>>718852502 Tell me how. How are politics so hugely consequential? how is is willingly standing behind someone who wouldn't think twice before sending people to kill themselves over pettiness consequential?
>>718852041 The notion that because one "shames/is critical/ or out spoken" against someone who supports an individual such as DUMP doesn't. Or make them "hypocritical". It makes them someone who is willing to call out shit when they see.
Unfortunately most anon on this board are undereducated, low skilled, poverty stricken individuals that can't come to grips with what it means to be an adult. Further more most have done nothing to directly contribute to the nations well being, i.e. being cop, joining the military, being a teacher, ect ect ect, yet they would rather project their own short comings on to others.
And I'll go a step further and say that most have traveled outside the U.S. let alone there own state.
>>718852041 It's an indictment of our current generation; the fact that we absolutely refuse to tolerate anyone that has a different opinion than us. We pretend to preach understanding, and diversity, but condemn and try to silence anyone that disagrees with us while completely missing the hypocrisy in that. We look at a very valid argument "people are different and different opinions, now get on with your life because you can't change that, and one characteristic doesnt completely define a person" and throw a tantrum, screaming "NO...NO I'm right all the time! Anyone that disagree's with me not only is wrong (as if there's such a thing as a "wrong" opinion), but a bad person also." It's an illustration of how we've devolved into a bunch of spoiled, narcissistic, tittybabies.
>>718852893 I'm not that guy, but how exactly do you suppose that a political system is supposed to represent its citizens if its citizens don't participate? Governments are built from the ground up, and it's only through the complacency of layabout non-voters that assholes weasel themselves into positions of power.
Do I support democracy? Fuck No. The average person (myself included) fucking sucks and has no clue what/who's right for a country. But it's the hand we've been dealt. You don't get to be politically apathetic and then complain because shit doesn't go your way. That's why it's our job, not just as citizens, but as rational human beings, to educate ourselves on what is objectively right and to steer our nation to that end.
Also, fuck you. Go run for your local city council, you waste of space.
>mocked the disabled He didn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m7iA7QZBi4 >bullied the media Wow why doesn't Trump just accept that the MSM will go tabloid-tier to defame him? >made racist comments, degraded a religion He said a subset of illegal immigrants are criminals. Islam is a violent expansionist ideology and does not constitute a race. >accused by many women of sexual assault And has been found guilty of none of them, a number have been outright falsified and they mysteriously only happened right before the election, not after the election or during any of the years before. >endorsed by the KKK He's not guilty by association. Hillary accepted donations for her foundation from states responsible for atrocities the KKK didn't achieve even when it was relevant.
I believe in the concept that the book storm ship troopers suggest, that one must earn the right to vote. If you don't want to be a full citizen and contribute to the society then fine, however you automatically withdraw yourself from certain privileges that those who do contribute gain.
>>718853905 Not that guy--the whole tittybabies thing was out of line. While I agree that it's our jobs to steer each other way from the bad shit, don't you think his argument holds a little weight, considering the current political climate? Obviously Trump and Clinton stirred up an especially big shitpit, but even so--nowadays, politics has absolutely devolved into a game of them vs. us. I think that guy's right. We, as a collective country, have sorta lost the ability to objectively decide what is actually best for the country
>>718855163 You are a fucking loser. Stop trying to find a scapegoat (liberal agenda) to your problems, and stop trying to find the easy way out (orange man said he would make me rich!!) Go do something with your life already.
>>718854653 I'm not a political scientist or anything, but lemme try and tease this one apart for you. But first, I'mma need you to forget the whole, Democrats/libtards republicans/neocons thing. First of all, the number of people who are "obsessed with race and gender" in the way that we (on the internet) recognize (like, fags/cucks/tumblristas and shit) are a small, not-necessarily-uneducated but very heavily deluded portion of the democratic party.
With that in mind, you need to understand that the platform on which the Democratic party stands is based on the idea of a strong central government reaching out to provide aid (in all forms) to the disenfranchised and disadvantaged groups in our society so that by raising the bottom line, we grow as a country. If our worst-off people are still able to work and live and pay taxes with only minimal assistance from the gov't, then we should be good, right?
Now, there are better ways of going about it, but what LIBTARDS are trying to do is to bring attention to the the people at the bottom of the ladder. What they forget is that a government should be economically successful first, and socially progressive second--which is why you have people screaming about tranny rights and cuckoldry under the banner of the democratic party. They're completely foregone the policy of the whole thing to put all of their attention on the minorities, leading to a bunch of loudmouths with no actual political or economic direction screaming about how things need to change, with no plans on how exactly to do that.
> That's just LIBTARDS, though. Please keep that in mind.
>>718852041 Gaskighting is a form of mental abuse in which someone else makes you doubt your sanity, You cannot "refuse" to be gaslit. And if you claim that you ate being "gaslit," it is logically impossible for your statement to be true (since gaslighting only occurs when you are *unaware* of it. Sorry for the autism, but I feel that someone needs to point out that the common use of the term "gaslighting" is meaningless.
It increases inequality and makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. It was tried under Reagan and Bush Sr. Both had bad recessions and added to the debt. Then Bush Jr. tried with the Bush Tax Cuts and that combined with financal deregulation crashed the fucking economy.
The TARP bailout was the most massive transfer of wealth from poor to rich in the history of the world. All Republicans fault. $800 billion in wealth was lifted off the shoulders of the wealthy and put on the backs of the working class. It doubled the national debt overnight and in order to get the economy stable and growing Obama had to add another stimulus just to prevent a depression. All Republicans fault. And they have the audacity to accuse him of adding so much debt.
Supply side trickle down Reaganomics is a fucking scam and these Republican idiots keep falling for it. The rich are keeping all the wealth and laughing at you all the way to the Bank.
>>718856218 Your "need to be financially successful" first principle of government, "socially progressive next" claim is unsubstantiated and cones out of thin air. Why can't a government be both financially successful and socially progressive? You will say "because helping out fags and retards costs money." Sure. But why isn't it plausible that a society where retardation and faggotry do not hold you back raises the tax base wide enough that the programs that cost money *save* future expenses and therefore end up *paying for themselves*.
No. You've got it wrong. Here is the difference between a liberal aand a conservative: --a liberal thinks that all people have inherent value --a conservative doesn't (value can be obtained through other means that, to the conservative define proper "character."). That's it. That's the difference. Neither answer is right.
>>718859776 If you divide by 0 you have problems, so you have to check that you're not dividing by 0. Since 0x=0 for any x, we have 0x=0y for x and y even when x and y are not the same. You can't just divide by zero and cancel the 0s, since you'll get something that is wrong if x doesn't equal y. Whem doing arithmetic with variables you have to check when dividing by something like x-z or x^6+2y or whatever that the thing you are dividing by is not actually 0. Ypu have to split into cases or argue that the thing you divide by is never 0.
How are the policies of elected world leaders so hugely consequential? Well to start off you'd have to know the meaning of hugely consequential and you clearly do not.
It means comes with huge consequences. Gee why would it be important to elect the correct lawmakers and keep track of what they're doing? Civilization and society don't just happen on their own you fucking chimp. Inversely, one nuclear nation of the world has the capacity to make the entire human race extinct with the wrong decisions.
The reason he insulted you instead of answering you was your question was so profoundly stupid that it didn't deserve an answer.
>>718859968 No, there can be objective criteria that are agreed upon that constitute what is "wrong" and "right." The argument that moral judgements are subjective means that all moral judgments are correct. If everything is subjective, then we have no need for the concepts of "right" or "wrong." Moral philosopher David Rachels created a wonderful thought experiment to debunk moral sujectivism. Imagine that every moral judgment you make is "correct." Congratulations...you are morally infallible. Is it logically possible for you to be morally infallible (just like everyone else). Of course not. Therefore, moral judgments cannot be entirely subjective.
>>718860346 I get that, and I go back to his example. In order for that equation to be true (his), x-z=/=0, otherwise you end up dividing by zero, like you said, and so x=/=z. That's the way I'm understanding it, but I may just be retarded.
>>718861316 You probably could get good at that stuff if you tried, most technical people are not super human or anything. Anyway, this thread is about the stupid drama that passes for politics in the mainstream media. I figure if you're going to waste your time arguing about some made up bullshit it might as well be math.
She is identical in filth with trump, and "muhrika's greatest ally Israel" They are all one big cockroach hive
But, I was happy she lost because she actually truly wanted to win. This wasn't staged like most times, she really wanted and tried to be a feminist, and she got a big fat corporate dick to choke her self importance down to a mayor Candidate
>>718865638 >Every time Trump gets scrutinized at all, his supporters revert to "but Hillary." Yeah that shit is weak and way past over with. Trump needs to shape up. The Republicans were just happy to win, since winning with a narcissistic sociopath is better to them than losing. The scariest thing is that legions of braindead racists and the human dandruff of /pol/ think that Trump's election is a mandate for manchild tier idiocy.
The fact that Bob still doesn't acknowledge that Clinton grew up poor was a graduate of Harvard Law School and was revered and remembered, spent a lifetime in public service and made compromises because that's the way the world works, and whose husband was a US President and whose foundation saved millions of lives and prevented the spread of AIDS, while Trump is a cocaine snorting womanizer who grew up rich, who bought his Wharton Degree and was unknown at the school who never once did anything for anyone but himself, who was such a bad businessman that while everyone else made billions in casinos, he lost money, went bankrupt for the last time in 2000 where US banks would no longer loan him money so no launders money for the Russian Mob, and is such a narcissistic reality show dirt eater that even as President Elect he still tweets nonsense.
Bob is a moron and Sally is good to be rid of him not in spite of but especially because of Bob's reason for not wanting her around.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
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 content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.