Trump for US President?

cardine said:
I think you've misidentified me entirely. I am thinking the exact opposite. I love Gary Johnson because he is taking libertarianism and making it remotely palatable to the mainstream. I think Gary Johnson/Bill Weld is the ideal ticket for spreading libertarian ideals because it gets the ideas of libertarianism out there without making libertarians seem like underground crazies. I am getting excited at the idea of socially moderate Republicans potentially backing libertarians, and that Gary Johnson may actually reach 15% and get included in the debates.

I however am not interested in populist alt right reactionaries pretending they are libertarian because they talk about the "non aggression principle" while really just spewing nativism and white nationalism - which has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism. I am pro globalization and free trade, as should any libertarian, and as should anyone in the (very global) industry of internet marketing. If a movement, party, or candidate has xenophobic undertones, I am no longer interested.

So it pains me to see a bunch of xenophobes trying to pretend they are libertarians in order to undermine the actual libertarian candidate.
Click to expand...
I would love to be libertarian, but there is this one major issue that I have problem with personally. First of all I'm not a racist, I don't hate on blacks, browns or yellows, I don't care as long as someone is just decent human being. On the other hand there is also a very well known fact that white race is slowly dying, and I really like my white skin, and even more I like white skin on females ;) (especially natural big white veiny boobs with huge pink nipples). I think that white babies are as beautiful as any other out there, be it brown or yellow or whatever.

Also I like diversity, it's cool that we have soo many different human races (or whatever you want to call it), different cultures, and all good and bad things that comes with it.

However, taking into account that white race is slowly despairing from this earth woudn't be it great to do some moves to preserve this poor white folks (not just in the museum)? What are your views on this subject cardine?

prosperity2050_chart.jpg
 


andrewkar said:
:laughing-smiley-007:laughing-smiley-007:laughing-smiley-007:laughing-smiley-007

This guy is out of this world... The fact that he managed to get almost 8% must be interesting to Putin & Co.
Click to expand...
Thanks for playing, Gary. What is Aleppo?


No way in hell the Clinton campaign hasn't been funding his media efforts. He's had sustained radio advertising for weeks in NY-area and who knows where else. Hates the 2-party system and against "entrenched" politicians.

And thank you for playing, Hillary.
 
andrewkar said:
prosperity2050_chart.jpg
Click to expand...

Blame white girl feminism for that. (and the men that went along for the ride too)

Feminism got women out of the kitchen and into the workplace = less babies.

Feminism ruined gender relations = fewer marriages, higher divorce rates = less babies.

Feminism produces white men and white women that are less and less attracted to each other = more mixing = less white babies.

Also, who cares? I mean about skin color, not feminism, which is actual cancer. I glow in the dark I'm so white, I'd love to be able to tan wouldn't you?

White nationalism is weird to me because there is always a lot of talk about culture, preserving the white culture. As if, like some of our genes may be, our culture is also recessive and will be completely overpowered by any other culture. Also I think the idea of white culture even is strange. White culture in America is very different then say white culture in Russia or white culture in South Africa, seems culture has more to do with geography than it does with skin color. JMO

Also, have you considered that maybe white people will swing away from feminism (I see this happening already) and other racial groups will swing further feminist, thus reducing their birthrate and upsetting the current trend?

Regardless of how it shakes out it really is an unsolvable problem (if you view it as a problem, I do not, I see it as continuing evolution of the species.) What would you propose? Make white women have more babies? How do you propose we go about that? You couldn't make most white women of my acquaintance agree to make you dinner if they don't feel like it, much less talk them into birthing and caring for extra babies they don't want to have.

Lastly, again, who cares? You could dedicate your life to the preservation of white culture and your granddaughters might not think like you and marry black guys, there will be jack shit you can do about it. Anyways, you'll probably be dead before you can even notice a difference in the average skin color of passing children if in fact the trend holds until then. Why worry about something you can't prevent and that might not happen but if it does it won't necessarily mean anything bad and also you'll be dead before it happens?
 
slayerment said:
BabyGotBacklink, do you think there is a deliberate push to destabilize and undermine Western society?
Click to expand...

That is a very interesting question, been thinking about it all morning and now I'm back to reply as best I can.

