Ajit Pai to take over FCC

[jaggysnake57]

56 minutes ago, revl8er said:

And I'll just leave this here.  

snipped

 

 

Here are some things that the media doesn't report on because it goes against their narrative.  As for the FCC, I'm not sure how he's going to do, it's pretty much the same as when Wheeler came in.  We just have to see what kind of policies he tries to push forward.

what the actual.......

 

1 that gigapixle image is unreliable given the angle it was taken. its never going to accuratly show the amount of people there.

2 a couple of protests are not going to stop everyone getting in

3 they snipped it to hide the true crowds or they snipped it because that was a big as the crowds got. seriously you think that there no news agencies sympathetic to trump you think that if there where more people there they wouldnt show it. 

 

this fake news bullshit is nothing more than spin, and whilst you laugh at people buying into the "fake news lies" you should look at yourselves buying into the "fake news" spin, because at the end of the day thats all it is, a politicians spin.

 

the real funny thing is both you and the person i was quoting in the first place missed is trump accusing the press of a false narrative and lying whilst doing the same thing. if trump or his press secretory had a clue they wouldnt have commented in the first place. obama was the first black president and most people there would have been there simply to witness history  and in actual fact the amount of people at an inauguration has little to do with anything. trump will be judged on the job he does not how many people turn up to his party!

 

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, jaggysnake57 said:

what the actual.......

 

1 that gigapixle image is unreliable given the angle it was taken. its never going to accuratly show the amount of people there.

2 a couple of protests are not going to stop everyone getting in

3 they snipped it to hide the true crowds or they snipped it because that was a big as the crowds got. seriously you think that there no news agencies sympathetic to trump you think that if there where more people there they wouldnt show it. 

 

this fake news bullshit is nothing more than spin, and whilst you laugh at people buying into the "fake news lies" you should look at yourselves buying into the "fake news" spin, because at the end of the day thats all it is, a politicians spin.

 

the real funny thing is both you and the person i was quoting in the first place missed is trump accusing the press of a false narrative and lying whilst doing the same thing. if trump or his press secretory had a clue they wouldnt have commented in the first place. obama was the first black president and most people there would have been there simply to witness history  and in actual fact the amount of people at an inauguration has little to do with anything. trump will be judged on the job he does not how many people turn up to his party!

 

Exactly. Trump is nothing more than a petty child. Since they they're so obsessed with numbers over substance, Hillary is better since she won with almost 3 million and Obama is clearly 5 billion times better since he pulled such a huge crowd.

[jaggysnake57]

13 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Exactly. Trump is nothing more than a petty child. Since they they're so obsessed with numbers over substance, Hillary is better since she won with almost 3 million and Obama is clearly 5 billion times better since he pulled such a huge crowd.

i cant tell if your mocking me or sarcastically agreeing with my point.......much confused 

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, jaggysnake57 said:

i cant tell if your mocking me or sarcastically agreeing with my point.......much confused 

Agreeing :D. It's pretty sad that an administration uses its first press conference to discuss petty and childish things.

[jaggysnake57]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

Agreeing :D. It's pretty sad that an administration uses its first press conference to discuss petty and childish things.

yeah, though its trump is has a perpencity to act like a child.

[revl8er]

3 hours ago, ivan134 said:

Exactly. Trump is nothing more than a petty child. Since they they're so obsessed with numbers over substance, Hillary is better since she won with almost 3 million and Obama is clearly 5 billion times better since he pulled such a huge crowd.

How is Trump in office if Hillary won?  

[revl8er]

3 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

what the actual.......

 

1 that gigapixle image is unreliable given the angle it was taken. its never going to accuratly show the amount of people there.

2 a couple of protests are not going to stop everyone getting in

3 they snipped it to hide the true crowds or they snipped it because that was a big as the crowds got. seriously you think that there no news agencies sympathetic to trump you think that if there where more people there they wouldnt show it. 

 

this fake news bullshit is nothing more than spin, and whilst you laugh at people buying into the "fake news lies" you should look at yourselves buying into the "fake news" spin, because at the end of the day thats all it is, a politicians spin.

