values and are as such 'un-American'. And if Trump made those kinds of cogent and reasoned arguments they'd be more palatable. But instead he aims for the heart and not the head with words like 'bad hombres' and 'zomg radical muslim terrorism'. It's this language and the tacit racism/intolerance it suggests that gets many people's backs up.
Never said it was never a major topic and i thought i made that clear with the reference to the NoI. But it hardly gets screaming headlines any more, does it? You'll have to tell me I don't live there.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
So do you agree that it's unfair to describe a conservative, pro-America movement as "white nationalist"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Do you agree that the left-wing media is playing a dirty trick on the minds of American people by pounding this suggesting that Nationalism = Racism.
No, of course you don't. You've echo-chambered yourself into believing that it's true all because of some silly, biased observation, that Trump talks too much about the southern border, and doesn't talk enough about stopping immigration from Denmark.
Lol you're such an angry twat.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
But to answer your question, those two views aren't mutually incompatible. The left-wing media can overblow the connection between nationalism and racism by focusing on the intolerant language Trump uses like 'Muslim Ban'. He's given them the bullets for their gun, so to speak.
More generally, if you're suggesting that the media is biased and spins things to suit their purposes, you'll hardly get an argument from anybody. A better question is, why rant and rave about it? It's a fact that it happens on both sides of the fence. Deal with it.
"Muslim ban" is not intolerant language. It's a part of a defense against intolerance.
Read and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Yeah yeah two fucking pages ago and all, but this made me howl with laughter.Quote:
Originally Posted by banana
It reminds me of when someone tries to tell me Debbie Harry is ugly. I know it but I'll punch you for saying it.
I think banana has a man crush on Trump.
The paradox of tolerance has never escaped me; the idea that to be truly tolerant implies you also tolerate the intolerant. However, not sure what this has to with the words 'Muslim Ban'.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
If your argument is that Muslims are holders of an intolerant creed and thus must be excluded from America in order for it to remain a tolerant society, this is overly simplistic. There are just as many Christians who are intolerant, and by your logic should thus be deported (or not allowed in).
So where does this leave us? This argument uses a broad brush to paint an entire religion based on the actions/views of a tiny minority of them, ignoring that applying that same heuristic to the majority religion was never a part of the stated goal of the 'Muslim Ban'. My argument is that to do so is to behave unfairly. If this is not intolerance then it's at least unjust.
If instead, your argument is that tolerance requires we passively acquiesce to intolerance in our leaders and government, then well I guess a utilitarian argument could be made for a tolerant person seeking whatever allows the greatest amount of net tolerance to exist, and that being intolerant of a national policy of intolerance is logical under that principle.
Islam is not compatible with American society. Get over it.
Depends on your interpretation of Islam I guess. If you think it's suicide bombing infidels and other retarded shit, then I'd agree. If you think it's quietly going about your business, following the laws, and praying to your own God I'd say it's perfectly compatible with a society that values freedom above all else.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I wasn't the one who said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I was the one who pointed out that historians think of whiteness as more of a culture than anything else, and that a nation is a set of ideas.
Keep in mind that the Irish used to be negro. Below negro actually. That was back when the Irish lived with and like American blacks. Then the Irish changed and adopted mainstream culture. Then they became known as white. The white/negro distinction was thought of in terms of culture, not skin. The emphasis on skin color is new and it began to dominate when communism collapsed and then postmodernism had to adopt a new form of the communist ethos. It went from being about the bourgeoisie (oppressor) vs. the proletariat (oppressed) to being about the white working Christian (oppressor) vs. the minority (oppressed).
This is closer to my thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The contemporary promoters of Americanism aren't concerned with skin color or country of origin. They want people who come to America to be people who want to be American.
This reminds me of that saying, "If you want to offend a conservative, tell him a lie; if you want to offend a leftist, tell him (xir) the truth."Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Sufi Islam has transformed the religion enough that that sect is compatible, I'd say. The trick Sufis use is not taking any of the text literally at all. Everything is just spiritual and symbolic.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
As for other sects, I am more sanguine about this now than I used to be. I have kinda bought into the narrative Thomas Wictor discusses. That is that the Saudis are rapidly transforming their religion and country to become socially modern. We should keep in mind, however, that the primary reason for the Salafi and terrorism aspect of Islam is the literal interpretation of its holy texts, and that needs to be dealt with.
