HOME | DD

EcchiDragon In reply to Saiyanstrong [2019-07-21 19:49:46 +0000 UTC]

Ah... But Drumpf lies and cheats too, no?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Saiyanstrong In reply to EcchiDragon [2019-07-23 02:14:49 +0000 UTC]

Examples?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

EcchiDragon In reply to kopejkasobaka [2019-07-21 19:56:18 +0000 UTC]

Yeah... And spear headed the move to take away Trans people's rights to serve in the military, and attacks feamales verbaly with comments like "she was bleeding out of her..." and likes to grab females by their... , and inspires chants that basically go along the lines of "Go Back To Africa!"

He's not a bigot at all. It's just people misrepresenting him. He's a really nice guy... Really!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

aaaaceace In reply to Calypsoeclipse [2016-12-21 07:21:45 +0000 UTC]

No she isn't. Also Trump has done some pretty terrible things in his life and should also probably be in jail.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Calypsoeclipse In reply to aaaaceace [2016-12-25 16:21:12 +0000 UTC]

m.youtube.com/watch?v=-QtAhtrR…

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

aaaaceace In reply to Calypsoeclipse [2016-12-27 07:02:11 +0000 UTC]

Well it's good to know random videos on youtube that have nothing to back up their claims are now justified reason for voting for a fascist orange.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Derpcerp In reply to TheDarkGallade [2020-03-23 16:55:20 +0000 UTC]

I'd like to call it an Australian win-win scenario : )

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ProcrastinatingStill In reply to ShadowofWOPR [2016-09-10 00:00:48 +0000 UTC]

He kicked out some black people at one of his rallies simply because they were black. Granted, BLM protested him prior to that, but later he saw some black people at one of his rallies, assumed they were BLM protesters on the basis that they were black and kicked them out.

And how is banning a certain religious group from entering the country (and violating the first amendment in the process) NOT bigoted?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ShadowofWOPR In reply to ProcrastinatingStill [2016-09-10 15:08:01 +0000 UTC]

[citation needed] on that black people part.

As for stopping more migrants from entering the country, it's a way to combat Taqiyya, it's profiling, but due to their actions, hardly simple intolerance.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ProcrastinatingStill In reply to ShadowofWOPR [2016-09-10 21:24:40 +0000 UTC]

www.rawstory.com/2016/02/black…

Trump's Muslim ban (except for the "rich ones" that he's presumably pals with) violates the First Amendment. I don't see how he can get that to pass without cranking up the authoritarian meter by 10.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ShadowofWOPR In reply to ProcrastinatingStill [2016-09-11 23:51:31 +0000 UTC]

So...  They took one side of the story and ran with it...
Some dindu nuffin reported stuff on twitter, and made a sob story.

"We went ins all quiet 'n stuff, we dindu nuffin wrong, we got kicked out cuz he rayciss"

Yet many other people who went to the event report your group chanting "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" and booing Trump when he comes out on stage. politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/02/…

Others claim that they were being disruptive and tearing down banners.

Funny thing about the original claim though...  All the tweets have since been deleted by the owner...  Funny.  Almost like they want to pretend they didn't make a false hate-crime report.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ProcrastinatingStill In reply to ShadowofWOPR [2016-09-12 04:34:00 +0000 UTC]

Even if they were chanting "Black Lives Matter", that's not a crime. Our own constitution grants freedom of assembly.

In half of those cases, it was the Trump supporters who attacked first. I've seen that video of that BLM guy getting his ass beat in February. It was pretty damn obvious he didn't start it. You can even hear the Trump supporters yelling "light the motherfucker on fire" and what may or may not be "nigger".

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ShadowofWOPR In reply to ProcrastinatingStill [2016-09-12 17:11:06 +0000 UTC]

Yes, they have the right to assemble on governmental property, but if you are disrupting someone elses privately held speech, they have the right to kick you out for any reason.