 

the real funny thing is both you and the person i was quoting in the first place missed is trump accusing the press of a false narrative and lying whilst doing the same thing. if trump or his press secretory had a clue they wouldnt have commented in the first place. obama was the first black president and most people there would have been there simply to witness history  and in actual fact the amount of people at an inauguration has little to do with anything. trump will be judged on the job he does not how many people turn up to his party!

 

Unreliable?  You can zoom in and see how far the crowd goes as well as move it around as well.

[ivan134]

50 minutes ago, revl8er said:

How is Trump in office if Hillary won?  

Not sure if srs...

[jaggysnake57]

52 minutes ago, revl8er said:

Unreliable?  You can zoom in and see how far the crowd goes as well as move it around as well.

Try reading my post and thinking

[revl8er]

17 minutes ago, jaggysnake57 said:

Try reading my post and thinking

http://imgur.com/a/27qqq

 

1)  There is a picture that was taken from the website you linked with a building circled.  Then I posted a picture from the gigapixel with the same building circled.  That right there shows how the media was trying to spin this against trump.  While I do agree with you that Trump and his team could have stayed quiet about this, however had they done so then liberals probably would have spun it as "Trump is at a loss for words".  Frankly it's like people are grasping at straws to make him look bad such as trying to impeach him before he was even in office a day. 

 

2) Protests will stop someone from getting in a presidential election.  There are things such as freedom of speech as long as it's non-violent.  If you get violent then it's considered a federal crime and for that you can go to jail for up to 10 years and lose your right to vote.  So the people trying to get in couldn't do so nor could they do anything about it.  Of course it eventually cleared up, however it just took longer for people to get in so no biggie there.

 

3)  As for news agencies supporting trump, those are pretty hard to find.  The only one I can think of is Fox which I haven't checked to see if they reported on it.  

 

To each his own though.  Whether you support trump or not that's your right.  However he will be in office for at least 4 years so give the man a chance.  It's not like the past few presidents have done any good while in office.  Who knows, maybe the man will surprise everyone, then again maybe he will be the worst president ever.  We won't know unless he actually has time to try.  

 

As for ivan134, if that was a sarcastic remark that I quoted then I must have missed it.  However trump did win the electoral college which is all that really matters to get presidency.  If that weren't the case then it would have probably been Hillary as president last election and Obama wouldn't have gotten in since she beat Obama in the popular vote.  

[Atmos]

15 hours ago, ivan134 said:

Trump is a very stupid person. He only looks smart to stupid people. Hillary being a horrible candidate does not detract from that.

And once again here I am defending someone I strongly dislike, because morons don't seem to get it.

If he was stupid, how has he grown his business empire into one of the most successful in human history? How has he become one of the wealthiest men in history? If he was a stupid man he would be living broke and homeless on the streets of new york, and not in one of the most expensive dwellings on the planet and in control of one of the largest business empires in human history. When stupid people come into large amounts of money (as we see with lottery winners all the time) they quickly find themselves broke again, so just simply saying "He inherited his father's business!" is a fucking horseshit argument. If that's all he did then at best it would not have grown, and at worst it would have crumbled under his leadership. But can you guess what? It didn't, it fucking flourished into one of the finest examples of capitalism. And no matter how you feel about that, you can't ignore it.

 

Dislike him because of his policies, dislike him because of his blunt and unappreciative attitude, dislike him because of his elitist morals; but don't dislike him because you only want to further a categorically false narrative.

 

/Thread

[Guest Kloaked]

1 minute ago, Atmos said:

And once again here I am defending someone I strongly dislike, because morons don't seem to get it.

If he was stupid, how has he grown his business empire into one of the most successful in human history? How has he become one of the wealthiest men in history? If he was a stupid man he would be living broke and homeless on the streets of new york, and not in one of the most expensive dwellings on the planet and in control of one of the largest business empires in human history. When stupid people come into large amounts of money (as we see with lottery winners all the time) they quickly find themselves broke again, so just simply saying "He inherited his father's business!" is a fucking horseshit argument. If that's all he did then at best it would not have grown, and at worst it would have crumbled under his leadership. But can you guess what? It didn't, it fucking flourished into one of the finest examples of capitalism. And no matter how you feel about that, you can't ignore it.