I look at who would benefit, I don't think there is an opposing force that is large enough or united enough to orchestrate such a push. I think all the trouble the west is in has been of the west's own doing as arrogant as that might sound lol.

Look at terrorism, a much mentioned threat to the West. We've been slaughtering people in the middle east since Bush Sr, because: reasons. Them killing a number of Americans on American soil that amounts to less than 10% of our body count over there seems less like terrorism and more like very measured retaliation against the foreign invaders that have been dropping bombs on them for decades.

And that's not to say that I am by any stretch of the imagination an apologist for Islam, I think it is a source of some very bad ideas. But I do believe in religious freedom so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others.

Look at Europe. We destabilized the middle east. Crazy white guilt and feminism led Merkel and her kin to import insane numbers of refugees, then try to accommodate their culture instead of insisting that they follow local custom at least as far as their behavior affects the citizens of Germany. Wearing a burka? Fine. Praying 5 times a day? Great. Terrorizing German women? Nope, fuck you, goodbye. When in Rome you do as the Romans do or you get the fuck out of Rome.

I mention it as an example of a culture that seems to be being undermined by outside forces but really has brought the trouble to themselves. So terrorism and Islam out of the way, there is another old familiar threat facing the west.

Feminism has undermined and damaged western society without a doubt but I am not convinced that it was a master plan to do so, mostly because I can't think of any benefit to be gained other than perhaps the Joker-esque desire of certain unattractive women to watch the world burn.

I think feminism finished civilizing us as a culture, in that it erased some barbaric, violent remnants from our society as did the civil rights movement. But feminism accomplished it's original, noble (in my opinion) goals long ago and never even slowed down to question whether the movement was still needed or useful. Not content to merely defend the ground gained, it barreled forward at full speed into murkier and murkier territory.

But do I think there is some central, intelligent force pulling the strings on it? Not really, I think it is fueled at it's core by angry, unhappy, unattractive women that wish their misery on the rest of humanity. Feminism when carried out to it's ultimate consequence is an extinction event. It denies biology and nature, it's not sustainable. Who benefits from that?

I'd love to hear other theories though, interesting topic :)
 
BabyGotBacklink said:
That is a very interesting question, been thinking about it all morning and now I'm back to reply as best I can.

I look at who would benefit, I don't think there is an opposing force that is large enough or united enough to orchestrate such a push. I think all the trouble the west is in has been of the west's own doing as arrogant as that might sound lol.

Look at terrorism, a much mentioned threat to the West. We've been slaughtering people in the middle east since Bush Sr, because: reasons. Them killing a number of Americans on American soil that amounts to less than 10% of our body count over there seems less like terrorism and more like very measured retaliation against the foreign invaders that have been dropping bombs on them for decades.

And that's not to say that I am by any stretch of the imagination an apologist for Islam, I think it is a source of some very bad ideas. But I do believe in religious freedom so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others.

Look at Europe. We destabilized the middle east. Crazy white guilt and feminism led Merkel and her kin to import insane numbers of refugees, then try to accommodate their culture instead of insisting that they follow local custom at least as far as their behavior affects the citizens of Germany. Wearing a burka? Fine. Praying 5 times a day? Great. Terrorizing German women? Nope, fuck you, goodbye. When in Rome you do as the Romans do or you get the fuck out of Rome.

I mention it as an example of a culture that seems to be being undermined by outside forces but really has brought the trouble to themselves. So terrorism and Islam out of the way, there is another old familiar threat facing the west.

Feminism has undermined and damaged western society without a doubt but I am not convinced that it was a master plan to do so, mostly because I can't think of any benefit to be gained other than perhaps the Joker-esque desire of certain unattractive women to watch the world burn.

I think feminism finished civilizing us as a culture, in that it erased some barbaric, violent remnants from our society as did the civil rights movement. But feminism accomplished it's original, noble (in my opinion) goals long ago and never even slowed down to question whether the movement was still needed or useful. Not content to merely defend the ground gained, it barreled forward at full speed into murkier and murkier territory.

