Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Where do we go? (from here)

YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 6:57:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Where do we go.... where do we go now... where do we go? -Great Philosopher Axl Rose

Everything has changed now. We've been moving towards this point for some time, since the Republican Party invented the fantasy of a "business man" as their ideal candidate. Now, they have one... and the margins are closing between Trump and Hillary. It's my personal view that it's unlikely that Trump will win, but I'm also aware that it's not entirely out of reach for him either. Whether he wins or loses, Trump has redefined what it means to be an American politician in the 21st century.

We've seen populism before and survived it, but now it's come up on both sides. The far right and the far left have more in common with each other than either of their mainstream counterparts, and while in the past there was a time where that "impulse" could be controlled, it's becoming more and more clear that globalization's increase and effects are creating an increasingly more and more politically relevant class of voters who may have at one point described themselves as independents or undecideds.

It's also not as if America is alone in its experience with populism, even though America's has perhaps been the most tame. France, the UK, Canada, Germany, and even the Philippines have witnessed an increasing rise in populism. Trump, by all counts, is the heartland's "everyman." He represents ideals and values that were once not talked about in polite circles, but which were in the same instance the cultural framework through White Christian America (a phrase I use less in a religious sense, because I belong to that group if only interpreted literally) understood the world around them.

Assume for the sake of argument Trump wins. Trump is a chauvinistic, larger-than-life, tall, white, blonde, arrogant, self-centered (if not obsessed), pompous, bombastic, questionably honest charlatan who anyone with even a half-lucid understanding of American political functioning understands will fail to deliver every single promise he has made in the election. The reasons Trump will fail (as every other historical populist has) are as obvious as his promises are inane: there exist institutional checks and balances which limit executive power, no matter how "imperial" our presidency has become post-Bush.

Of course *when* (not if, but when) he fails, we all know who he's going to blame: the political opposition. Trump will conduct himself, in his failure's wake, just like every other tin pot dictator ever has. He will ruthlessly blame Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and anyone else who opposes or opposed him. He'll blame Mexicans, and gays, Muslims and probably other minority groups whose rights have been associated with social progression. And he'll blame China, Japan, and probably every other country in the world other than Russia. This is because unlike, for example, a competent executive (e.g. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, LBJ, etc.), Trump fundamentally has nothing to offer to explain for why he can't deliver. That's the reason he over-promised in the first place... and made every rookie mistake that could be made.

In a lot of respects, the rookie-politico mistakes are what made him so endearing to Trump's supporters. He has a colorful past (e.g. "grab them by the pvssy"), and people write it off as "locker room talk" or just Trump being Trump. He's a joke in his own rite, because we all know that his "strategic use of bankruptcy" is, aside from being manifestly unethical, the reason why American banks won't work with him. He's untrustworthy, so he leaches off of other people's credit to get projects going (e.g. the Atlantic City casino) and then strategically screws his business partners at the first chance he gets.

Trump goes for the short term gain rather than the long-term winning solution; which is probably why he did so well in real estate, and why he would have failed if he'd tried his luck in the stock market. But people love him; in a way that even is more emotionally charged than the way Republicans loved Reagan when he was in office. Reagan was America's grandfather, but Trump is our prodigal son.

So, who comes next? The Republican establishment cannot produce a competent candidate and the only competent candidates they had running (e.g. Jeb Bush) were pummeled by either Trump, or someone who wanted to elevate their statute on the populist band wagon (e.g. Cruz). Romney, after all, left a bad taste in the base's mouth. Romney, a true blue blood who by any reasonable measure is the most decent person the Republican party has ever nominated to be their standard bearer (save his selection of notable idiot Paul Ryan as VP) could not deliver. Newt Gingrich, who continues to be a rabid, destructive force in the party, sabotaged that effort in South Carolina.

If not an establishment candidate, then who? Another celebrity-reality star? Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty? There was once a time when such a future would have been inconceivable, but now... who knows (note: that piece of homophobic trash presented himself at NUMEROUS GOP events). I really can't imagine who would come next. Certainly not Trump, if he loses. Certainly not Marco Rubio, whose political career is little more than a late-night punch line. Certainly not Ted Cruz, who America has come to hate with an uncharacteristically acute level of zeal.

At the core of this problem, it goes even without saying that the Republican party is completely at fault for Donald Trump. They allowed their party's identity to be defined against social progress and resistance to governmental institutions in any form. From the disgusting trash political philosophy that was contained in the Jerry Falwell's 1970s "Moral Majority" which went on to lay the foundation for Reagan to be elected, to Reagan's equally disgusting disparaging of civil service (i.e. "the scariest words in the english language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help'."), to the real demographic problems that the Republican party faced beginning in the 1990s as white protestants began to lose their foothold as a majoritarian influence in American political life, which thereafter translated into overtly specious, racist attempts to trick Latinos into voting Republican (e.g. Marco Rubio's political career). That has all failed at every possible level, and Trump is what they're left with.

Scalia's death makes all of this worse. Scalia, who was by any reasonable measure a rabid ideologue (see, e.g., his dissent in Obergefell, wherein he ranted even to the extent that recognizing equal protection under the law would cause words in the english language to lose their very meaning) held a seat which if given to a moderate would spell the end of the Republican party's judicial onslaught into our nation's highest courts to thwart a fantastically successful strategy of pursuing civil rights' in their only true refuge: the judiciary. Now, any future Republican may well appoint some incredibly young and even more incredibly stupid troglodyte (e.g. Samuel Alito) who struggles to form coherent sentences as a way to "check" the constitution's guarantee of equal protection to groups which have been historically oppressed in this country. The whole process of rebellion as such is so vile it *literally* makes me sick to my stomach.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 7:31:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Now, Merrick Garland (who was by any reasonable measure an ideological concession, because he is as much of a centrist as have ever been appointed to any judgeship, anywhere in the country) who was confirmed by the Republican party in a year when insanity had not imbibed them all, is unpalatable... not because he isn't competent, but because he IS NOT a right-wing ideologue. Garland's case is fascinating precisely because of what the Republican party's obstruction politics mean: they have precisely no interest in someone who will uphold the constitution; what they want is someone who will keep the gays, the women, the blacks, the spicks, etc. in their collective places (read: subservient to white christian America). This kind of political action undermines as much

Will the legislature obstruct any judicial appointment for as long as they conceivably can? That's not a winning strategy in the long run, or the short run, especially when the GOP will likely not win the presidency again for another 12 - 20 years. It may serve, for example, Ted Cruz's short term interests in keeping his seat, but it's going to spell the end of the party's existence if something doesn't give. After all, when you fail, and fail, and fail, and fail (as Cruz has, consistently), eventually you get a primary challenge... or worse. Texas's changing demographics would reasonably suggest that in the next decade, Texas's senators will no longer be Republicans.