How is being forced into diversity ethically different from being forced to separate? I don't even think there's an equivalency here. I think it's disingenuous to use the word "forced" when you're talking about living in closed proximity to different cultures because the culture part does not impede your personal freedom, but forcing people to separate impedes their personal freedom. If you have data, I'd love to see it. I like data driven arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
On Shapiro. Wictor has a knack for cutting to the chase.
https://twitter.com/ThomasWictor/sta...42955955765248
I'm not the world's biggest fan of Steven Crowder. He's good people but he's got some growing to do. I've always respected that at least he's honest. Shapiro just shines of hubris.
In that tweetQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAQuote:
I like Shapiro, but he's so odd about Trump. He refuses even now to think of him as anything other than a stunt. He flat out ignores that Trump is in fact a man that gave up his empire to try and better this country's future.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Holy shit LOLWUT
I wonder if they do know what they're fighting for. Fighting to win. They articulate what they're fighting for poorly, but as is becoming more apparent as time progresses, Trump's positive results are staggering.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
nm
He certainly didn't give up an empire. He gave up being loved by elites and elitists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
By passing tax cuts, laws and regulations which benefit quite specifically the elites and elitistsQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Why do you have that idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
LOL wufQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Tax cuts: "
Why the GOP Tax Cut Will Make Wealth Inequality So Much Worse
The richest 1 percent now own 40 percent of the country's wealth. Under this bill, they’d own more.
"
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...alilty/548726/
Net neutrality:
"Everyone's missing the other part of the net neutrality debate — Big Tech is poised to become even more powerful"
http://www.businessinsider.com/fccs-...panies-2017-12
LOL Environment:
"Trump to repeal Obama fracking rule"
Big Oil is super happy of course!
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...-fracking-rule
I can continue, but it will literally not do anything to your bubble, so I won't bother
Mmmmm, I wonder why I have that idea
Cause like everyone on the left, he can't shake the absurd notion that the government is better at spending money on the economy than investors.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Practically 100% of history has proven this to be unconditionally wrong. It's just SOOOOO easy for left wing politicians to fool poor people by framing tax relief as crony capitalism. People who are too dumb, or too lazy, or too underpriveleged to know the history, or think about economics on any intelligent level swallow that hook line and sinker.
"that guy's already got so much, I got nothing, and the government gave him more....WTF????"
Even a bottom-level thought process would come to the realization that the money returned via tax cuts doesn't really leave the economy. It gets re-invested in the economy and the economy grows. The alternative, higher taxes, results in a stagnant economy propped up by government redistribution of wealth along the very bottom of the economy.
If 20% more of your friends and neighbors have jobs, not just job, but GOOD jobs that allow them security and freedom.......do you really care if the guy employing them has a bigger boat?
I can't believe there really people in this world, namely The Democratic Party, who would rather have those 20% of people unemployed, dependent on a government check, just to enforce some poetic justice by taxing the bejeezus out of some greedy fat cat??
It's pretty obvious to see that dependency = votes, and that's why they do it. I just can't believe 60+ million voting Americans are stupid enough to not see this.
The argument isn't about being forced to separate: It's about having a home for people who are like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It's not unlike the notion that men need all-male spaces, and women need all-female spaces.
Google is your friend: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe..._of_diversity/Quote:
But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
Because dipshit crybaby liberals would rather have half of a 5-pound bag of gold than 10 percent of a 1000-pound bag of gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
They want a bigger piece of a smaller pie.
They do not understand economics, and they do not understand basic fucking math.
They cannot be reasoned with because they are not reasonable.
What do people with expertise on the topics think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
The kicker is that it can be said that he employs them BECAUSE he has a bigger boat.*Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Take away the profit signal and you take away growth in the quantity and quality of goods. Taught in ECON 101 and demonstrated by history's communist regimes.
*More like the expectation of getting a bigger boat by taking on the risk of employing them for the task at hand.
A phenomenon of humankind, indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Oh the Democratic Party in the US is just Republican Light. And who would vote for Republican Light when they can just vote for Republicans? There is no real choice in US politics. And that is baffling to me, you think you have choice but you are all just along for the ride, and it doesn't matter what you want, money will always be prioritized over youQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
All of it is just a sad joke
Those are comments by people with expertise on the topic(s), apparently much more expertise than your beloved dear leaderQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy