News political alert! Do you approve of trumps doings while in office

[SmugViking]

Not quite. ANTIFA/BLM/BAMN's goals are to oppose groups like KKK/Nazi/White Supremacists. Without these hate groups, ANTIFA and the like would not exist.

Antifa is a collection of communists, anarchists, and socialists. While some of Antifa want to genuinely only combat white supremacist/neo-Nazi groups, the majority are to silence and shut down right-winged or Conservative assemblies, do away with the Untied States government, and create a communist state.

BLM started off as a genuine advocacy group against white supremacy and racism in the United States, but it quickly radicalized and evolved into violent groups of people that beat people until they're near-death. They've also been known to loot, commit arson, and assault people with weapons (much like Antifa).

BAMN is definitely a terrorist organization. At the most recent protests in Berkeley, California, BAMN arrived in a stake bed truck with hundreds of shields and sticks and began to hand them out to Antifa and other protestors at Berkeley

The events that transcended at Berkeley were so appalling, MSNBC hosts, who are left-leaning, called out Antifa and BAMN about how they were denying people the right to the First Amendment and how they were acting like fascists, seen here.

So if you're going to tell me that AntiFa and BAMN at the very least aren't domestic terrorists, I believe that you need to re-check your facts. These people encourage and commit hundreds, if not thousands, of crimes at every event they attend and promote political violence. They are peddling hate and they do not care whether you live or not if your political ideas differ from their's. So even if there wasn't white supremacy groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the League of the South, Antifa at the very least would still exist.

Antifa goons say their goal is to counter white supremacy and racism, but it's to overthrow the American government and create a new fascist-communist state.

While their intentions are good

Their (Antifa, specifically) intentions are to peddle hatred and violence and cause disruption in the United States.

Especially since right wing terroristic acts far outweigh left wing terrorists.

Within the United States, the only act of terrorism that the Right has committed was that incident in Charlottesville, Virginia. Let me start a list of crimes Antifa have broken multiple times at multiple events;

• Arson
• Battery
• Looting
• Conspiracy
• Disturbing the Peace
• Harassment
• Robbery
• Vandalism
• Advocating overthrow of government
• Assault with a deadly weapon
• Slander
• Domestic terrorism
• Hate Crime Acts
• Injuring Officers

Here, BBC writes "Antifa is anti-government and anti-capitalist, and their methodologies are often perceived as more closely aligned with anarchists...".

AntiFa, BAMN, and BLM do not have good intentions.

EDIT: Some grammatical corrections
EDIT 2: Revised crime list after further investigation. Although I don't see how desecrating the United States flag isn't labeled as treason...

 

[JayTee]

The link you quoted me using (that I removed because I decided it was too inflammatory) is linked to the wrong source. Their website has weird behaviors.

Political violence, in all it's forms, should be condemned regardless of which group perpetuates it. That said, you haven't cited most of your claims, but I'll do some digging to see what I can find. I value the truth more than I value a particular political affiliation.

On that note, point out that your link said that they were engaged in "terroristic activities" and not that they were a terrorist group, though I suppose the distinction is a fine one.

That said, I do seem have gotten us off track and discussing political organizations rather than our President, so I'll take the lead and correct that mistake by refocusing on him. Apologies for getting side tracked.

 

[JayTee]

...dude I can't really respond to your post because it's a massive wall of text and video without any proper formatting or response to what was posted previously I can't really tell what parts of my post you're responding to with each line.

 

[SmugViking]

...dude I can't really respond to your post because it's a massive wall of text and video without any proper formatting or response to what was posted previously I can't really tell what parts of my post you're responding to with each line.

His response to your quotes are at the top, the rest is a lot of evidence proving that BAMN, Antifa, and BLM are all shitty organizations that commit domestic terrorism.

 

[JayTee]

I know, I'm saying I don't know which line he posted is responding to which part of my post because I broke mine down and addressed each part of his post individually but he addressed all of my post all in one go.

For the Antifa group stuff, I'll look it over.

 

[SmugViking]

At the top of his post, he just didn't quote you. Each line is correspondence to your arguments previously.

 

[JayTee]

I guess it's just me, I can't really wrap my head around the formatting but in the interest of discussion I'll do what I can to address each point.

I'm also going to be ignoring the Antifa stuff for now, just because it's a lot of content for me to go through and I have work in the morning, but I will be looking at it later.

Cut taxes on all levels.

The thing to remember is that only congress can enable this. Trump can make all the promises he wants, but his continued hostility towards members of his own party and their own internal divide make it highly unlikely. Congress writes the laws and sets the budget, the President can only stamp his own approval on it to finalize it or veto it.

K. Idk what that means. If they aren't born in America they aren't citizens, and could be deported with their parents. Izzat what that is?

Kinda. The basic (and oversimplified, so somewhat inaccurate) gist of it is that minors who were brought here can get a renewable, two year deferment on deportation in exchange for a work permit. They did this because, while these people were brought here illegally, they were ultimately raised American, share our values and contribute to our society. The program also allows deportation agencies the ability to focus on higher priority illegals that are causing problems, so they can do the job of protecting our country more effectively.

Basically, kids who didn't choose to come here, but were brought here, can stay here so long as they continue to be good Americans, which most of them are, because they were raised here and love our country as much as the rest of us.

But many people did agree with him. Including myself, greatly. Defunding the EPA, on the other hand...

While it's apparent that we disagree on the Paris accords, I am glad that we agree that defunding the EPA isn't a good thing, and that we need to address the issue on manmade climate change. I'm happy to let this point rest if you are.

Exactly, so he shouldn't be being held for that.

It's a weird issue. It was one of his champaign promises, so he's responsible insofar as it was believed he would be able to work with congress to repeal Obamacare/ACA. That congress didn't is viewed as a failure of his leadership and a failure to live up to his word.

I'd like to note that some of those are literally a statement by an individual with no proof, such as the statement that Trump had black employees hid from his sight in the 80's in his casinos.

That's fair, but the overwhelming testimony from people both inside and outside his organization does lend credence to the idea that Trump may be racist.

Publicity, political drive, etc. I could see them doing that. I mean, if you were a lawyer and you had a chance to get rid of Kim Jong-Un, wouldn't you take the opportunity?

Find it very difficult to believe that these veterans and masters of their field would give up multi-million dollar jobs just to push a political agenda and risk making fools of themselves. It's too much risk for too little gain. It's far more likely that the Russia Investigation is very credible and has a lot of weight behind it, otherwise these guys wouldn't go near it.

His plan could be a generally good plan that different people want minor changes to. However, he seems to be unwilling to compromise on many things.
TPP? Signing a ceasefire in Syria with Russia? Working with China, of all people, against North Korea? Actually giving Israel, our ally, the time of day? He's been rubbing our allies the wrong way, sure, but at least he's putting us n better terms with Russia and China.

I'm not really sure it's worth it. Even if, hypothetically we make stronger ties to Russia and China, there is very little they can offer us that can match losing the friendship of the allies we have.

Actions speak louder than words... So he has been actively, physically supporting the KKK itself? If the answer is no, then you're making an inaccurate comparison. I have no idea who that sheriff is, and I have no idea why Trump pardoned him, but I fail to see how that makes him pro-KKK.

It's about the message it sends. By pardoning Joe Arpaio, the message he sends is that it's okay to violate the rights of others and ignore the courts, because the president will have your back. It's basic carrot vs stick behavior feedback. Do a thing and get punished for it, and you're less likely to do it, Do a thing and get rewarded for it, and you're more likely to do it. In this case the Sheriff was rewarded for doing things like abusing people and ignoring the problems in his own community, something that the Trumps pardon implies to be okay.

Hope this post is readable, but it's late and I gotta head to bed for work. I may have gotten a little disjointed at the end but hopefully that isn't the case.

 

[gagmebitch]

Most definitely not! I have been listening to the Trump Scorecard since election and keeping up with all news that might affect my life and he is awful.

 

[MarinesThePsychoticReaper]

Mind I add to the whole fucking mix that all those Domestic Terrorist organizations are the effect of constant Leftist Media/Collage brainwashing.
The fact that people still being treated like a second class citizen at college campuses for not being left wing is disgusting. Why is nobody discussing that? Why is media allowing this to happen if it doesn't have such an impact. Sure. Fox is a Right wing News station but instead of downplaying everything like CNN and [Insert another media station here] At least they stay fucking neutral. They don't take sides as much as CNN or other news stations do.

Also if I haven't mentioned it already. Trump won because the left let him win. If all the brainwashing bullshit and beating into submission wouldn't be a thing during the Voting. He wouldn't win.(Insert many cases of people being beaten up on the street for openly supporting trump.) The actions of the leftist extremists did this. So Instead of being pissed at trump for some things how about you look back and check back up on Hillary? The Fact that she rolled with the SJW propaganda lead to everything that has happened. Maybe if she didn't fuck up so bad for people to not be able to trust her anymore. (Insert reference material to Email leak) Maybe she would have won. (Probably causing WW3 for going into war with Russia which would cause fucking Nuclear Annihilation mind you.)

 

[MarinesThePsychoticReaper]

Most definitely not! I have been listening to the Trump Scorecard since the election and keeping up with all news that might affect my life and he is awful.

Also, mind specifying What Trump has changed that affects your life as we speak. I'd like to see actual examples. (Because saying that something is gonna affect your life is like waiting for the day you might not get paid. There is a high chance of it happening but mostly it doesn't happen. Unless you are working illegally then it's your own fault.)

 

[SmugViking]

I drew a shitty 8-bit picture since we're referencing AntiFa.

 

[SirBlazeALot]

I literally gave you the quote of it. It is in my response. I expect you to fish for it where you've already seen it. I'm just assuming you overlooked it, since it's just under where I quoted yours for reference. Here.

Those who have committed crimes on American soil should definitely be first priority, followed by those who committed crimes on all soil. But if you're not a legal immigrant, I'd advise that you still be an option for deportation. If you become legal, then that instantly changes, but until that point, you can be selected for deportation.
Personally, I'd also like a three-tier system with this
Tier 1: Becomes a legal citizen and confesses that they arrived illegally: $100 fine, due within a 90-day period.
Tier 2: Becomes a legal citizen and does not confess, but it is discovered that they did not arrive legally: A 2% income tax tacked on them for life, regardless on income.
Tier 3: Does not become a legal citizen: Deportation. (Possible benefits for not being a criminal; like a $100 sendoff bonus)

I'm realizing I really don't know whether or not Trump is making policies to include illegal Asians as well. There's a good chance he is. We've been operating on the assumption he only is doing it for Latinos. Oh well.
Of course we can't, but distance and cost is a serious factor. It is highly likely that moving a group of people across land at a maximum distance of a couple thousand miles is 5 times cheaper than moving a group of people across the largest ocean in the world. And that cost difference is the key. Completely aside from the fact that highly-paid Asian families pay taxes and don't leach off of welfare. Those factors can't be ignored. Prioritization.
Most of the rest of your post applied solely to physical deterrence. Yeah, a wall on our southern border doesn't work to prevent Asians coming from the west. But symbolic deterrence applies in all directions. Again, the symbolism being that America doesn't tolerate illegal immigrants.
I will concede a point here. By primarily focusing on Latino illegal immigrants, we may send the wrong message to Asian illegal immigrants that the symbolic deterrence doesn't apply to them. That does make a good case for taking a harsh stance on that ethnic group at the same time.

It was a joke.
That was the context.
I know you're not actually racist. At least, I assume so.
And yes, avocados, which aren't vegetables and therefore don't even make the top 10 exports, are a far more productive export than car parts.
Oh wait.
Take a chill pill though. It was a joke.

Exactly. You immediately *latched on to* that, and instead of addressing symbolic deterrents, you addressed how impractical the wall is as a physical deterrent.
Preaching to the choir, my friend.

You backed up the "lul it wouldnt matter" by addressing Asian immigrants and addressing those that overstayed their green cards. I countered by pointing out that the symbolism that says "We're sick and tired of illegal immigrants" doesn't have an asterisk that says *except for..., and that the deterrent would give those who had overstayed their green card a reason to get a move on on leaving or becoming legal citizens, since they know that they're going to be cracked down on more than ever. I admit I've shot myself in the foot by failing to explain the illegal Asian immigrants and how they're being deported, but I have also addressed that the deterrent should *deter* future illegal Asian immigrants. You have agreed with my logic on the interior to a point, and you are hopefully about to respond to my point that Asian immigrants may miss the point that the wall is not meant to only deter Latino illegal immigrants.
You backed up "lul I would be symbolic of how stupid we are" by pointing out its failures as a physical deterrent, which I have addressed numerous times, and also addressed the how the symbolic deterrent would not work if we continued to welcome illegal immigrants with open arms just like legal immigrants. And... that's all for that one.

