tuvarkz

Honestly, given how strongly Trump and Hillary's plans diverge (And how much I consider it important that Trump wins), I believe that if resorting to namecalling is working quite effectively, I don't see why a change in Trump's strategy is needed. I don't believe in representation, particularly because I think that the first female POTUS shouldn't be a figure filled with clear corruption and negligence issues. Oh, please-the mainstream media outside of Fox News has been extremely pro-Clinton of recent, it's just that the email server issue is so huge that you can't just exxagerate how bad it is, due to both the action and the implications of the FBI's decision. Multiculturalism, as is, needs to crash and burn; particularly because while Western cultures are fairly similar to each other, there's a clear cut when it comes to Middle East/North African ones, which makes them fairly uncompatible, particularly due to the heavy favoring of religious law (Sharia law being barbaric) amongst Muslim-majority countries (I've brought the Pew studies more than a few times). Other countries' opinions shouldn't matter. The job of the US administration is to put the US and it's people first, not to care for the poor people in the rest of the world-Increasing the amount of refugees accepted into the US by 500% while there's still quite a few issues in the country is definitively a bad idea. Oh, and it seems Bernie Sanders is quitting the DNC. (Couldn't find a major news outlet reporting it yet, but I'm glad the man has a shred of political coherence remaining)

Of course, it wouldn't be a direct war unless things got really out of control. Indirect fighting could still be quite likely to happen, however. Mexico would find itself in a hopeless situation if it declared war on the US. Lesser in numbers, training, equipment, likely morale-it would almost be asking for an annexation, if it wasn't obvious that annexing a post-war Mexico would be a terrible idea. EDIT: Hillary has potential corporate interests behind her, Trump has little particular care about warmongering. ISIS won't have an easier time recruiting. They already have aplenty of people that are ideologically aligned to them or supporting them in passive roles. Straining them for resources and communication would make their job harder, not easier. Worst case scenario would be the muslim migrants in europe causing massive riots, but that would be ultimately beneficial as it would prove that multiculturalism was always something doomed to failure, with a correspondent resurgence in nationalism.

War against who? Hillary will be actively opposing Russia and more than likely trying to provoke it into one, but instead with Trump, USA-Russia being on friendly terms would actively discourage a war, as no individual country would have a reasonable chance against them. Trump will go all out on Syria until ISIS and its supporters are purged from the face of the Earth, but afterwards we'll see little else happen.

Except that this would be Trump's style of foreign relationships we'd be talking to, Trump being the one that waited for the pope to apologize rather than care about being criticized. I could easily see a USA/Russia friendly relation at most increasing Russia's sphere of influence on Eastern Europe, and the NATO nations probably deciding to actually adhere to the stated percentage of budget into military expenses to prevent the US from leaving.

Except that Sanders was, until this election, an independent. It's clear that Sanders needed the DNC's support if he was to make a serious bid for the presidency, but as someone who has been elected Senator without being affiliated to the DNC, it wouldn't be disadvantageous to cut his losses and separate from the DNC. Trump, similarly, was an outsider, and the oath that he and the other 3 frontrunners were made to swear was to make sure that Trump wouldn't go 3rd party if he didn't win.

I was making a descriptive list mostly, not explicitly made to show the best of Trump while minimizing his worst. Had I intended to place the parts that I valued most higher, I'd likely have placed Meritocratic First and Nationalist second. However, I believed that describing the movement's nature first before listing what it stood for was a better way of doing so.

I wholeheartedly agree with the part of the necessary social support. It's just that people shouldn't entirely depend on government funds if they could be working. I believe the difference lays in what policies change and which aren't. If the candidate's most spoken arguments get changed around, it's a flip-flop, but if it is a non core issue, I believe it should be a sign of flexibility. If Trump suddenly stopped mentioning the wall or deporting illegal immigrants, or started speaking about a substantial increase in minimum wage or taxes, I'd think of it as a flip-flop. I'm a pro-lifer in most circumstances, but Trump changing his mind on abortion isn't something that will make me swap candidates when I find economy/foreign policy aspects far more important.