 

Dislike him because of his policies, dislike him because of his blunt and unappreciative attitude, dislike him because of his elitist morals; but don't dislike him because you only want to further a categorically false narrative.

 

/Thread

 

..but..but muh small loan of one meeeliiooon dollhairs1!!

[ivan134]

1 hour ago, Atmos said:

And once again here I am defending someone I strongly dislike, because morons don't seem to get it.

If he was stupid, how has he grown his business empire into one of the most successful in human history? How has he become one of the wealthiest men in history? If he was a stupid man he would be living broke and homeless on the streets of new york, and not in one of the most expensive dwellings on the planet and in control of one of the largest business empires in human history. When stupid people come into large amounts of money (as we see with lottery winners all the time) they quickly find themselves broke again, so just simply saying "He inherited his father's business!" is a fucking horseshit argument. If that's all he did then at best it would not have grown, and at worst it would have crumbled under his leadership. But can you guess what? It didn't, it fucking flourished into one of the finest examples of capitalism. And no matter how you feel about that, you can't ignore it.

 

Dislike him because of his policies, dislike him because of his blunt and unappreciative attitude, dislike him because of his elitist morals; but don't dislike him because you only want to further a categorically false narrative.

 

/Thread

LOL. His inheritance in actually the reason he's wealthy. Trump is a terrible business man. If Trump had just sat on the money and not did anything, he would be wealthier today. He's so bad at it that he lost almost a billion dollars in 1995 and had to be bailed out by the people he owed money.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/watch-inside-the-bailout-that-saved-a-collapsing-trump-organization/

 

But hey, according to Kellyanne Conway, we now live in a world of alternate facts. Up is down, black is white, and Trump is a muthafuckin genius.

[Trik'Stari]

On 1/23/2017 at 0:06 PM, ivan134 said:

Thank you for restating what I said and making it seem like you're educating me.

 

The funny part is that you think Republicans don't want to fight a war over oil just because Trump won the nomination.

 

Do you think withdrawing from NATO and letting Russia have their way in the world won't start world war 3? Do you think poking China's eye, who doesn't need us as much as we need then and their natural resources is good foreign policy? Do you think using our nukes more liberally, letting any country who wants a nuke get one, and ditching disarmament in favor of a new nuclear arms race is a great idea? Did you know that a drought was the catalyst for the civil war in Syria and that most wars in human history have been fought over resources? If you didn't, now you know you do. So can you tell me if it's a good idea to vote in someone who thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax and plans to do absolutely nothing about it?

 

YOU go do research about what's happening and what has happened in the past in the world and understand the ramifications of a lot of Trump's stances are before you attempt to educate me and tell you voted for Trump because you don't want world war 3.

I should clarify this, in the interests of transparency:

 

I did not vote in this election. Because I couldn't find my voter registration card. I do not know if I could still have voted, but I wasn't going to leave work, drive an hour to where I usually do vote (I have an hour commute from my house, and the place I vote is literally 3-4 minutes up the road from me. Less than 4 miles), only to be told I cannot vote, then turn around and drive another hour back to work.

 

My fault entirely, for losing my registration card. I blame no one for this.

 

If I had voted, I probably would have voted libertarian to be honest, because I am fed up with both republicans and democrats.

 

 

These two videos, are predominantly why. While I do believe that marxism/leftism/communism/whatever you want to call it is worse, for a variety of reasons (historical precedent. They've killed more people than any other political theology or religion in history, to the tune of nearly 100 million people over the last 150 years), the right isn't that much better. Both parties seem to seek a means to make slaves out of as many people as possible, with oddly different justifications.

 

I'm fed up with being told that I need to "pick a side". Sorry, but when both sides are wrong, neither choice is correct.

 

Society is a tool. A tool to aid in survival. What we need, is to balance the benefit of the whole, with the benefit to the individual, why? Because simply benefiting the whole without benefiting the individual leads to a collapse (every COMMUNIST country in history. Note I am saying communist, not "socialist" because they are two different things), because "well I want more", and benefiting the individual over the group leads to "I don't have enough and am being driven into starvation".