I haven't even addressed how the wall boosts morale for immigration workers, whose numbers of arrests have already increased by I believe about 38% under Trump. An effective morale boost boosts efficiency in the department, which in turn increases those who are arrested and deported.
I have, multiple times, conceded that the wall's symbolic deterrence can fail, and at present with the attitude too many Americans seem to share, will fail. You have yet to concede that, if we reject illegal immigrants as a society, we might be able to reinforce the symbolism of the well. I have given detailed examples multiple times as to how this should play out in ideal conditions. Conditions which, I might add, are not unobtainable, if a few million on the left (and I hope this isn't true, but precautions, a few million on the right) learn the difference between an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant and which one should be wholeheartedly welcomed and supported in our nation and which one would be rejected.

I did not see that.
Fox News is not extremist right-winged. Breitbart is. CNN... I don't think is extremist left wing. Salon is. On the other hand, while things like BBC, CBS, and ABC are left-leaning, there aren't any major news media that are right-leaning. Just Fox.
Right winged news in no way balances out left-winged news.
CNN, MSNBC, and leaning left are ABC, NBC, BBC, CBS, PBS, etc. On the right we have Fox,
If you find a merely right-leaning news media publication, I'd love to see it. But I have yet to see any, much less a major right-leaning one.
Because we have a Republican president who almost the entire world is trying to discredit? You think he's going to sway the masses?
A lot of people were in favor of the muslim ban because of this: It banned individuals from 6 countries.
Sudan is in a period of great instability and is a collapsed state.
Libya is see above, except it was directly caused by the U.S., so they're Anti-American. See Benghazi.
Somalia is stabilizing out into a state ruled by pirate warlords.
Yemen literally just emerged from a civil war that also involved Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Al Qaeda is still there with a a significant presence.
Syria is currently almost collapsed. It is run by an anti-American leader, undergoing violence with hundreds of various rebel groups, on top of ISIS and the Kurds stirring up violence in the north. This is atop Russian, Israeli, Turkish, American, etc. missile strikes.
Iran has said numerous times that it wants to wipe America off the face of the earth.
It is not a ban on muslims, it is a ban on people from nations that have a high chance of engaging in aggression upon reaching American shores. Indonesians and Turks weren't ever on the list.
Idk what Latino hysteria is.
The right wing has an influence on public opinion. However, it all-too-often is outweighed by the left wing.


I need to do homework baaaai

Ah yeah, I didn't overlook that I just forgot about it between posts. My apologies. I'm not sure how much that really matters to Mexico. If their wall on the southern border doesn't work then people immigrating north have no reason to assume the north wall will work. As they should because it won't work as a physical deterrent.

I like your three tier system, it's a nice incentive to become legal and rewards honesty.

I've no need for a chill pill, I'm quite calm. Also I refuse to call avocados a fruit that's gross.

It's because the wall working as a symbolic deterrent is highly dependent on it working as a physical deterrent. It failing to work as a physical deterrent twists it's symbolism into a symbol of stupidity. I've addressed it man, many times. I don't think you can separate how effective the wall is symbolically from how effective it is physically. That's fundamentally where we disagree, that's the foundation of all my luls.

I haven't conceded that America itself changing the way it views illegal immigrants would enforce the symbolism, because I don't think America's all that welcoming to illegal immigrants as it stands already. I think it's already highly anti illegal. I think the fact that the wall even being one of the things people loved so much about Trump sends that message loud and clear. And that's the guy who got office. If that's not enough to show illegals that we're not fucking with them, idk what is lmfao. But I mean, sure. If it ever became like, a vast majority of people were strongly against illegal immigration, to the point where a lot more citizens started reporting it, I can see that causing a drop. Then only the people with the biggest juevos would come here illegally.

I personally think any network that leans in any direction is garbage. I would like to see a more moderate network where both sides are represented equally so that viewers are exposed to ideas they can agree with on both sides. So while Fox, CNN, et. all might not be extremist I still personally think they're all garbage. But anyway, I looked at the big 3's ratings (fox, cnn, MSNBC) to see what the numbers looked like for the past few days, and yeah, while Fox might get the highest ratings if you put CNN and MSNBC together it's usually like a little under double. So maybe balancing out was the wrong term to use, but I still don't think right wing news is completely eclipsed by left wing. Left wing is obviously more popular nowadays because of the culture we've found ourselves in. And it's getting harder and harder to be openly right wing. So yeah I'll concede left wing's got the juice, but it's not like right wing can't fight back. Despite being more ubiquitous and constantly dogging Trump, whether the world respects him or not he was the one who got the job. So Fox and the other minority right wing media guys had to do something right. The odds we're stacked against ya boi.

The Muslim ban is what it is, it's closing the doors to people who want to come to the country. Whether they have a high probability of violence or not, it's an overgeneralization of entire groups of people. It's basically just justifying stereotypes and is bred from fear. And it's certainly not gonna stop motivated terrorists from going ham. So valid reasons sure, but the point still stands that fear is what information support for it. Which can be a good or a bad thing. A little fear can save your life. It just is what it is as a part of the culture.

I live in California, so I see/hear shit about Latino hysteria a couple times a week minimum. Trump being elected emboldened a looooots of closet bigots. And that's something a lot of people I know actually support about Trump. It's better for these people to be open about how they really feel than to be cloak and dagger about it.

But anyway just to kind of wrap this thing up, because after this we'll probably just go in circles of agreeing and disagreeing and conceding. I see what you mean and understand your thoughts in the walls as a symbol. I simply don't agree that it'll be an effective symbol if it isn't effective in it's actual purpose. There are better symbols to spend 5.5 to 11B dollars.

 

[SmugViking]

I made another.

 

[The Gunrunner]

Trump's policies on illegal immigrants and a(n unfortunately theoretical) general American disapproval of illegal immigration is what is actually preventing illegal immigrants from remaining. The wall emphasizes this disapproval to illegal immigrants inside and outside the U.S. Because most illegal immigrants are here because they overstayed their green cards, the wall demonstrates to them that America is not going to tolerate them staying in America anymore, and that they'd better either leave or become citizens. This is all in addition to the wall's symbolism deterring many illegal immigrants from doing it illegally in the first place, since they know that they won't be welcomed.

Yes, because shooting illegal immigrants is the sort of publicity stunt Trump needs and would approve of.

Lol
China didn't have guns.
*ahem*
Anyways
How do you think they signaled from one end of the wall to another that there was an attack?

Would that apply to watch towers? Ye.
I'm sorry, there aren't many walls to choose from.

Bingo. The wall was used as a physical defense there. But it was also a symbolic barrier to those in West Germany.

Actually, it would only be seen as that way if America was consistently harsh on illegal immigration. We're not, unfortunately.

Any symbolic barrier can be broken by words and actions. On the other hand, symbolic barriers can also be reinforced by words and actions. We just need to choose whether to strengthen or to break it. Unfortunately for those who hope that the 5.5-11B isn't a waste of time, many Americans seem to be intent on breaking it.
Physical deterrents can be broken by physical action as well. Take the Berlin Wall.

Hit reply by accident. Didn't get to proof-read, so I might need to make some corrections but I'm not sure. Heading home today, and I'll make a response then.

 

[SmugViking]

I drew this in light of the recent developments of North Korean nuclear capabilities.
Feat. shitty ionizing radiation trefoil

 

[The Gunrunner]

Back to my keyboard. Here's the response I want to send when I'm not in a restaurant on my phone, but I'll go into what you sent after anyway.

GET OUT
THE MAN IN THE WHITE VAN DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE CANDY
RUN
REEEEE
I didn't say he had
I said he should
If he has, Idk about it.
He needs to have a civil sit-down with him and explain why the wall is good for both parties.
There won't be an issue in Congress if he explains his master plan (or mine. Idk if mine is his)
If his policies stay in place, they could be rough for the first few years, but in the long term, so long as America remains on top of the world, it's a prosperous long-term solution. And any kinks can be worked out. Maybe someday in the future we can increase the immigration numbers to 1M, 2M, etc.

Nah. He had sausage~
...
Vancouver.

He should do that, but considering how he's handling congress I don't think it'll reach a common agreement. As far as I've seen, Mexico has only spoken negatively about the idea.

Two things: 1. Trump is already having this issue. I wasn't theorizing. 2. If you don't know that he and you have the same plan, why did you say this: "As a physical deterrent, a wall on its own is a poor choice.
As a matter of conscience and ethics and common sense, we cannot add more than just a wall to deter immigrants physically.
As a result, the wall, logically, is not being built as a physical deterrent. It is being worked as a symbolic deterrent." Or are you referring to a different master plan?

Trump's policies on illegal immigrants and a(n unfortunately theoretical) general American disapproval of illegal immigration is what is actually preventing illegal immigrants from remaining. The wall emphasizes this disapproval to illegal immigrants inside and outside the U.S. Because most illegal immigrants are here because they overstayed their green cards, the wall demonstrates to them that America is not going to tolerate them staying in America anymore, and that they'd better either leave or become citizens. This is all in addition to the wall's symbolism deterring many illegal immigrants from doing it illegally in the first place, since they know that they won't be welcomed.

The wall symbolizes how the US isn't going to tolerate illegal immigration, sure. But that doesn't matter. If an illegal immigrant doesn't interpret the wall that way, then that's not what the wall symbolizes to them - And in order for them to interpret the wall that way, the wall, or something behind it, is going to have to be effective in sending them back. Those are physical deterrents making a symbol because they hindered illegal immigration, not a symbol hindering illegal immigration.

Yes, because shooting illegal immigrants is the sort of publicity stunt Trump needs and would approve of.

I didn't advocate for that...?
Sano said "However, more people with guns doesn't serve as something nearly as visually imposing as a wall. "
So I said "People with guns isn't as imposing as a wall? I think the fear of being shot is being downplayed here."
Pointing out that people don't want to be shot isn't the same as saying you should shoot illegal immigrants. Please leave the shark alone.

Lol
China didn't have guns.
*ahem*
Anyways
How do you think they signaled from one end of the wall to another that there was an attack?

Would that apply to watch towers? Ye.
I'm sorry, there aren't many walls to choose from.

I was going to change around and add things before my thumb hit the reply button by accident, so I'll clarify now: I was going to point out that watch-towers weren't as good as a physical deterrent for the time (though they aren't as good as walls today either.) They had guns, but they weren't automatics. Nor were they accurate. Not being able to give enough fire to stop people from riding past the towers, they would... well, ride past the towers.

Still slower than comms. The fires travel down the line, then a runner tells the commander, then the commander moves the troops to the point of attack. I was going to add 'transportation' to the list because of that. I was going to change the wording though, yes. Regardless, the wall doesn't just have a symbolic aspect. It has a physical aspect as well. Again, the threat they were trying to stop were nomadic cavalry. Cavalry can ride past or around a watch tower, but they can't just ride through a wall.

Bingo. The wall was used as a physical defense there. But it was also a symbolic barrier to those in West Germany.

Because of the physical defenses causing others to view the wall in that way. Return Bingo.

Something I didn't say at the time that I want to now:

Which would have given more confidence to the people of China, a ton of watch towers with more people in them or a giant wall?
Which would give more of a pause to Berliners, a bunch of watchtowers and a wall or even more watchtowers?
See the point?
It's a visual representation that America is done with illegal immigration.

None of these comparisons are 'symbol vs physical.' They're all different types of physical deterrents. So... no, I don't see the point.

Actually, it would only be seen as that way if America was consistently harsh on illegal immigration. We're not, unfortunately.

For the reader's context: "It would only be seen that way if America is actually able to stop them, but again that means the physical deterrents were most important and deserve the focus."
So if America is harsh on illegal immigration without being "actually able to stop them," as is what you're responding to, how is that anything more than the ol' 'bitching and moaning'? Why would anyone care what America's stance is or what their symbols are intended to be if the country can't actually stop you?

Any symbolic barrier can be broken by words and actions. On the other hand, symbolic barriers can also be reinforced by words and actions. We just need to choose whether to strengthen or to break it. Unfortunately for those who hope that the 5.5-11B isn't a waste of time, many Americans seem to be intent on breaking it.
Physical deterrents can be broken by physical action as well. Take the Berlin Wall.