A winning strategy, not just for Cruz but for the Republican party in general, is to take an affirmative leap into the 21st century and start fighting about the things that they can win on (i.e. tax rates) and stop fighting about things that they will lose now and forever on (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, etc.). I certainly understand that right now those seem like meaningful issues to campaign in opposition to, but if you're a politician and you're watching what's going on around you then you're a fool if you think that in ten years gay rights will still be something that it is politically tenable to oppose. It's not even tenable NOW. A majority of Americans support gay marriage, and with the exception of about 2/3rds of white Christians the majority support a woman's right to choose.

If you look at Millennials and the increasing numbers of immigrants entering this country from all over the world (Asia, South and Central America, India, the Middle East, etc.), the face of our country has shifted (not "is going to shift," but "has in fact already shifted") from being predominantly white to NOT predominantly white. Likewise, church attendance and faith in religious institutions (and particularly, faith in evangelical protestant churches) has NEVER been lower. The "Christian" (a word I use loosely, because there is nothing in the bible that would suggest the theological truth of these propositions) positions that homosexuality is a sin and that gay people should be shunned from the Kingdom of God are increasingly causing people NOT to turn their backs on their LGBT friends, but to turn their backs on God and religion as a whole.

The irony, of course, is that the biblical maxim to the effect that "ye shall be known by your actions," cuts both ways. The Church itself (mostly because of Jerry Falwell, institutions like Focus on the Family, Franklin Graham's disgusting political activities, etc.) has been made illegitimate in the minds of those who represent the future of the American electorate at large. The culture war is over; and America's new civil war that has been fought in the minds of future generations of Americans was lost by the conservative movement. What we are seeing now is that such a loss very well may cost the Republican party its existence.

I don't think that most Republicans will make the leap I described above. Instead I think they're going to ride the populist tide as their party is in the twilight of its cold, dark, bitter, scornful life.... and this is a BAD thing. The reason it's a bad thing emanates from two factors: the Libertarian party's failure to produce anything that would resemble a viable alternative to the GOP, and the Democratic party's increasingly progressive impulses which are just as bad for America as the far-right impulses that brought Trump into political prominence.

The far right and the far left both exist in post-factual worlds: the left has ideations of institutionalized white exploitation of all minorities other than heterosexual white males, as surely as the right has delusions of institutionalized corruption on all levels of government and in the society generally; the left has fantasies about how language causes harms to discrete and insular groups which will later lead to calls to ban "micro-aggressions;" just as surely as the right has fantasies about how not conducting yourself as a bloviating idiot who rages about how political correctness's onslaught has restricted our freedoms of expression (i.e. freedom to be a racist, homophobic jackass like Phil Robertson); the left falsely characterizes everyone and anyone on the whole of the right as racist, bigoted, homophobic trash (which some are but most are one), as surely as the right has recast itself as the perpetual victim in a culture war which they have irrevocably lost (e.g. delusions about "wars" on Christmas, Christianity, etc.) to the extent that they have bastardized notions of "religious liberty" as a way to justify their desire for a right to discriminate against other people.

This... all of it, is bad for America. Rather than responding in a forward-thinking way that was reflective of a winning strategy, the right has raced the far left to the bottom. We're almost there, and when we get there, I have a theory that everyone will be dissatisfied. Why that's the case should be obvious: the bottom is a dark, dismal place. Think the lowest circle of hell in Dante's Inferno (i.e. a solitary, cold sheet of ice, reserved only for those who have betrayed others). Both the far right (who are becoming increasingly more expansive and voluminous), and the far left have betrayed what it means to be an American. We have even reached the point where a major presidential candidate has questioned the legitimacy of our electoral process. Who knows whether he'll accept the results or not; after all, Trump has conditioned the process's legitimacy on his victory. Such a level of vacuousness has, I think, never been witnessed in American history.

May God have mercy on us all.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 1:12:30 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM, YYW wrote:
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.

I foresee a third party.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 1:13:07 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:12:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM, YYW wrote:
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.

I foresee a third party.

A populist third party?
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 1:15:25 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:13:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:12:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM, YYW wrote:
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.

I foresee a third party.

A populist third party?

Never herd this before, have we?

That revolution is just around the next bend. IRV and a REAL revolution will start. Next time. Just when the "sheeple" wake the hell up.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 1:15:54 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:13:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:12:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM, YYW wrote:
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.

I foresee a third party.


A populist third party?

Unlikely, more of a nationalist/reform party mixed in with libertarianism. I think it could get 25% support, which is viable for a 3rd party.
lannan13
Posts: 23,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 2:17:21 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:13:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:12:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM, YYW wrote:
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.

I foresee a third party.

A populist third party?

Time to bring back the Populist Party of old.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 3:57:31 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:17:21 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:13:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:12:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM, YYW wrote:
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.

I foresee a third party.

A populist third party?

Time to bring back the Populist Party of old.

I think that's what the GOP has become.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 4:21:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 3:57:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:17:21 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:13:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:12:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM, YYW wrote:
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.

I foresee a third party.

A populist third party?

Time to bring back the Populist Party of old.

I think that's what the GOP has become.