But do I think there is some central, intelligent force pulling the strings on it? Not really, I think it is fueled at it's core by angry, unhappy, unattractive women that wish their misery on the rest of humanity. Feminism when carried out to it's ultimate consequence is an extinction event. It denies biology and nature, it's not sustainable. Who benefits from that?

I'd love to hear other theories though, interesting topic :)
Click to expand...

I'd agree there is no single entity or group pushing feminism to destroy western culture. But there is an inherent interest by all of society's ruling factions to push anything that is civilizing and that pushes brute forces out of the masses. Especially since they don't play by the rules they preach (all forms of social mannerism tend to be applied to the outer party, not the inner party members, who play by their own rules, or the proles who nobody gives a fuck about)

I think most conspiracy people tend to see a single entity behind it all, something external that oppresses them. An all controlling, all knowing big brother. I tend to see different elite factions taking advantage of naturally occurring phenomena to maximize their advantages and power, rather than causing such phenomena. I think most conspiracy people view powerful people as one entity since that way they can create an entity in their mind that they can blame for all social problems and thus absolve themselves of their role in the system they have come to see as truly corrupt. The knowledge that they are corrupt, that we are corrupt, is too much to handle, so they blame a 3rd party. To blame a third party, you need the powerful to be a single entity, not a bunch of people with similarly flawed, if more organized and disciplined, mentality than us.

So many people complain about jobs being shipped to china, but won't pay $1 more for American made goods. So many people complain about low wages, but will pay their gardeners as little as they can get away with.

There actually is an all controlling entity behind it all: the sum total of interactions by humans who have choices (some don't, can't blame them)
 
BabyGotBacklink said:
Them killing a number of Americans on American soil that amounts to less than 10% of our body count over there seems less like terrorism and more like very measured retaliation against the foreign invaders that have been dropping bombs on them for decades.
Click to expand...

It still amazes me how we targeted Iraq after 9/11...

We should have listened to this version of this guy, he knows what he's talking about:

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I[/ame]


In regards the mexican word of the day by jstover:

57681061hehdh_sm.jpg
 
Shucks... thanks. To expand, I don't blame people, or myself, for shitty actions. I feel disappointed in how we act, but I try to rationalize to myself:

In modern society, we have managed to obtain so many comforts and distractions that it is easy to lose sight of the harsh nature of the human condition:

We do not know how our conciseness came to be. We don't know what happens with that conciseness which we identify as our individuality once the mechanisms of our body stop and we die. We don't know why we are on this tiny rock in this vast and cold universe. All the questions we ask, and all the effort we place in answering them only lead to more questions with no true answers. Any and all actions we take, everything we build, all our efforts will be destroyed eventually; nothing we do can change that, even if we manage to escape destruction in the next few billion years, eventually the sun will destroy the earth, and even if we manage to colonize other galaxies all stars will eventually fade out, or the universe will contract, or the fabric of space time will tear... but the universe itself will end eventually.

And we are constantly exposed to unimaginable pain and suffering and death; at any moment with no forewarning.

I try to remember these points when I see how shitty we act as a species.

I think our ancestors were more keenly aware of such things (at least a few of these points) since they had few comforts and were more closely exposed to the impending suffering inherent in life. People now have high expectations. Disappointment can only come when expectations are higher than the reality they encounter. Our ancestors had very low expectations for this life; which is why they kept them for after they were dead; when disappointment would be impractical.
 
shindig said:
It still amazes me how we targeted Iraq after 9/11...

We should have listened to this version of this guy, he knows what he's talking about:

Interview with Dick Cheney (1994) - YouTube


In regards the mexican word of the day by jstover:

57681061hehdh_sm.jpg
Click to expand...

People go along with this because we don't want to see the harsh light of reality.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XKFQVJlmZY[/ame]

I agree with Higgins; people don't want to be asked what to do; they want others to do what it takes for their interest.

In the modern equivalent, even when shit gets published, such as on Wikileaks, people will ignore it.
 
greenleaves said:
In modern society, we have managed to obtain so many comforts and distractions that it is easy to lose sight of the harsh nature of the human condition:
Click to expand...

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMZejVltDDs[/ame]

This guy wrote one of the most fascinating books I've ever read, it's dense but packed with interesting ideas I'd never thought about, especially considering it was from 1985 and has only become more and more true today.
Postman distinguishes the Orwellian vision of the future, in which totalitarian governments seize individual rights, from that offered by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, where people medicate themselves into bliss, thereby voluntarily sacrificing their rights.

