So called tolerant left...

How much of this board supports Trump?

>>8778038
Everyone but the trannies prolly but Trump is correctly throwing them under the bus and leaving us, superior OPEN gays, untouched.

>>8778032
A protest I can actually agree with, that's a real novelty!

Trump is an incompetent leader but it's bullshit that the gay trump fans couldn't participate

>>8778032
The left is not tolerant. Why the fuck are you right wingers so fucking retarded?
Liberals are tolerant.
Liberals are not Left.
The Left has never been tolerant and never will be, we are not liberals.
We do not have to allow retards a space to express their idiotic right wing views, because unlike liberals, we do not pretend that all opinions are equal.
Get the fuck over it.
Who the fuck wants self loathing faggots being part of their parade?
Good, stage your own pathetic parade.
Fucking self loathing redneck scum.

>>8778038
Less and less by the day.

Trump is an incompetent leader but it's bullshit that the gay trump fans couldn't participate

>>8778052
#MakeLiberalsClassicalAgain

File: Pic.jpg (394KB, 957x1024px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 957x1024px

>>8778032

>>8778032
The toleration of intolerance is a death sentence. Simple foresight makes this painfully obvious.

Intolerance will be met with intolerance. And extreme prejudice.

>>8778106
Why do you left tarts love Islam so much?

>>8778050
It's not. Tolerance is a like a peace treaty. If you tolerate me, I tolerate you. Once you break that peace (aka gay trump supporters ) then you can't expect tolerance back.

>inb4 trump supporters are tolerant
save that one for your echo chamber

>>8778107
Their overriding principle is to hate anything good and love anything that harms good.

>>8778107
The left will always support freedom of religion, but it will never support Islam as a way to take away rights from people just because it's their religion. That should be pretty obvious.

>>8778106
>The toleration of intolerance is a death sentence.
Will you support the Muslim ban then?

>>8778124
If individual freedoms are bad to you, then you would probably be more comfortable in the Middle East as a woman then in a leftists society.

>>8778116
>>8778126
Why are you trying to educate or argue with rednecks?
The best thing to do is to berate their low intelligence so they get angry and kill someone, hopefully themselves.
Either way they won't be allowed the freedom to spread their vitriol.

>>8778126
>The left will always support freedom of religion
Really? because I remember some commrade banning christianity back then

File: 9ef763e3b2079b67cebea30568b6b422-sticker.png (269KB, 408x408px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 408x408px

I am a queer person who voted for Trump.

>>8778135
>intellectual pedantry
the mark of the pseudointellectual

>>8778131
>individual freedom
>anything to do with leftism

Those of you who aren't British will not understand the importance of the Daily Mail publishing this.
The Daily Mail is the most right-wing major newspaper in the UK, it is also by far the biggest selling. So for the Mail to publish a story showing that Right-wing people are genetically less intelligent is really something.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html#article-2095549

The study is pretty faultless. 15,000 participants over a 30 year period.

Conservatives are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and right wing politics lead people to be racist

Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
Analysis of more than 15,000 people

Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whether they are racist or not - it's innate intelligence, according to the academics.

Social status also appears to play no part.

The study, published in Psychological Science, claims that right-wing ideology forms a 'pathway' for people with low reasoning ability to become prejudiced against groups such as other races and gay people.

'Cognitive abilities are critical in forming impressions of other people and in being open minded,' say the researchers.

'Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards more socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo.

'It provides a sense of order.'

The authors claim that there is a strong correlation between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics.

The authors also claim that conservative politics is part of a complex relationship that leads people to become prejudices.

'Conservative ideology represents a critical pathway through which childhood intelligence predicts racism in adulthood,' says the paper

We all knew this anyway

>>8778178
OP here. Voted Trump and tested 142 IQ as a kid on WAIS-III.

>>8778184
Sorry WISC cuz I guess I was young enough for the kids test at the time.

>>8778184
An intelligent person would only have voted for Trump to spite the Democrats for electing Clinton over Sanders.
If I was American I would have done that desu.
Trump's presidency is an absolute joke, but he's preferable to maintaining the status quo with a literal dynasty.
That doesn't mean now that Clinton is in the wilderness that we can't force him out of office now the point has been made.
I was happy when he won, seeing the absolute shambles of his administration, no person of the most basic intelligence can possibly think he's a good president.

>>8778204
I didn't like either. I have been soured fully on racial politics. Trump was a choice to not give amnesty to millions and to prevent a Bush or Clinton dynasty.

Repeal Hart-Cellar.

>>8778142
So am I, and he's somehow still not managed to meet the exceptionally low standards I've set for him.

>>8778218
Really? He has continually impressed me despite all the criticism. Honestly. It feels like I'm living in a dream sometimes with how I feel and other on the internet do vs. what the news says.

>>8778204
Sanders was even worse than Clinton.

t. voted Trump

>>8778209
So we agree. You don't actually hold right wing or conservative views.
As I said, I would have done the same if I were an American.

I actually find Trump personally amusing and I know he is intelligent. He really has been an immense disappointment in office though. I think it's sad that genuine conservatives and right wingers actually believed his campaign though. Quite funny

>>8778234
Uh I think my views on some issues definitely count as right wing, just not all issues. He is very smart and is honest and that is enough for me. He won't get much done until they enable the nuclear option for the Senate though, but he has no control over their arrogance, only the electorate.

>>8778239
He isn't honest. No one honest becomes a leader of a nation.
He's a New York neo-liberal, he didn't believe in any of his major promises.
He won't get much done because he doesn't care. He ran so he could win something, he doesn't actually want to be president.
I genuinely believe he cannot wait for either his term to end, or to be impeached.
If he gave a damn he would have control of the senate, but he doesn't.
You're delusional if you think Trump is or even wants to be a good president.

>>8778263
He is pretty upfront for a politician. He is nowhere as rehearsed as Obama. If Senate invokes nuclear option he can get a lot done. If not, we still get a few Supreme Court justices to keep the borders tidy.

>>8778267
Now you seem a bit stupid to me.
He presents as authentic, but you must know his rhetoric has no integrity.
He is a neoliberal.
He loves having immigrants who can suppress wages of his workforce.
He loves sending his money offshore to avoid paying taxes.
I mean, he might build a wall of it means Trump corp gets paid billions to do it, otherwise he doesn't care.
Yes, he's not a professional politician which is incredibly endearing.
It also means he will get nowhere domestically (as was proven with the obamacare repeal) or internationally (as was proven with Afghanistan, Russia and n Korea).
The guy doesn't want to be president, he wanted to be elected to the office to strike his own ego, but he doesn't want the job.
You know what I'm saying is true if you're truly intelligent.

>>8778300
I guess neoliberal is a universal slur now. He is a social moderate and a fiscal conservative. He has been the most anti-immigrant president we've had in decades. I don't know why you voted for someone you hate but I just assume all "I regret voting Trump" posters are shills anyways.

>>8778300
What I never get from these "I regret Trump" people/shills is you never can describe how he could behave in a way that would satisfy you/your true beliefs.

>>8778052
This. The right wing nuts of Italy and Germany wanted me dead.

>>8778330
And the Muslims they are importing love you? We should have never invaded Libya.

>>8778310
>>8778325
He isn't anti immigrant. His organisation employed illegal immigrants, lol.
He's only married immigrants, meaning his children are all half-immigrant, lol.
He just knew that would sell to stupid voters, duh.
I didn't vote, because I'm not American. I would have voted for him though and I wouldn't have regretted it because it meant Clinton didn't become president.
I don't want him to behave any different. It's just obvious that the guy has no interest in being president.

>>8778335
His policy federally is anti-immigrant. He would sign a revision of Hart-Cellar and supports the one proposed. He clearly has an interest in being president. He realized how hated Clinton was, how Jeb lacked charisma, and that he has a spot enter-dynasty since Republicans would vote for any moderate white male at this point. Cruz and Rubio were concessions, not options. He had an easy in and took it. He clearly wanted it. You people just seem so disingenuous. He is the most ideologically transparent president we have had in a long time.

>>8778300
>He is a neoliberal.
He's a protectionist retard.

>>8778342
More importantly, he is much more isolationist than any of the other options save the Randroids.

>>8778339
He said he'd be president one day and ran. The guy doesn't care about being president or he'd learn how to be a president. He has no interest in running the country or he'd manipulate the senate, the house and judiciary to do as he wants. He could do that easily, he doesn't because he doesn't care lol.
It's cute that you think he does, but actions speak louder than words and his actions are a huge IDGAF.

>>8778342
He says he's protectionist, in practice he isn't.
Again guys, be clever enough to actually look at what people do as opposed to believing what they say.

>>8778371
He had thought about it for decades. He can't just manipulate the will of senators without abandoning any pretense of democracy. He is still pressuring them publicly, and hard.