As for the supporters attacking eachother, I've seen several of those fights, and the "who starts it" seems to go 25/25/50.
25% Trump supporters starting a fight with people being asked to leave.
25% Anti-Trump supporters starting a fight with people because they were asked to leave
50% crazy people starting a fight without protest because "TRUMP IS RAYCISS!"
None is good, and I approve of none. (and if I keep rambling on we'd eventually hit my blaming George Soros for a good portion of it.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ReichsBunny In reply to ShadowofWOPR [2016-10-25 02:01:59 +0000 UTC]

Flagged as Spam

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ShadowofWOPR In reply to ReichsBunny [2016-10-25 16:15:37 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, I'm really not surprised.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

EcchiDragon In reply to CaciqueCaribe [2019-07-21 19:58:18 +0000 UTC]

So does Trump now XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

revinchristianhatol In reply to CaciqueCaribe [2017-04-15 03:20:18 +0000 UTC]

Pus, Trump secretly wanted to continue to attacks on Syria.

party9999999.deviantart.com/ar…

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

s---h---a---r---k In reply to kessy-athena [2016-08-17 14:08:24 +0000 UTC]

Trump and Hillary are really not all that different. 
Here are some examples of things Hillary has done: 

• Called black teenagers "super-predators"
• Fought against Civil Rights in the 60s
• Voted against the legalization of gay marriage, saying that marriage was "a sacred bond" between a man and a woman
• Supported a coup d'état in Honduras that led to human rights violations
• Presided over a genocide in Libya
• Voted for Iraq War
• Voted for the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act 
  (which allow for the indefinite detention of people - including American citizens - without trials or access to families or lawyers, and to hold them in confinement indefinitely until the government decides that the "war on terror" is over. The government can strip people of their inalienable rights as citizens if the attorney general even assumes that the person is somehow involved in actions against the United States, without any evidence - it's like a totalitarian state. The government has given itself the power to call these people "unlawful combatants", which basically means they're stripped of any kind of civil liberties or legal protection, and they're subjected to some of the worst violations of international human rights laws in the Guantánamo Bay prison. It's unconstitutional, disregards habeas corpus, and is reminiscent of fascism.)
• Has expressed the desire to build a wall on the border of Mexico (hmm, who does that remind me of?)

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

kessy-athena In reply to s---h---a---r---k [2016-08-18 02:56:09 +0000 UTC]

So you want Trump to be President so that he'll destroy the country?     And I thought the Tea Party was irresponsible and reckless.  Yanno, "The whole house is rotten, let's just burn it down and start from scratch," sounds a lot more appealing before you realize that we have to stay in the house during the process.

Do you understand that the President has sole discretion over the us of the nuclear arsenal?  That the nuclear football gives the President the ability to launch a full scale nuclear strike within a matter of minutes, 24/7?  Do you understand that within an hour of the beginning of a nuclear confrontation the majority of the world's population will be dead or dying, every major city on the planet will be a burning ruin, and human civilization will be over?  And no, that is not something that went away with the end of the Cold War.  That could really happen, at any time.  Do you know when the worst nuclear close call was?  When the world came within two minutes of ending?  It wasn't the Cuban Missile Crisis.  It wasn't during the Cold War.  It was in 1995, four years after the break up of the Soviet Union.  A Norwegian sounding rocket set off Russia's early warning system.  Yeltsin's nuclear briefcase was activated - Russia's nuclear forces were put on combat alert.  Yeltsin was told that the US had launched a submarine based missile at Moscow and that it was likely an EMP strike intended to disable Russia's defenses as a prelude to full scale attack, and that he had ten minutes to decide whether or not to launch a retaliatory strike.  It took eight minutes for Russian radar to determine that the rocket was headed out to sea, not toward Moscow.  This is not a game.  This not something you screw around with.  Ever.

Do you understand what another Great Depression would look like?  During the Great Recession of 2007 - 2009, US GDP fell by 5.1% and unemployment hit 10%.  That was mild.  During the Great Depression of 1929 - 1933, US GDP fell by 45.6%, unemployment reach 24.9%, and the stock market lost 90% of its value.  Lawyers, doctors, and stockbrokers were living in makeshift shacks in parks and under bridges around the country.  People were literally starving in the streets.  This isn't a game either.