 

Ignoring the WW3 issue, considering that both parties seem more than happy to push us into it, lets talk about individual reasoning for why I would have made my choice.

 

Now let me tell you why I might have voted Trump.

 

Because, over the last 2-3 years, all I have seen from the Democrats is racism and sexism against white males, with some calling for genocide against whites, and with feminists largely being a female supremacist movement. They no longer fight for equality, ignore statistics that prove that it is THEM who have the privilege, and outright spew hatred for a group that I am apart of simply by birth.

 

Why on earth would I vote democrat, when any time I even so much as question leftist/feminist dogma, I am told that I'm racist/sexist by birth, and that I should apologize for crimes committed by people who are long dead and committed said crimes before I was born? Why would I vote for a party that represents people who are calling for the genocide of a group I am apart of, at worst, and at best simply segregating and oppressing  that same group that I am apart of? Hell, the DNC just had a convention where one member of their leadership proclaimed "I am here to shut other white people down". How is this not considered blatant hate speech?

 

Why would I never vote democrat? Because it would be like a jewish person voting for Hitler. That's why. Nevermind that leftism/communism seeks to make slaves of everyone, and has been and always will be an abject failure. While Trump might not be any better than the left, he and his followers aren't outright calling for the oppression/genocide of me and those like me.

 

This is 100% WHY your side lost this election. Because you offended too many people.

 

Now, let's talk about what needs to be done.

 

WE. NEED. A. THIRD. PARTY.

 

We need a party that calls for what I refer to as "socially responsible capitalism". I haven't really seen anyone using this term except this one guy I work with, who is arguably a leftist (like you, he believes Trump was the worse option), but despite our differences, we are able to hold conversations/discussions without becoming angry and resorting to name calling. Why? Because we're both willing to entertain an idea we inherently disagree with.

 

He is willing to entertain the idea (or fact, as I believe it to be) that communism fails because it doesn't benefit the individual enough, and that the society created is one of fear, incompetence, and laziness. Why? Because if I am forced to work at a factory, and no matter how hard I work, or how well I do, I cannot advance and make my life situation better, because to be better off would make me unequal to someone else.

 

He is willing to entertain or accept the idea/fact that Communism only brings everyone DOWN.

 

And I, am more than willing to admit and believe that hyper-capitalism only brings a very, VERY few select people UP. Although historically speaking Communism also does this (the ruling class), Hyper-capitalism does this to a far worse extent. Historical precedent would also prove that capitalism in general, makes a larger group of people better off than communism does, by far.

 

Ignoring the sexism and racism of the time period, 1950's and 1960's America where actually the closest humanity has ever come to being a "utopia". Women didn't NEED to work (I'm not against women working. But as a man I would like to be successful enough that my wife could choose not to, if she wanted) and a single man could provide for his wife and his children.

 

The problem is that capitalism has run away with itself, and fucked over FAR too many people and is now considered to be as 100% evil, the same way that the extremists on the right consider "socialism" to be. People on the right, and I feel I can speak to this point because I consider myself somewhat conservative, and spend a lot of time around conservatives, generally think of socialism as nothing more than a slippery slope into Communism.

 

What to do about all of this? I have some ideas.

 

1. A person deserves the right to profit from their work.

   You cannot get around this. Without personal gain, you lose motivation to try, and society stagnates. This happened with the USSR and with every other communist society EVER, including China who has somewhat embraced capitalism. This includes people who own/run corporations. While we think of most CEO's as being lazy rich assholes who do nothing, some of them have indeed worked their asses off to get where they are. Some of them, have probably done things that most normal people would be ashamed of. But the simple fact is that they have the money, and they run/own the corporation. We have to give them some benefit or they will work against ANY AND ALL attempts to better the lives of those they employ. This is an immutable fact. (again, "If I don't benefit from it, fuck it, fuck you, I'm not cooperating")

 

2. The people who work for a company, deserve to profit from their work, more than just "what the bosses agree to pay".

   This is important, because it motivates people to try. Not just do the bare minimum. It gives them incentive to try. Not everyone will get to be in a job they are passionate about, that satisfies them on a moral or intellectual level, as a result of this, the general populous will have to benefit financially in order to give a shit.

