Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Apolitical Donald Trump Thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Apolitical Donald Trump Thread

    Note: If you live in a non-US country spoon-fed by globalist media and are about to post ignorant and naive "thoughts" some globalist newspaper told you to think -- that's fine, but you need to be able to explain it.

    Globalism

    The wealthy few own megacorps and control your government, taking away your government's ability for self-determination and to make decisions for the benefit of the citizens the government is supposed to represent.

    Doesn't really sound like a good future.

    Meanwhile, in Britain, they are considering withdrawing from the EU on a vote coming up within 2 weeks.

    In the USA: two candidates for president speak out against megacorps and the globalist megacorp takeover: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders was never mathematical factor, only a mood factor.

    So that leaves Donald Trump.

    Because he is against the globalist agenda, he gets attacked non-stopped by the media and everything he says is distorted into Hitler, etc. But he keeps on speaking against the globalist agenda.

    Do you feel lucky there is someone willing to take that many arrows in the back to fight back against the globalist agenda that would like to turn us in serfs?

    (you know like feudalism fielty to the King Middle Ages type of stuff where unelected wealthy people rule us all, like how the TPP trade agreement gives megacorps special rights over even the government?)
    Quakeone.com - Being exactly one-half good and one-half evil has advantages. When a portal opens to the antimatter universe, my opposite is just me with a goatee.

    So while you guys all have to fight your anti-matter counterparts, me and my evil twin will be drinking a beer laughing at you guys ...

  • #2
    If both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are equally outspoken against Corporate Globalism and its harmful effects on a Government's ability to do its job, why does it fall in favor of Trump for his 'mathematical factor'?
    Shouldn't it fall instead to Bernie for his 'mood factor'?


    Originally posted by Baker
    Bernie Sanders was never mathematical factor, only a mood factor.
    ..
    I'm assuming by this you mean that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both have the emotional power in their stances against Global Economic Powerhouses being able to overtake Governmental Authority, but donlad Trump being the only one of the two who has the understanding and know-how to actually do something about it.
    As in, Trump is a businessman, he has the experience to take down, as President, in office, to the maximum extent permittable by law, large coprorations' influence on Governmental poltics-- whereas Bernie just says he would do that?


    Because I thought it was the other way around-- that both Sanders and Trump were about equally qualified to 'reduce how much megacorps affect governments', but only Bernie of the two had the 'mood factor' to want to do as much about it.
    And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Trump's incompetence as a wealthy businessperson and unlikelihood of being a competent U.S. President not something that the news media itself spins, but something that's argued by others, often with examples from his history ("a small loan of a billion dollars", or "4 bankruptcies", or "show businesss, not political business" or "inherited his fortune" and so on and so forth)...


    No, I don't feel lucky to have someone "willing to take so many arrows for us" because I don't think Trump is that guy.
    I wouldn't feel lucky with Trump as president, either.


    As one of my students in my English class last semester put it so aptly "He's not running for the Republicans, he's running for himself" and another followed with "It's funny to see the other republican candidates realize that one by one".
    I could never vote for a politician whose slogan is "Make America Rich Again, and Make America Great Again" because that implies that money is the primary source of happiness.


    I'm moving out of my parent's house as soon as I can get a job in the area of an apartment I picked out. I need that job so I can stop living at home with my parents. I understand that money is a factor in my own happiness.
    But that's just it-- the need for money is a thing stopping me, so it isn't so much that money would make me happy as it is that I just need money to get stuff that I need (room & board, medical treatment & surgery, PC games & entertainment, fine dining & dating... ) to be happy.


    I don't care how much I make at my next job as long as it pays at least 1.5 times the rent of my apartment-- enough to cover utilties, groceries, Steam games and other 'impulse buys', emergency expenses and transporation fees... with a couple hundred to 'save money' every month, you know, 'cause you're supposed to do that.
    So quite frankly I don't care how much 'economic globalism' affects the ability of a government to do its job, if the U.S. government's administration's leader (Trump, in this case) just wants me to be 'rich', I don't know if I'll ever be happy like that. I mean money certainly hasn't made Trump happy. I don't want to bathe in gold, just cover my expenses and have a job I can enjoy doing every day instead.


    But I guess that's my point-- I could care less if Trump is or is not 'willing to take so many arrows' for we, the people, and whatnot. What matters is what he'll do in Office. And I have no confidence that he'll be any good for the future of the U.S. economy-- let alone that his non-economic policies are abhorrent to virtually anyone who isn't a religious fundamentalist.
    Why should I care about how Economic Globalism/megacorps affects me if I myself am not even a part of the global economy?