The GOP was and never will be..."popular"
lannan13
Posts: 23,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 4:46:02 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 3:57:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:17:21 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:13:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:12:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM, YYW wrote:
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.

I foresee a third party.

A populist third party?

Time to bring back the Populist Party of old.

I think that's what the GOP has become.

The Populist Party isn't the same as the Populist ideology.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 6:02:28 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 7:31:15 PM, YYW wrote:

I don't think that most Republicans will make the leap I described above. Instead I think they're going to ride the populist tide as their party is in the twilight of its cold, dark, bitter, scornful life.... and this is a BAD thing. The reason it's a bad thing emanates from two factors: the Libertarian party's failure to produce anything that would resemble a viable alternative to the GOP, and the Democratic party's increasingly progressive impulses which are just as bad for America as the far-right impulses that brought Trump into political prominence.

Ive worried about that a lot in the past, but ive related over it a bit as of recently. What Sarah Palin did in 2008 by helping organize and rally a radicalized chunk of the electorate has a lot in common to what Bernie Sanders has done on the Dem side in 2016. It appears to be at the point where future politicians on both sides of the political spectrum will appeal almost solely to these new radical electorates to try to ride through the primaries. Trump has shown that they can win, and Bernie showed that even if they fail, they can come close.

I used to think that the GOP were about 12-16 years ahead of the Democrats in terms of fracturing between centrists and radicals, but recently Ive had more doubts that the Dem party will go down the same road as the GOP have, mainly for two reasons:

1 - Media

Conservatives get almost all of their news TV wise from Fox News, which is known for not being 'fair and balanced' no matter how much they tout it. Fox News only has to rail against a person as much as possible, occasionally shining the light on some crazy conspiracy theory (Prez is a Muslim) or just hand a mic to a crazy idiot (Guliana, Gingrich, Trump), and then an overwhelming majority of conservative voters will receive that and only that as their news, as their perception of what reality is..... Democrats dont have that though. Democrats have CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, just about every major newspaper that has an online section, with only MSNBC being radical enough to match what Fox News puts out. If one or two of those goes crazy liberal what Fox does with consevatives, only a fraction of liberal voters will be influenced by it, since so many other sources of news that liberals trust tend to stay moderate or centrist..... Sure, conservatives have newspaper sites they use as well, but those sites like Briebert or theFederalist usually just regurgitate the same Propoganda Fox News puts out.

Conservatives get their news from few and increasingly radicalized sources, but liberals dont. The GOP could and likely will end up going further down the rabbit hole, but Democrats have greater resistance to doing something similar since the sources for news isnt pushing them down that rabbit hole like it is for conservatives.

The other reason I have doubts about the Democratic party fracturing, which is admittedly a bigger stretch than the first reason:

2 - Race/Gender/Ethnicity if the nominee

90% of Bernie supporters swung their support to Hillary, with 5% going to Trump, and 5% going elsewhere or nowhere at all. SJW's that dominate the radical left can claim all they want that they will pull the party further to the left, but im willing to bet that those same people will quickly fall in line if the nominee meets some sort of quality that no president has had before in terms of race or gender...... We've had a black man be the nominee twice and now a white woman become the nominee and likely next president, and if I know SJW's like I think I know them, they love nothing more than having someone 'unique' be in the white house that has nothing to do with policy or experience.

The Dem party can likely hold itself together by uniting behind a centrist nominee who has some quality that SJW's would love to put in the white house..... A nominee who is a black woman would likely get full support from SJW's, a nominee who is gay would likely get full support from SJW's.... Asian, Lesbian, Latino, Paralyzed are just a few I can think of off the top of my head that would immediately convince SJW far-left Dems into supporting them. A nominee who is some sort of minority would keep the radical left in line as long as that nominee is willing to throw them a bone in terms of proposing change, regardless of how unlikely it would become enacted legislation (Free tuition for example).

The hard right in the GOP cant be as easily satisfied with their nominee though. To pacify tea party supporters, a nominee has to be as radical as them, want to ban all abortion, be ready to bomb Iran, constitutional amendment against gay marriage, tax cuts for the wealthy, massive military spending, more nukes.... The list goes on and on...... The far left can be far more pacified as the far right, as evidenced by how 90% of Berners are now supporting someone as centrist as Hillary, even though they hated/despised her in the primary race (second only to Debbie Schultz). Its at the point that simple qualities about race or gender would be enough to rally far-left Dems behind the centrist nominee, which cant be said for radical right supporters.

I do worry that the GOP will go further down the rabbit hole once conservative news outlets go into full anti-Hillary mode during her administration, but I dont think Democrats will follow the same path. Certainly not at the same rate.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
2for1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 11:11:37 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:57:11 PM, YYW wrote:
Where do we go.... where do we go now... where do we go? -Great Philosopher Axl Rose

Everything has changed now. We've been moving towards this point for some time, since the Republican Party invented the fantasy of a "business man" as their ideal candidate. Now, they have one... and the margins are closing between Trump and Hillary. It's my personal view that it's unlikely that Trump will win, but I'm also aware that it's not entirely out of reach for him either. Whether he wins or loses, Trump has redefined what it means to be an American politician in the 21st century.

We've seen populism before and survived it, but now it's come up on both sides. The far right and the far left have more in common with each other than either of their mainstream counterparts, and while in the past there was a time where that "impulse" could be controlled, it's becoming more and more clear that globalization's increase and effects are creating an increasingly more and more politically relevant class of voters who may have at one point described themselves as independents or undecideds.

It's also not as if America is alone in its experience with populism, even though America's has perhaps been the most tame. France, the UK, Canada, Germany, and even the Philippines have witnessed an increasing rise in populism. Trump, by all counts, is the heartland's "everyman." He represents ideals and values that were once not talked about in polite circles, but which were in the same instance the cultural framework through White Christian America (a phrase I use less in a religious sense, because I belong to that group if only interpreted literally) understood the world around them.