 

3. The media MUST become not-for-profit. This is quite simple, and I think this election shows it. Both sides have been nothing but biased about this election, with both sides running stories, distorting facts, creating fake news, only to get them more views or "clicks" in order to get more advertising revenue. News media has a special power to inform and shape the national debate, this power must be met with restrictions. We must disincentivize any reason the media has to lie, inject bias, or be biased by simply covering stories that fit the narrative that benefits them the most. This will both "free" real journalists to simply report the news, and also prevent self serving sociopaths from owning or running news outlets. 

 

The problem with this is funding, I know. I haven't figured this out yet except the idea that the media would only be allowed to run advertisements when covering subjects that are not important to the nation as a whole. (general news vs. political news?) I would appreciate any feedback on this that anyone can give me. Having state funded media DOES. NOT. WORK. Because the end result is that the media supports the narrative of those in power and nothing else.

 

4. GET. MONEY. OUT. OF. POLITICS.

   I think quite A LOT of people on both sides of the aisle would agree with this. Everyone I have ever met has agreed with or espoused the same exact opinion of those in congress, namely, that of a bunch of rich assholes funded by even richer assholes, both of whom only want to serve themselves.

 

The common argument against banning any and all "political donations" (bribes) is "Well then only rich people will be able to run!". This can be overcome. First of all, re-organize our election system to a system of debates, starting at a local (county, city, etc.) level and moving up. The example of a presidential election would be as follows:

 

Step 1: A county wide debate, anyone who can get X percentage of signatures on a petition supporting them running for president, would be able to participate in the debate. Signatures may only be collected by the candidate and volunteers. NO. PAID. CAMPAIGN WORKERS, AND NO PAID ADVERTISING FOR SAID CANDIDATES. Questions for said debates would be collected via a website run by the county, with questions being posted by and voted on by said constituency (the most popular questions are asked). The staff of said debate would be selected at random from within that locality, and the forum for the debate would be provided for by tax payer money. Local news would be required to cover these debates without advertising and without commentary (or, the press could be barred from covering the debate directly, and the debates streamed live online for all to see). The debate ends with a vote by the citizens of that locality on who won the debate.

 

Step 2: Same thing as above, but a state-wide debate, the participants being those who won their local debates. The same rules apply except for the gathering of petition signatures. Exactly the same rules, but on a wider scale.

 

Step 3: National debate. Same rules as before. Media required to cover without interruption, or barred from covering directly and the entire thing is live streamed. Questions submitted online and voted upon are asked at the debate. Grand total of 1 candidate from each state for a total of 50 candidates. The winner of the debate by vote, becomes president.

 

This would of course require the abolition of organized political parties. Which I think is justified because organized political parties have proven themselves to be nothing short of completely and totally anti-democratic. The DNC this election cycle decided to fuck over their most popular candidate (whom I would have voted for to be honest) for the one with more political connections and money.

 

A lot more details would need to be ironed out for this system to work, but I feel it would be the best reform we could have. Oh, and term limits PLUS seat limits. You get two terms (two election cycles, with the incumbent having to start at the state level. If they lose, they lose and are out of the running), Seat limits being "I lost the election in this state, let me move to another state and try again, or run for a different seat (senate instead of house, president instead of senate, etc.), you get two terms in one position as an elected official, then YOU. ARE. OUT. OF. POLITICS. FOR. LIFE.

 

I think the best solution for our economic situation is to come up with a bracketed system of mandatory profit sharing. For example, Apple, the most profitable corporation on the planet would be required to split it's profit margin in half, and give half of that profit margin equally to its employees. As a corporation becomes more or less profitable, the percentage of profit split would go up or down relative to the total profit margin. The reason for this being to incentivize smaller businesses to grow, and to hold back extremely large businesses from becoming egregious.

 

This would still enable competition, because EVERYONE profits from it. The more the employees work and the better their work is, the more profit the company makes, and thus the more profit THEY make (thus incentivizing them to try harder). This would also negate the need to keep raising minimum wage (which I would NOT eliminate). Because when we raise minimum wage, corporations just raise prices to offset the increased overhead they pay on employment. It's VERY important that we use the language "profit sharing". Because the profit margin is calculated AFTER overhead has been calculated, and as a result, corporations raising prices would only raise their employees profit as well.