    I'd rather be an Economic Serf and Politically Free than the other way around.
    And it seems that Trump's policies refelct an attitude that, if it were up to him, we'd be Economically Rich but not all that Politically well-off.

    Comment


    • #3
      1.5 times your rent will have you eating roaches and wood shavings for dinner. My rent includes all utilities and cable and it still costs me about double my rent a month just to survive. This is before saving a dime or making any impulse purchases. If I made 1.5 times my rent I would starve to death. Let'sassume your rent is $1200. That would leave you with $600 a month for food, utilities, gas & car insurance. You would stay 100% broke at all times and you can completely forget steam, impulse buys and any other luxury.

      You may say, "My rent wont be that high". It doesn't matter. In this scenario the lower your rent results in even less money and the higher your rent results in even higher bills. You will need to make about 3 times your rent to have any kind of decent life and even that isn't that great. I make 5 or 6 times (season dependant) my rent and it's tight to save just 1500 a month. Actually I rely heavily on the 4 months a year with an extra check to keep my monthly savings at an average of 1500. Keep in mind this is at 4.5ish times higher than you are shooting for and that 1500 is only a portion of that 4.5ish multiple.
      Last edited by MadGypsy; 06-13-2016, 05:54 PM.
      http://www.nextgenquake.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Well I budgeted it out and $650 is the rent, which includes only heat and water.
        I'll probably be paying at least $100 a month for electric.
        I can narrow groceries down to $200 a month but no shorter.
        I don't have a car, and don't drive, so transportation is gonna cost 15 to 30 dollars a month depending on how many days I'm taking the bus instead of walking-- there are job openings in a block of stores less than 500 feet from this apartment.
        Clothing, toiletries, cleaning supplies, shaving razors, electronics, laundry units usage etc. probably comes to around another $50 to $100 tops.
        Steam games and other gifts - $50 a month, tops.
        That's what, $1100?
        Let's see, assuming I make minimum wage, working 3 days a week...
        $7.15 * 24 * 4... 171.60 * 4... 682.40...
        cut half of that out from my monthly Supplemental Security income, $733.00 + 381.20 = 1114.20 a month.


        I dunno, MadGypsy, I think I can just barely make it but it's gonna be tough.
        What is it about your expenses that makes it so much more expensive for you to live? Is it because you have a car? Or because you have a lot of small business you need to support? Or is it because you are active in the 'dating scene' and need to be able to take a girl out to a fine dining place or like a real move theatre once in a while? And what about condoms?


        Besides I'm not living this way for the rest of my life, just until I can get enough time away from my parents' house that I'm allowed to go to the 4-year college of my choosing (my grandparents on my dad's side had a 'college fund' for me but there's only about $75k left in there anyway... and I'm spending that on college expenses and nothing else).
        Now if you don't mind will you please let this thread get back to what Baker was talking about and what I was talking about, and not one particular detail you had to poke at?

        Comment


        • #5
          Lord, gathering my thoughts, Young skull full of mush. Bill O'Reilly's Culture Warrior should be required reading.
          Last edited by Dilligaf; 06-13-2016, 08:15 PM.
          *I chose the road less traveled... Now I don't know where the hell I am*
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            You see, many people think there's only the four options (being Trump, Hillary, Sanders and Johnson), but there's a fifth option we're not considering: a noose!

            YOU'RE GONNA CARRY THAT WEIGHT...

            Comment


            • #7
              If the majority of Americans on both sides are unhappy with all the candidates, what does that say about our political system? The party system has hijacked what's supposed to be a representative republic.
              'Replacement Player Models' Project

              Comment


              • #8
                It would shock both parties if Trump came out and said Bernie was going to be his VP. I bet he would win by a land slide.

                Trump has everyone against him in the political system, the media, the dems, liberals, gop, libertarians etc. When everyone is against him its because they are scared, when all of them are scared thats a good thing, when other countries are scared thats even better. Trump 2016!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wicked_lord View Post
                  It would shock both parties if Trump came out and said Bernie was going to be his VP. I bet he would win by a land slide.
                  That's a good point lol I'd say he would win by a landslide... I don't think it would ever happen. I can just see the proverbial Washington political head exploding! I'd like to see him pick Newt or Chris Christie.