As for Clinton - where are you getting this crap?  Sean Hannity?  When did the far left start carrying water for the likes of Drudge and Breitbart?  Look, all this stuff is taken completely out of context, and some of it are just flat out lies.  I mean she worked against civil rights in the 60's?  WTF are you talking about?  That's completely crazy.  There's a reason that Bill Clinton was called "the first black President."  And not because he had a heck of a tan back then.  (He didn't.)

Clinton did not call black teenagers "super predators"  That's a complete misrepresentation of what she said.   (Her comments about crime begin at about 25:00)  She was talking about drug gangs connected to the cartels.  And it completely ignores the historical context.  The US experienced a massive crime wave from the 1960's through the early 1990's.  At its peak in the 90's the violent crime rate in the US was about twice what it is today.  There was a real sense of society coming apart at the seams - people were scared, and for good reason.  Bill Clinton's crime bill was a response to a real and pressing problem.  Although it has had some major unintended consequences, it did a lot of good things, such as the assault weapons ban, the sex offenders registry, funding for better policing, etc.

You don't need to explain what the Patriot Act is.  I remember September 11th.  You pretty clearly don't.  You need to understand the context.  Yeah, we made a lot of mistakes in those years.  But we made them together.  Everyone believed Saddam was hiding WMD.  I don't want to re-litigate the entire period and who did what - it would take too long - but thinking that these were clear cut decisions at the time is just wrong and simplistic.  You're looking at it with hindsight and essentially accusing people of not being prescient.

Foreign policy is often an exercise in looking for the least bad option.  What happened in Libya was not fundamentally about the US and there is only so much we could do to effect the course of events.  We were trying to do what we could to ameliorate the situation, and attacking Clinton for not waving a magic wand and making it all better is just silly.

You clearly have no idea just how amazing the turn around on gay marriage in the US has been.  Ten years ago, I thought the chances of seeing gay marriage in the US outside of a a handful of deep blue states during my lifetime was vanishingly small.  The way public opinion turned on a dime is just breathtaking.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

ShadowofWOPR In reply to kessy-athena [2016-08-26 16:35:00 +0000 UTC]

How would Trump destroy the country?
No one in congress likes him, they'd block him at every turn, they also get to pick his budget and what he can spend it on.  Nothing would get done, for better or worse.

Elect Hillary though, and we're following Israel into another war, passing the Paycheck Fairness Act (tax on men to pay women more during tax returns because "muh wage gap") and getting rid of net neutrality so they can shut down independent news sources.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kessy-athena In reply to ShadowofWOPR [2016-08-26 19:17:44 +0000 UTC]

What in the world makes you think Clinton would be able to pass anything either?  Even if she wins and Democrats take the Senate, the House is still likely to stay in Republican hands.  Even if there's a massive Democratic landslide across the board and they take the House in order to get a 60 seat supermajority in the Senate (which is what it takes to move most legislation) Democrats would have to win Senate races in places like Georgia, Louisiana, Arizona, and Alaska.  No Congress is broken and is very likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, no matter who is President.  so long as the Republican Party is dominated by people who think that compromise is a dirty word, the government will continue to be funded by continuing resolution, Congress will struggle to get even the most basic business like raising the debt ceiling done, and any legislation that would get any sort of media attention will be dead on arrival.  The Tea Party will continue trying to break the Constitution and the country will continue to be run mostly by executive order, with the President, whoever it is, stretching the limits of executive authority to keep all the balls in the air.  Do you honestly think Trump can pull off a balancing act like that without doing something to spook the markets and crash the economy?  And that's assuming that he doesn't spark a constitutional crisis that will lead who knows where.  And that's assuming he doesn't end the world by having a derp moment with the nuclear codes.  Yes, that can really happen.  Yes, you will die and the world will end if it does.  And no, it doesn't require Trump to launch in a fit of pique because someone tweeted something nasty about him.  All it takes is one accident, one misunderstanding, one miscalculation.  A large part of the reason the world didn't end in 1995 is because Yeltsin didn't really think that Bill Clinton would launch a preemptive attack.  How much confidence do you have that Putin would feel that way about Trump?  Personally, I have none at all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

s---h---a---r---k In reply to kessy-athena [2016-08-18 03:43:38 +0000 UTC]

Yes, I've studied history both in school and autodidactically and know what the Great Depression was like - I think perhaps you don't understand dialectics and that's why you don't see how it plays into an accelerationist strategy, such as in the case of the First World War and Nicholas II (though I'm no Bolshevik).

Typical liberal fallacy, assuming anyone who doesn't like liberalism is a conservative (from where I am, you all look like conservatives) . Bill and Hillary Clinton are neoliberals. 'Nuff said. The crime bill you mentioned disproportionately landed black Americans in prison - and listing weapons bans as "good things" is pretty unconvincing because I'm extremely pro-gun. And Hillary worked for Goldwater Sachs, who voted against the Civil Rights Act in a bid to garner the votes of racist Democrats. 

But I can see that you're probably a liberal - and I'm a Marxist, so there's going to be an abyss between how we each think the problems facing the world should be solved. Neoliberal policies are not acceptable to me - unless they have the dialectical potential to hasten structural change, and that potential is removed with the inauguration of Clinton. 

As for those paragraphs on foreign policy.... oof, all I can say is I suggest reading Chomsky - I might have been a baby when 9/11 took place, but you're the one who doesn't understand the context of the attacks and the grave mistake of "military humanism" (ironic for someone who brought up nuclear holocaust). I recommend Hegemony Or Survival, Imperial Ambitions, and Understanding Power.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kessy-athena In reply to s---h---a---r---k [2016-08-18 13:04:35 +0000 UTC]

Theory is all well and good, but theory doesn't put food on the table or a roof over your head or keep society running.  Practice does.  And the first rule for the political practitioner, as for a medical practitioner, is do no harm.  If you have a theory that a certain social ill is being caused by the improper functioning of a particular social institution, you don't just tear down that social institution.  Society is a large and complicated thing, with a create many interconnections and unpredictable interactions.  If you recklessly take an ax to a social institution, you never know what the consequences will be.  The greater the change you try to create the greater the likelihood that you will cause large scale social disruption and breakdown.  And when society breaks down people die.  Deliberately gambling with people's lives simply to test a pet hypothesis is deeply immoral.  Society is like an aircraft in flight - you can't tear apart the engine to try to make it run better without crashing the plane.

When I asked, "When did the far left start carrying water for the likes of Drudge and Breitbart?" I meant why were you, a member of the far left, listening to conspiracy theories about Clinton being pushed by right wing media personalities?  Honest, I do know that Marxism isn't conservative.    As for me personally, I've been called liberal, neo-liberal, and progressive.  I don't care at all about labels.  I am fundamentally a pragmatist and a small d democrat: I believe in governance through compromise and consensus, not coercion.  And I reject ideology of any kind.

You mean Barry Goldwater, the conservative Republican Senator from Arizona and 1964 GOP Presidential candidate.  Goldman-Sachs is a large investment bank.  Hillary Clinton was 16 when she volunteered for the Goldwater campaign, and was still heavily influenced by her family's politics.  Incidentally, Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt it was an over-reach of Federal power and infringed on matters that should be left to the states and to individuals.  He had supported previous civil rights legislation and was quietly opposed to segregation.  It wasn't until Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968 that the Republican Party firmly embraced an implicit tolerance of white supremacists.  Incidentally, in 1968 Hillary Clinton supported the anti-war Democrat Eugene McCarthy.

As I said, the 1994 crime bill was passed at the peak of a massive wave a violent crime - violent crime the disproportionately victimized blacks, I might add.  It was designed to save lives, especially black lives.  While it did contribute to the current crisis of mass incarceration, that was an unintended and unforeseen consequence, not the intention.  And mass incarceration is a result of a series of laws and policies, some of which date back to the Nixon administration.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

s---h---a---r---k In reply to kessy-athena [2016-08-18 13:55:13 +0000 UTC]

You realize that tearing down social institutions though is an integral part of praxis though, right? What you're currently arguing against is the right to revolution, which I consider one of the most fundamental rights of man.