Assume for the sake of argument Trump wins. Trump is a chauvinistic, larger-than-life, tall, white, blonde, arrogant, self-centered (if not obsessed), pompous, bombastic, questionably honest charlatan who anyone with even a half-lucid understanding of American political functioning understands will fail to deliver every single promise he has made in the election. The reasons Trump will fail (as every other historical populist has) are as obvious as his promises are inane: there exist institutional checks and balances which limit executive power, no matter how "imperial" our presidency has become post-Bush.

Of course *when* (not if, but when) he fails, we all know who he's going to blame: the political opposition. Trump will conduct himself, in his failure's wake, just like every other tin pot dictator ever has. He will ruthlessly blame Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and anyone else who opposes or opposed him. He'll blame Mexicans, and gays, Muslims and probably other minority groups whose rights have been associated with social progression. And he'll blame China, Japan, and probably every other country in the world other than Russia. This is because unlike, for example, a competent executive (e.g. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, LBJ, etc.), Trump fundamentally has nothing to offer to explain for why he can't deliver. That's the reason he over-promised in the first place... and made every rookie mistake that could be made.

In a lot of respects, the rookie-politico mistakes are what made him so endearing to Trump's supporters. He has a colorful past (e.g. "grab them by the pvssy"), and people write it off as "locker room talk" or just Trump being Trump. He's a joke in his own rite, because we all know that his "strategic use of bankruptcy" is, aside from being manifestly unethical, the reason why American banks won't work with him. He's untrustworthy, so he leaches off of other people's credit to get projects going (e.g. the Atlantic City casino) and then strategically screws his business partners at the first chance he gets.

Trump goes for the short term gain rather than the long-term winning solution; which is probably why he did so well in real estate, and why he would have failed if he'd tried his luck in the stock market. But people love him; in a way that even is more emotionally charged than the way Republicans loved Reagan when he was in office. Reagan was America's grandfather, but Trump is our prodigal son.

So, who comes next? The Republican establishment cannot produce a competent candidate and the only competent candidates they had running (e.g. Jeb Bush) were pummeled by either Trump, or someone who wanted to elevate their statute on the populist band wagon (e.g. Cruz). Romney, after all, left a bad taste in the base's mouth. Romney, a true blue blood who by any reasonable measure is the most decent person the Republican party has ever nominated to be their standard bearer (save his selection of notable idiot Paul Ryan as VP) could not deliver. Newt Gingrich, who continues to be a rabid, destructive force in the party, sabotaged that effort in South Carolina.

If not an establishment candidate, then who? Another celebrity-reality star? Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty? There was once a time when such a future would have been inconceivable, but now... who knows (note: that piece of homophobic trash presented himself at NUMEROUS GOP events). I really can't imagine who would come next. Certainly not Trump, if he loses. Certainly not Marco Rubio, whose political career is little more than a late-night punch line. Certainly not Ted Cruz, who America has come to hate with an uncharacteristically acute level of zeal.

At the core of this problem, it goes even without saying that the Republican party is completely at fault for Donald Trump. They allowed their party's identity to be defined against social progress and resistance to governmental institutions in any form. From the disgusting trash political philosophy that was contained in the Jerry Falwell's 1970s "Moral Majority" which went on to lay the foundation for Reagan to be elected, to Reagan's equally disgusting disparaging of civil service (i.e. "the scariest words in the english language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help'."), to the real demographic problems that the Republican party faced beginning in the 1990s as white protestants began to lose their foothold as a majoritarian influence in American political life, which thereafter translated into overtly specious, racist attempts to trick Latinos into voting Republican (e.g. Marco Rubio's political career). That has all failed at every possible level, and Trump is what they're left with.

Scalia's death makes all of this worse. Scalia, who was by any reasonable measure a rabid ideologue (see, e.g., his dissent in Obergefell, wherein he ranted even to the extent that recognizing equal protection under the law would cause words in the english language to lose their very meaning) held a seat which if given to a moderate would spell the end of the Republican party's judicial onslaught into our nation's highest courts to thwart a fantastically successful strategy of pursuing civil rights' in their only true refuge: the judiciary. Now, any future Republican may well appoint some incredibly young and even more incredibly stupid troglodyte (e.g. Samuel Alito) who struggles to form coherent sentences as a way to "check" the constitution's guarantee of equal protection to groups which have been historically oppressed in this country. The whole process of rebellion as such is so vile it *literally* makes me sick to my stomach. : ;

All other politicians have failed in their promises they make to get elected so what difference does it make if Donald Trump's promises fail? Stupid people don't have a clue who actually chooses their leaders.

Daniel 2
21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

22 He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with
Vaarka
Posts: 7,573
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 6:23:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I was reading this, but got tired after a while, so I'll just spout my bout here.

I had little interest in politics when all of this hay way started. Talking about political positions bored me. Learning about how politics mattered in the days of the early 1800s made me yawn. Having to get myself interested and involved in a presidency that I couldn't even vote for didn't sound fun. So I ignored it.

Of course, now I realize that, despite not being able to vote, this past year has given me many opportunities to learn about it, become interested in it, and get myself involved in politics. Of course, I didn't, and I can see why I never did.

When there were still multiple candidates for each side, like last spring, I thought about getting interested in politics, but most of the candidates I didn't like were doing well, and guess who that included? Trump and Clinton. So when they both pulled through, leaving the other candidates to drop out, I wasn't as motivated.

I then spent some time paying attention to the media, trying to make more of a choice in who I thought should be elected. I had three outside influences, particularly my sister, my dad, and someone else. My sister, who is against Trump (also a part of the LGBT community), was my "Clinton" influence. She didn't like Clinton either, but she prefers her over Trump (which is very obvious). The "someone else" was the opposite of my sister, the "I don't like Trump, but I prefer him over Clinton". Then, my dad, who is republican, but has gotten to the point where even he doesn't care anymore. I honestly don't know who he will vote for, if he even votes at this point.