Drawing an analogy with the latter scenario, Postman sees television's entertainment value as a present-day "soma", by means of which the citizens' rights are exchanged for consumers' entertainment.

The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that "form excludes the content," that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas. Thus rational argument, integral to print typography, is militated against by the medium of television for the aforesaid reason.

Owing to this shortcoming, politics and religion are diluted, and "news of the day" becomes a packaged commodity. Television de-emphasises the quality of information in favour of satisfying the far-reaching needs of entertainment, by which information is encumbered and to which it is subordinate.

Postman asserts the presentation of television news is a form of entertainment programming; arguing inclusion of theme music, the interruption of commercials, and "talking hairdos" bear witness that televised news cannot readily be taken seriously.

Postman further examines the differences between written speech, which he argues reached its prime in the early to mid-nineteenth century, and the forms of televisual communication, which rely mostly on visual images to "sell" lifestyles. He argues that, owing to this change in public discourse, politics has ceased to be about a candidate's ideas and solutions, but whether he comes across favorably on television. Television, he notes, has introduced the phrase "now this", which implies a complete absence of connection between the separate topics the phrase ostensibly connects.

Postman refers to the inability to act upon much of the so-called information from televised sources as the Information-action ratio.

Drawing on the ideas of media scholar Marshall McLuhan — altering McLuhan's aphorism "the medium is the message", to "the medium is the metaphor" — he describes how oral, literate, and televisual cultures radically differ in the processing and prioritization of information; he argues that each medium is appropriate for a different kind of knowledge. The faculties requisite for rational inquiry are simply weakened by televised viewing. Accordingly, reading, a prime example cited by Postman, exacts intense intellectual involvement, at once interactive and dialectical; whereas television only requires passive involvement. Moreover, as television is programmed according to ratings, its content is determined by commercial feasibility, not critical acumen. Television in its present state, he says, does not satisfy the conditions for honest intellectual involvement and rational argument.

Only in the printed word, he states, could complicated truths be rationally conveyed. Postman gives a striking example: Many of the first fifteen U.S. presidents could probably have walked down the street without being recognized by the average citizen, yet all these men would have been quickly known by their written words. However, the reverse is true today. The names of presidents or even famous preachers, lawyers, and scientists call up visual images, typically television images, but few, if any, of their words come to mind. The few that do almost exclusively consist of carefully chosen soundbites.
Click to expand...

It really made me aware of how much of our time is spent thinking about shit that isn't actionable to us as individuals and pretty much will not affect anything in my life. Everything from sports/video games to reddit karma and social likes luring my attention if I don't remind myself how much it doesn't matter.

His other points about written vs televised discussion was that published writings were like peer reviewed studies, it was easy to reference and if it was incorrect people would tear it apart. With television, it's buried somewhere in soundbites and if it's wrong you can't really challenge it. The vaccine autism stuff is a prime example, the damage was done with the first round of publicity, the research it was based on was later exposed as complete bullshit, but even the correction publicity falls on deaf ears and hasn't reached near the audience that the first story reached.
 
In.

I think at the core of it is not some conspiratorial effort by Wall St. to undermine the lower classes, or the NWO to control our minds, but rather human fallibility. If you consider science and business as a means to overcoming your own fallibility you can see how easily you succumb to certain modalities even though you have the awareness of what you are doing. It's so easy to say it's marketers being marketed to, but it's much deeper than that, it's humans being marketed to. If you look at the scientific method and its proverbial efforts to overcome our human bias and psychology to discover truth you can see it is no easy task. We work to undermine ourselves and our own efforts every day. In an effort to find a red herring we blame Muslims, or blacks, or Mexicans, or what have you. The accountability factor may seem trite and cheap, but it rings true in a fruitful way- meaning that to look within you must discover harsh truths that anger or upset you, but inevitably it lends to a clearer understanding of oneself. As a marketer we may even be aware of some of these psychological underpinnings, but may be helpless to do anything about it. Rhetorical question: ever wondered why you click on titty ads even though you know exactly where they are going? Is it just a marketer being marketed to or a drive much deeper and more powerful to overcome. It's easy to boast about one's logical prowess and to argue about how one group of ideological beliefs is superior to another, but how about questioning the productiveness of the very process in the first place. What truth are you really getting at except uncovering a more unsettling feeling of a slowly distending cynicism? Is Trump really the answer, is any politician ever the answer, or is it just another human folly of choosing the path of least resistance- something as a business owner and marketer you are constantly having to face and overcome? Does that place all of humanities burdens on you, no rather maybe there is peace to be found in just engaging conversations that lend to a collaborative way of thinking, one in which all of you fuckers can partake in without having the fear of having your race destroyed or immigrants raping your women indoctrinated into you by the cumulative efforts of all the other marketers just trying to sell some sinister dick pills.
 