I don't listen to right wing media personalities. These days I dont pay much attention to the useless electoral frenzy at all - I resent the way American politics flows like celebrity gossip, and there's nothing likeable about either candidate for me (just to speak of a mere meaningless election and not even to mention the structural foundations of the nation). Though the truth is there's only one party in the U.S. - the corporate party, it just has 2 factions which disagree slightly over social and fiscal attitudes.

Yeah fuck I guess I was thinking about her private speeches to the banks too when I wrote that.

It was certainly foreseen, and it had an intended effect. It does not matter to me whether some of the laws that create this effect were enacted by Republicans; it only proves my point that Republicans and Democrats are not all that different. The United States only claims 5% of the world's population, yet it has 25% of the world's incarcerated population. The prison industry complex is one of the most rapidly growing industries in the States - after all, it includes a labor force that works full time for negligible salaries, doesn't have to be provided for with any sort of benefits, and if a worker is uncooperative they can be sent to solitary confinement. In 1972 the incarcerated population was only some 300,000 people. In 1990 it was one million - and within a decade, that population swelled by one million more.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kessy-athena In reply to s---h---a---r---k [2016-08-19 02:42:57 +0000 UTC]

I am arguing against the wisdom of revolution.  A revolution is a roll of the dice: you never know what's going to come out the other side, and there's no guarantee it won't be much worse than what came before.  The English overthrew Charles I only to get Oliver Cromwell.  The French replaced Louis XVI with Robespierre.  And the Russians... may I assume you're not a fan of Stalin?  Generally speaking, evolution is preferable to revolution.  Evolution is a much more considered process, and much more amenable to course correction.  Also, there's less killing involved.  There may well be times when revolution is necessary, but it should be reserved for the most extreme circumstances.  Marx himself said that he thought that it might be possible to achieve true communism in the US without a revolution.  Remember that in Marx's time the most powerful person in the US was not the President, but J P Morgan.  Given how far the world has come since then, what do you think Marx would say if he could see the situation today?

No argument on the celebrity circus atmosphere of a normal US election, to say nothing of this year.  But to say that both parties are simply corporate pawns is a gross oversimplification.  If the corporate interests really had that much control, do you really think the Trump campaign would have ever seen the light of day?  There are real differences between the parties, and for the last eight years, the Republicans have gone completely off the rails.  Their base has been having a collective freak out because they can't deal with a black man being President.

I agree completely that the prison system has gotten completely out of control.  But the profit motive isn't in exploiting prisoner labor.  (There really are strict laws about that, also consider the cost of keeping someone incarcerated vs paying a regular employee.)  There's been a proliferation of private prisons that keep people locked up under contract to the government - that's where the real money is.  It's a really scary development.  However, what's your basis for claiming that mass incarceration was deliberately planned?  There's an old saying, "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by carelessness."

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rodegas In reply to s---h---a---r---k [2016-08-17 21:28:38 +0000 UTC]

• Voted against the legalization of gay marriage, saying that marriage was "a sacred bond" between a man and a woman

Faggots should take pills

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

s---h---a---r---k In reply to Rodegas [2016-08-17 23:57:16 +0000 UTC]

Okay, go get some then.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rodegas In reply to s---h---a---r---k [2016-08-18 09:50:36 +0000 UTC]

I ment sodomites 
Are you LGBT activist?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

s---h---a---r---k In reply to Rodegas [2016-08-18 14:03:13 +0000 UTC]

Let jesus into your butt

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rodegas In reply to s---h---a---r---k [2016-08-18 16:57:38 +0000 UTC]

Oh, look Stats on young/ adolescent homosexsuals in USA: hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-…


+ Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals:
28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309."  (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." 
more here: carm.org/statistics-homosexual…

That's why Faggots can't donate blood

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

s---h---a---r---k In reply to Rodegas [2016-08-18 17:48:19 +0000 UTC]

So?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rodegas In reply to s---h---a---r---k [2016-08-18 18:42:37 +0000 UTC]

24. 2. 2016 - The Indonesian Psychiatrists Association (PDSKJI) has classified homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexualism as mental disorders. HAHA

👍: 0 ⏩: 0