In the end, I found myself looking at the same two candidates, with so many more accusations and whatnot on them, and my views had seldom changed. Sometimes, I'd say "well if I were forced to vote, I guess I'd vote Trump", and other times I'd say that if I were forced to vote, "I guess i'd vote Clinton". When there were all the accusations of sexual harassment with Trump, I leaned Clinton. When there was all the email stuff with Clinton, I leaned Trump.

Now I don't care who wins. The way I see it, one of them will win, and neither will get us what we want, nor what we need. We'll have a president who will either doom us, or do nothing, and I would be very surprised if one of them somehow got a second term. Really, at this point (and as my sister said at some point), one of them will get elected, and we can either wait out the four years, or elect people in office from the opposite party from the new president, and then hope that they get nothing done.

I mean, it's not like I can have a choice in who wins, considering I can't vote, so I just have to wait 4 years and hope we get better candidates next time.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Vaarka
Posts: 7,573
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 6:45:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 6:23:53 PM, Vaarka wrote:
I was reading this, but got tired after a while, so I'll just spout my bout here.

I had little interest in politics when all of this hay way started. Talking about political positions bored me. Learning about how politics mattered in the days of the early 1800s made me yawn. Having to get myself interested and involved in a presidency that I couldn't even vote for didn't sound fun. So I ignored it.

Of course, now I realize that, despite not being able to vote, this past year has given me many opportunities to learn about it, become interested in it, and get myself involved in politics. Of course, I didn't, and I can see why I never did.

When there were still multiple candidates for each side, like last spring, I thought about getting interested in politics, but most of the candidates I didn't like were doing well, and guess who that included? Trump and Clinton. So when they both pulled through, leaving the other candidates to drop out, I wasn't as motivated.

I then spent some time paying attention to the media, trying to make more of a choice in who I thought should be elected. I had three outside influences, particularly my sister, my dad, and someone else. My sister, who is against Trump (also a part of the LGBT community), was my "Clinton" influence. She didn't like Clinton either, but she prefers her over Trump (which is very obvious). The "someone else" was the opposite of my sister, the "I don't like Trump, but I prefer him over Clinton". Then, my dad, who is republican, but has gotten to the point where even he doesn't care anymore. I honestly don't know who he will vote for, if he even votes at this point.

In the end, I found myself looking at the same two candidates, with so many more accusations and whatnot on them, and my views had seldom changed. Sometimes, I'd say "well if I were forced to vote, I guess I'd vote Trump", and other times I'd say that if I were forced to vote, "I guess i'd vote Clinton". When there were all the accusations of sexual harassment with Trump, I leaned Clinton. When there was all the email stuff with Clinton, I leaned Trump.

Now I don't care who wins. The way I see it, one of them will win, and neither will get us what we want, nor what we need. We'll have a president who will either doom us, or do nothing, and I would be very surprised if one of them somehow got a second term. Really, at this point (and as my sister said at some point), one of them will get elected, and we can either wait out the four years, or elect people in office from the opposite party from the new president, and then hope that they get nothing done.

I mean, it's not like I can have a choice in who wins, considering I can't vote, so I just have to wait 4 years and hope we get better candidates next time.

It's also kind of funny how much I could've learned about politics in this forum. I have tried, I've asked a few questions in the past, and gotten good responses, but most of my lurking resulted in me either being confused, or just bored.

When I was confused, it was usually over something like "who/what is right wing". I guess I just need more of a political knowledge to fully understand what it means.

When I was bored, it was because I struggle to find interest in politics.

Most of what I saw, however, was either very biased, or said in an almost "aggressive" manner. Most posts about this revolved around "look at what he/she did this time", as well as stuff that mostly just made it obvious that "I'm supporting this candidate, and this candidate is...". I saw plenty of arguments, where some people spread rumors with no evidence. I saw conspiracy theories that made me laugh at how stupid they were. I saw someone say this, and then someone say that, and then both disagreed, so they responded by calling each other stupid, as well as one advising readers to think the other is stupid. It was all "this candidate is stupid" and not enough about why. It was all "this candidate is good" and not enough about how. It was less discussion and more insulting arguments. I see a thread about something new a candidate did ("Trump is screwed haha" -- "Shillary is going down!"). I saw links of "proof" that came from biased sites, unreliable searches, and click baits.

I don't care about what a candidate did this time, because I've already heard about it. I don't believe that this new scandal will send Trump/Clinton into the dust, because it won't. I don't want to know why Trump is our Lord and Savior and why Clinton is going to let America burn, because it's all "read the good stuff about who I'm supporting, and all the bad stuff about the other! If you have any kind of disagreement, then you're wrong".

What I wanted was someone to say "Here's what Trump says, supports, and what is happening", then "Here's what Clinton says, supports, and what is happening". What I wanted was to see that from someone who was undecided, someone who was unbiased, even someone who isn't involved. I wanted to see good discussion on these points, as well as "here are other things they support, oppose, and what is happening that you missed", but in a way that is more to be informative for both sides than to try and attract a preference. And finally, I wanted to see reliable sources that I could look at, confirm, and then learn more from.

And let me tell you, I rarely, if ever, got to see that.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 6:53:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 3:57:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:17:21 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:13:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:12:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM, YYW wrote:
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.

I foresee a third party.

A populist third party?

Time to bring back the Populist Party of old.

I think that's what the GOP has become.

Free Silver for all! The Romanists from Italy and Ireland are taking over our cities!
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Geographia
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 7:56:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM, YYW wrote:
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.

I read these.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 8:02:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 7:56:06 PM, Geographia wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM, YYW wrote:
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.

I read these.

(:
Tsar of DDO
lannan13
Posts: 23,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 8:13:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 7:56:06 PM, Geographia wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM, YYW wrote:
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.