 

There is A LOT more I could go on. Like having the public school system teach people how to generate wealth, things like buying property and paying it off an keeping it and handing it down to your children so they don't have to make that purchase, etc. Generating long-term wealth as opposed to "I want money now! let me get a debit/credit card and rack up huge amounts of debt so I can be happy now!", but I am tired and need to go to bed so I can go back to my $11 an hour job.

 

(I would also like to see and end to usury. It's complete and utter horse-shit)

[Deli]

21 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

snip..

Read the whole thing. Agree many points you make. Good writing.

[CoolMarquis97]

16 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Because, over the last 2-3 years, all I have seen from the Democrats is racism and sexism against white males, with some calling for genocide against whites, and with feminists largely being a female supremacist movement. They no longer fight for equality, ignore statistics that prove that it is THEM who have the privilege, and outright spew hatred for a group that I am apart of simply by birth.

Is this a joke or is this a joke? What is it with guys fragility towards seeing women in power. I'm a male but have absolutely ZERO problem with women being smarter,making more money, etc etc. Essentially, I have no problems with woman being better than me. What is it with other men being so afraid of seeing a woman who is doing better than them? Not calling you out at all this is just a serious problem I see within all men who truly fear woman surpassing them. 

 

And to the racism point, how exactly are the Democrats (who still mostly work to the benefit of white people) racist to whites? 

Edited January 25, 2017 by CoolMarquis97
Less harsh.

[dizmo]

On 2017-01-20 at 2:19 PM, M.Yurizaki said:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/fcc-to-be-led-by-ajit-pai-staunch-opponent-of-consumer-protection-rules/

 

I think this sums up that we those in the US should prepare for a world of suck.

 

..does this mean you plan on leaving California?!

I'd love to live there! Though I don't think I'd trade you for another 4 years.

On 2017-01-20 at 2:30 PM, revsilverspine said:

 

Ahem.

Haha, that looks VERY Russian.

On 2017-01-20 at 2:44 PM, ivan134 said:

No, right wingers consider California a liberal cesspool. A lot of them think most of their votes were from illegals and a lot of them like the idea that California would go under water if we don't do something about climate change.

If they're illegals, wouldn't they be unable to vote?

On 2017-01-21 at 0:23 AM, Atmos said:

There's a drastic difference between being blunt and uncouth, and being a moron. Keep in mind this is a man who has been so successful in business in his life that he's one of the richest men on earth and commands one of the largest enterprises in history. 

-snip-

Errmm. You've stated this a few times, but why do you think that? I mean granted, he's very wealthy. But he's far from one of the richest men on earth. He doesn't even crack the top 300. Richest American, though, I would think is more accurate. He's also had his fair share of failures. Not everything he touches works out. He's also a pretty dirty businessman, so if he runs his country like he runs his business, there are going to be issues that aren't easily settled.

On 2017-01-22 at 11:55 AM, jaggysnake57 said:

murca is about to become the land of the rich........if your poor your fucked

I think that statement is true for pretty much any country that you live in...

On 2017-01-23 at 8:21 AM, Trik'Stari said:

Although Trump will undoubtedly do pro-corporate things we don't like, that's still preferable to an insane foreign policy hell bent on starting world war 3

I think Trump has stated other things that could easily start WW3. Off the top of my head, a new nuclear arms race, and withdrawing US troops from key conflict zones.

 

[apm]

1 hour ago, CoolMarquis97 said:

Is this a joke or is this a joke? What is it with guys fragility towards seeing women in power. I'm a male but have absolutely ZERO problem with women being smarter,making more money, etc etc. Essentially, I have no problems with woman being better than me. What is it with other men being so afraid of seeing a woman who is doing better than them? Not calling you out at all this is just a serious problem I see within all men who truly fear woman surpassing them. 

 

And to the racism point, how exactly are the Democrats (who still mostly work to the benefit of white people) racist to whites? 

no one cares if its a man or woman in power, if he/she is black or white...

