*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

I think he is honest. He does not knock Trump for the conservative stuff he does, he openly says he's thankful for it. However, I think he's of the opinion that Trump is not fit for office. These views are not mutually exclusive. I can be happy that hurricane dropped a full chest of long lost sunken pirate treasure in my backyard and still not want hurricanes to continue making landfall.

That's reasonable enough. By now you probably know more current Shapiro than I do. I used to be a big fan of his though. Him and his weaselly voice.

[spoonitnow]

Can't be unfit for office if you fucking won. Sucka sucka dick y'all.

[wufwugy]

Well I guess this means Trump must be very genius (and stable)

[wufwugy]

Naw who am I kidding? Orange Clownies gonna Orange Clown.

[wufwugy]

You know my avatar. Every time I look at it all I see is Uncle Nige. I mean Trump's jakt arms and delts are cool, but Uncle Nige is one suave motherfucker.

[Jack Sawyer]

Well I guess this means Trump must be very genius (and stable)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I can literally see both sides of this hahaha

[wufwugy]

I wonder if today will mark the end of the ctrl-left flipping a lid every time Trump goads them into giving him a helping hand. I just get that impression, given how many people have been saying it.

[wufwugy]

A nation is a set of ideas. Some ideas are better than others.

[spoonitnow]

A nation is a set of ideas. Some ideas are better than others.

Remember the Animaniacs segments "Good Idea, Bad Idea."

I feel like those have a lot of meme magic potential.

[wufwugy]

Depends on whether or not I am a sexist for saying hello to a nurse.

[BananaStand]

How many times will I see the word "nationalist" not preceded by the word "white" in 2018.

I don't care where you set the post....I will bet the under.

Can someone explain to me why non-white people can't be Nationalist?

This is a media trick to associate anyone with conservative, America-first values, as a racist.

And wuf....YOU FELL FOR IT.

When you say shit like "white nationalism is different from white-supremacy", you're just feeding the narrative that anyone who shirks the policies of globalization and open borders is really just a racist and xenophobe.

There is no such thing as "white nationalism". There is "nationalism" and there are white people. That's it. Any attempt to marry the two is just a spin-game that is attempting to broad-brush an entire conservative movement as racist and hateful.

Trump knows this. That's why he blamed both sides in Charleston. How did the media react to that?? They eviscerated Trump because his truth doesn't fit their phony narrative that Nationalism is anti-black, rather than simply pro-america.

[spoonitnow]

How many times will I see the word "nationalist" not preceded by the word "white" in 2018.

I don't care where you set the post....I will bet the under.

Can someone explain to me why non-white people can't be Nationalist?

Kwanzaa was established as an anti-white, black nationalist holiday in the 60s.

[wufwugy]

When you say shit like "white nationalism is different from white-supremacy", you're just feeding the narrative that anyone who shirks the policies of globalization and open borders is really just a racist and xenophobe.

I wasn't the one who said that.

I was the one who pointed out that historians think of whiteness as more of a culture than anything else, and that a nation is a set of ideas.

[Poopadoop]

Ever hear of the Nation of Islam? Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammad, some boxer guy? They were black nationalists who wanted to create a nation for black people (somewhere in America presumably).

Essentially if you want a nation made up entirely of one colour people, you're a [insert colour here] nationalist.

Also, you can be a nationalist without being supremacist or racist in any way, though they tend to go together since anyone who has supremacist/racist leanings will see nationalism as taking those views to their logical conclusion.

The reason you don't hear much if anything about black nationalism in America is because blacks will never have enough power to enact it, so it's about as big of a threat as gay nationalism or mormon nationalism - i.e., it ain't gonna happen. White nationalism on the other hand has the latent power to make itself realized if enough people got on board.

That's why liberals go ape-shit over white nationalism and not black nationalism. If blacks were the majority in America, liberals would be going ape-shit over black nationalism and not worry about white nationalism. It's a question of which type of nationalism poses the most tangible risk of coming true, and that depends on who holds the power.

[spoonitnow]

The reason you don't hear much if anything about black nationalism in America

?

Black nationalism isn't some foreign concept that's never been a major topic in the US lol

[Poopadoop]

?

Black nationalism isn't some foreign concept that's never been a major topic in the US lol

Never said it was never a major topic and i thought i made that clear with the reference to the NoI. But it hardly gets screaming headlines any more, does it? You'll have to tell me I don't live there.