                  Sorry OP for getting off topic... I'll try to redirect... your topic requires serious thought... and I fear a long post...
                  Last edited by Dilligaf; 06-14-2016, 06:19 PM.
                  *I chose the road less traveled... Now I don't know where the hell I am*
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Heh heh... "Apolitical" thread

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Izhido_ View Post
                      Heh heh... "Apolitical" thread
                      ..
                      I think it was supposed to be apolitical and we just messed it up.
                      I wasn't exactly following the lack of politics in the O.P. either but I tried to make my first response about equally as political or non-political...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The party system has hijacked what's supposed to be a representative republic.
                        Well, actually, not exactly. Sure, they tell you that but the truth is that the original framers of the constitution considered your average man to be basically stupid and only intended for land owners to vote and be represented. This is why candidates are not polling for your vote, they are polling for electoral votes. They may say something like "get out and vote" but your vote doesn't and never did mean anything. No election has ever been won by the popular vote.

                        If you want to find out who the president is going to be look at the "guy" with 270+ electoral votes. 538 people decide who the president is going to be. This means, to buy an election all you have to do is buy 270 people (> 50% of the electoral college)

                        There is another problem though. Even if "your guy" becomes President, regardless of all the awesome promises he made on the campaign trail, he wont be allowed to do most of it. This is more on a conspiratorial line but, if "your guy" is going to "fix" things he is going to have to go against powers with a whole lot invested in their interests...possibly hundreds of years of interest. Unless "your guy" is somehow The Terminator, he is a dead man.
                        Last edited by MadGypsy; 06-16-2016, 01:49 AM.
                        http://www.nextgenquake.com

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Holy shit.

                          Just did some reading on the electoral college. You're right bro. They conveniently left those details out when they taught this shit way back in high school.

                          Basically, when you vote for president you're really just saying "this is who I'd like to win". Looks like there's no legal binding for an elector to actually listen to their district, or actually vote for their vowed candidate.

                          I never realized how flawed this is until now. In all honesty though, I couldn't give two shits about the federal govt anyways. In fact, I'll bet the reason the electoral college is the way it is, is probably because the federal govt was never supposed to be as big and connected to the average citizen as it currently is. The state's were never supposed to be as standardized and whipped by the feds as they are.

                          90% of the reason I moved outta California was to live in a state where my vote on local govt actually counted, and also to be in a state that didn't bend over backwards for the feds.

                          EDIT: I guess this got horribly off track from OP. sorry Baker. I'm done lol

                          EDIT2: one more thing. When I say "flawed" I don't necessarily mean the representative form of election is flawed, as this is what a republic is and is statistically a better system than a democracy. What I mean is the winner-takes-all approach of electoral votes. If 51% of voters in CA vote for Clinton, then all of the electors that vowed to vote for her are the ones doing the voting. So she basically gets all 55 electoral votes (if the electors stand by their word) off of a simple majority. Sounds a lot like a democracy.

                          I think I read Maine and Nebraska are the only 2 states to carve up the electoral votes based on district. I'm going to do more reading and develop a more informed opinion, but as of right now this system makes more sense to me.

                          EDIT3: edited edit2. Lol.
                          Last edited by Dutch; 06-16-2016, 06:16 AM.
                          'Replacement Player Models' Project

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Bernie Sanders never elaborated on his "plan" and his ideas would never make it through legislation anyways. Socialism is terrifying, it failed in most countries, and it can evolve into Communism over time.

                            Hilary Clinton is evil.

                            Donald Trump may be a huge businessman at heart, but since he is a multi-billionaire, he doesn't have to answer to no one! Completely self-funded. That has everyone and the GOP scared. Illegal Immigration also really is a problem, the rape crimes and black markets that creep into this country are absurd. There is a reason Brexit occurred, you don't have to do too much research to see how badly Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and France are suffering. On a side note, I find it fucked up that the Neo feminists are not speaking out against these high number rapes, but the women in these countries are terrified.


                            This world has become way too PC and it makes me sick to my stomach. As a result, you have police officers under scrutiny for doing their jobs and ISIS members posing as refugees going into these countries. Enough said.


                            PLAY QUAKE DODGEBALL!

                            http://www.moddb.com/mods/quake-dodgeball

                            Trickle's VWeps

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dilligaf View Post
                              I'd like to see him pick Newt or Chris Christie.
                              I am for a Trump/Newt ticket. Christie is ok, however he would make a better attorney general, but I would rather see Trey Gowdy as the AG.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X