Alright, I'll start with Republicans under Trump for simplicity Republicans as led by Trump are: 1-A cult of personality. This is a statement of fact. Regardless of the amount of people that will largely share the beliefs of Trump, he's the lynchpin of the movement he leads, and at least until new potential flagbearers rise up to the task, Trump's movement will not last in hegemony without Trump leading it. This is largely due to Trump's ego and force of personality that have caused people to rally under his banner. 2-Nationalist. Trump's movement will place the US first and foremost, and cares fairly little for other countries. It's fairly clear that under Trump, the US might abandon NATO should the other countries not match the fixated amount of military spending and such, and that no interest should be taken into account of other than the interests of America and its citizens. (Well, and Israel, but that's pandering that about every single candidate has made) 3-Careless about political correctness. Trump doesn't care about PC and will not change any decision or words just to avoid offending a group. 4-Meritocratic. His focus on the creation of jobs rather than increase of social benefits makes a very clear statement-People are going to be given the opportunity to achieve success, but they are going to have to work for it. 5-Flexible: Outside of his core plans (Building the wall, deportation of illegal immigrants, renegotiating trade deals, dealing with ISIS, other than ISIS reduce interventionism across the world, help the veterans, tax cuts to favor investment and growth of all business regardless of size) Trump has flip-flopped on a variety of issues, and rather than him being shaky on these, I believe that it's that Trump is willing to negotiate on issues that aren't his core stances, as long as said core stances are passed through. I believe 1, 3, and 5 have been fairly noticeable about Trump so I won't explicitly source them. On the Republicans as is (I'll be short about the more widely known republican factions) Traditional conservatives: I believe that the link that Phoenix Wright provided earlier is more than accurate enough. Evangelicals/Religious conservatives: This is the group that will take their Biblical teachings the most into account Neoconservatives: This group's departure with traditional conservatism is based around a more globalist (Jeb Bush on immigration reform) and interventionist view (Marco Rubio on interventionism), as well as a departure from entirely sticking to traditional values (Kasich on gay marriage) Alt Right (Although I will discuss this a bit more, this will be largely unsourced due to the heterogeneous nature of the alt-right itself) -Acephalous: There is no functional leader of the alt-right movement, even if it the group as a whole supports Trump due to having the most points in common. (There's individual figures like Milo Yiannoupolos, but they don't necessarily have influence on the entirety of the group, and he is in fact disliked by the more religious members of the group for his sexual orientation). Outside of their core ideology, it will be often that there will be large differences of opininon on a variety of matters with a significant amount of support for each side. -Factionalist and Unflexible: Once the group as a whole decides on a single issue, it will strongly reject an opposing opinion from those few that disagree with it, and will rarely be willing to negotiate on those same issues with other groups, even amongst the rest of the conservatives. Of course, this doesn't apply to stances the alt-right members are not entirely clear on. (This is easily spotted by the use of the term 'cuckservative' when describing other conservative groups in relation to stances that they are in disagreeance with) -Against political correctness: While Trump will not care about following PC, the alt-right is actively against it, taking stances with the only purpose of provocation, particularly when they have data and statistics that support said stance (Milo Yiannoupolos's statements generally fit with this. Some members of the alt-right will express bigoted views openly, although the group cares little about excluding said individuals (or even criticizing them) and instead will be willing to engage in open debate about their ideas) -Western culture supremacism: The alt-right will uphold western culture as the best culture and way of life in its diversity of tones (To note, to some members, the term 'white culture supremacism' may apply, depending on whether Eastern Europe and Latin America are included in this; but the term definitively excludes gang culture). This is backed by individual nationalism of the members, although they place the western cultural countries on a close second place, the rest of the world in a third spot in comparison. They are against international pacts or groups that will infringe upon what is seen as the individual sovereignity of each nation. -Partial support of traditional values: The group as large will support a large amount of christian morality values, although the degree to which varies, particularly in regards to the faith itself. The atheist members of the alt-right will often agree with many of the christian values even if they reject the religious content entirely. -Pragmatist in policy: While this does not extend entirely to abandoning factionalism, there's a common factor that when it is necessary, the group isn't against the use of violence or other methods when the end is justified (such as dealing with ISIS) -Meritocracy: The alt-right cares little for social benefits and instead favors individuals working towards gaining benefits that they earn by their own effort and capabilities. -Issues such as the environment, energy, abortion and LGBT rights are strongly discussed amongst the group and there will be people representing about every stance in them. Note: Sargon of Akkad has made a fairly comprehensive enough video about the nature of the alt-right

Out of curiosity, have the other involved people made statements confirming what VikkiKitty said? It would be rather suspicious for all the others that were witness to the sexual assault to not have confirmed that it happened.

Clarification: Do you intend the individual factions within Republicans and what they largely have in common, or the Republicans as a whole as led by Trump? Because, honestly, particularly when taking into account both neocons and alt-rights there'd be a lot to specify in each case, while Trump's movement clearly holds a few specific values above them all.