[BananaStand]

Poop, you just perverted the definition of Nationalism.

Also, even if everything you just said is true.....I haven't heard any of the people who identify as nationalist, ever say anything about an all-white America.

Rather, I've heard them argue for an all-american-america. By your definition, they are American-nationalists. What's wrong with that? How is it racist? How do you get from there....to "all-white america"

Just because they happen to be white, doesn't mean that you get to super-impose a racist agenda on to their platform.

[Poopadoop]

Poop, you just perverted the definition of Nationalism.

Also, even if everything you just said is true.....I haven't heard any of the people who identify as nationalist, ever say anything about an all-white America.

Rather, I've heard them argue for an all-american-america. By your definition, they are American-nationalists. What's wrong with that? How is it racist? How do you get from there....to "all-white america"

Just because they happen to be white, doesn't mean that you get to super-impose a racist agenda on to their platform.

You're mind-reading again.

I was talking about white and black nationalists and you somehow took that to mean I think every type of nationalist bases their idea on colour.

An anti-immigrant American nationalist is more commonly referred to as a nativist. So why would anyone go ape-shit over nativists? I suspect it's because they (rightly or wrongly) correlate that attitude with racism/intolerance/other bad stuff.

If you take Trump as an example; he doesn't rail against immigration in general, he mainly rails against immigration from countries whose people happen to be a different colour and/or religion than white/christian (e.g., Mexico, the Middle East). I've never heard him say 'don't let in any more white protestant europeans, they're fucking this country right up! Build a Wall on the border of Canada!' or the like.

Perhaps this is mere coincidence, and one could argue that Mexican immigration is more important to control due to the sheer numbers involved, and non-christian immigrants don't share christian values and are as such 'un-American'. And if Trump made those kinds of cogent and reasoned arguments they'd be more palatable. But instead he aims for the heart and not the head with words like 'bad hombres' and 'zomg radical muslim terrorism'. It's this language and the tacit racism/intolerance it suggests that gets many people's backs up.

[BananaStand]

I was talking about white and black nationalists and you somehow took that to mean I think every type of nationalist bases their idea on colour.

So do you agree that it's unfair to describe a conservative, pro-America movement as "white nationalist"?

Do you agree that the left-wing media is playing a dirty trick on the minds of American people by pounding this suggesting that Nationalism = Racism.

No, of course you don't. You've echo-chambered yourself into believing that it's true all because of some silly, biased observation, that Trump talks too much about the southern border, and doesn't talk enough about stopping immigration from Denmark.

[Poopadoop]

So do you agree that it's unfair to describe a conservative, pro-America movement as "white nationalist"?

Do you agree that the left-wing media is playing a dirty trick on the minds of American people by pounding this suggesting that Nationalism = Racism.

No, of course you don't. You've echo-chambered yourself into believing that it's true all because of some silly, biased observation, that Trump talks too much about the southern border, and doesn't talk enough about stopping immigration from Denmark.

Lol you're such an angry twat.

But to answer your question, those two views aren't mutually incompatible. The left-wing media can overblow the connection between nationalism and racism by focusing on the intolerant language Trump uses like 'Muslim Ban'. He's given them the bullets for their gun, so to speak.

More generally, if you're suggesting that the media is biased and spins things to suit their purposes, you'll hardly get an argument from anybody. A better question is, why rant and rave about it? It's a fact that it happens on both sides of the fence. Deal with it.

[wufwugy]

Perhaps this is mere coincidence, and one could argue that Mexican immigration is more important to control due to the sheer numbers involved, and non-christian immigrants don't share christian values and are as such 'un-American'. And if Trump made those kinds of cogent and reasoned arguments they'd be more palatable. But instead he aims for the heart and not the head with words like 'bad hombres' and 'zomg radical muslim terrorism'. It's this language and the tacit racism/intolerance it suggests that gets many people's backs up.

This reminds me of that saying, "If you want to offend a conservative, tell him a lie; if you want to offend a leftist, tell him (xir) the truth."

[wufwugy]

Poop, you just perverted the definition of Nationalism.

Also, even if everything you just said is true.....I haven't heard any of the people who identify as nationalist, ever say anything about an all-white America.

Rather, I've heard them argue for an all-american-america. By your definition, they are American-nationalists. What's wrong with that? How is it racist? How do you get from there....to "all-white america"

Just because they happen to be white, doesn't mean that you get to super-impose a racist agenda on to their platform.

