Elections 2016 Presidential Election General Discussion v3

[Thurisaz]

As you said: "Historically, compared to other countries, the whiter America was, the greater America was. Demographics is destiny...The reality is that the only way to Make America Great Again is to Make America White Again. The two slogans are synonymous. The SJWs know it, which is why both slogans terrify them."

Indeed. And the mean IQ is dropping as we speak. The America we knew was a product of highly intelligent people, with high trust between each other and an appreciation for freedom otherwise little known in the world. A lower IQ multicultural empire that is on the brink of imploding into a civil war in the next 15 years isn't something that can produce greatness. It can't even survive in any recognizable fashion.

Your making a whiter america appear as a leading indicator that america was great (Which I'm going to leave behind, because I think its laughable that anyone thinks America isn't at its greatest right now).

An imploding empire really isn't what I consider great, much like I don't think Rome was at its greatest 250 AD. There are entire bankrupt and nonfunctioning cities in the country, for Pete's sake, not to mention the unsustainable economy. If that's "great" I shudder to think what's your standard of greatness.

It completely ignores historical perspective and that blacks and other minorities weren't productive because of how they were being treated.

Who mistreats these minorities in their own countries, where they're arguably even worse off? Why are they corrupt hellholes that find functioning plumbing above and beyond realistic achievement? People fashion a country in their likeness - they're the ones who make them.

I think you consider yourself libertarian?

Yes, and the small "l" is appropriate. I certainly can't defend national suicide on ideological grounds.

Think about it this way. Your equivocating similarly as if someone who said that crime is down in a fully monitored police state. well no shit.

Want to know a way to have no crime at all? Abolish the law. There's a reason I don't advocate for it.

But it ignores any and all pretense and actual reasoning behind why things are the way they want. If your argument is "look at how little black crime was when slaves were around" then no shit. But it has nothing to do with whites being superior than blacks or anything like that.

Whites (and Asians, for that matter) have observably built functioning societies and advanced civilizations quite a few times during known history. Blacks have not. If you want to draw racial superiority from that fact, you're free to do so and it's hard to dispute. There's a reason I don't do so and it's not fear of being called racist.

You use a false bigoted correlation to prove a (wrong- as in America is as great as its ever been) point. Hence bigot.

As is apparent from your criticism, you didn't even understand my point, much less the reasons behind it. You use bigotry to explain what has escaped you, since I believe that's what it would take for you to possess a stance that looks on the surface similar to mine.

I do appreciate your taking the time to give me your answer and giving me the opportunity to return the favor in a conversational tone. If you wish to continue in one or more of the above subjects, I'm happy to oblige. Your forthcoming disappearance from Sherdog will be a loss.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

?

 

[m52nickerson]

Indeed. And the mean IQ is dropping as we speak. The America we knew was a product of highly intelligent people, with high trust between each other and an appreciation for freedom otherwise little known in the world. A lower IQ multicultural empire that is on the brink of imploding into a civil war in the next 15 years isn't something that can produce greatness. It can't even survive in any recognizable fashion.


An imploding empire really isn't what I consider great, much like I don't think Rome was at its greatest 250 AD. There are entire bankrupt and nonfunctioning cities in the country, for Pete's sake, not to mention the unsustainable economy. If that's "great" I shudder to think what's your standard of greatness.


Who mistreats these minorities in their own countries, where they're arguably even worse off? Why are they corrupt hellholes that find functioning plumbing above and beyond realistic achievement? People fashion a country in their likeness - they're the ones who make them.


Yes, and the small "l" is appropriate. I certainly can't defend national suicide on ideological grounds.


Want to know a way to have no crime at all? Abolish the law. There's a reason I don't advocate for it.


Whites (and Asians, for that matter) have observably built functioning societies and advanced civilizations quite a few times during known history. Blacks have not. If you want to draw racial superiority from that fact, you're free to do so and it's hard to dispute. There's a reason I don't do so and it's not fear of being called racist.


As is apparent from your criticism, you didn't even understand my point, much less the reasons behind it. You use bigotry to explain what has escaped you, since I believe that's what it would take for you to possess a stance that looks on the surface similar to mine.

I do appreciate your taking the time to give me your answer and giving me the opportunity to return the favor in a conversational tone. If you wish to continue in one or more of the above subjects, I'm happy to oblige. Your forthcoming disappearance from Sherdog will be a loss.