It's more than just what the USA chooses to say; North Korea can call itself a democracy, but no one buys that outside of the country. "Actions speak louder than words," yeah? So if the symbol doesn't align with the physical, then who do you expect to dupe? Illegal immigrants? Not if they're the ones getting through the damned thing! "But they won't get through!" you may say, and to that I say: Yes, but that's my point - The symbol doesn't work without the physical deterrents. If it's just the symbol then it falls apart in any amount of experience, but if it's a symbol brought from the physical then the physical is what was important.

Physical deterrents can be broken, but the process is different. That, depending on what the security is, requires actual resources and effort. In order to circumvent a symbol, you just need apathy. In order to make a group disbelieve in a symbol, look at the physical aspects its based on. You can repair a physical wall, but a symbol needs to be given validity to be repaired.

 

[MarinesThePsychoticReaper]

Also about North Korea. For years we sat and laugh at them and look now? They grew up so fucking powerful and everyone ignored it despite North Korea being a real threat to any country. The Fact that it's kept in Communistic regime also doesn't help. So instead of pushing the problem of North Korea off to the side how about someone finally does something about it before it's too fucking late.

The fact that the North Korea has hoarded nukes as we sat and laughed is enough of a reason to start taking it fucking seriously for once. If it can take potshots at America it can do it to anyone else. How long do we need to wait until a disaster happens? I think what Trump does regarding this is right. Somebody needs to stop North Korea from getting stronger. It's either now or never. If he isn't gonna do it nobody will and when the disaster already happened. Nobody should question "Why?" or "How did we let this happen?" Because we did let them do what they want for years. This is exactly what you should foresee.

 

[Gravitational Force]

There are no reasons to support Trump other than being ignorant or a bad person. It's not an insult, it's the same as saying that somebody who denies gravity is ignorant.

 

[The Son]

There are no reasons to support Trump other than being ignorant or a bad person

"Because everyone I don't like is literally hitler, literally hitler, everyone I don't like is literally hitler... everyone except for me"

 

[Gravitational Force]

"Because everyone I don't like is literally hitler, literally hitler, everyone I don't like is literally hitler... everyone except for me"

Strawman argument, I said no such thing. Not that I'd expect honesty from you. Donald Trump's file
Also Godwin says they are. http://gizmodo.com/godwin-of-godwins-law-by-all-means-compare-these-shi-1797807646 I'm not saying "all Trump supporters are Nazis," but all the Nazis are on his side.

 

[The Son]

Strawman argument, I said no such thing. Not that I'd expect honesty from you. Donald Trump's file
Also Godwin says they are. http://gizmodo.com/godwin-of-godwins-law-by-all-means-compare-these-shi-1797807646 I'm not saying "all Trump supporters are Nazis," but all the Nazis are on his side.

I posted that as a joke.. but alright..



And no? You said "There are no reasons to support Trump other than being ignorant or a bad person" Meaning only "ignorant" people and nazis are his supporters?



Also, what's with you suddenly expecting me to be a crazy alt right trump lover that caused the second world war? I personally belive in right-wing authoritarian/third way , which is pretty much the opposite of Trump.


And adding up, what's with you people also generalizing every right-wing protestor there with a nazi?Even when people were there only to stand against the removal of the statue of General E. Lee, which represents history of the USA.


(Also, this image from the gizmodo site is bothering me, if there were only "crazy white supremacists that hate black people" there... uh... what is this guy doing there

 

[The Son]

P.S I'm seriously questioning the validity of "Polifacts", when idiotic things such as "Trump wants to end marriage equality" are marked as true.

 

[Gravitational Force]

You're saying the people marching with Nazis weren't Nazis. He was just there because he really, really loves statues. Of racists.
Politifact is nonpartisan. It's showing what the facts say vs what people say. So how about you check the sources, mkay?

 

[The Son]

They aren't, what you are doing is generalization.

Also, claiming Polifacts is nonpartisan is like claiming Fox news is nonpartisan

And to further add up, if it's "nonpartisan" and trump really wants to end marriage rights, why hasn't he done so?

 

[Gravitational Force]

They aren't, what you are doing is generalization.

Also, claiming Polifacts is nonpartisan is like claiming Fox news is nonpartisan

And to further add up, if it's "nonpartisan" and trump really wants to end marriage rights, why hasn't he done so?

Ooh, how about: no it's not, citation needed, and you don't know anything about what you're talking about?