This is closer to my thoughts.

The contemporary promoters of Americanism aren't concerned with skin color or country of origin. They want people who come to America to be people who want to be American.

[spoonitnow]

"Muslim ban" is not intolerant language. It's a part of a defense against intolerance.

Read and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[Poopadoop]

"Muslim ban" is not intolerant language. It's a part of a defense against intolerance.

Read and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

The paradox of tolerance has never escaped me; the idea that to be truly tolerant implies you also tolerate the intolerant. However, not sure what this has to with the words 'Muslim Ban'.

If your argument is that Muslims are holders of an intolerant creed and thus must be excluded from America in order for it to remain a tolerant society, this is overly simplistic. There are just as many Christians who are intolerant, and by your logic should thus be deported (or not allowed in).

So where does this leave us? This argument uses a broad brush to paint an entire religion based on the actions/views of a tiny minority of them, ignoring that applying that same heuristic to the majority religion was never a part of the stated goal of the 'Muslim Ban'. My argument is that to do so is to behave unfairly. If this is not intolerance then it's at least unjust.

If instead, your argument is that tolerance requires we passively acquiesce to intolerance in our leaders and government, then well I guess a utilitarian argument could be made for a tolerant person seeking whatever allows the greatest amount of net tolerance to exist, and that being intolerant of a national policy of intolerance is logical under that principle.

[OngBonga]

I'm not a violent person. I haven't been in a fist fight since the eighth grade. I've never hit a woman, and I don't spank my kids.

But if you were standing in front of me right now, and said this, I would punch you right in the fucking face. And you would deserve it.

Yeah yeah two fucking pages ago and all, but this made me howl with laughter.

It reminds me of when someone tries to tell me Debbie Harry is ugly. I know it but I'll punch you for saying it.

I think banana has a man crush on Trump.

[spoonitnow]

Islam is not compatible with American society. Get over it.

[Poopadoop]

Islam is not compatible with American society. Get over it.

Depends on your interpretation of Islam I guess. If you think it's suicide bombing infidels and other retarded shit, then I'd agree. If you think it's quietly going about your business, following the laws, and praying to your own God I'd say it's perfectly compatible with a society that values freedom above all else.

[spoonitnow]

Depends on your interpretation of Islam I guess. If you think it's suicide bombing infidels and other retarded shit, then I'd agree. If you're delusional I'd say it's perfectly compatible with a society that values freedom above all else.

fyp

[wufwugy]

Keep in mind that the Irish used to be negro. Below negro actually. That was back when the Irish lived with and like American blacks. Then the Irish changed and adopted mainstream culture. Then they became known as white. The white/negro distinction was thought of in terms of culture, not skin. The emphasis on skin color is new and it began to dominate when communism collapsed and then postmodernism had to adopt a new form of the communist ethos. It went from being about the bourgeoisie (oppressor) vs. the proletariat (oppressed) to being about the white working Christian (oppressor) vs. the minority (oppressed).

[wufwugy]

Islam is not compatible with American society. Get over it.

Sufi Islam has transformed the religion enough that that sect is compatible, I'd say. The trick Sufis use is not taking any of the text literally at all. Everything is just spiritual and symbolic.

As for other sects, I am more sanguine about this now than I used to be. I have kinda bought into the narrative Thomas Wictor discusses. That is that the Saudis are rapidly transforming their religion and country to become socially modern. We should keep in mind, however, that the primary reason for the Salafi and terrorism aspect of Islam is the literal interpretation of its holy texts, and that needs to be dealt with.

[wufwugy]

On Shapiro. Wictor has a knack for cutting to the chase.

https://twitter.com/ThomasWictor/sta...42955955765248

[wufwugy]

I'm not the world's biggest fan of Steven Crowder. He's good people but he's got some growing to do. I've always respected that at least he's honest. Shapiro just shines of hubris.

[Jack Sawyer]

On Shapiro. Wictor has a knack for cutting to the chase.

https://twitter.com/ThomasWictor/sta...42955955765248

In that tweet

I like Shapiro, but he's so odd about Trump. He refuses even now to think of him as anything other than a stunt. He flat out ignores that Trump is in fact a man that gave up his empire to try and better this country's future.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Holy shit LOLWUT

[wufwugy]

nm

[wufwugy]

In that tweet



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Holy shit LOLWUT

He certainly didn't give up an empire. He gave up being loved by elites and elitists.