Your premises that the US is a declining empire is simply wrong. To start with decades in the past have been far more turbulent then what we are experiencing now. So the thought that we are approaching a civil war does not pan out. You also talk about an unsustainable economy and bankrupt cities as if these are new developments. Not a student of history are you?

 

[ucunc156]

Indeed. And the mean IQ is dropping as we speak. The America we knew was a product of highly intelligent people, with high trust between each other and an appreciation for freedom otherwise little known in the world. A lower IQ multicultural empire that is on the brink of imploding into a civil war in the next 15 years isn't something that can produce greatness. It can't even survive in any recognizable fashion.


An imploding empire really isn't what I consider great, much like I don't think Rome was at its greatest 250 AD. There are entire bankrupt and nonfunctioning cities in the country, for Pete's sake, not to mention the unsustainable economy. If that's "great" I shudder to think what's your standard of greatness.


Who mistreats these minorities in their own countries, where they're arguably even worse off? Why are they corrupt hellholes that find functioning plumbing above and beyond realistic achievement? People fashion a country in their likeness - they're the ones who make them.


Yes, and the small "l" is appropriate. I certainly can't defend national suicide on ideological grounds.


Want to know a way to have no crime at all? Abolish the law. There's a reason I don't advocate for it.


Whites (and Asians, for that matter) have observably built functioning societies and advanced civilizations quite a few times during known history. Blacks have not. If you want to draw racial superiority from that fact, you're free to do so and it's hard to dispute. There's a reason I don't do so and it's not fear of being called racist.


As is apparent from your criticism, you didn't even understand my point, much less the reasons behind it. You use bigotry to explain what has escaped you, since I believe that's what it would take for you to possess a stance that looks on the surface similar to mine.

I do appreciate your taking the time to give me your answer and giving me the opportunity to return the favor in a conversational tone. If you wish to continue in one or more of the above subjects, I'm happy to oblige. Your forthcoming disappearance from Sherdog will be a loss.

I hate multi quote so I'll just address one by one.

1. IQ is not dropping, no idea where you get that idea from. It rises about 5 points every decade.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444032404578006612858486012
This article talks about a decline in WORLD IQ, but shows america's increasing. Furthermore, it shows non white countries (India and China) having the highest IQ. Now I'm not a believer that IQ dictates greatness of a country, but your the one who brought it up. I think IQ is garbage because of the lack of standard administration. I have never even taken an IQ test.
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/BRBAKER/

2. We aren't on the brink of a civil war, to say we are is laughable. however we were much closer to a civil war in the 60s when white share of population was much higher, and legitimately had a civil war when blacks didn't even count as part of the population. Your assertion is total exaggeration or just flat out wrong, your choice.

3. We aren't an imploding empire, we've recovered from the GFC better than basically every other first world country. Do we see economical growth at the rates of developing economies? Of course not. But thats why they are developing world economies/powers while we are already well established.

4. No, countries are limited by where they have been in the past and available resources. Do you think rich arab countries have a "culture" better than India or brazil? No, they were just blessed with natural resources and don't deal with severe overpopulation that a country like India does. My family left india not because it was a corrupt hellhole (its certainly corrupt), but because america provided better opportunities due to the historical advantages and infrastructure in place. Not that we were mistreated or anything like that. America still provides some of the best upward mobility options and so continues to see immigrants. That doesn't mean we should strive to be better and eliminate any oppression we currently have in our country, even if it pales in comparison to others.

5. Africa is a shitty place to be geologically speaking. The reason they haven't built civilizations (nevermind the fact of the egyptians) is because of a struggle for resources. Not because of their racial incapability. \

6. If I've misunderstood your stance, please feel free to indulge and clarify.

 

[Oedad]

5. Africa is a shitty place to be geologically speaking. The reason they haven't built civilizations (nevermind the fact of the egyptians) is because of a struggle for resources. Not because of their racial incapability. \

This is objectively wrong.

Africa is most likely the most resource rich continent on the planet. Only Asia could possible claim to have more valuable natural resources, and that is only because it is much larger than Africa.

Europe is many times less resource rich than Africa.