I read these.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 9:04:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 7:31:15 PM, YYW wrote:
This... all of it, is bad for America. Rather than responding in a forward-thinking way that was reflective of a winning strategy, the right has raced the far left to the bottom. We're almost there, and when we get there, I have a theory that everyone will be dissatisfied. Why that's the case should be obvious: the bottom is a dark, dismal place. Think the lowest circle of hell in Dante's Inferno (i.e. a solitary, cold sheet of ice, reserved only for those who have betrayed others). Both the far right (who are becoming increasingly more expansive and voluminous), and the far left have betrayed what it means to be an American. We have even reached the point where a major presidential candidate has questioned the legitimacy of our electoral process. Who knows whether he'll accept the results or not; after all, Trump has conditioned the process's legitimacy on his victory. Such a level of vacuousness has, I think, never been witnessed in American history.

May God have mercy on us all.

You clearly don't understand that America is a multicultural empire in the latter stages of its life. It already is a dark and dismal place. And it will get a whole lot darker, thanks to decades of multiculturalism, globalism and progressivism. There is an impending collapse of the United States empire that is well outside of Trump or Hillary's control, or any other politician's control for that matter. Further, "Being American" is a meaningless, self-contradictory term. You either are American or you aren't. Despite what the equalitarians will tell you, it has nothing to do with what you believe or where one's geographic location happens to be.

It's apparent the rule of law is dead, the Constitution irrelevant and Ideology useless. America is now just a plethora of ethnic and cultural factions wrestling for influence and control of an ever-expanding government. The only way forward is identity politics. It sucks, but that is the reality of our situation. Trump is the spearhead of the formation of a pro-white, pro-American party and identity. And yes, that is the ONLY winning strategy left for Republicans. The Democrats have had a long head start in their formation of the anti-white party.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 9:18:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 9:04:41 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:31:15 PM, YYW wrote:
This... all of it, is bad for America. Rather than responding in a forward-thinking way that was reflective of a winning strategy, the right has raced the far left to the bottom. We're almost there, and when we get there, I have a theory that everyone will be dissatisfied. Why that's the case should be obvious: the bottom is a dark, dismal place. Think the lowest circle of hell in Dante's Inferno (i.e. a solitary, cold sheet of ice, reserved only for those who have betrayed others). Both the far right (who are becoming increasingly more expansive and voluminous), and the far left have betrayed what it means to be an American. We have even reached the point where a major presidential candidate has questioned the legitimacy of our electoral process. Who knows whether he'll accept the results or not; after all, Trump has conditioned the process's legitimacy on his victory. Such a level of vacuousness has, I think, never been witnessed in American history.

May God have mercy on us all.

You clearly don't understand that America is a multicultural empire in the latter stages of its life. It already is a dark and dismal place.

This should be good. Already, I am on notice not only that you're a Trump supporter, but that you're likely the kind of person who represents the very "basket of deplorables" archetype Hillary Clinton was referring to in relation to Trump supporters bigoted tendencies.

And it will get a whole lot darker, thanks to decades of multiculturalism, globalism and progressivism.

This is simply an astonishing claim. Of course there is nothing that would resemble an argument, much less evidence, of how or the extent to which multiculturalism, globalism, or progressivism have had *any* impact, much less a negative one; nor is there even a statement that would suggest what it means that America is so "dark" beyond the obviously racially charged implications of your hostility to multiculturalism.

I wonder where you're from. Oh... Idaho. That's telling.

There is an impending collapse of the United States empire that is well outside of Trump or Hillary's control, or any other politician's control for that matter.

An "impending collapse," you say? Of "the United States empire," you say? What's going to collapse? What is this "American empire" you speak of? We, the readers, are left to wonder.

People like you are the reason I fear for this country. Like, I know that you exist although I don't ever interact with anyone like you in my day-to-day because I live in a big city, with lots of liberal progressive types, in an ethnically and culturally diverse area that is welcoming to anyone (even your types) regardless of where they come from or what they believe.

It's apparent the rule of law is dead, the Constitution irrelevant and Ideology useless.

This is easily the stupidest statement I've ever seen anyone make on DDO. How is the rule of law dead? Do you even know what the term means? What is this "rule of law"? I anticipate you'll struggle to produce answers.

More interestingly, though (and you'll pardon my mocking you... because I am doing that, which is perhaps less charitable than I should be), what on earth makes you think the constitution is "irrelevant"? Tell me. What was it? Was it gay marriage? Was it racial integration of the schools? What?

America is now just a plethora of ethnic and cultural factions wrestling for influence and control of an ever-expanding government. The only way forward is identity politics. It sucks, but that is the reality of our situation. Trump is the spearhead of the formation of a pro-white, pro-American party and identity. And yes, that is the ONLY winning strategy left for Republicans. The Democrats have had a long head start in their formation of the anti-white party.

This is the point where I write you off as a worthless piece of racist trash. Yes, I am judging you, as a person, and you deserve to be judged. When you call for the formation of a pro-white party, you have lost any semblance of credibility in speaking with me or any person who matters. Even the Republicans would turn their back on you, and many of them did for many years. Bill Buckley made a career beating trash ideology like that which you have espoused here out of the GOP, and he would be rolling over in his grave if he saw what filth the party has become.

It is true that most liberals are too quick to call Republicans racists. Most aren't, and the charge is unfairly leveraged against them. Worse is when the idiot SJW types (most of whom have since left the site, presumably to poison the minds of our students at such worthless universities as the University of Michigan). But you, however, are unapologetic.

History repeats itself, I suppose. You are what is wrong with America.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 9:43:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 9:41:00 PM, Geographia wrote:
At 10/31/2016 8:02:37 PM, YYW wrote:

Did you see Trump's "650 million " remark?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I did not see that, but I lol'd when I did. Trump is such a fucking_idiot.
Tsar of DDO
Reformist
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 10:13:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:12:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:37:06 PM, YYW wrote:
As always, I doubt most people will even read this. No one reads anymore, it seems. Those who do will probably misunderstand it, or make some stupid come-back to try to undermine what they will perceive to be a slight to their beliefs.

American politics are too fvcking tribal. We are better than the Aborigines... or maybe not.

I foresee a third party.