How could he easily manipulate the senate, the house, AND the judiciary? You act like that is some easy feat.

He is far more isolationist than our other options were. He publicly pressures businesses to remain/ open new factories in the USA.

>>8778376
Because his party has control of all three? It should be easy to pass legislation.
He's a businessman, he knows how to manipulate people and yet he doesn't bother.

If what you're saying is true, then he's simply stupid and incompetent.
My argument that he doesn't care is a lot more complimentary to him as it excuses his complete lack of progress.

So, either he's smart and doesn't give a shit.
Or he's stupid and out of his depth in the Washington machine. Even when his party controls it lol

>>8778038
Trump is a neocon nowadays. The only supporters left are like 50+ year old hons.
Bannon was the only person around that could stop a war with North Korea and he fired him. So enjoy another 20+ year long war America kek

>>8778376
Also please explain how threatening war with North Korea and increasing military presence in Afghanistan is isolationist.
Again, his actions contradict the rhetoric.

>>8778346
And isolationist and a protectionist; he's double retarded!

Thankfully wiser heads prevailed, as we see with Afghanistan.

>>8778384
It isn't easy because the opposition can filibuster anything that there isn't a majority of 60 in the senate for.

How would he convince Democrats to vote for his agenda? They clearly aren't playing in a bipartisan spirit and are hoping to obstruct him openly as much as possible.

>>8778387
He talks tough but doesn't act in an aggressive manner. He is committing many less troops to Afghanistan than Obama did. Clearly we have vested interests there that require monitoring but he is trying to apply the least number of troops possible to serve overseas. Could be worse than 4000 and I doubt he directly informed that number, only held it down since they knew he would balk at greater amounts.

>>8778391
>Sending troops to muzlands
>wise

>>8778397
But he can't even convince Republicans to vote with him, lol.
So again he either doesn't care or he's stupid.

Isolationist is withdrawing all troops, not increasing the number of troops and trying to pressure the NATO members to also send troops.
That is literally the opposite of isolationist dude.
Come on.
Unlike you I don't think he's stupid, the guy literally doesn't give a fuck and I find it hilarious.
He hates living in the White House.
He hates living in DC, I mean can you blame him? Living your entire life in Manhattan and then being forced to live in fucking DC.
He hates having to work with other people.
He doesn't want to be president.
You know it deep down.
I think Ivanka actually wants to be president though.

>>8778419
How do you project this much onto one person? His agenda is unpopular but not wrong. I think the Obamacare stuff is a bit dicey but the rest of it I am on board with.

He is withdrawing most troops. He clearly could not withdraw them all. He can't singlehandedly change the military but he can push it in an isolationist direction, which he is doing. He clearly cares a lot and you are bitter because he doesn't serve your particular agenda. The resentment he inspires only inspires my loyalty further.

>>8778204
Trump is the accelerationist candidate. Clinton would have been eight years of more neoliberal horse shit but this way the revolution comes sooner while Trump crashes this country with no survivors

>>8778419
The fact that you complain he didn't completely change the system to suit his morals makes me think you just are against his morals to begin with Pushing for unpopular reforms and encountering pushback is not inherently bad, it is a sign he is doing something right that ACTUALLY upsets those who are undeservingly entrenched in power.

>Hurr he hasn't stopped all foreign troops or built a wall yet he must be impeached.

This only hardens the resolve of those who support them when you concern troll like this.

>>8778419
>Living your entire life in Manhattan and then being forced to live in fucking DC.
please explain for non-american!

>>8778429
Where is he withdrawing more troops from? Enlighten me.
Because from my understanding he's threatening nuclear war with North Korea much to the horror of his defence secretary.
And he's trying to pressure NATO into sending more troops to Afghanistan, which they won't, lol.
Again, his actions do not reflect an isolationist policy.

>>8778437
Yep exactly why I supported and still support him.
I want him to stay president, because he is such an epic fail and he's making the establishment rip itself to shreds.
Hopefully the democrats will stop being neoliberal cunts and the republicans, well, only God knows what's happening with them.

>>8778441
Where am I complaining? I'm just pointing out what has happened in his presidency so far.
As I've said, I like Trump.
Luckily I'm not brainwashed enough to not recognise what a fail his presidency has been thus far.
I however do not put this failure down to him being an idiot, but him not giving a shit.

>>8778447
Manhattan is one of the greatest, if not the greatest place on earth.
You will never get bored there.
DC is a shit hole in the middle of nowhere.
Basically.

>>8778455
Obama committed more troops than Trump has so far. He is reminding Korea of mutually assured destruction. This is not a new policy.

>>8778455
Name a single law you think Republicans could have passed that is conservative in scope under a non-Trump Republican presidency. Democrats would have been obstructionist no matter who was elected.

>>8778038
Why would anyone with a brain support a shitty lying politician, be it Trump or Clinton?

The problem however is with totalitarian left attacking civil liberties and constitutional rights downright to using violence against political opponents.

>>8778457
But Trump is also increasing troop numbers in a foreign country and trying to pressure allies to do the same? In what way is that isolationist?
North Korea are aware of this, Trump has explicitly threatened them. Previous administrations have relied on their relationship with China and other neighbouring friendly states to handle the N Korea situation. Trump's words encourage hostilities.
Isolationism is not caring about what another country does.
North Korea's threats have been in response to Trump.

>>8778462
The Dems are the opposition. The opposition's job is make the governments life difficult.
America is not a PR system, therefore a coalition is not in the interests of the parties there.
You're ignoring the fact that even Republicans are voting down his bills lol. What the Dems do is irrelevant.

>>8778483
Trump is from outside the political establishment. He is loyal to only himself and his family and that is what matters when the system has gotten so gunked up. Democrats would have tried their hardest to obstruct the policies of ANY Republican who won the election, in part as revenge for Republicans shutting down most of Obama's agenda (many of the same critiques leveled in this thread were applied to Obama). Democrats are mad they lost and mad how Obama was poorly received despite throwing that much money at his PR and now a white guy is in power and they are helpless. Come budget time the Democrats will have their hand forced and be reveled as obstructionist. Keep in mind 2018 elections favor Republicans who are up for many less seats than Democrats.

>>8778491
>Increasing

What was in Afghanistan before? How many did Obama send?

It is isolationist because it represents no new engagements (in Syria, Hillary would have gone in) and limited ground troops as policy, 4000 is significant, but not huge, and less than Obama committed.

Trump's words discourage hostilities. He looks tough but acts more measured. It is a strategy and a good one so far.

The opposition has never been this deadlocked against any policies passing apart from required budgets and token emotion of the year laws.

Republicans are generally in favor of voting as a bloc for many different pieces of legislation. Obamacare was a notable exception because of the difficulty of undoing the medicaid expansion in red states.

>>8778492
You call them obstructionists... THeY ARE THE OPPOSITION.
Their job is to obstruct the government agenda, so the government fails and they are elected.
That is their bloody job.
What do you not understand about this?
Obama was facing a senate controlled by the opposition, Trump doesn't have this problem, but he still can't pass any legislation because his own party hates him. Lmfao
Jesus
Under a FPTP system this is how politics works.

>>8778499
That isn't what isolationist is kid. If he's actively engaging in international politics and warfare, he isn't being isolationist.

Again, that is the opposition's job.

We'll see. So far it just looks like the Republixans are trying their hardest to get him out of office and to be honest, it looks like he's trying his hardest to get that to happen without quitting.

>>8778506
They can still come up with bipartisan solutions. Conditions have clearly deteriorated since the Clinton years in terms of across-the-aisle cooperativeness and any Republican president would have inherited the animus of such an environment.

The senate can easily choose the nuclear option, and he has been pushing them to do so.

What laws do you think a non Trump Republican could have passed differently?

>>8778515
He is isolationist in contrast. People and policies do not exist in absolutes. Welcome to realpolitik.

>>8778483
>Why would anyone with a brain support a shitty lying politician, be it Trump or Clinton?
Better the lesser evil.

>>8778040
Trans Trump supporter here, there's plenty of us. None of us with a brain supported trans people in the military in the first place; you can stop gloating over a "victory" that only leftist idiots cared about in the first place.

>>8778517
Dude, I wouldn't have voted for a non Trump republican. The Republican Party is cancer, lol, Trump is their redeeming factor.

But I have no doubt that someone who was actually interested in the role of president would have the skills and the contacts to get their agenda through, especially when they control the upper house, the lower house and the judiciary.
Not a doubt in my mind. And not a doubt in any other rational person's mind.

>>8778518
No he isn't, actually. The only remotely isolationist thing he's done is withdraw from the Paris Climate Change agreement.
Even that he's looking to backpeddle on.
Trump DGAF.
You know it.
The guy can't wait to get back to Manhattan and never have to step foot in the DC swamp again.

>>8778527
Could have had transgenders serving in the army if there was explicitly a provision in place for them not to cover HRT and SRS. The agenda got greedy and failed.

>>8778130
Of course not. Why should we ban an entire religion for the stupidity of a few members? Don't bother showing me 'support' for attacking us, either. You redneck types all 'support' attacking us too but 99.9% of you are cowards.

>>8778535
>greedy
>"Will you cover my necessary medications and surgeries like you do literally everyone else?"

>>8778543
>necessary

will you die without them?

>>8778535
Different anon, also trans. I think the blanket ban is a bit much (especially since the prez announced it on Twitter for political points/as a distraction) and trans people who are capable of serving should be allowed to serve. There's a lot more to the military than combat roles.

>>8778551
There was a Hartzler amendment and if it had passed trans would have been able to serve.

>>8778178
You know how we know you're not very bright?

Yes, if you average out leftists and right-wing people, right-wing people are going to have lower IQs as a group. This is for the same reason that religious people have lower IQs as a group than atheists - dumb people like simple ideas. Both religion and some variations of right-wing thought can be distilled down into simplistic rules that stupid people can cling to.

That doesn't mean left-wing people are especially bright. They just tend not to fall to the far-left end of the bell curve, so it brings their average up.

VERY bright people will be/are all over the political spectrum. Very bright people also tend to be atheists, but can also be strong believers in religion.

It's nice of you to acknowledge that groups of people can innately vary in intelligence, though. Maybe you could stretch from there to examining the group averages of different racial groups. Or maybe you could consider the differing cognitive aptitudes of men and women. But zounds! That might make you racist and icky and conservative or something eventually when you realize that egalitarian ideology is completely repudiated by reality.

So better not do that.

>>8778527
seconding this, fellow trans trump supporter. there shouldn't be gays or women either really.

>>8778560
Gays don't ask to use women's bathrooms/showers or get surgeries that make them take time off.

>>8778545
There is no appetite in the West to force regime change anywhere. This isn't because of Trump, this is because of the legacy of the war on terror. No president of any colour would ramp up military engagements. In fact Trump is probably the most likely to do so because he isn't a professional politician and says stupid shit.

I don't like Clinton, I've already said several times I would have voted for Trump over Clinton and I was happy when he won.

He isn't relishing anything and he's not even being a rebel at this point.
He's playing around with his cabinet and that's it.

The guy does not care. I am not anti Trump. I was hopeful that he would drain the swamp as he claimed he would, even if I opposed his policies.
So far all he's done is run off and play golf, play house with his cabinet, and all the while the establishment are growing stronger against him.
He's actually managed to push conservative republicans towards the neoliberal democrat cause.
Come the fuck on.
He D G A F
I feel bad that you're so hopeful.... still.

>>8778575
Hillary already showed willingness with Libya. What would have stopped her from doing it again?

I think he has forced the left to play all their cards early and they have run out of steam. When it comes time to determine congressional budgets shit will get real.

>>8778559
No, that isn't what the study did or says.
Your points like every other right wing point is based on anecdotes and ideologies.

Voting patterns (which I respect a lot more than statistics and scientific research because it's concrete evidence of how people want their society to look) clearly show that the more educated someone is (bachelor degrees may not separate people much by intelligence, PhDs do) the more left they vote.

>>8778563
there shouldn't be women's bathrooms/showers in the military.

>>8778535
>>8778543
>>8778551
I can take weekly T shots and get into the same military that would otherwise reject me for having used my asthma inhaler even once since the age of 13.

Sure, anons. That make sense.

>>8778549
Die? No. Necessary? Pretty necessary, yeah. Partially for mental-health reasons, but also partially physical in my case. I had a hysterectomy (not for transition-related reasons, it was medically necessary), and it is NOT advisable to go the rest of your life without any sex hormones in your system unless you are pretty old to begin with and I'm 30. So yes, either T or E would be pretty necessary for me to take or I'd have some pretty high health risks.

>>8778538
Because that religion isn't compatible with the Western world. I'm frankly tired of pretending the debate is over their terrorism rates (although it's globally through the roof and you'd have to be insane not to find it alarming); it's really the fact that they belong to an alien culture and shouldn't be here, ever. No Muslims belong in the West, period. And they aren't here to be "peaceful," either, the explicit goal is to creep-invade until they have the numbers to take over politically. If you don't know this, you aren't paying attention.

>>8778585
The appetite for foreign intervention since the rise of ISIS is not there in the Weat anymore. The age of Western imperialism is really and truly over.
Not even Clinton would have wanted to or been able to start a new war.
However Trump's posturing might.

What Left? Please stop calling Liberals and Neoliberals Left.
The Left have been in the political wilderness since McCarthyism.

This isn't a thread about fucking trannies in the military, no one cares.

>>8778591
>No, that isn't what the study did or says.
You have no idea what the study says, because it's obvious you didn't look it up. The study found that lower intelligence predicted prejudice and conservatism - but the latter less often than the former. It's not a perfect correlation.

Everything I said is not anecdotal, but has been established across multiple other studies along the same lines. This is nothing fucking groundbreaking.

>>8778630
Exactly. The study was about right wing people and conservatives being stupid, not about left wing people and liberals being intelligent.
Voting patterns show that left wing people are more intelligent, which was my point.

The studies you're referring to are performed by bigots who manipulate data to suit their agenda, which is why I made it clear in my previous statement that I hold much higher regard for voting patterns than I do for scientific studies.
This study however, monitoring 15,000 children into adulthood over a 30 year period, is a lot more trustworthy than some racists/sexists random IQ testing.

>>8778607
I'd be interested in hearing you comment on the difference between the two. I've literally never heard anyone say this, only that the Democrats weren't left ENOUGH.

>>8778674
What do you mean?
Left wing people believe in social justice and egalitarianism.
Liberals believe in meritocracy and freedom of speech and expression.
Idk how to simplify it anymore.
The Democrats aren't left enough. Of course they may introduce policies that on the surface promote equality, but they don't do anything to actually help equality.
They won't introduce a living wage, they won't tax corporations their fair share. They won't close tax loop holes or increase taxes on the wealthy to a pre 1980s level.
The Democrats are neoliberal, to neoliberals the economy is more important than anything else.

>>8778709
Sorry the economy isn't more important than anything, the free market is.

>>8778709
Ahhhh, so you're just meaning more like BS's Progressive Wing, yah? Okay, I get it now, totally agree. I wasn't sure if you were going to come with some kind of unusual Leftism I'd never heard of, s'why I asked. Thank you.

>>8778519
The fact that people think like this is why we even ended up with absolute trash versus marginally less than absolute trash in the first place.

>>8778178
>inteligent
>ruin your country just so you can pretend you are a good person
>what did they mean by this?

>>8778263
the left has never been tolerant, want to know why? because cletus and tyrone are the true proletarians, you are not a proletarian you are a bourgeois who thinks will be lenin leading the revolution but you will end like trotsky, dead at the orders of someone like stalin
>>8778330
and the left wing nuts of russia too, or do you not remember about stalin? also who do you think are the proletarians? do you truly think you are a proletarian? No, you are not but cletus and tyrone are, oh yes they are and you will see what they will do to gays
tl;dr: you are not proletarians, rednecks and such people are, yes the same ones you hate soo much and these ones will be the ones to purge you

>>8779905
>right-wing
>antisemite
Choose one.

>>8778527
This, desu. Our military is for winning wars, not for gibs.

File: bc2.jpg (486KB, 1403x2048px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1403x2048px

>thread title

>>8778038
Cisgay here.

I fucking hate our buffoon-in-chief. I still gotta live on this planet after he leaves office, the least he could do is not give it to the corporate globalists who want to destroy everything for money.

Drain the swamp, my ass. Unless by drain the swamp he means kill poor people. Fucking 1% cunts, I'd love to put them on the train track dilemma and let the 99% on the other track decide THEIR fate for a change!

>>8778178
>tfw Hillary was too intelligent to win

File: 1502996730214.gif (498KB, 500x236px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 500x236px

>>8780040
And how exactly do you propose we build the strongest military in the world and keep our numbers up without incentivizing the citizenry? Do you think the shit just happens magically through altruism? Or do you suggest bringing back a blanket draft? Because those are the only two other options. Jfc you people say some dumbass shit. Yet i'm sure most of the lgbt community supports the military paying for trannie surgery to lop off someones balls right? Perspective, you need to get some.

Can any of the people here planning to kill themselves run over these faggots with a van instead? Thanks

>>8778038
I dont support him,but i like him

>>8781889
>the military paying for trannie surgery to lop off someones balls right?
literally not a thing that has ever happened

>>8778527
Excuse me but you violate the narrative please commit sudoku to make close minded autists more comfortable.