TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

      • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo

      • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Q4BP: How do you feel about Donald Trump and /r/The_Donald?

drok007
May 4, 2016
4 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Q4BP: How do you feel about Donald Trump and /r/The_Donald?
Author

drok007
Upvotes 4
Comments 139
Date May 4, 2016 11:20 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4hx8n2/q4bp_how_do_you_feel_about_donald_trump_and_rthe/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/q4bp-how-do-you-feel-about-donald-trump-and.274807
https://theredarchive.com/post/274807
Top posts by drok007

Why PPD does not want/like incels, from someone who has been here since it started

64 upvotes
August 16, 2020
/r/PurplePillDebate

CMV: The reason most people are not BP, is because BP is a narrow demographic of naïve middle class white liberals.

62 upvotes
October 8, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

LTR, Biological Imperative, Unicorns, and the like

43 upvotes
February 20, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Black Pill is the New Blue Pill

25 upvotes
June 10, 2022
/r/PurplePillDebate

Your Value, and the Value of Your Selections

23 upvotes
February 26, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Q4RP: What do you find most frustrating about non-RP/BP ideology?

21 upvotes
October 22, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Why is it that the men here who fail think they are the most enlightened?

20 upvotes
November 5, 2023
/r/PurplePillDebate

"A Jiangxi judge said no laws have been made to punish a man who rapes another man..."

16 upvotes
October 12, 2012
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]firstpitchthrow20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

Okay, I'm going to get downvoted to oblivion for this, but I'll say it: its very obvious, to me, why Donald Trump has won the nomination, and if people think he will lose in November, that's what he wants you to think and if you're not paying attention, the same thing that happened to the GOP will happen in the general. Right now, the democrats are hiding behind their built in advantage in the electoral college, but states flip if you can flip just a few percent of the vote.

I spent my formative years around Trump voters. That was my elementary and High School years, where I went to extremely conservative Christian schools and had a front-row seat to the formation of the religious right. From those experiences, I am convinced liberals are, and will, underestimate Trump. The reason why they do is simple: because they dismiss, out of hand, the concerns of Trump voters. They don't see the grievances of those who cast a vote for Trump as being legitimate, and because they aren't, they dismiss Trump as a con-man catering to hate, racism and sexism. Because, to admit that Donald Trump is a threat to be taken seriously implies that the people who vote for him have a good reason for doing so, that also must be taken seriously, and we can't have that. Liberals have a self-reinforcing blind spot, that makes them vulnerable to Trump, just like the GOP has a self-reinforcing blind spot, and Trump disposed of them.

Let me put this very simply: the reason masses of people are voting for Trump is that they are sick of losing. Its that easy. There isn't a whole lot of complexity to this, but that doesn't imply the message isn't very powerful. There's a reason why so many great college football and basketball coaches have endorsed Trump: these are men who are paid to care about nothing but winning, they are sick of losing the country, and they want someone to win for them. To the conservative movement, electing Trump goes hand-in-hand with something people from that part of the world understand very well: when your team sucks, you fire the coach and hire a winning coach.

How do they think we're losing? You want to know what college coaches understand very well? That winning and losing is zero sum: that if I win, the other guy loses, and the sum remains zero. That's why the left hates capitalism: it produces winners and losers, and it has a zero-sum ideology. People make it big, and people work hard and sometimes fail. Liberals are the generation of participation trophies and making everyone feel good, rather than about winning. The fight to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 is another such case: Jackson was an ass-hole, who murdered countless people, but he also expanded greatly the American country and fought for and defended his nation with his life. Jackson didn't give a fuck about the Indians, he gave a fuck about the people who elected him to protect them and to advance their interests: the American people. Jackson understood life had winners and losers, and he was going to do everything in his power to advance America winning, and if "other people" lost, it didn't bother him. Throughout all of human history, this has been the ethic of every single powerful, wealthy civilization: they all didn't care about anybody else but themselves, they competed and they won, and then slaughtered their enemies underfoot. Removing Jackson from the $20 is symbolic of an America that doesn't care about winning anymore. They care about equality, and about other people's problems. You spend resources on other people's problems, there are less to spend on your people's (I think this is a minomer, since I don't think the US government spends a dime that isn't advancing its own interests, but its the liberal narrative).

Now, understand, I don't believe all of this, but this is how these people think. They hate participation ribbons, and they want to get back to America winning. I understand their ethic. I'm a kidney transplant patient, and there are far fewer organs available than patients who want them. I had to compete for my transplant, I had to convince every doctor I met that I was the one to bet on with a precious, finite resource. It was a lot of job interviews and a lot of shit tests, but I got the organ. Someone else didn't. I got a second chance at life, that could have been someone else's second chance. I won, because I competed and came out on top. There are no participation ribbons when you're trying to convince doctors to gamble on you for a transplant. You either win or you don't. Zero sum. Its capitalism, socialism doesn't work with organ transplants.

The left has won the culture war, and those on the right are sick of it. They're sick of losing on every major social issue (with the possible exception of abortion which is still up in the air). Their sick of liberal economic policies and trade agreements that kill their jobs. They don't give a shit about other people's countries, and they think America should be doing more to protect Americans, and not making it easier to transfer those resources to China. That's why they want the borders sealed: its not racism, they want America to stop taking people from Mexico and start helping people from America. They're sick of losing. Trump speaks to them because Trump is the only one who tells them "we're losing, we don't win anymore, elect me and I'll make us win." Its what every single fan-base wants to hear its head coach say: that winning is all that matters. Liberals don't say that. Liberals don't want to make America great, liberals teach white people to be ashamed of being white. That is fucking ass-backwards: your forefathers sacrificed, fought, competed and won to give you this existence, the last thing you ought to be ashamed of is having won, yet liberals make people who won ashamed of it. Its like telling the Cubs "okay, you haven't won a world series in 108 years, so we're going to win you a series this year to make it fair so that your feelings aren't hurt." Cubs fans would never accept that. The Cubs are a losing franchise, and while Cubs fans might be proud of, and love their team, they realize their team is a bunch of legendary losers and they want a world series so bad. Cleveland fans are the same way. They just want to win.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

From those experiences, I am convinced liberals are, and will, underestimate Trump. The reason why they do is simple: because they dismiss, out of hand, the concerns of Trump voters. They don't see the grievances of those who cast a vote for Trump as being legitimate, and because they aren't, they dismiss Trump as a con-man catering to hate, racism and sexism. Because, to admit that Donald Trump is a threat to be taken seriously implies that the people who vote for him have a good reason for doing so, that also must be taken seriously, and we can't have that. Liberals have a self-reinforcing blind spot, that makes them vulnerable to Trump, just like the GOP has a self-reinforcing blind spot, and Trump disposed of them. [...] [Members of the establishment] care about equality, and about other people's problems. You spend resources on other people's problems, there are less to spend on your people's (I think this is a minomer, since I don't think the US government spends a dime that isn't advancing its own interests, but its the liberal narrative).