I could only see a third party if the country collapsed such as we saw in 1930's Germany, Italy and early 1900 Russia
DDO History Revival Officer
Fuher of the Reich

"I'm not Asian"-Vaarka

"I would rather have a fascist than a socialist in office"- Bball

To be a feminist or to be smart that is the question
Reformist
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 10:15:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:57:11 PM, YYW wrote:
Where do we go.... where do we go now... where do we go? -Great Philosopher Axl Rose

Everything has changed now. We've been moving towards this point for some time, since the Republican Party invented the fantasy of a "business man" as their ideal candidate. Now, they have one... and the margins are closing between Trump and Hillary. It's my personal view that it's unlikely that Trump will win, but I'm also aware that it's not entirely out of reach for him either. Whether he wins or loses, Trump has redefined what it means to be an American politician in the 21st century.

We've seen populism before and survived it, but now it's come up on both sides. The far right and the far left have more in common with each other than either of their mainstream counterparts, and while in the past there was a time where that "impulse" could be controlled, it's becoming more and more clear that globalization's increase and effects are creating an increasingly more and more politically relevant class of voters who may have at one point described themselves as independents or undecideds.

It's also not as if America is alone in its experience with populism, even though America's has perhaps been the most tame. France, the UK, Canada, Germany, and even the Philippines have witnessed an increasing rise in populism. Trump, by all counts, is the heartland's "everyman." He represents ideals and values that were once not talked about in polite circles, but which were in the same instance the cultural framework through White Christian America (a phrase I use less in a religious sense, because I belong to that group if only interpreted literally) understood the world around them.

Assume for the sake of argument Trump wins. Trump is a chauvinistic, larger-than-life, tall, white, blonde, arrogant, self-centered (if not obsessed), pompous, bombastic, questionably honest charlatan who anyone with even a half-lucid understanding of American political functioning understands will fail to deliver every single promise he has made in the election. The reasons Trump will fail (as every other historical populist has) are as obvious as his promises are inane: there exist institutional checks and balances which limit executive power, no matter how "imperial" our presidency has become post-Bush.

Of course *when* (not if, but when) he fails, we all know who he's going to blame: the political opposition. Trump will conduct himself, in his failure's wake, just like every other tin pot dictator ever has. He will ruthlessly blame Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and anyone else who opposes or opposed him. He'll blame Mexicans, and gays, Muslims and probably other minority groups whose rights have been associated with social progression. And he'll blame China, Japan, and probably every other country in the world other than Russia. This is because unlike, for example, a competent executive (e.g. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, LBJ, etc.), Trump fundamentally has nothing to offer to explain for why he can't deliver. That's the reason he over-promised in the first place... and made every rookie mistake that could be made.

In a lot of respects, the rookie-politico mistakes are what made him so endearing to Trump's supporters. He has a colorful past (e.g. "grab them by the pvssy"), and people write it off as "locker room talk" or just Trump being Trump. He's a joke in his own rite, because we all know that his "strategic use of bankruptcy" is, aside from being manifestly unethical, the reason why American banks won't work with him. He's untrustworthy, so he leaches off of other people's credit to get projects going (e.g. the Atlantic City casino) and then strategically screws his business partners at the first chance he gets.

Trump goes for the short term gain rather than the long-term winning solution; which is probably why he did so well in real estate, and why he would have failed if he'd tried his luck in the stock market. But people love him; in a way that even is more emotionally charged than the way Republicans loved Reagan when he was in office. Reagan was America's grandfather, but Trump is our prodigal son.

So, who comes next? The Republican establishment cannot produce a competent candidate and the only competent candidates they had running (e.g. Jeb Bush) were pummeled by either Trump, or someone who wanted to elevate their statute on the populist band wagon (e.g. Cruz). Romney, after all, left a bad taste in the base's mouth. Romney, a true blue blood who by any reasonable measure is the most decent person the Republican party has ever nominated to be their standard bearer (save his selection of notable idiot Paul Ryan as VP) could not deliver. Newt Gingrich, who continues to be a rabid, destructive force in the party, sabotaged that effort in South Carolina.

If not an establishment candidate, then who? Another celebrity-reality star? Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty? There was once a time when such a future would have been inconceivable, but now... who knows (note: that piece of homophobic trash presented himself at NUMEROUS GOP events). I really can't imagine who would come next. Certainly not Trump, if he loses. Certainly not Marco Rubio, whose political career is little more than a late-night punch line. Certainly not Ted Cruz, who America has come to hate with an uncharacteristically acute level of zeal.

At the core of this problem, it goes even without saying that the Republican party is completely at fault for Donald Trump. They allowed their party's identity to be defined against social progress and resistance to governmental institutions in any form. From the disgusting trash political philosophy that was contained in the Jerry Falwell's 1970s "Moral Majority" which went on to lay the foundation for Reagan to be elected, to Reagan's equally disgusting disparaging of civil service (i.e. "the scariest words in the english language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help'."), to the real demographic problems that the Republican party faced beginning in the 1990s as white protestants began to lose their foothold as a majoritarian influence in American political life, which thereafter translated into overtly specious, racist attempts to trick Latinos into voting Republican (e.g. Marco Rubio's political career). That has all failed at every possible level, and Trump is what they're left with.

Scalia's death makes all of this worse. Scalia, who was by any reasonable measure a rabid ideologue (see, e.g., his dissent in Obergefell, wherein he ranted even to the extent that recognizing equal protection under the law would cause words in the english language to lose their very meaning) held a seat which if given to a moderate would spell the end of the Republican party's judicial onslaught into our nation's highest courts to thwart a fantastically successful strategy of pursuing civil rights' in their only true refuge: the judiciary. Now, any future Republican may well appoint some incredibly young and even more incredibly stupid troglodyte (e.g. Samuel Alito) who struggles to form coherent sentences as a way to "check" the constitution's guarantee of equal protection to groups which have been historically oppressed in this country. The whole process of rebellion as such is so vile it *literally* makes me sick to my stomach.

Im against social progress too lol. Any republican is. Or conservative for that matter

The amount of sjw in your posts is actually making ME sick to my stomach "groups which have been historically oppressed in this country"

Queasy
DDO History Revival Officer
Fuher of the Reich

"I'm not Asian"-Vaarka

"I would rather have a fascist than a socialist in office"- Bball

To be a feminist or to be smart that is the question
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 12:38:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 9:18:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/31/2016 9:04:41 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:31:15 PM, YYW wrote:
You clearly don't understand that America is a multicultural empire in the latter stages of its life. It already is a dark and dismal place.

This should be good. Already, I am on notice not only that you're a Trump supporter, but that you're likely the kind of person who represents the very "basket of deplorables" archetype Hillary Clinton was referring to in relation to Trump supporters bigoted tendencies.


Good. I have no desire to fit in with the mold of people that Crooked Hillary happens to find acceptable.
And it will get a whole lot darker, thanks to decades of multiculturalism, globalism and progressivism.

This is simply an astonishing claim. Of course there is nothing that would resemble an argument, much less evidence, of how or the extent to which multiculturalism, globalism, or progressivism have had *any* impact, much less a negative one; nor is there even a statement that would suggest what it means that America is so "dark" beyond the obviously racially charged implications of your hostility to multiculturalism.

I wonder where you're from. Oh... Idaho. That's telling.


Except I grew up in the corrupt multicultural hellhole of California. I have seen with my own eyes the poisoned fruit borne from the tree of diversity. If you think white people are racist, you ought to see the way blacks and Hispanics get along.

The idea that all peoples and cultures are equivalent is a diabolical lie spread by the open-borders globalists. Their lies have allowed for the United States to be invaded by at least 61 million immigrants since the 1965 Hart-Cellar Immigration Act was passed. Unless something is done soon, there will be considerable bloodshed as the country is fractured and balkanized by ethnicity. I don't know about you, but if partitioning is going to happen (which historical precedent STRONGLY suggests will be the case), I would prefer it be a peaceful and voluntary process rather than come about from outright civil war and ethnic cleansing.
There is an impending collapse of the United States empire that is well outside of Trump or Hillary's control, or any other politician's control for that matter.

An "impending collapse," you say? Of "the United States empire," you say? What's going to collapse? What is this "American empire" you speak of? We, the readers, are left to wonder.


The collapse occurs once the United States are no longer "United". An Empire is defined as "an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority", which is precisely what Americans are living in now. The states are held together by force under a sovereign central government. It is vastly different from the America laid out by the founders in the Constitution.
People like you are the reason I fear for this country. Like, I know that you exist although I don't ever interact with anyone like you in my day-to-day because I live in a big city, with lots of liberal progressive types, in an ethnically and culturally diverse area that is welcoming to anyone (even your types) regardless of where they come from or what they believe.


Give yourself a pat on the back. I lived in a big city too. I know the habit smug liberals have in remarking about how tolerant and welcoming they all are, while simultaneously being the most ignorant, self-righteous and intolerant people I have ever met, particularly to those that happen to disagree with them. Sorry, signal your virtue somewhere else. Now, I have nothing personally against individuals from minority groups and tend to get along with them quite well. I do however have a very strong and personal distaste for white cucks that live in these gated, all-white communities then take it upon themselves to lecture everyone else on how we have to accept becoming a minority in our own country. I say GFY.
It's apparent the rule of law is dead, the Constitution irrelevant and Ideology useless.

This is easily the stupidest statement I've ever seen anyone make on DDO. How is the rule of law dead? Do you even know what the term means? What is this "rule of law"? I anticipate you'll struggle to produce answers.


Under the Rule of Law, law is equally binding to all and all violations are equally punishable. No honest observer that has seen the extent of what Hillary Clinton has done and gotten away with so far has any doubt that the Law no longer applies to everyone equally. Big Bankers are now "too big to jail". The rich and the elites regularly break law with impunity. Who gets punished and who doesn't does not depend on what you do, but who you know. I can only conclude that you're either blatantly dishonest or an idiot for failing to accept that this is no longer the case.
More interestingly, though (and you'll pardon my mocking you... because I am doing that, which is perhaps less charitable than I should be), what on earth makes you think the constitution is "irrelevant"? Tell me. What was it? Was it gay marriage? Was it racial integration of the schools? What?


The nail in the coffin was the way the Supreme Court effectively ruled the Constitution itself to be Unconstitutional in Whole Women's Health Vs. Hellersdedt, as Clarence Thomas pointed out in his dissent.

This is the point where I write you off as a worthless piece of racist trash. Yes, I am judging you, as a person, and you deserve to be judged. When you call for the formation of a pro-white party, you have lost any semblance of credibility in speaking with me or any person who matters. Even the Republicans would turn their back on you, and many of them did for many years. Bill Buckley made a career beating trash ideology like that which you have espoused here out of the GOP, and he would be rolling over in his grave if he saw what filth the party has become.


This is the point where I would normally point out the differences between remarking what is observable reality and actually endorsing it. But I don't care what you think about me, so I won't. Also, Buckley's purging of the John Birch society is part of the reason why Conservatives are increasingly irrelevant and are being replaced by the Alt-Right.
It is true that most liberals are too quick to call Republicans racists. Most aren't, and the charge is unfairly leveraged against them. Worse is when the idiot SJW types (most of whom have since left the site, presumably to poison the minds of our students at such worthless universities as the University of Michigan). But you, however, are unapologetic.

History repeats itself, I suppose. You are what is wrong with America.

I just want to Make America Great Again. Why don't you?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 12:52:07 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Apparently we went back to the 80s with a GnR ref... although I'm more of an NWA or Rush guy, until the 90s anyway.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 12:56:24 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 12:52:07 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Apparently we went back to the 80s with a GnR ref... although I'm more of an NWA or Rush guy, until the 90s anyway.

You don't like Alan parsons?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 3:26:42 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 12:56:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:52:07 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Apparently we went back to the 80s with a GnR ref... although I'm more of an NWA or Rush guy, until the 90s anyway.

You don't like Alan parsons?

I like the U.K. And Bulls walkout song. Lol