The US has a trade deficit with Mexico, and to boot Mexico is the source of the illegal immigration issue in the US. Obviously, this won't be a matter of having Mexico write a check to the US. Instead, there will be import taxes, increased fees on visa obtaining/renovation, etc. that will go out of the Mexican pockets indirectly and into funding the construction of the wall. Issue is, there are already potential ISIS recruits, and it's easily more than half of the muslim population in the middle east/north africa. They support the practice of the barbaric sharia law, and they likely share similar ideology to the active members of ISIS, and this is going to drag them out into the light. It's fairly clear that there's little to do regarding religious zealots that support these kinds of things, and having them display their colors is only going to be beneficial to disposing of them. Of course, if the rest of the Muslim population decides that they'd rather die alongside their radical fellows rather than reform their religion or change their religion, they are free to do so. (Although they'd be better off abandoning muslim majority areas if they become apostates-there's plenty of muslims that believe that apostasy should be punished by death) And showing that they can't deal with a bully proves they (the other Republicans that were running for nominees) aren't prepared to deal with the likes of Putin and others. I'll agree, Trump knows quite well how to shitpost irl and has proven extremely succesful at it.

They aren't the party's unified voice at large, but at most they are of a small faction if not of individual Republicans. Haven't heard anything about 3, 4, 6 (I do not know what 6th would entail, though), or 9 though. To note 7th was only called for in Utah (And the feminist side of the left may be against pornography as well, although not for the same reasons). I have heard about Republicans being against women serving in combat roles (And to note, there's plenty of argument against it-As a rule of thumb, on average women have far lesser physical specs than men do, not to mention the current psychological differences.)

Nope. I do not hold any particular hatred towards people that happen to have XX as their 23rd chrosome pair and not XY. Regarding Alexcircuit's argument -Trump and wanting to be president http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-vice-president/ It's Kasich's word against Trump's. And Kasich swore an oath to endorse the Republican nominee, and he's not standing by it. Sounds to me like he's about as salty as Ted Cruz is. -Pence He's a pick to appease the Republican base, Trump's still the guy in charge. And the link posted? It still says that smoke is not good for people. -Cabinet -While Ben Carson is indeed an evolution denier, at least the's not of the kind that only resorts to the bible. His arguments are nevertheless wrong, but he's not the kind that will just stick to 'It's wrong because the Bible says so.' I assumed Ben was going to the Surgeon General spot, though. And honestly, as long as facts are not rewritten, painting a heroic view of the US's history is not something I'll disagree on. -Chris Christie and Marijuana. This may or may not be an issue for people, but let it be reminded that while marijuana may have lesser long term effects than tabacco or alcohol, it has more potent immediate effects than either. Past -I've checked on the Apprentice winners, as I don't know of other specific people that have worked with Trump. S2 winner is dead, I have no notice about Bret Michaels, but the rest have, if not a direct endorsement, speaken in favor of Trump running for president. Ego -I find it hard that 'politically incorrect' Trump will speak against 4chan/8chan's /pol/ boards (And to note, for precision, it's 'western culture supremacist' rather than 'white supremacist'-/pol/ holds no noticeable hatred for slavs, and latinos are often a strong topic of discussion on the board with strong arguments on both sides), and given his actual ties to the Jewish community (unless you are willing to believe a conspiracy theory that comes from these same boards), there's little reason to believe that Trump holds actual anti-semitic ties. (And had /pol/ wished to make the image actually anti-semitic, they'd have gone for a different angle). And the infographic was clear bait, and it forced the media to admit that 90% of black killings were made by other black people. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/258584864163500033 Bigotry -Outside of that article that has been stated as unreliable, Trump hasn't ever spoken against black people -Illegal immigrant latinos are about as responsible for giving legal immigrants a bad reputation -Comparing Muslims and latino immigrants is apples to tomatoes-Islam is an ideology (as all religions are) and not an inherent trait of a person that cannot be changed Global Warming Agreed on the issue, but I'm of the opinion that humanity can pull itself of whatever hole it digs itself into Taxes -A tax cut to favor companies of all sizes investing in the US may just work too. Long terms effects of this are a wild card, and given that small companies could use the leeway, I'm in favor of this. Foreign Policy -I'd see a good argument to giving Japan and South Korea nukes. Having each major first world/second world country hold nukes would be a good way to deter nuclear missile exchange if war breaks out. -Mexico: They are gonna pay for the wall and the border's gonna be secured, of course it's gonna make them mad -War crimes: Outside of the children, it's largely likely that ISIS's families are about as radicalized as them, even if they don't take an active part. I don't see a point in keeping a standard to which the enemy won't adhere to either, because this isn't necessarily about righteousness. It's about ISIS opposing the interests of America. -Outside of dealing with ISIS, Trump has mentioned that he wishes to stop having so much investment in having American armies deployed across the world. Clinton would easily wage war for profit. Bible Pandering -Against the pro-'refugee' Clinton, from countries whose majority Muslim population have strong views against homosexuals Trump is by comparison better for gays. And Trump is not against gays http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/flashback-trump-defends-gays-clintons-2000/ he rather seems to be neutral on the matter. -In addition, the Clinton Foundation http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=56082&page=81#entry4419372 (Post where I've spoken about it earlier) gives a significant amount of expenses in 'Salaries and Benefits' and 'Other expenses'. Given how much Saudi Arabia has donated to it, it's not unthinkable that some of that money gets diverted directly into Hillary's hands. Qualifications -Clinton, while not prosecuted, was mentioned to be extremely negligent in the management of what was confidential information, which is a big red flag. Not to mention her recounting of a defense of a child rapist (which makes her a morally bankrupt person) -She got into First Lady by merits of Bill Clinton, into the Senate in NY, which has been a Democrat stronghold, she'd have to had thrown that one in purpose in order to not become a Senator there Bullying -People play it rough, and the strongest country in the world needs a tough President. Heidi Cruz has had more than a few unfavorable shots, and stating her as ugly might as well be an objective statement. He mentioned that Cruz's dad met with JFK's killer, not that he directly helped him. And Trump has gotten direct attacks too. But he swore an oath. Even if said oath was made to prevent Trump from going third party if he lost, and wasn't foreseeing his nomination. And Cruz is salty-he knows that had he not gone against Trump as his poll numbers went up, he'd likely be the VP pick by now. And name-calling is a perfect memetical tactic. Sayings like that get easily transmitted and remembered (And politifact isn't entirely free from bias). It's efficient propaganda. And 'captured and tortured' doesn't make for a war hero, as McCain did not go above and beyond duty. A soldier is expected to endure hardship, and to not betray his army. In terms of party divison, the NeverTrump movement is basically dead by now, and Trump should have little issue seeing how he's been getting the support of more and more Republican legislators.

Alright, related to 'drop to your knees' (Where indeed, the contestant does drop to her knees when begging Bret Michaels (who is a rock star) http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/250611-apprentice-contestant-doesnt-remember-trumps-on-your-knees Youtube clip video for context: “Brande came in here, “ Michaels said on the show, “She got down on her knees and said, ‘I passionately want to do this—' ” “Excuse me, you dropped to your knees?” Trump interrupted. “Yes,” Roderick responded.

 “That must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees,” Trump said This easily fits on Trump's contempt for self-deprecation of women (and to a rock star to boot). Regarding the "blood out of her eyes" http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/08/08/donald-trump-megyn-kelly-blood-lemon-intv-ctn.cnn I am not aware if there's a related english expression, and while a PMS joke would've been in bad taste, there's known information about the menstruation cycle causing hormonal imbalances which can indeed lead to irritability and other psychological alterations, even if temporarily. And to note "A person who is flat chested is very hard to be a ten." On a ten out of ten system that probably only rates physical beauty, "very hard to be a ten" is a general assumption, given that these kinds of ratings tend to take a bell curve. To boot, an eight or a nine could still be considered fairly attractive, and a 6/7 passable by most assumptions; and he doesn't say 'impossible', but 'very hard'. I will not go deeply into the arguments about breast size, but I'll mention that even people that prefer small breasts don't exactly want them flat either as a general rule. Given the hour, I'll probably finish discussing the rest of the argument against Trump after a night's sleep, if you don't mind. It was just an urgent correction that needed immediate amending that came to mind.

To note, sourcing the "Women: You have to treat them like shit." here: https://books.google.it/books?id=BeUCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=%22Marie+Brenner%22+trump+wine&source=bl&ots=tX3bn4ql8h&sig=o3lsFRig7dxSOfw6N79Zavz9izU&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=treat%20them%20like%20shit&f=false And quoting the full paragraph "His contempt for beautiful women who like to be abused is boundless, and he is full of stories of supermodels, women he might call twelves (not their size), clinging to a rock star's legs and the rock star kicking them away. You have to treat them like s---." Given how Trump doesn't like people who think of themselves as average, it is very clear than him seeing people that he'd consider far beyond average acting to what amounts to masochistical self-deprecation must have clearly enraged him. "Women: You have to treat them like shit." is a clear distortion of the quote, and left without context to boot. EDIT: To note, the article then a couple pages later says "Philip Johnson looks at his watch. He is going to Berlin this evening to design a building at Checkpoint Charlie. Trump is talking about women and says, 'You have to treat'em like shit'". The article does not mention at this point if this is said in the context of the previous paragraph, if Trump is talking as a generalization, or as part of the dating game back in those days (And from a few stories I've heard from adults about the day, treating potential 'dates' (aka probably one-night) with extreme disdain was a common tactic).

Under your definition, stealing a kiss would be considered rape. However, whatever happened there, being intoxicated should not be a deterrent against legal action.

The Trump casino business started in the mid 80s, and to note, it wasn't just a struggling casino industry, but the whole recession around the 87-93 years, in which the interest rates on the loans he had taken to build the Trump Taj Mahal became unmanageable. Trump even managed to cut his losses, effectively taking no damage to his personal assets. Also, a cut on corporate tax rate and not trying to mess up with minimal wages is going to encourage both big and medium/small business investing in the US, which will help revitalize the economy. And insofar, Trump has proven quite efficient at spending money in campaigning. And a 10-25 billion dollar (lowest and highest estimate, neutral sources say 15b) wall isn't exactly going to bankrupt the economy.

Trump has often mentioned he's open to negotiating about non-core issues, and he's been pretty stable on the big things on his campaign: Destroy ISIS and otherwise reduce military intervention, build the wall and deport illegal immigrants, temporary ban on muslim immigration from the war zones until the situation is figured out, aid the veterans, take direct measures to help small business, fair trade. Bankrupcies? Oh, you mean the ones that were only called bankrupcies due to a legality and were more re-structurations than anything? And to note, it all happened in the middle of a period where the entire casino industry was struggling. Politifact And having a couple bankrupcies that account to little don't count for much when most of his businesses have been succesful.

Lent? Eh, my family is strict on catholic morals (and even as an atheist I still adhere to quite a few of them) and I don't ever recall any of them giving any particular importance to lent, nor I do recall any catholics I've met giving it more than a simple aknowledgement of what time of the year it is.

A few links here and there about the 'refugees' being ungrateful about what they are being given: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6753/germany-migrants-demands http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160129/1033920309/germany-migrant-violence.html http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/13/watch-migrants-dislike-food-demand-tvs-threaten-go-back-syria/ http://www.thelocal.it/20140827/refugees-protest-against-monotonous-italian-food And the issue is twofold, about first world terroristic events gaining more relevance: 1) First world countries, as they are, have generally a higher standard of quality of life, safety included as a general thing, particularly in Europe. Outside of a few high-class communities, in thirld world countries violence is often if not almost constant. Third world countries need to improve, yes, but letting the quality of living standard in first world countries drop is far worse. 2) People relate more to those that share blood/culture with them than those that are unknowns. It's natural that I, as a peruvian citizen, will care far more if a terrorist attack happens in the capital of my country than if one was to happen in turkey or some other country. It's only natural for individuals to care for some groups of people more than others, and it is not a bad thing.

Sticking to the traditions of a religion and actually practicing the moral/ethical beliefs don't necessarily go hand in hand. For example, there are good christians that will be more lax about going to church, and those that go to church every sunday but don't practice anything of what christianity preaches.

The article was leaked by a polish news channel here: http://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument The same document, without the TVP.info splattered all over it: http://static.presspublica.pl/red/rp/pdf/DokumentUE.pdf Also, Tryhard, that very same article you linked specifically mentions that it's an extreme conspiracy theory multiple times and is tagged as such, effectively not giving it any actual truth value.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit So much for it being a conspiracy, the EU is now on full way to becoming a superstate.

Except that Juncker, president of the EU commission, has been calling for an army for a good while, and there's already stuff involving the Dutch and the Germans merging their armies. When the president of the EU is pushing for an army, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's something that is as clear as daylight.

Studies show an even wider gap between men and women as well. None of this is written in law, though; and a lot is left up to each judge's discretion. I've seen the study does take plea bargains, although I wonder whether it takes repeated breaking of the law into account (It would seem the law is lenient on first time criminals). Also I wonder if the strictness of each judge was taken into account as well (Judges from places with different white-to-black population ratios being individually more lenient or more severe could alter the result as well).