You've just described the blind spot of the establishment in Germany regarding the current ascendance of a new party on the (relatively) far right.

The blindness of the progressive/leftist elites that their opponents could legitimately have a different opinion than what they consider acceptable and actually have good reasons for this; and the fact that they're doing everything to broadcast the impression that they care more about the interests of people other than the ones they've been elected by.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

tl:dr

conservatives are sick of losing the culture war and for some reason feel like america is losing and want the USA to help america . and liberals are evil .

did i miss anything else ?

[–]firstpitchthrow0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

conservatives are sick of losing the culture war and for some reason feel like america is losing and want the USA to help america . and liberals are evil .

Its people like you who won't see it coming when it happens. I you don't think the far right can ascend to power in the west, look at Europe, its already happening there. The left is helping all of this come to pass by not giving a fuck about the concerns of the people who vote for and support the far right. You dismiss it, and it makes it stronger.

My own personal opinion: I don't think people like Trump should be voted for, but I do understand why people do it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

what can i do to prevent it from happening or is it too late / can any single person make that huge a difference .

[–]firstpitchthrow1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

what can i do to prevent it from happening or is it too late / can any single person make that huge a difference .

No single person can do anything, and it is unlikely to change. What I said in my post above is a design flaw of the human mind. We are tribal creatures, and we all see the validity of our tribe and not of the other. Its a rare human being who can see both sides of the issue, and those who can are not rewarded for being able to (that is, if you can see both sides, keep it to yourself, because you will only court enemies on both sides who are upset that you're a fence-sitter). Trump takes full advantage of tribalism: the more liberals think he's a clown and a con-man, the more powerful he gets. Do you take a clown or a con-man seriously? Of course not. What happens if its too late? Liberals are already comforting themselves by saying there's no way he'll win a general election, which is what they were saying in January when the primary process started. When you don't deal with the concerns of the people who support him, but instead dismiss them with insults, that's a tell for cognitive dissonance, and there is no cure.

If Donald Trump loses, the people who he galvanized will not go away. You beat Trump in the General and those dissatisfied masses are still out there and there are still an awful lot of them. Sooner or later, they're going to rally around someone who borrows Trump's rhetoric, fixes his mistakes and actually gets elected.

Learn from History. Maximilian Robespierre thought he was changing the world. His revolution won a military victory against every single nation in Europe (who all attacked France) and a civil war in his own nation, at the same time. However, the fatal mistakes of his Committee of Public Safety was that it:

1) wasn't safe. 2) wasn't a committee 3) wasn't public

Eventually, the revolution he gave birth to swallowed him up with it. However, when he was in his last days, a young Brigadier General named Napoleon Bonaparte was roaming the streets of Paris. Napoleon harnessed the furor of the revolution, fixed Robespierre's mistakes and unleashed the greatest war machine that Europe had ever seen. What Trump has unleashed may well consume him, but if you don't pay attention, the furor that Trump has exposed will produce a Napoleon, who is a bit more politically astute and who manages to use the sentiment while fixing the mistakes.

[–]eternalmars2 1 points1 points1 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Dam, I dont usually comment but this is really well written. I especially like the Napoleon connection, very well thought out.

In my opinion, Trump will win by a landslide, a lot of people dont really vote until the final day, those are the conservatives, and the day that it really counts, they are gonna come in like a flood and Trump is gonna win, and on that day, America is gonna change for better or worse.

But hey, I dont mind. Change is good.

[–]firstpitchthrow0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Want to hear the scary part?

Do you know why the media, and the liberal and conservative establishment media in particular, has lost so much credibility? Its because they are the boy who cried wolf. How can you take Fox News seriously after the Ebola scam they unleashed in 2014? If you believe anything Fox says anymore, the joke is on you. They pimped Ebola to win a mid-term election, simple.

You know how liberals bemoan government that doesn't do anything and how they cast their eyes lovingly on hunky dream-boy Trudeau and Canada? Parliaments are not to be trusted, because they make change happen quickly. Translation: they are not insulated from mob rule. That's the whole reason why the Founders gave us the system they did in America: to make sure change happens at a snail's pace and can easily be undone if needed. The founders were very distrustful of mob rule, so they built a system where grid-lock isn't a bug, its a feature. That's the reason why America is so far behind other western democracies in so many "liberal" check-list categories. The founders insulated us from the consequences of charismatic authoritarians, by giving us a system where those impulses were checked. Our democracy moves more slowly, but its also more stable.

Why doesn't the media ever mention this? That the system is working as it was designed to work? What this means is that even if Trump wins, life will hum on and what he can do in office will be very much checked. Things won't get out of hand, or out of control. The system reigns in the impulses of great leaders and also reigns in the stupidity of bad ones. The American system believes in slow and steady. Look at how far we've come in 200 years, I'd say the founders knew what they were doing.

If Trump gets elected, and Armageddon doesn't happen and the world doesn't end and things go on, more or less, just fine for most people, does the liberal media, whose been fear-mongering over this, lose any shred of credibility it had? How can you believe them, when they cry wolf over and over again, and there's never a wolf?

That's not to say that elections don't matter, because they do. The Supreme court justices a president Clinton would nominate are going to be different than the ones a President Trump does. Also, the president picks the judiciary, which is a big deal, and also alters the course of war and peace and presides over the federal bureaucracy, which is one of the biggest economic engines on earth. However, will we be fine a 100 years down the road no matter who wins? Yeah, this isn't a "Peter Parker election" (that is, this isn't an election with a radically different outcome based on who the radioactive Spider bit). The Civil War was the ultimate "Peter Parker scenario": if it had been anyone else but Abraham Lincoln in the white house, and anyone else but Robert E. Lee, the Civil War would have been far, far uglier than it turned out to be.

[–]SteelChickenPragmatic Pill0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Help people who are on the left understand that not everyone who disagrees with them is a racist, misogynist who wants to resurrect Hitler. Help them understand that some people see the world differently and being different doesn't make you the devil.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think the very religious are voting for Trump. At least not in the nominations. He's not really a Christian..

[–]FirionDarklightFree from Orthodoxies1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

After that( http://therev3.blogspot.gr/2016/03/killing-donald-trump-part-four-really.html?m=1) ) Trump pretty much picked up. TheRev is an interesting commentator on the whole thing given his liberal as well as christian leanings which give him a unique insight. Though, lately he has kinda been bitter about the SJWish side of the left.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea. The "very religious" were for Cruz and others. Trump was very likely one of their last choices. Trump is more popular with casual or cultural Christians than devout ones, despite what he says about having the support of evangelicals.

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The fact that the whole premise of his campaign is based on winning is also a weakness. Right now he is polling 13 points behind Hillary. If he stays behind for long or takes any serious hits to his image his "supporters" will abandon him in droves.

[–]firstpitchthrow0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The fact that the whole premise of his campaign is based on winning is also a weakness. Right now he is polling 13 points behind Hillary. If he stays behind for long or takes any serious hits to his image his "supporters" will abandon him in droves.

You just completely missed the point. What do you do when the Cleveland Caveliers lose the finals to the dubs? You don't abandone the Cavs, you make excuses "if we were healthy" "if the refs hadn't screwed us over". You double down. The media convincing everyone that the game is rigged plays heavily to Trump's benefit: he wins, no matter how this turns out.

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure if he gets fewer electoral votes he loses the election no matter how big of a rage boner his supported get. I will admit he is the first candidate that I have witnessed in my lifetime where the possibility of subverting the electoral process with violence or intimidation is an actual concern, so I will give you that.

[–]super-commenting0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Except capitalism isn't zero sum. If you have two shirts and no pants and I have two pairs of pants and no shirts we're both not very well off because we can't get dressed. But if I trade you a pair of pants for a shirt we are both better off. Free trade benefits everyone. That's why even though economists can hardly agree on anything one of the few things that they do agree on its that the kind of protectionism trump is proposing is a bad idea and why anyone who has passed econ 101 just shakes their head at him.

[–]firstpitchthrow-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

But if I trade you a pair of pants for a shirt we are both better off. Free trade benefits everyone.

Except that I live in America, the wealthiest country on earth, and I have plenty of shirts and pants and food and medicine and other things. I don't care if Africa or Central America doesn't, that's not my problem, I'm in it to protect America. If trading a shirt to Africa for an orange, when I could grow Oranges here at home, and putting the Orange growers in Florida out of business because the ones in Africa are cheaper, I'm not going to do it. No other part of the world has something the West actually can't make at home. Trade helps poor countries to not be poor, but it does nothing for the situation in rich countries except making sure the rich get richer. That's Bernie Sander's argument, not mine.

[–]super-commenting1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

Look up comparitive advantage. Free trade can benefit both countries even if one country is better at producing everything.

Here's a simple econ 101 example of competitive advantage in action.

Suppose there are 2 goods. Shirts and pants and each person wants the same number of each. Suppose the average worker in America can produce 30 shirts or 60 pairs of pants per year while the average worker in bumfuckistan can produce 6 shirts or 3 pairs of pants per year. Without trade each worker in America will spend 2/3 of their time on shirts and 1/3 on pants and end up with 20 of each whereas the workers in bumfuckistan will spend 1/3 of their time on shirts and 2/3 on pants and end up with 2 of each. With trade though the two countries can trade shirts for pants 1 for 1 and the Americans can end up with 30 of each and the workers on bumfuckistan with 3 of each. Everyone is richer.

[–]firstpitchthrow0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say it was my argument, or that I don't know what comparative advantage is, I said its Bernie Sander's argument. so, one country is better at producing one thing and another is better at producing something else, and they trade. Fine, but the one country doesn't need the other, they can produce both goods in house. In that case, free trade only transfers jobs from one nation to the other, and helps the wealthiest people in that nation, while hurting everyone else. Free trade and comparative advantage are great in theory, but human beings are bad at theory. Human beings are much better at tribal identity, which is why free trade is a tough sell. Even if it helps me, I don't want to help the members of another tribe.

[–]super-commenting0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I said its Bernie Sander's argument.

Well then Bernie Sanders would have failed econ 101.

But the one country doesn't need the other, they can produce both goods in house.

Unless the countries can produce all goods in exactly the same ratios (incredibly unlikely) then comparitive advantage ensures that there exists a mutually beneficial trade.

but human beings are bad at theory. Human beings are much better at tribal identity, which is why free trade is a tough sell. Even if it helps me, I don't want to help the members of another tribe.

Being willing to make your own country poorer just so another country doesn't prosper as well is horrible policy and not the side of human nature we should be embracing.

[–]firstpitchthrow0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Being willing to make your own country poorer just so another country doesn't prosper as well is horrible policy and not the side of human nature we should be embracing.

No, its realism. Economic theory says that you are right, realpolitiks says that you aren't. I understand why exporting the production of t-shirts to China makes economic sense, but in practical balance-of-power terms, there is no benefit in making China stronger, or India for that matter. Human beings are tribal creatures, the Crimson Tide fans don't make trades with Auburn Tigers, even if it makes both teams better, the Tide would rather they just get better and Auburn get worse. In other words, in the long run, its better for the US to keep those manufacturing jobs in house, but its also true that its better for the world, in the long run, to have free trade.

Globalism says we all need to help each other, tribalism says "roll tide and fuck Auburn."

[–]super-commenting1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Tribalism is primitive, globalism is the future.

[–]firstpitchthrow0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Tribalism is primitive, globalism is the future.

200,000 years of human history where Tribalism > Globalism every single time says you're wrong, and I doubt that's changing anytime soon.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

what tribalist leaders have been elected in western democratic countries? tribalism still exists, but if it was as dominant as you say, tribalist leaders would easily beat globalist leaders in western democratic countries.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Trump: leftists hate him, so I am sympathetic to him and his cause

/r/the_donald is great, like 4chan back when it was good

[–]buarthaDelights in homosexuality9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Trump > the other Republican nominees (may they RIP)

Hillary > Trump

Sanders >>> Hillary

Corbyn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All living beings who have ever set foot on this earth

BONUS: More attractive young Ted Cruz

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol young Cruz looks like the unabomber

[–]buarthaDelights in homosexuality2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nah, Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

why not both

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Corbyn is pathetic. Spent his entire political career campaigning against the EU, becomes Labour leader, suddenly supports the EU. And this is the man who's hailed for "standing by his principles." Haha.

[–]firstpitchthrow0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To me, Trump isn't the most dangerous candidate in this field, Bernie Sanders is poison and cannot be allowed to be president. If you like Bernie, just be thankful he's not going to be the nominee. There are binders full of opposition research, that both the Clinton and the Trump campaign have, that they could use on Bernie. Clinton has it, and if Bernie ever pushed her too far in the primary, she was going to use it. Thankfully, she never really felt threatened.

BTW, for the record, I'm voting for Clinton.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Corbyn is pure evil (and I voted for Miliband)

I like Sanders because I genuinely believe he stands for empathy.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

I have no feelings about either. I suspect Trump is a phony and that if he wins it'll basically be like "jk I'm actually still a liberal, gotcha!"

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

+1, genuinely wonder this too

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He's not ideological

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Liberal capitalist..

I'm sure he believes in the free markets, and the economy is why he's so popular.. I don't think the majority of people really care that much about the other issues, we know he's liberal on social issues

[–]super-commenting3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure he believes in the free markets,

Isn't a major part of the platform he's running on based on tariffs and protectionism? Basically the exact opposite of free markets

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Tariffs against countries that manipulate their currency and don't follow the same rules we follow.. A free market still has to be a fair market

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He has threatened to punish companies that leave the US.

He's against NAFTA and TPP.

He's not a neoliberal.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Well it's it really free trade when it's mostly just american companies moving factories to bypass american laws and regulations??

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's my thing. He's fooling all of these conservatives. He's going to be at the next private Clinton function in 2017.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel like he has some things he actually believes and others he does not. He's probably willing to swap on the stuff he needs to, to gather people on his side.

[–]Wowbaggerrr1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I suspect this as well. Now that he basically has the nomination, he's been backtracking on his abortion comments. It'll be interesting to see how his positions shift moving into the general election.

[–]firstpitchthrow0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Now that he basically has the nomination, he's been backtracking on his abortion comments.

That's actually something that pisses off Trump voters, that be backtracked on abortion. He just made the logical conclusion, which you aren't supposed to say out loud.

If Abortion is murder, then the logical conclusion of believing that is that women who have abortions are murdering their unborn children and ought to be punished. Someone on this forum once asked me why conservatives don't believe that, and the fact that they don't indicates Abortion is about controlling women's bodies. That's bullshit, the reason conservatives don't say that is because its hugely unpopular to say. The reason why it is is because the left has won the culture war and pushed the overton window so far to the left, that you can't embrace the logical conclusion of your own position. The alt-right (Donald Trump's most freverent supporters) believes that the left has pushed right-wing leaders way too far. That's where the term cuck-servative comes from.

[–]Wowbaggerrr1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure you're right that a lot of people do believe that about abortion, and feel like they can't say it out loud. That's why Trump is such a hero to a lot of people, he said what they wish they could.

However, I'm surprised that he's been such a hero of the right. A quick search of his past comments show that he's been pretty liberal for most of his life. That's how the whole "He's a plant for Hillary" theory got started. I think he courted the Republicans because he knew he could BS his way through it and win over the anti-PC crowd. But now he's courting the US as a whole. I'd be amazed if he doesn't turn his back on almost all of the far-right things he's been saying.

[–]firstpitchthrow0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

However, I'm surprised that he's been such a hero of the right. A quick search of his past comments show that he's been pretty liberal for most of his life. That's how the whole "He's a plant for Hillary" theory got started. I think he courted the Republicans because he knew he could BS his way through it and win over the anti-PC crowd. But now he's courting the US as a whole. I'd be amazed if he doesn't turn his back on almost all of the far-right things he's been saying.

My thoughts about that: there is a difference between what the GOP stands for and what rank-and-file Republicans actually want. In terms of Wall street and in terms of rich people paying more in taxes, most rank and file republicans get behind that. Its the party that doesn't. Most rank and file republicans like social security and will raise hell to anyone who touches it, but the party bosses want to "reform" it. Most of the party bosses believe in immigration reform and some form of amnesty, the rank and file hate it.

There is a disconnect between what the people in elite circles think and what joe sickpack thinks. Trump took advantage of that gap, by saying what Joe Sickpack actually thinks, but can't say because he doesn't have the power to say those words (he'll be socially outcast if he does, and he knows it. He has his beliefs, but he doesn't trust anyone to say something to. FYI: he blames the left for that, that's what the thing about PC is, and he's right)

Ok, story time. In my hometown, there's this restaurant that's my favorite. I try to eat there at least once a week, and its a family restaurant that is very, very popular with senior citizens. I live in the heart of the silicon valley, and this is the only restaurant that always has fox news and sports on the tv. The food is great and the people are friendly. There are two regulars who eat there who are WW2 vets, we have a small handful of Korean war vets, and quite a few who fought in Vietnam. They are utterly delightful guys, they go out all the time dressed to the hilt in their patriotic, military garb with their hats that say which war they fought in. I always look forward to talking to them, because they have such a perspective, on just about everything. They see the world losing its mind, and they don't understand why no one stands up and says something. They're no-nonsense guys, and they have seen things in life. They've struggled, and they've fought for their nation and they've lost friends. They don't understand how all that they fought for, and all that they did, so that future generations could have the things we do is just taken for granted. Most of them I talk to back Trump, for one very simple reason: they feel the country needs a no-nonsense guy to get things back on track.

Thirty five years ago, you would open a comic book and the phrase "this looks like a job for Superman" was a source of pride. That was their America, the one who could do things and move things and that was proud of being who we were: the wealthiest and freest nation on earth. Superman doesn't say that anymore. Superman is now mocked and considered weak and impotent (watch the new movies, it all started with the Dark Knight Returns). Superman doesn't do the right thing anymore, he spends too much time listening and not enough time acting. In their day, Superman was respected because he was the strongest and the fastest and the best, today, Superman is told he has "privilege" and that he's bad for being the strongest, the fastest and the best. Superman is made to feel ashamed of his strength. Superman doesn't win, and because he doesn't win, pretty soon there won't be any jobs left for Superman to do. They hate the lack of national pride that kids have today, they hate the fact that the left tells some kids their oppressed and others that they're privileged. They hate the breakdown of the family unit; most of them are still married, and their sons, and grandsons who joined the military got divorced.

The far-right, rank and file, isn't the same as the right-wing elite. The elite have moved in one direction, and the rank-and-file aren't in the same camp anymore. Here's a personal observation on this: I remember, twenty years ago, when I was heavily involved in the church and I saw the formation of the religious right up close. Just this last Christmas, pastor Mark Driscoll, whose the pastor up in a seattle mega-church, tweeted to remember that "Mary was a single mom." The church has changed, a lot, in the last twenty years, and not everyone is happy with it. Twenty years ago, if any pastor said those words, he'd never preach another sermon ever again, as he'd have to deal with angry parishioners. Today, its accepted Christian dogma.

I know a lot of this sounds like its about old people who don't want to change and adapt to the times, but the fact of the matter is that a society that leaves people behind is a society that courts division. Watch the episode of Star Trek: TNG titled "first contact" and you see this play out. The resolution to the plot is surprising (for a show made by Gene Roddenberry), Star Trek admits that the Trump supporters have a point.

[–]Wowbaggerrr0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm in Silicon Valley too! San Jose. I moved from New Hampshire (Live free or die, baby!) where I was pretty conservative in my views. Honestly, probably too conservative, I think it made me overly-judgemental. After moving to CA, I've mellowed out a bit. According to my family, I'm a "flaming liberal". According to my friends here, I'm "super conservative". I think I can just see good and bad in both sides.

I'll agree with your veteran friends that the PC/liberal nonsense has gotten out of control. I hate seeing someone who's worked hard their whole life be told that their success means less because they were "privileged." I hate hearing people talk shit about the US. While we're not perfect, I've been all over the world, and most of the people complaining wouldn't survive in these other countries. We have it SO GOOD here, and it kills me that people don't realize it.

The far-right, rank and file, isn't the same as the right-wing elite. The elite have moved in one direction, and the rank-and-file aren't in the same camp anymore.

Totally agree. This is what led to Trump's rise. I'd be happy if it led to a brand new party. With only R vs D, it makes issues too black and white. For people who are conservative on some issues and liberal on others, our current system forces you to choose between two extremes.

I know a lot of this sounds like its about old people who don't want to change and adapt to the times, but the fact of the matter is that a society that leaves people behind is a society that courts division.

The older people (like your vet friends) will be gone soon. To politicians and society at large, their views will never matter as much as the younger crowd. Sad, but that's life. What Trump's rise has shown us is that there's a huge chunk of the young population that agrees with those conservative views. If society ignores them, that's when you'll see division.

[–]firstpitchthrow0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I hate hearing people talk shit about the US. While we're not perfect, I've been all over the world, and most of the people complaining wouldn't survive in these other countries. We have it SO GOOD here, and it kills me that people don't realize it.

This, a million times this. Liberal economist Paul Krugman made an observation the other day, and while I don't like Krugman all that much, he was right about this. He said "if you want to feel better about America, go to Europe and see how things are there." As bad as people think things are here, they're worse in the rest of the world right now. Appreciate what you have, and savor the strength of those who fought to get it for you. Don't turn your back on it, and don't be ashamed of it. Be proud of who you are. Liberal ideology is, fundamentally, an insult to those who fought and suffered for freedom. It is an insult to the strong. While we must have compassion for those less fortunate, we must also never forget that the only people who disdain strength are those who have grown used to it. The rest of the world would kill to be us, literally.

Totally agree. This is what led to Trump's rise. I'd be happy if it led to a brand new party. With only R vs D, it makes issues too black and white. For people who are conservative on some issues and liberal on others, our current system forces you to choose between two extremes.

Every attempt in American history to create a third party has failed. This is systemic, and has to do with the "first past the post" system of electing public officials. In Europe, where you get seats in parliament based upon your share of the population, there is room for more parties. If there are fifty seats in the house of commons in a given region, then to win one seat, you only need 2% of the vote. A third party can manage that. In America, you need 50% + 1 of the vote in a given area to get even one seat. That's a much harder challenge.

What Trump's rise has shown us is that there's a huge chunk of the young population that agrees with those conservative views. If society ignores them, that's when you'll see division.

Let's talk about immigration, in this context, for a moment. My parents immigrated to this country from India, and became citizens before their death. I actually don't have much of a problem with Mexican immigration (as Marge Simpson once said "you're only crime was breaking the law.") but I do have a problem with immigration from Muslim nations.

Okay, now that I said that, let me blow your mind. My co-worker, whose cubicle is right behind mine, is an immigrant from a Muslim nation (Afghanistan, he came to America, with his brother, over thirty years ago), and a follower of Islam. He's also a staunch Trump supporter. My next door neighbor is from a family where his parents immigrated from that part of the world, he also likes Trump. Why? Because they both follow Islam, but they aren't blind to its problems: immigrants from Muslim nations aren't willing to pay the price required to come to the west. Muslims who are here, and who have paid the price, don't like it. Freedom isn't free, freedom requires sacrifice, it requires that you give up some of the things that you had in your country of origin and embrace certain shared American ideals. It requires assimilation. Mexicans seem to do just fine with it, but Muslims have trouble, and so long as that is the case, allowing them to come without discrimination is a horrible idea. My friends, who are from Islamic countries, are self-aware enough to not be blind to the way their faith works, so they support Trump's policies, because they are Americans, first and foremost. That's part of the sacrifice, you leave your old tribe and you join a new one when you come here.

In my experience, people of the Hindu faith do amazingly well with the assimilation part of it, that's why you never hear of any trouble in the Hindu communities in America. My parents came over from India in the early 70's, and they assimilated quickly. When I was a kid, in the 80's, my family would gather around the tv at night to watch our favorite programs. My mom and I loved the Dukes of Hazard (I loved them Duke boys, I was way too young to understand the implications, I just knew that this was a fun show to watch), and MacGyver. My entire family loved Full House. My sisters saw every single Disney movie when they were young. My mom, almost immediately after she left India, embraced America, and understood that when you come to a new place, somethings are left behind. That's okay, that's part of the price you pay. You don't change America to suit you, you have to change to fit in in your new home. Liberals don't understand that.

My boss is from Pakistan and is also Hindu. When he was young, he came to America and he and his brother started a business. However, before that, he was a young man, living on his own, in a small, one bedroom apartment desperately looking for work wherever he could find it. He had a lot of free time, in those days, it was before he married and had kids, and before the business he co-founded became successful. So, he would sit at night in his small apartment and watch television, and his favorite thing to watch was "Star Trek", and that was how he fell in love with the space program. He became a life-long Trekkie, and its been the bond that he and I have always shared, that I'm the only person he's ever met whose a bigger Trekkie than he is.

It isn't just about TV, that is merely one example. If you're going to come to America, you have to become an American, there's no way around that. You can't come to America and get the increased opportunities, but keep everything else that you had back home, it doesn't work that way. You change to fit the culture you're coming to, you don't go full SJW and demand the culture change to fit your preferences. By denying this truth, liberals are living in a fantasy land, and they don't understand why Trump supporters can't agree with that. Freedom isn't free, it requires change and sacrifice, two things Liberals can't stand.

[–]Wowbaggerrr0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I've never been to the "nice" half of Europe (the western half), but I've read that there is less of a focus on assimilation there. Immigrants live in their own little communities and try to live as closely as possible to their original cultures. This breeds a sense of otherness, because they never fully form ties to the larger community.

In America, with the exception of places like Chinatown, assimilation is almost forced on immigrants. What SJWs love to call Cultural Appropriation is the melting pot in action. From Mexico? That taco looks amazing! Let me just add a little more cheese, some bacon bits, and BAM! It's American! From Ghana? That is such a pretty head scarf! Let's just add a little bling, maybe some fringe, and wrap it around our necks instead. Perfect for the soccer-mom crowd! From Japan? Dude, that taiko drumming sounds amazing...but let me just add a little techno backing, some female pop vocals, and you've got yourself an American hit!

While this tends to be vilified by the left (in some cases, with good reason, like when it tramples on someone's religion) I think overall, it's a good thing. Like you said, if you want to be a part of America, you should join the culture. If you're coming here with the intent of living the same as you did in your home country, you'll be disappointed. If you read the stories of teenagers who flee their countries to join ISIS, they were usually part of families that didn't assimilate. They felt disconnected from the culture around them, unwanted by their neighbors. I doubt they would have felt this way had their families tried to adapt to the new culture.

I would be hesitant to block all Muslims from the country. I think that's taking it a step too far. I know Muslim immigrants who really love it here and have worked hard to mesh their beliefs with American society. But I do think that religion is a huge driving force in a person's life. Islam and Christianity seem to be the most aggressive and unbending religions. I imagine an American Christian moving to Afghanistan would be as obstinate about not assimilating as the opposite scenario. When your identity is wrapped up in your religion, that's a hard thing to change. So, I do agree with you that immigration from Muslim nations is problematic. But as to a solution...I have no idea.

[–]firstpitchthrow0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

imagine an American Christian moving to Afghanistan would be as obstinate about not assimilating as the opposite scenario.

I imagine that what you say is true, so there are two things that need to be taken into account:

1) it is the individual's responsibility to do the cost-benefit analysis. Let's say that Afghanistan is the wealthiest, most prosperous nation on earth, if you want to live there, and your a Christian, are you willing to give up what you have to give up to assimilate into the culture in exchange for the economic opportunity? There's a trade-off, you give up something (your old cultural identity) and you gain something (more opportunities). If you can't live with the trade-off, then you shouldn't come.

2) it is the responsibility of the national government to restrict immigration only to those who are willing to make the trade-off. My parents were very willing to do so, they understood they couldn't take India with them (they could still dress in the old clothing, and let's face it, saris have become American. People don't blink an eye at them anymore), they would dress in traditional clothing when they visited the temple on Sundays, but everywhere else they went they dressed and acted like everyone else did.

My point is that muslims are less willing to make the trade than people from other regions are. They should be scrutinized more closely because of that. That doesn't mean they should be restricted, as my two friends made the trade and have done well. It just means a society has to be more careful. In Europe, no trade-off is required of the individual, which is a mistake. There's a reason why every group you join that involves a shared identity has initiation/hazing rituals: people are intensely tribal creatures, and if we're going to accept you as part of the tribe, we have to know that your values are like our values. You have to show us that we can trust you.

[–]Wowbaggerrr0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree with you. I think the problem is actually enforcing it. Say you have a group of immigrants from the Middle East. All are Muslim, and all promise that they love America, and absolutely want to be a part of its culture. There's no kind of test for something like this. We can check their backgrounds to make sure they're not part of a terrorist group, but that's about it. Once they get here, they're free to do whatever the heck they want. I'm not sure there's a way to enforce someone to embrace America's values and culture. I think the best thing America has going for it, as mentioned above, is how we absorb other cultures so quickly. No matter who you are or where you're from, America has globbed on to some part of your culture, so you're never totally an outsider.

[–]SexyMcSexingtonThe Alpha and the Omega3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m pretty neutral. But regressives pushed too far, and now they will reap as they have sowed.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Fucking hilarious. I can't believe our prime minister fucked a pig but Trump is still even more ridiculous. That's truly a hard thing to beat.

[–]scallopkidCardio bunny 🐇1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right? I feel like anyone who isn't laughing is missing the point.

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

He's not a very good businessman.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

How is he so successful in business without being a good businessman?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He isn't. His businesses have declared bankruptcy more often than any other American business in the last 30 years. He's just done a good job of making the Trump name into a recognizable brand.

[–]firstpitchthrow0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He isn't. His businesses have declared bankruptcy more often than any other American business in the last 30 years. He's just done a good job of making the Trump name into a recognizable brand.

You do realize that, in business, "bankruptcy" is not the same thing as "failure", right? I look at Trump as a wildly successful business man. Do you want to know what's wrong with your logic? Would you call Thomas Edison a "bad inventor"? He invented more useful things, and changed the world, in ways that you or I never will. Guess what? He failed, time after time after time, in his life, over and over again. Edison invented Direct Current, which was a revolution, but his protege, Nicholas Tesla, invented Alternating Current. AC won the battle, and Edison's failure was spectacular. That doesn't make Edison a loser, he invented the light bulb, after failing to invent the light bulb over 200 times.

Trump took the money his father left him and increased it a hundred-fold. He built a brand recognized around the world. Anyone who is that successful only got that way by doing one thing: failing, over and over again, but never, ever getting discouraged, always getting back up, and going at it again until he succeeded. Trump is successful not because he never failed, but because his failures never made him quit. Your logic is that the first step to failure is to try, so the moral is never try. Trump had to try different things, and fail at most of them, but each time he failed, he learned something from it that he use for the next time. He built his skillset, and learned which things to avoid.

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

He started with a huge inheritance (at least tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions) from his parents, not to mention the financial assistance he got from them when they were alive, yet he's had a mediocre return on the capital he started out with, either slightly beating or underperforming the overall market depending on how you calculate it. He's not a terrible businessman, but he's not an excellent one either.

[–]Nofap1921920 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Hey man you should totally get into investment banking you seem to know how to turn 10mi into 10billion. Now that's real talent, unlike Trump

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm calling it like I see it. If you claim to be a fantastic businessman, you should at least outperform the market for it to be true.

Edit: He started with way more than 10mil, and he definitely doesn't have 10bil - he bases his claims of his net worth on his feelings.

[–]Nofap1921920 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Totes bruh you got the key to success in your brain, don't keep all that genius level talent to yourself

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Donald Trump is a narcissistic sociopath. Half of /r/The_Donald are trolls and the other half are marks.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

marks ?

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

mark

märk

noun noun: mark; plural noun: marks

US informal

a person who is easily deceived or taken advantage of.

"they figure I'm an easy mark"

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points3 points 10 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

he is the American Dream given form essentially.

Inherit a massive fortune and spend it frivolously stroking your planetary-sized ego?

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I was thinking more anyone can make it to the top, he's had help but most of the presidents have.

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol. You can make it to the top if you start out at the top and don't fuck it up too bad. All the talent and hard work of George W. without any of the moderation, charisma, or compassion.

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

moderation, charisma, or compassion.

He is charismatic and as some have pointed out his actions are far more moderate than his words, i'd agree though he's lacking in compassion.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

So sticking with a serial cheater is wielding a "pussypass"? Sounds legit.

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

She's cheated too(their only child looks exactly like an old business partner of hers), and assaulted him violently several times(ex-staff have admitted to helping cover up injuries etc.).

I say lets be real, she could have left at any time but that would mean giving up all the power and opportunities.

As for the pussypass I was talking about her using the fact she is a woman to bludgeon opponents with accusations of sexism.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Not to mention carpet munching with huma abedin and her murdered lover Vince Foster

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Huma Abedin is so pretty.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

He could have left, too. Why didn't he?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Well, the Clintons have top ten lists of Scandals they were involved in. Probably not the best idea to dump an abuser who could take an immunity deal to put you away for life.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So they deserve each other? Still not seeing what her genitals have to do with it...

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What has that got to do with anything??. You asked why he stayed with an abusive partner and you have a plausible answer.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The PP I responded to is under the impression that Clinton gets some sort of special treatment by other people because she's got a vagina. I'm not a fan of Clinton, but putting her shortfalls and coattailing down to gender is daft.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This seems like an argument you made up. Not a real one.

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

...Because apart from the odd scratch attack he had everything his way.

Plus residents need to be married/family men.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Odd scratch attack? I thought we were talking systematic beatings...

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm talking stitches on neck and face requiring more than just a plaster.

You really have no compassion for men do you?

If it were reversed and Bill was cutting up Hillary methinks your opinion would be different.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You're the one who said occasional scratch attack. Now you're claiming that she slashed into him to an extent that he required stitching up. Which is it?

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Both, by scratch attack I meant she used her nails, and often it required stitches.

She also would fly into rages apparently and threw very heavy objects

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Scratch someone so that they needed stitches?! Holy cow; I know she's a cougar, but that's shocking. The expose after they fie is going to be epic.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

i thought women were supposed to stay in a marriage no matter what, according to TRP?

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

...Trp has never said that in fact trp is explicitly anti-marriage because women are the majority of divorce initiators.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 10 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's not a claim I don't like; it's a claim that appears baseless. What does Clinton's genitals have to do with her ability - or lack thereof - to be POTUS?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What does Clinton's genitals have to do with her ability - or lack thereof - to be POTUS?

Well, tell that to Madeleine Albright.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Did Albright want the office? I thought she considered herself a diplomat rather than a politician.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/madeleine-albright-campaigns-for-hillary-clinton

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's tacky and counterproductive. I thought Albright was above that kind of cronyism.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I'll hold my nose and vote for him but I don't like him. I liked Kasich :(

I think its the first time in a US election where there is no real Christian candidate.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Hillary is a christian .

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hillary would also pretend to be a Wiccan lesbian satanist if that would make her win. Not that the same doesn't apply to Trump as well, but trying to make someone vote for her by claiming she has strong convictions is pretty ridiculous.

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hillary only took so long to accept gay marriage after most liberals did because she's a devout Methodist. She's definitely a Christian because she believes in it.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Hilary is whatever she needs to be to win. I dont buy that she's religious. Cruz was I guess. Kasich definitely was. Biden would have been a Christian candidate had he run.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

When you say Christian, what is it you are looking for exactly?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Someone who believes in Jesus Christ, and believes that serving Him and living the way He did is more important than materialism. Someone who appreciates Christian values and morals.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Did you like Ben Carson when he was still running?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I thought he was alright. I didn't think he was taking it seriously enough.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Really? What do you think his motive was then? He was all about Christian values, he just had a very different demeanor then the rest.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No I mean his campaign wasn't serious enough. He wasn't active enough in the debates. He didn't campaign hard enough. I liked him as a person, but he didn't strike me as presidential. I didn't think he could win against Hilary

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah I understand.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's hilarious.

I don't even know what Donald stands for, it changes pretty frequently, what I love is the level to which it spits in the face of everything we are taught to hold sacred and protect.

Lewinsky4VP

[–]VermiciousKnidzz 3 points3 points3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

sometimes it genuinely makes me laugh, but it was so obnoxious i had to filter it out of my frontpage.

trump's a salesman. he knows what to say to get attention and votes. im interested in seeing if his old liberal views resurface to gain liberal votes. he already said something about trans people being able to use whatever bathroom they want which caught me off guard.

his promise of building the wall is a great example of saying something for the sake of getting votes with absolutely no intention of following thru if he wins

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think he does have some consistent principles despite not following an ideology. If anything, I think he definitely wants to return to a stronger sense of nationalism. Protecting Americans over non-Americans. He'll certainly try to appeal to whatever group of Americans he is talking to though.

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bah, I'm back here, I guess now that I'm bored and waiting things out for work, I'm interested in debating again.

Anyway, Donald Trump himself is a genius. He really is. He's used the xenophobia of the people and taken it, and capitalized on it. Most of his statements and promises, I mean, they're in english, but they're all such bullshit.

Jim Cornette in a recent podcast said that he believes that you can make people believe that pro wrestling is real because people believe in what Donald Trump says. He's very charismatic, he's a brilliant strategist, and he really is like a pro wrestler. He cuts these promos that the fans want to hear, they don't have to make sense, they don't have to have any meaning behind them, they just have to sound good.

As far as the sub goes, I feel that place may hurt Trump in the end because it makes his voting base look bad. It's funny. I've seen people post about how people who run that sub are actually pro Hilary or Bernie and are there just to make Trump look bad, similar to how people thought Trump was a troll candidate trying to make Republicans look bad.

[–]Yonderlander4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Horrified, like any sensible person.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Being horrified doesn't seem like a sensible response.

[–]Yonderlander3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Outside the red pill, sweeping prejudice and hate-mongering are seen as bad things.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You say that, yet Donald Trump has won the nomination. Things outside of RP are starting to become smaller than RP itself.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

America failing an iq test.

[–]shoup88Report me bitch3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't take him seriously. I don't think he believes half of what he says. I have no opinion on the subreddit.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Trump is a megalomaniac, and this is all about him, and always will be. He reminds me more of a third world despot than anything else. If he was even remotely military he would be up there in a uniform overflowing with medals and ribbons.

TRP loves him because he says outrageous things. The whole campaign should be sponsored and promoted by WWE Raw. It's a spectacle.

I have serious doubts about his statesmanship or even basic understanding of how government and diplomacy actually work.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Donald Trump seems like a terrible decision all around. i don't bother going to that sub not being a Trump supporter and knowing the types that frequent there, but from what i've heard it seems terrible as well. but, the more troll/extremist containers that exist... the more they're not disrupting other subs.

[–]GoldPilot(⌐■_■)1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't like him. He seems like a dangerous buffoon.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Name one candidate that doesn't seem like a dangerous buffoon?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

he seems like a bigoted buffoon who has a talent for public speaking and can read his crowd and tell them exactly what they want to hear .

/r/The_Donald its 1/3 stormfront 1/3 pol/ 1/3 disgrunted whites . who don't use 4 chan and stormfront.

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I really don't understand the hate that Trump gets. When congresses approval ratings are so low - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-congress-approval-rating-drops-to-11-percent/

How could anyone vote in a career politician, it is like they have given up on the idea of improving peoples lives completely.

I'm Australian though so maybe this is my outside observation and I don't know what is really going on.

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

From my time spent with anyone from the western world that's not from the United States, he is pretty much the devil incarnate. It's funny to see what kind of selective views they have on the guy. It seems like trump hysteria outside the US is a lot greater than in it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Seriously no one puts any thought into their opinions though.

I get blank stares when I honestly ask people if they think the muslim religion is compatible with 1st world culture. They are fighting within their own mind between honesty and being perceived as racist.

[–][deleted] 10 points10 points10 points 10 years ago | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]aylamaylaLTR 4yrs started as FWBs <3 is real6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I feel you, the community has changed my view on the world.

[–]GridReXXit be like that-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It makes me feel baptized in the blood of the lamb.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Whereas the Donald is full of pseudo-intellectual conservatives?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

i thought they were just trolls . who happen to be very funny .

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tbf, they've been getting a lot of material to work with. The Republican primaries this cycle were highly entertaining.

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

pseudo-intellectual

anti-intellectual, like an good totalitarian movement

[–]caesarfecitPurple Pill Man5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly. I think enraging the left is part of Trump's strategy. It endears him to the Republican base (and in particular, young conservatives, independents, and libertarians who are sick of SJW bullshit). He goes out of his way to troll all his opponents, from Ted Cruz, to Megyn Kelly, Jeb Bush, the mainstream media, the Democratic base etc. It gets them off message, and focusing their attention on him and the outlandish, obvious ridiculous things he says. That's why he gets away with it, his bombast is obvious bombast. The friendly crowd knows when he's hamming it up.

Normally this would be a very risky strategy, as by enraging the left, he also energizes them. But he's doing it for a very specific reason. For a long long time, the news media has held the moral high ground in American politics, widely seen as non-partisan, and objective, when in reality, those days are long gone. By reducing his critics to rabid hysteria, he also pulls the teeth of their attacks. It's hard for people to take "Donald Trump is literally Hitler" when all he's talking about is building a wall.

Donald Trump is counting on being the most likeable and charismatic person sharing a stage with Hillary Clinton. That way, anybody genuinely on the fence will be drawn to him, regardless of what the shrieking mobs say he's about.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Great. No other candidate has been as outspoken about ending the de facto Cold War legacies. Finally someone representing non-interventionalism. It's not perfect, but it's a start.

I think he and this reactionary movement (inc the_donald) are great examples of pushback. A lot of bpers used to deny how prevalent anti-SJW sentiments actually were in the US, but recent events have shown how trumped up labels like "misogynist" lose their bite when they are frivolously overused.

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's going to make the next 4 to 8 years incredibly awkward if he's elected and grow my country's already pretty scathing streak of anti-Americanism.

[–]Bekazzled0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm over here in Australia and can only gauge things from what we hear in our media and here on reddit. (And most people here in Australia are vague about what reddit is.)

My biggest fear is that:

  1. Trump is moving to push funds into projects that will assist in pushing the US into further debt... e.g. The wall between the US and Mexico... the cost of it will be enormous, and infrastructure during a time when a country's in debt bothers me... we're doing this here in Australia - upping infrastructure spending in order to look prosperous on a global scale, whereas the local reality with high unemployment and debt is hitting real people on a frightening scale. I'm worried about economic appearances vs economic realities. Australia is small enough that we can pretend to be doing well and no other countries will overly question the reality of this alleged stability, but since every other nation follows US leads (stockmarket wise) the US doesn't have this secrecy: unfortunately, the US economic state seems to be one of the most transparent in the world, as other nations look to the US to forward our individual economic and political agendas. Will Trump's schemes threaten this?

  2. The planned evacuation of Mexican people seems worrisome considering how many places in the US I encountered (on several global travels) were run by Mexicans who could barely speak English. I saw this everywhere, even in Canada. San Diego seemed to be run by Mexican immigrants (legal or not - I'm unsure), and those places seemed beautiful and unique. Would a max exodus of illegal Mexican immigrants have the negative effect I fear it might have? What will happen to, say, San Diego should Trump become president?

  3. I'm worried about how a Trump presidency will influence international relations. At present, Australia is the only remaining US Ally that is navigating the international waters surrounding China in seeming preparation for some war that should not occur. The UK, Indonesia, Japan etc have all pulled out of this military alliance (yes, under Obama, but I'm talking about how this will go in the future under a Trump presidency)... Australia remains because culturally the US is our biggest ally and we need the US as an ally in the case of war (not to mention I and many other Australians love the US. I love that I can visit). But China is our biggest trading partner, and if push came to shove the Aussie government would have to choose China over the US if it came to war. Is war a legitimate worry here? What influence will the max exodus of illegal immigrants have on the US? Will this even happen or is it scare-mongering?

I'm asking these questions in all seriousness, I'm not being facetious. I really want to know the state of things because our media will portray things in a certain way that I don't rely on. Thank you in advance for any response to these concerns! (I hope they are unfounded.)

Edit: if Trump wins, would he have more say over US political decisions than former presidents? Or is that all talk?

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think he would have any more say than any other president. Some people like to try and paint Trump as some sort of would be fascist dictator. Most of Trump's policy seems to be focused on restoring nationalism and an America First idea. He wants to get and keep dangerous non-citizens out of the country, but give a path for good ones to come in legally. Most of his foreign policy seems more focused on fixing trade deals than war IMO.

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

He is a national embarrassment.

Some of his policies make sense (self fund your campaign, get money out of politics, hire competent people to run things) but he is an empty suit offering empty rhetoric. Even when he does offer policy ideas, all he is doing is offering the same empty BS that has been offered before. His health plan is boilerplate GOP talking points. He make Bush jr. seem intelligent and self aware by comparison.

[–]midnightvulpine0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Trump is not a man I would trust to run this country. As to be named sub, I don't sad them, except when SRD points at some flare up of drama. So not much to say except that the recent mod drama has been amusing. With CisWhite at the center of it.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter