The News Thread

QUOTE=arg "I would also require that they be able to buy/rent their own fucking home and support themselves right from the start. Or be 100% paid for by a private sponsor the entire time until they can.

But again why bring refugees in at all? There's a guaranteed huge cost whether they're terrorists or not. Any benefits they could bring would be provided by somebody else, most likely an American citizen of a low income minority group from whom they would've <insert long-winded Einherjar version of 'stolen'> jobs"

Semantics. My point is the same.
 
Last edited:


Trump could stand to learn a thing or two from this guy. Very interesting if Farage becomes an X factor in essentially a referendum on "establishment status quo" in the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG and arg
fucking irritating how that idiot reporter spins his dumbass questions yet farage skillfully slays them anyway
 


Trump could stand to learn a thing or two from this guy. Very interesting if Farage becomes an X factor in essentially a referendum on "establishment status quo" in the US.


It would help if Trump actually had anything substantive to say about most topics... but I don't think he does. He's like an undergraduate writer who turns in a paper with lots of ideas about a story but very few references to the actual text.

Of course, his ideas are pretty shit too. :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
It would help if Trump actually had anything substantive to say about most topics... but I don't think he does. He's like an undergraduate writer who turns in a paper with lots of ideas about a story but very few references to the actual text.

Of course, his ideas are pretty shit too. :D

I'd agree with you on the first part. I concur with some other commentators that Trumps suggestions are used to set the tone and also to gauge popular support. SSC and some others talk about how Trump is the "high variance" candidate and Clinton is very low variance. I can agree with this. SSC thinks that the high variance is much more concerning than Clinton's known bad characteristics. Some others disagree. Of course, the spectre of nuclear annihilation is the primary appeal in concerns about Trump's variance. I haven't seen anything in Trump's behavior or background that suggests he would be interested in ruining the atmosphere for the success of his hotels , which nuclear warfare would most certainly do. Given Clinton's hawkish orientation, I would be more likely to expect dangerous confrontational behavior from her. Trump likes to win, and that would be more likely to lead to friendly relations with powers that cannot be easy targets.
 
Last edited:
The next republican nominee needs to have the mass appeal / brash charisma of Trump, but with the ability to form strong arguments and coherent sentences and not throw tantrums
 
He's a joke and it's obvious at this point that he has no clue what he's doing. He managed to get lucky, probably because of his star power.
 
Trump sucks, but at least he isnt bought. I feel like even a moron will have better success with running the country than someone who is constantly kissing ass to special interests and passing legislation to pad their pockets while simultaneously lying to the general population. Even if Trump accomplishes very little/nothing, it will still be interesting to see what happens when the country isnt being run by someone who is funded/controlled by banks, oil, etc. A candidate that none of the current incumbents want automatically seems appealing to the average citizen who feels disenfranchised with the government.

Tbh I was rooting for Christie in the primaries (NJ resident here), but he got smeared so quickly that nobody was able to realize that he was actually a good pragmatic candidate. I think he might have done better with the people if he didnt enjoy his donuts so fucking much. He has the brashness of Trump, but apparently not the appeal.
 
I don't see any reason to think that Donald Trump doesn't have his own interests in mind and that he won't primarily serve the interests of people who own large companies. He's basically the exact same thing as anyone else.
 
Trump is a con-man and that is very well documented. It takes a special kind of idiot to think that Trump has anybody's interest in mind other than his own.

As for this latest incident, this is monstrous blow for conservatives. You can't pretend to be this hardcore, fundamentalist Christian and endorse this guy. It totally discredits you. So either they endorse him and their show that their religiously based values mean less to them than political advantage, or they unendorse him and hurt their standing with Trump's fanatical core. It's a lose-lose for the Republican party.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Funerary_Doom
He's really fucking stupid. He basically said he sexually assaults women and they let him because he's powerful. He's been sued a bunch of times for sexual harassment (which he basically admits to on the video) yet millions of people think he's the best person to lead the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baroque
I don't know why anyone is surprised by the recording. I also think it's pretty childish if *this* is the thing someone uses to decide how they are going to vote. There are plenty of other policy related reasons not to vote for Trump. If you're voting on "character", most politicians fail that test, and Hillary definitely does. The whole election is more of a shitshow than usual.