[Jack Sawyer]

He gave up being loved by elites and elitists.

By passing tax cuts, laws and regulations which benefit quite specifically the elites and elitists

[wufwugy]

By passing tax cuts, laws and regulations which benefit quite specifically the elites and elitists

Why do you have that idea?

[Jack Sawyer]

Why do you have that idea?

LOL wuf

Tax cuts: "
Why the GOP Tax Cut Will Make Wealth Inequality So Much Worse

The richest 1 percent now own 40 percent of the country's wealth. Under this bill, they’d own more.
"

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...alilty/548726/

Net neutrality:

"Everyone's missing the other part of the net neutrality debate — Big Tech is poised to become even more powerful"

http://www.businessinsider.com/fccs-...panies-2017-12

LOL Environment:

"Trump to repeal Obama fracking rule"

Big Oil is super happy of course!

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...-fracking-rule

I can continue, but it will literally not do anything to your bubble, so I won't bother



Mmmmm, I wonder why I have that idea

[BananaStand]

Why do you have that idea?

Cause like everyone on the left, he can't shake the absurd notion that the government is better at spending money on the economy than investors.

Practically 100% of history has proven this to be unconditionally wrong. It's just SOOOOO easy for left wing politicians to fool poor people by framing tax relief as crony capitalism. People who are too dumb, or too lazy, or too underpriveleged to know the history, or think about economics on any intelligent level swallow that hook line and sinker.

"that guy's already got so much, I got nothing, and the government gave him more....WTF????"

Even a bottom-level thought process would come to the realization that the money returned via tax cuts doesn't really leave the economy. It gets re-invested in the economy and the economy grows. The alternative, higher taxes, results in a stagnant economy propped up by government redistribution of wealth along the very bottom of the economy.

If 20% more of your friends and neighbors have jobs, not just job, but GOOD jobs that allow them security and freedom.......do you really care if the guy employing them has a bigger boat?

I can't believe there really people in this world, namely The Democratic Party, who would rather have those 20% of people unemployed, dependent on a government check, just to enforce some poetic justice by taxing the bejeezus out of some greedy fat cat??

It's pretty obvious to see that dependency = votes, and that's why they do it. I just can't believe 60+ million voting Americans are stupid enough to not see this.

[spoonitnow]

Why do you have that idea?

Because dipshit crybaby liberals would rather have half of a 5-pound bag of gold than 10 percent of a 1000-pound bag of gold.

They want a bigger piece of a smaller pie.

They do not understand economics, and they do not understand basic fucking math.

They cannot be reasoned with because they are not reasonable.

[spoonitnow]

#trumpisyourpresident

[spoonitnow]

[spoonitnow]

^^^^^^^^

[spoonitnow]

WikiLeaks posted up the entire PDF of that dipshit book lol

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/950172955258032129

[Jack Sawyer]

But regardless of the why. Let's be more specific: New York is one of the most diverse cities. Let's say you want to make New York less diverse. How would you do that without forcibly relocating people?

I'd start with the why

As in, gimme a few proper non-xenophobic reasons as to why you'd want to make New York less diverse. It naturally went that way, now why would anyone want to reverse that?

Then we can proceed to the hypothetical how's

[oskar]

I'd start with the why

As in, gimme a few proper non-xenophobic reasons as to why you'd want to make New York less diverse. It naturally went that way, now why would anyone want to reverse that?

Then we can proceed to the hypothetical how's

I don't think there's a why, and I prefer an interesting argument over being right, so I'll throw all the bones I have until we can get to some substance.

The funny part is that it's significantly harder to argue against actual racism - like the claim that black people are genetically predisposed to lower intelligence level, because that is backed up by tons of statistics and I'd have to go into lots of specifics as to why I think that that's a result of outside factors and not genetics.
The socio-economic benefits of immigration (the only reason I can see why you would insist that immigration is not directly tied to diversity is that you want to differentiate between skin colors - but that's no problem, we can do that. Makes no difference.) - those are so well documented that it would be exhaustingly mundane to argue.

[wufwugy]

those are so well documented that it would be exhaustingly mundane to argue.

I'm curious what the documentation is.

[oskar]

Spoon you're literally strawmanning yourself here, buddy. Nobody here gives a shit about that douchebag.
Are we done? Do you wanna talk some race realism? But before that I'd like you to either answer or at least acknowledge the one question I've already posed twice.

[spoonitnow]

Spoon you're literally strawmanning yourself here, buddy. Nobody here gives a shit about that douchebag.
Are we done? Do you wanna talk some race realism? But before that I'd like you to either answer or at least acknowledge the one question I've already posed twice.

It's impossible to have a serious conversation with you. However, I will answer one question that you keep pressing on:

But regardless of the why. Let's be more specific: New York is one of the most diverse cities. Let's say you want to make New York less diverse. How would you do that without forcibly relocating people?

You make them want to relocate. You're making this so much more difficult and complicated than it is. You can probably figure out various ways to make someone want to relocate on your own. It does not require a showing of force. Instead, it just requires setting up incentives so that most people behave the way you want them to.

They have Door A, which is to stay. They have Door B, which is to relocate. You make Door B more attractive than Door A by enough of a margin that they walk through Door B. It's simple, and you want to make it complicated, which is why I have difficulty in talking to you on any serious level.

[oskar]

You make them want to relocate. You're making this so much more difficult and complicated than it is. You can probably figure out various ways to make someone want to relocate on your own. It does not require a showing of force. Instead, it just requires setting up incentives so that most people behave the way you want them to.

They have Door A, which is to stay. They have Door B, which is to relocate. You make Door B more attractive than Door A by enough of a margin that they walk through Door B. It's simple, and you want to make it complicated, which is why I have difficulty in talking to you on any serious level.

What type of incentives and how do you fund them? I don't think I'm making this complicated. Moving people from their home is very complicated. Landlords sometimes have to pay out 6-figure sums to remove tenants from a rental when the house gets repurposed. You want to remove families from a city or a country, you bet it's going to be more expensive than that.

[spoonitnow]

What type of incentives and how do you fund them? I don't think I'm making this complicated. Moving people from their home is very complicated. Landlords sometimes have to pay out 6-figure sums to remove tenants from a rental when the house gets repurposed. You want to remove families from a city or a country, you bet it's going to be more expensive than that.

Again, you're making this much more complicated than it is. You're stuck on the idea of moving people instead of realizing that there's also the option of people moving themselves. Another way of framing it is that you're assuming that these people who would be moving do not want to move. Banana gave you one example in post #538.

[oskar]

Again, you're making this much more complicated than it is. You're stuck on the idea of moving people instead of realizing that there's also the option of people moving themselves. Another way of framing it is that you're assuming that these people who would be moving do not want to move. Banana gave you one example in post #538.

If you drive up the price of living, you are are targeting poor people of all ethnic groups. So, yes, this lowers diversity because on average black people in the US have lower economic standings. But you're also targeting poor white people. If you drive out poor people, you're going to see a net positive impact on quality of living in that area, but for one thing you are not targeting the underlying factors why these people have lower economic standings and arguably you are not solving the actual problem of poverty and rather just relocating it.

I think the important question then is why black people have lower economic standings.
My take on this is: let's say you take 100 novice poker players who are able to beat 100NL at 2bb/100. Start out 50 of them with a roll of 1k and 50 of them with a roll of $500. Which group would have a better chance of running their BR up to the point where they can beat variance?
I think this is a fair example because just a couple of generations ago people of color have been actively discriminated against in education and job opportunities, and while this gross injustice no longer exists, the effects of it still trickle down.

[BananaStand]

But regardless of the why. Let's be more specific: New York is one of the most diverse cities. Let's say you want to make New York less diverse. How would you do that without forcibly relocating people?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-rahm-emanuel/

That we’re cutting off funding for schools, cutting off funding for police, allowing people to be forced to live in food deserts, closing hospitals, closing access to mental health facilities. What choice do people have but to move, to leave?” Mr. Kennedy asked.

“And I think that’s part of a strategic gentrification plan being implemented by the city of Chicago to push people of color out of the city,” he added. “The city is becoming smaller, and as it becomes smaller, it’s become whiter.”

TBH Oskar, I'm not sure why your question of "how" is all that compelling. Gentrification is not a new concept. The playbook already exists. So, what's your point?

[BananaStand]

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/07/opinio...lah/index.html

LOL CNN.

Let's say, hypothetically, that Trump takes the test, and passes. Would that stop the unending drumbeat of "trump is unfit", "Trump is dumb", "Trump is unstable", etc.?

Would all of the outspoken Trump critics take those results as a final conclusion to the debate about Trump's mental stability?

If not.....why would he take the test at all?