Good stuff @ Shindig; I've added the book to my to-read list, although I'm not sure when I'll get around to it... that list is long.

I will say that I stopped watching TV many years ago for some of the reasons mentioned in the book overview piece. When I have watched TV with relatives (my friends don't watch that stuff), I'm always amazed at how crappy the medium seems to me now.

@Toushi
Your post seems like it could be interesting... but the ideas and text are a bit jumbled. Sure, some authors can get away with it, but as one of my teachers once told me; you aren't Victor Hugo.
 
Missed good stuff as was travelling.

Book looks excellent! Added that book to my reading list too, always looking for a good read.

@greenleaves I hadn't thought about it until you said it but can't remember the last time I just sat in front of the TV and channel surfed. Has been years. I watch certain things but exclusively online these days and not very many. This year I watched GoT, the primary debates and a couple documentaries and that is it as far as I can remember. I wonder how many other people have given up TV for long stretches, lots I'd guess.

Also:

In modern society, we have managed to obtain so many comforts and distractions that it is easy to lose sight of the harsh nature of the human condition
Click to expand...

So much this. I gave up on TV and very rarely get on social media because it all seems inundated with soft, vapid, dare I say useless people that could really benefit from some type of actual struggle or suffering. And I don't say that unkindly, I really mean that they are largely unhappy (prozac anyone?) and they don't even know why, they have lost touch with anything solid and real. They live in a nerfed out human habitat, artificially alive but what kind of life is it? Like caged lions at the zoo. Humans are amazing, resilient, resourceful creatures. So much wasted talent and potential spent living on the surface of existence in the name of safety, comfort and ignorance of the larger world.

I read about these boys that go and shoot big groups of people because girls weren't nice to them or their mommy didn't hug them enough and I know that those boys couldn't have fought for their lives or staved off hunger with their wits. So many people like that. I want to air drop them into Africa and India, let them fight to survive. Could be the best thing that ever happened to them.

I think sometimes that this is why Donald Trump is on the ballot and why we like zombie movies. Because deep down we know that all of the best things in us come out when our backs are to the wall and we have to overcome some terrible threat to our very existence.
 
@ shindig - I remember reading that book in college. The professor, who happened to be good friends with Timothy Leary before he died, gave it to us to read on the first day of class. I can remember at the time (2001) feeling quite enlightened. I am going to give it another read.

@ greenleaves - Dark shit, but very true. I'm going to go take my Prozac now. Thanks.
 
As an entrepreneur, and many of us are.

We need Trump to win, his tax plan is fantastic.

His policies are common sense. CNN, MSNBC constantly lie about him, the political establishment which fucked us over for decades are against him, that's pretty much a sign to us that he's the right man.

Donors are moving on to senate elections because he won't meet with them.
 
gsxraddict said:
As an entrepreneur, and many of us are.

We need Trump to win, his tax plan is fantastic.

His policies are common sense. CNN, MSNBC constantly lie about him, the political establishment which fucked us over for decades are against him, that's pretty much a sign to us that he's the right man.

Donors are moving on to senate elections because he won't meet with them.
Click to expand...

O Rly?

trump-invite.jpg


FullSizeRender-8_1467061336426_41186880_ver1.0_640_480.jpg


trumpinvite.png


Trump-invite-RSF-7-13-16.jpg


Trump’s economic advisers are also his biggest donors
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom