99% of the time this works pretty well. It’s those few highly intelligent outliers who support Trump that fascinate me.
Of course it’s true because you’re intelligent, and 99% of intelligent people would agree with you because you’re both intelligent.
What I find interesting about this world view is that it presupposes that red and orange are not only the entire visible light spectrum, but the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Historically, a much wider range of positions has existed, and if anything, most statesmen and ordinary people alike throughout most of history have been closer to Trump’s general philosophical world view (assuming he’s sincere, which he might not be). Also, even now, most statesmen and ordinary people in most countries are closer to his world view (though not necessarily in terms of realpolitik). Does this make most people in most countries throughout most of history unintelligent for being chauvinistic and not sharing the exact same world view as a group that is relatively small and has existed for a relatively short time? Okay, dead, white males and all of that, but I’d like to know what the problem is with the rest of the world: unintelligent, or just not white/Western enough? To paraphrase Justin Trudeau though, “Because it’s 2016.” What curious people white liberals and their wannabes are!
Naaaaaa, far too wishy washy and vague an argument. Politics is complicated. I’m sure Trump is a hell of nice guy one-on-one, and has worked his ass off, has a great family, been very entertaining guy over the decades, I enjoy the guy a lot.
But you have to come down one way or the other “on the issues”. Forget all this “libtard”, white this, liberal that, all this venom and nonsense going on in the US, and form a solid thesis about who you want running the most powerful country in the world for the next 4 years. Don’t rehash the usual Benghazi, the emails, the cronyism, blah blah crap. This doesn’t pass muster.
Rather discuss a few concrete items between the dems and reps. Here are two items off the top of my head that seal the deal for me:
-
Obama finally passed legislation to end the US import of elephant trophies. Did you know that elephants are on a near certain trajectory to extinction, and the US is one of the world’s biggest markets for ivory?
-
The dems are tackling climate change. Reps deny it
Perhaps more Liberals are intelligent? I don’t know. Maybe you could suggest more intelligent Conservatives I could listen too?
I value intelligence very much. I certainly would want an intelligent person as president of the United States.
Trump doesn’t strike me as one.
Liberals actually believe that, there is so much material in that assumption we could make a new thread. In passing and not to engage my thoughts drifted to this well known quote.
If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain
1 Like
I know David Pakman is a liberal and I don’t even like some of his comments on politics, but most of what he has to say here about Donald Trump makes sense to me, especially the conclusion in the last minute of this breakdown.
Well, there you go, assuming that the world is divided into liberals and conservatives, assuming that what passes for “conservatism” in the Anglosphere resembles anything outside it, assuming that what passes for “conservatism” in the Anglosphere in the current year resembles conservatism in the 18th and 19th centuries or antiquity. Those might be some places to start (e.g. Burke, De Maistre, various dudes in togas).
Anyway, I’m not a conservative, so far be it for me to try to defend the ideology. Now if you weren’t so concerned with that label, I might suggest Thomas Carlyle, Oswald Spengler or Julius Evola, or some contemporary people of interest might be Mencius Moldbug, Nick Land, John Michael Greer, James Howard Kunstler, Dmitry Orlov, Chris Martenson, Charles Hugh Smith Nassim Nicholas Taleb (you’ve probably heard of him), Ryan Landry, a blogger by the handle “spandrell”, Slavoj Zizek, Aleksandr Dugin. There’s also a guy called David Collum who only releases one thing a year (with some follow up interviews). The Last Psychiatrist is something else again.
Some of the above are for the top keks when you come back and say OMFG what was that that you suggested I read?! I never said that I was going to make this easy for you though.
Absolutely. It’s very interesting to me that many liberals seem to be unable to recognise that outside of the West, pretty much everyone approaches politics from the same angle as Trump. He’s not a religious fanatic on an ideological campaign (this is why he upsets both “mainstream” conservatives and liberals alike in the West). He’s a pragmatist. Also, importantly, he is a chauvinist. Most leaders (and their populaces) around the world are chauvinists in this regard. Oddly, yes, they do put their people and their countries first. Are the Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Russians or anyone else unintelligent for being like this? It’s a pretty strange thing to imagine that 90% of the world’s leaders, including from some very powerful countries, are unintelligent, or would be if liberals consistently applied their criticisms of Trump to other world leaders.
Of course, other world leaders might not like the fact that Donald Trump is a chauvinist (when you’re a chauvinist, you always hope that the person across the table is not a chauvinist, because then you’re dealing with a sucker), but I’m sure they don’t feel like they’d be dealing with a religious loon on a crusade to help them release their inner white liberal/neocon (same thing) like Hillary and the last however many presidents, and so there is room to negotiate with sane people who won’t insist on erasing your national culture or its people.
Or to put it another way, if Trump is Saddam Hussein/Bashar al-Assad, Hillary is Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.
Labels? You’re the one using words like “white liberals” and bringing Trudeau into conversation about Trump and US politics. What the heck is the “Anglosphere”?
You’ve got Taleb the libertarian, Zizek the “communist” in your list. What is this list? I can name thousands of interesting people to read too.
“top kek” come on, you having a laugh now with this “top kek” thing. Pepe the frog and Donald the top kek, and he’s a cuck, and she’s a libtard, and ohhhh, my favorite one nowadays is “thot”. I like this one actually. THOT patrol!
Back to interesting conservatives, who I find smart and entertaining, and who I agree with on some points: Ann Coulter, Gavin Mcinnes, Lauren Southern, Milo…
And liberals…tell me you don’t love Bill Maher?!
Ann Coulter, smart and entertaining? I don’t think I can agree with that. 
First things first, is it really that hard to do a Google search for “Anglosphere”? The Wikipedia entry is the first one. You’re generally pretty intellectually lazy, so maybe this should not surprise me.
Looks like someone needs a trigger warning next time though. I assumed that since you weren’t answering any serious points, we were having a laugh. I feel so betrayed now. You’ve hurt my feelings. I actually hadn’t mentioned libtards or cucks (you can throw lolbertarians in there also – not sure if you’ve heard that one before), but thanks for bringing them up.
Which one of your terms (libtard or cuck) offends you more? That might answer a few questions.
Also, since you mentioned Pepes, do you have any Rare Pepes? I would, of course, exchange either chicken tendies or good boy points (GBP) for any with Ann Coulter or Bill Maher. eBay shut down my bids on all of their Rare Pepes! Scoundrels!
Rule one: don’t use words like Anglosphere. Means nothing and won’t add anything to your life. “Countries where English is the main native language” Meaningless.
Rule two: never use online slang like “top kek”. This will only bring you misery and pain. “THOT” is fine. Never use “libtard”. "SJW is ok I guess. Remember, women are attracted to strength in men, not whinny little bitches.
Rule three: Yes, trigger warnings, safe spaces, white privilege, rape culture and all this bullshit, believe it or not, is as repulsive to most liberals as it is to you, you who aren’t a conservative as you say, but a free thinker
You’ve got your script mostly down I give it 5/10, but can be improved a lot. You fucked up a few of your lines though. I suggest frequent viewings of Gavin Mcinnes youtube channel, not only is it hilarious but it’s done very well. I love the guy.
You still haven’t answered whether it was “libtard” or “cuck” (your terms, by the way) which offended you more. I’m going to go with you thinking you are a libtard, rather than a cuck. Then again, your mention of women’s psychology might be a tell. I’m going to run with the latter, though nice diversion with the use of libtard.
So no trade deal on the Rare Pepes then? Surely you can’t pass these up!
GuyinTaiwnan I got nothing. Rare Peps and tendies and women’s psychology I’m ignorant I know nothing.
God I hate SJW though, scum of the earth
I like to call him as Dump…he will lead the whole word to another economic recession.
In today’s debate:
Trump looked like a fool.
Hillary looked like a president.
Polls seem to suggest otherwise, currently Time is 59% Trump 41% Clinton based on half a million votes.
http://time.com/4506217/presidential-debate-clinton-trump-survey/
i could show a bunch of others, but the Time poll has an impressive sample size and perhaps look at CNBC poll instead, which one would think would have Clinton up by a lot, has them both at 50%.
She looked stiff, certainly well spoken but overly rehearsed and robotic. Trump showed his personality, which included rambling and repeating himself, but they failed to bring him down.
1 Like
Trump got so far by saying hundreds of outrageous things, gaining him all the attention he needed and getting the far-right, low-information, feeling-disenfranchised voters behind him. Now he just needs to appear presidential and pretend that he has clear and detailed plans for his presidency to get those undecided voters who have heard about Trump before because of all the media coverage but never really paid attention to the race. He’s not going to say outrageous things now, in a debate like this. He said foolish things, like that Hillary has been fighting ISIS all her adult life (!), and he admitted sheepishly that he didn’t pay taxes (“I was smart…”), but that won’t hurt him, cause everyone is used to it by now.
I think Hillary did not attack him enough on what should be one of his weakest points and that is that there is no real indication that a billionaire like him will have the answers to help the white middle-class folks hoping for a change. He has no track record of even caring about the people who are supporting him now. The people want change. Show them that Trump is not going to give them the change they are hoping for, because he doesn’t care about the common people.
Oh, these fools following him. He did say before that he liked the poorly educated, he said that for a reason.
1 Like
Bubbette could not attack him on those things without drawing attention to her own identical failings.
The Donald failed. She did as well as was possible for her. He fell short of what he could have accomplished. In time, we’ll see whether it mattered, but he did not win this debate, or even tie.