>>7659797 Well, the previously loud, uneducated, racist, bigoted 'GOVERNMENT CAN FUCK ITSELF YALL, THEY ALL JUST LIE, THEY'RE GONNA TAKE MY GUNS LIKE THEY DID DURING THA HOLOCAUST' voter felt they had no outlet in campaigns because civil discussion is inaccessible for them. Now they have Trump.
>>7659928 Maybe I'm generalizing a bit, but there is a sufficient basis for that. Trump routinely uses Islamophobia to gain support in his campaigning, mocks those with disabilities, disregards the importance of respect when involved in large-scale debates that are already volatile to begin with. His proposals and tax reform will overhaul valuable welfare programs, secondary and higher education funding and endowments. Taxes will be lowered on corporations, something we absolutely do not need, considering their profits. I do not see why you all support him or don't have a problem with him.
>>7658631 SOME READERS MAY BE wondering why the picture we used on the cover of this book is so angry and so mean looking. I had some beautiful pictures taken in which I had a big smile on my face. I looked happy, I looked content, I looked like a very nice person, which in theory I am. My family loved those pictures and wanted me to use one of them. The photographer did a great job. But I decided it wasn’t appropriate. In this book we’re talking about Crippled America—that’s a tough title. Unfortunately, there’s very little that’s nice about it. Hence, the picture on the cover.
>>7660107 In some ways, yes. I was critiquing mostly insensitivity, but you bring up a good point. Illiteracy is still a big problem in the US.
>>7660043 Trump was mocking him regardless. We need to elect people who at least respect others enough to not mock them based on appearance. It's also obvious that Trump knew there was something atypical about the reporter yet didn't care.
>>7660134 >Trump was mocking him regardless. That's true. But that doesn't mean he was attacking his appearance. Flailing your arms about awkwardly like that is a pretty common way to mock someone who is feigning ignorance. >It's also obvious that Trump knew there was something atypical about the reporter yet didn't care. How do you even know this?
If Trump really didn't care, though, it was a pretty low energy mocking. Should've gone all out and called him a limp wristed faggot.
>>7659948 >Trump routinely uses Islamophobia to gain support in his campaigning, mocks those with disabilities, disregards the importance of respect when involved in large-scale debates that are already volatile to begin with. To be honest, this has only improved our political discourse. I hope to see more of it in the future. That being said, I don't intend on voting for him.
>>7660174 I understand, the post was insensitive on my part. I've addressed this in my previous posts. It really isn't their fault, more so the fault of institutions allowing them to slip through the cracks. One must also find motivation to learn which public schools and universities are not instilling. I can have emotional reactions to issues like these and not catch myself until a few minutes later. I apologize.
>>7660196 It was still unnecessary and bringing notions into the situation which will only halt things because people will be upset.
He wasn't attacking ignorance alone, he was trying to say that the reporter obviously seemed disabled in some sort of way, and in him emphasizing the reporter's 'ignorance' through the disability, it's apparent what was happening. Basically making the reporter seem intellectually disabled as well. Maybe I'm misinterpreting.
>>7660217 >No they don't. I don't want to get involved in your tirade, but you've literally got feminists pressuring other feminists not to report rape if it's committed by immigrants because it'll help fuel racism.
>>7660217 >No they don't. How out of touch are you with liberals?
Well liberal sites have been praising her for her "foreign policy experience" as secretary of state. You can attack trump for being heartless towards Syrian refugees all you want but there wouldn't be any where it not for the war warmongering of Clinton, Kerry and Obama.
>>7660236 >Well liberal sites If you mean "liberal media", congratulations! You have discovered that there is a disconnect between the media and people. Seriously, check out Reddit or Tumblr in all their liberal glory; they fucking hate Clinton.
There's more to war than imperialism. People still fight without foreign intervention.
>>7660244 Correct. "Liberalism" is way too diffuse a term as it stands; some people who call themselves liberal will differ wildly from other people who call themselves liberal. In this case, this is a small minority saying something, which obviously does not mean it is what those *not* saying it support.
>>7660294 >Good God! Surely they want to *execute* those proud Tories! they would if given the chance. The left has become completely authoritarian in nature. the only thing holding them back is the relatively peaceful state we're in.
>>7660338 >Wait, are you the same Anon in the other thread that flipped the fuck out when people laughed at RMT's Union Leader for literally saying "Tories Should Be Taken Out And Shot"? No. >>7660342 >fags to the left of me >left
>>7660360 I would argue that a linguistic/social revolution is a violent revolution. But rationalizing and justifying every act of recent "leftist" violence is more than enough to indicate just that. >>7660352 >You're just -- what's the opposite of naive? Edgy? I'll go with that. Use of the term edgy is a good indicator of naivety. What's more amazing is that wanting a stable, peaceful society and wishing to avoid the authoritarianism developing on both sides of the political spectrum is now edgy.
>>7660379 >Use of the term edgy is a good indicator of naivety. Use of the term naivety is a good indicator of edginess, so that works out. >What's more amazing is that wanting a stable, peaceful society and wishing to avoid the authoritarianism developing on both sides of the political spectrum is now edgy. *That's* not edgy. It's just smug and/or stupid (and a bit naive). >>7660379 >I would argue that a linguistic/social revolution is a violent revolution. What.
>>7660387 >*That's* not edgy. It's just smug and/or stupid (and a bit naive). In my case, it's more cynical than anything else. I don't have any solutions, but I can't imagine going in either available directs will make things better. I like so many others have bought into the end-of-the-world hysteria, so perhaps I am quite naive/stupid. >What. The types of coercion (please don't think of me as some sort of libertarian for using this term) that have to occur to pull something like that off, especially in the one currently being attempted, could be described as anything but violence.
>>7660409 >In my case, it's more cynical than anything else No, "I just want to live in a stable and peaceful society" is not cynical. >I can't imagine going in either available directs will make things better And this is naive, assuming you mean "anything but comfortable centre is baaaad".
>>7660432 >No, "I just want to live in a stable and peaceful society" is not cynical. My cynicism is that I doubt such a thing can exist. We've dug ourselves too deep. >And this is naive, assuming you mean "anything but comfortable centre is baaaad". That's not what I mean at all. My politics are far from centrist, and I don't think centrist politics will lead to a stable and peaceful society. Again, I have no solutions. I only fear the authoritarianism both sides are dabbling in. >Coercion does not equal violence. I suppose I just have a road and unscientific definition of violence.
>>7660473 >That's not what I mean at all. My politics are far from centrist, and I don't think centrist politics will lead to a stable and peaceful society. Then you are correct that this is not naive. >I only fear the authoritarianism both sides are dabbling in. You *sure* you're not libertarian? >I suppose I just have a road and unscientific definition of violence. Well, I'm mostly talking about the fact that Reddit liberals don't actually want to execute Republicans.
>>7660521 >but I think unfettered markets and increased corporate freedom are detrimental to such a thing. Oh, right, libertarian means hard-right libertarian in the US. I actually just meant generally libertarian. >In our current state, I'd agree, but I'm thinking of a period of social collapse. In a period of social collapse, more would be on people's minds than "let's kill those darn Republicans!". It'd be more likely "let's kill those fucking fascists, fellow Communists".
No, it was written for the lowest common denominator as expected. Here's a paraphrase of the entire book so you can save yourself some time and get working on DFW:
>Believe me, I know deals. Believe me, I know golf courses. Believe me, I know that deals are made on golf courses. Obama doesn't know how to make deals, and he sure as hell doesn't know how to play golf. I don't know how we're gonna fix healthcare, but believe me, Obamacare needs to disappear. Believe me.
The rest of the book is just him explaining why he looks angry on the cover (because America is crippled). Hope this helps.
I can't believe people are actually saying it isn't shit, it is 100% dumbed down horseshit. You don't need to be a "bernie cuck" or support "shillary" to notice how bad it is. If you say it's any good you're either mentally retarded or a /pol/tard that happen to pragmatically be the same thing
Just look at pic related and tell that the language and the prose are not the one of an infant.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.