[wufwugy]

On the tax bill, what I see from economists who investigate it deeply is that they don't know whose taxes are changing nor to what rates, and they don't know what the distributional effects are. This is in spite of popular media and think tanks acting as if they do know.

The science we have to go on as of now is using models of the theories that include supply and demand, rational expectations, and the efficient market hypothesis, and interpreting the data through them. What this has told us so far is that the private sector probably thinks the tax bill will result in an increase in aggregate income.

Economists have done a poor job of communicating these two things. It is frustrating that popular publications and think tanks are not reliable sources of information regarding policy.

[CoccoBill]

Would all of the outspoken Trump critics take those results as a final conclusion to the debate about Trump's mental stability?

If not.....why would he take the test at all?

The same reason anyone ever tries to convince anyone of anything. There's no amount of evidence that will ever satisfy everyone, otherwise people wouldn't think the earth is flat or that a banana isn't a spoon.

[spoonitnow]

The same reason anyone ever tries to convince anyone of anything. There's no amount of evidence that will ever satisfy everyone, otherwise people wouldn't think the earth is flat or that a banana isn't a spoon.

Fuck you and your cowboy avatar, buddy.

[BananaStand]

The same reason anyone ever tries to convince anyone of anything. There's no amount of evidence that will ever satisfy everyone, otherwise people wouldn't think the earth is flat or that a banana isn't a spoon.

This doesn't answer my question. The people who want Trump to take this test, are the same people who would never accept a passing grade as a punctuation mark on this debate.

No amount of evidence will satisfy everyone.....that's true. But those people who will at least consider voting for Trump don't need more evidence. Taking this test, and generating evidence of his mental stability won't change the mind of his opponents, or his supporters. So why take the test.

That's the question. Why take the test?? What potential upside could there be?

[spoonitnow]

This doesn't answer my question. The people who want Trump to take this test, are the same people who would never accept a passing grade as a punctuation mark on this debate.

No amount of evidence will satisfy everyone.....that's true. But those people who will at least consider voting for Trump don't need more evidence. Taking this test, and generating evidence of his mental stability won't change the mind of his opponents, or his supporters. So why take the test.

That's the question. Why take the test?? What potential upside could there be?

Passed test with flying colors. Doctor said it was, like, the best passed test he's ever seen. Nobody passes tests like me, and no one has tests like the United States of America.

CNN Next Day: Trump threatened nuclear war over superior American tests

[BananaStand]

CNN Next Day: Trump threatened nuclear war over superior American tests

It probably wouldn't be that far-fetched. A more likely headline is:

"Trump sanity-shames Europe and Mideast"

or

"Trump's frivolous obsession with sanity-test leads to weekend brag-storm on Twitter"

[spoonitnow]

[wufwugy]

Get ya daily Thomas Sowell here

https://www.reddit.com/user/DailyThomasSowell

[wufwugy]

Sowell is one of my favorite people, among my favorite economists, and used to be a devout Marxist (like me!). But I don't think he's persuasive to anybody who doesn't already agree with him or who isn't open to new perspectives.

[wufwugy]

I'm just waiting for the CNN headline, "Trump oppresses losers by winning so much." You know it's coming. Will probably be in year six in his second term.

[spoonitnow]

Build the wall. Deport them all.

[oskar]

And wuf I'm not evading you. We can go back to the economic effects of immigration later, but I don't like arguing two points at once.

[wufwugy]

And wuf I'm not evading you. We can go back to the economic effects of immigration later, but I don't like arguing two points at once.

Cool. Take your time. Really I just want to know your thoughts.

[oskar]

I also don't think you could say examples like gentrification in chicago are a valid model to lower diversity. You are only targeting the minority of the minority. Chicago will stay highly diverse despite these efforts.

[spoonitnow]

I also don't think you could say examples like gentrification in chicago are a valid model to lower diversity. You are only targeting the minority of the minority. Chicago will stay highly diverse despite these efforts.

Good thing no one cares about what you think in the MAGAposting thread.

[spoonitnow]

You can't meme steel beams.

[wufwugy]

^^ Sheriff is my dream 2024 candidate. He's got a head on his shoulders and one of the few to ever publicly stand up to bullshit and do so with charisma. He's not gonna run for office though, that's why only dream candidate.

[BananaStand]

The problem with all of this, is that it's SOOOO easy for the Obama's and Sharptons, and Oprah's of the world to point to those poverty statistics and conjure up this specter of "white privilege". That's EASY VOTES.