@Trik'Stari   never implied that.

many voted for hillary just because she is a woman, not because her policies are good.

[CoolMarquis97]

23 minutes ago, apm said:

no one cares if its a man or woman in power, if he/she is black or white...

@Trik'Stari   never implied that.

many voted for hillary just because she is a woman, not because her policies are good.

I wasn't necessarily speaking to the FCC choosing but just more so just questioning his statement on Democrats being racist to whites and sexist to males. 

 

many also voted for Hillary just because she isn't a jerk, like Trump. 

[ivan134]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

..does this mean you plan on leaving California?!

I'd love to live there! Though I don't think I'd trade you for another 4 years.

Haha, that looks VERY Russian.

If they're illegals, wouldn't they be unable to vote?

Errmm. You've stated this a few times, but why do you think that? I mean granted, he's very wealthy. But he's far from one of the richest men on earth. He doesn't even crack the top 300. Richest American, though, I would think is more accurate. He's also had his fair share of failures. Not everything he touches works out. He's also a pretty dirty businessman, so if he runs his country like he runs his business, there are going to be issues that aren't easily settled.

I think that statement is true for pretty much any country that you live in...

I think Trump has stated other things that could easily start WW3. Off the top of my head, a new nuclear arms race, and withdrawing US troops from key conflict zones.

 

You're absolutely right, but for some reason, Republicans keep hallucinating that they do and are still yet to provide any evidence that they do. A lot of them think there were 3 - 5 million illegal votes cast in California.

[dizmo]

57 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

You're absolutely right, but for some reason, Republicans keep hallucinating that they do and are still yet to provide any evidence that they do. A lot of them think there were 3 - 5 million illegal votes cast in California.

That's incredible. But, I guess, if they don't investigate it, then they can't be proven wrong.

Isn't that like half the votes in the state?

I'm a little more amazed by the US each time I look into how it...functions.

[ivan134]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

That's incredible. But, I guess, if they don't investigate it, then they can't be proven wrong.

Isn't that like half the votes in the state?

I'm a little more amazed by the US each time I look into how it...functions.

There has always been investigations and nothing is ever found. Republicans make the same dumb and unfounded claim every election.

[SurvivorNVL]

On 1/20/2017 at 4:28 PM, Kloaked said:

Someone did make a petition for them to break way from the union. CBA to find it though.

Fun fact:  California currently is sitting at 32% willing to secede.  If they get 18% more, it can actually happen in 2019, and some of the big tech companies as well as Soros are funding it.  Thus, we can hope by all means they'll leave.  They'll need the rest of the West Coast, though, because water and droughts.

[Guest Kloaked]

2 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Fun fact:  California currently is sitting at 32% willing to secede.  If they get 18% more, it can actually happen in 2019, and some of the big tech companies as well as Soros are funding it.  Thus, we can hope by all means they'll leave.  They'll need the rest of the West Coast, though, because water and droughts.

The tables have turned.

 

#Calexit

[SurvivorNVL]

7 hours ago, CoolMarquis97 said:

Is this a joke or is this a joke? What is it with guys fragility towards seeing women in power. I'm a male but have absolutely ZERO problem with women being smarter,making more money, etc etc. Essentially, I have no problems with woman being better than me. What is it with other men being so afraid of seeing a woman who is doing better than them? Not calling you out at all this is just a serious problem I see within all men who truly fear woman surpassing them. 

 

And to the racism point, how exactly are the Democrats (who still mostly work to the benefit of white people) racist to whites? 

It's not about fragility as it is about their pandering and push, often openly to "Silence" white people, they don't need to lead the party, segregation, etc.  On several U.S. college campuses, they appease BLM by segregating the White population to their own area, in the DNC they push for chairmen and women who are anti-White.  No person fears a woman doing a good job, the problem is hiring based on gender or race is pushed in the DNC, when often the person isn't suited for the job or in the case of the last few chair-women, they were incredibly corrupt.  There's also gender-deference and a variety of applications in regards to peoples inherent differences for specific jobs, etc.  Like women and their natural, superior social complex - that's inherent.