The only advantage Europe has over Africa is Europe is longitudinally oriented while Africa is a "vertical" continent. Which means you can pretty much grow the same crops in the vast majority of Europe, while in Africa you have dramatic climate shift from the north to the center to the south of the continent which greatly effects agriculture. Still vast swaths of Africa greater than the size of the continent of Europe are just as suitable for vast agricultural practices and more than capable of supporting civilizations far greater in area and population than anything that developed in Europe.

In any case the reason you don't see classical "Western" style civilizations has absolutely nothing to do with Africa's natural resources which are both bountiful, and easily accessible.

In fact it has speculated that early sub-Saharan African civilizations easy access to such vast troves of riches are part of the reason they never developed nation states or strong centralized governments and economies like Europe or Asia.

There are many reasons why sub-Saharan Africa did not develop like Europe or eastern Asia, lack of natural resources is not one of them.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Have you guys seen the Trump skittles Nazi poisonous mushrooms thing?

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/20...-s-skittles-metaphor-was-hanged-at-nuremberg/

It is interesting that Streicher's children's book is basically parroted here, but with Muslims instead of Jews

 

[Deleted member 429137]

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...rom-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems.html

Trump used $250 000 in donations to his charity to settle legal troubles.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Have you guys seen the Trump skittles Nazi poisonous mushrooms thing?

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/20...-s-skittles-metaphor-was-hanged-at-nuremberg/

It is interesting that Streicher's children's book is basically parroted here, but with Muslims instead of Jews

its a spin on an analogy that started with Chaucer and canterbury tales. No idea why the left is making this into a huge deal

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

 

[Hans Gruber]

What an embarrassing interview by Mook (HIllary's Campaign manager) on MSNBC

Couldn't even answer 1 question

 

[Diamond Jim]

Hard to find a bigger lowlife in America than Don King and Trump proudly campaigns with him.

 

[HereticBD]

Hard to find a bigger lowlife in America than Don King and Trump proudly campaigns with him.

It's a questionable representative, no doubt. However, the big stink they're making about the "N*****" flub during his speech is pretty stupid, and exemplary of the fake outrage the left is becoming more and more synonymous with.

I mean, Don King has actually killed a man, and they're more concerned that the white guys chuckled at his slip up?

 

[Max Power]

Hmm. You're not denying that the alt-right is real or saying that they don't have any influence, are you?

Who's denying this? Didn't Hillary do a stupid speech on them drawing more attention to them?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Who's denying this? Didn't Hillary do a stupid speech on them drawing more attention to them?

The guy called them a boogeyman, which implies either that they're not real or that their influence is exaggerated. In fact, they are the most influential portion of the American right today.

 

[My Spot]

The guy called them a boogeyman, which implies either that they're not real or that their influence is exaggerated. In fact, they are the most influential portion of the American right today.

 

[Max Power]

The guy called them a boogeyman, which implies either that they're not real or that their influence is exaggerated. In fact, they are the most influential portion of the American right today.

Nitpick a bit more why don't you... yeeesh...

 

[KONE]

Barring multiple tremendous fuck ups, how on earth can Trump lose any debate right now?

Trump can already talk circles around her, but Hillary is legitimately ill as well. We're like a week removed away from her fainting, she can barely get through any kind of speaking arrangement without going into a coughing fit, and the debate has no bathroom or commercial breaks. She has to stand for 2 hours and basically just hope to (literally) survive.

Am I looking too much into it or does anyone else think it'll end up being retardedly one sided?

 

[Wadtucket]

Trump will blow his wad in the first

Hillary could probably do fine being pumped up on drugs and just repeating the same talking points she's had for the last few months and ignoring rebuttals and moderator questions

That being said, she may or may not blow her wad and KO herself as well

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Well aside from sensationalist identity tactics, which I agree people eat up and Trump has an edge in -- he can lose if they ask him policy questions. Like "how are you going to pay for those tax cuts without running a massive deficit?"

 

[dontsnitch]

People forget how quick witted Hillary is. You can view many of her "debates" with various people, and she's very well versed in these types of talks.

Gowdy has become somewhat of a hero around here, and you can see Hillary interact with him through the Benghazi hearings and come out unscathed. If she can withstand the 3 hours, she should have no problem with Trump, in fact, she should come out on top if she doesn't cough up a lung.