It's an unimpressive political machination to motivate black populations to vote based on issues related to income inequality.

So the Sharptons of the world have this massive, far-reaching, and influential platform that they use constantly.

Meanwhile, the actual changes required to make black culture competitive economically are terribly terribly slow.

Whenever a black man decides to break the cycle, and defy the example set by his absent-father, that's one less bloodline that's doomed to the cycle. But that's hardly a force to compete with a political propaganda machine like The Democratic Party.

So think about that. Think about how long it's going to take to change the culture of an entire race of people, one family bloodline at a time. You essentially need a man to organically conjure up a compulsion to divert his culture toward something that is wholly unnatural and foreign to him. And then pass that example on to his offspring who are simultaneously growing up in a world where they are bombarded with progressive social-justice themed media.

And then multiply that times every black family in America.

How do you make that happen?

[spoonitnow]

The problem with all of this, is that it's SOOOO easy for the Obama's and Sharptons, and Oprah's of the world to point to those poverty statistics and conjure up this specter of "white privilege". That's EASY VOTES.

It's an unimpressive political machination to motivate black populations to vote based on issues related to income inequality.

So the Sharptons of the world have this massive, far-reaching, and influential platform that they use constantly.

Meanwhile, the actual changes required to make black culture competitive economically are terribly terribly slow.

Whenever a black man decides to break the cycle, and defy the example set by his absent-father, that's one less bloodline that's doomed to the cycle. But that's hardly a force to compete with a political propaganda machine like The Democratic Party.

So think about that. Think about how long it's going to take to change the culture of an entire race of people, one family bloodline at a time. You essentially need a man to organically conjure up a compulsion to divert his culture toward something that is wholly unnatural and foreign to him. And then pass that example on to his offspring who are simultaneously growing up in a world where they are bombarded with progressive social-justice themed media.

And then multiply that times every black family in America.

How do you make that happen?

Yep. And that's why the Democrats have a vested interest in keeping black people poor and dependent on the state.

I'm reminded of when Obama was elected and KRS-One kept trying to tell people that just because they put a black face on it doesn't mean they (either political party) want to help you. I'm not saying he necessarily gets it, but he faced a big backlash from that. He was also a fan of Ron Paul. /random

There is an oppressor of that particular group, but they're misled on what it is.

[wufwugy]

The problem with all of this, is that it's SOOOO easy for the Obama's and Sharptons, and Oprah's of the world to point to those poverty statistics and conjure up this specter of "white privilege". That's EASY VOTES.

It's an unimpressive political machination to motivate black populations to vote based on issues related to income inequality.

So the Sharptons of the world have this massive, far-reaching, and influential platform that they use constantly.

Meanwhile, the actual changes required to make black culture competitive economically are terribly terribly slow.

Whenever a black man decides to break the cycle, and defy the example set by his absent-father, that's one less bloodline that's doomed to the cycle. But that's hardly a force to compete with a political propaganda machine like The Democratic Party.

So think about that. Think about how long it's going to take to change the culture of an entire race of people, one family bloodline at a time. You essentially need a man to organically conjure up a compulsion to divert his culture toward something that is wholly unnatural and foreign to him. And then pass that example on to his offspring who are simultaneously growing up in a world where they are bombarded with progressive social-justice themed media.

And then multiply that times every black family in America.

How do you make that happen?

In a big way I think the black association with Democrats has to do with geography. Whites (or any other ethnic group) that live in the same type of circumstances are heavily Democrat. Our urban/rural divide statistics only captures the effect in a small way IMO. I might argue that the power behind the destructive components of black culture is geography.

That said, what is the way out of this mess? I think it's a long and hard fought battle, but it comes by a long-lasting economic boom. Working and making money has the curious effect of making people feel like they are responsible and that they would like to keep more of what they worked for. Increasing that will probably decrease the Democrat support among blacks.

Then the question is basically what the Fed will do. As the money monopolist, they essentially control aggregate demand. If they keep their act together, we'll have a boom for a very long time. If they don't, we'll get a repeat of 2008.

In a different vein, the challenge for the GOP is figuring out how to make its long-lasting support of civil rights persuasive since charlatans like Sharpton have been so effective that persuading otherwise.

[spoonitnow]

"Trump makes medical staff unemployable" is how the MSM would report "Trump cures cancer."