Trump for US President?



that said, there are plenty of places in the US that are dirt poor and 100% white. according to your 'theory', the murder rate per capita comparison between poor white areas, poor black areas, and poor latino areas should all be roughly equivalent.

we all know that's not the case.

despite that, i'm not suggesting "skin color" is the cause for the difference, i'm suggesting "culture" is the cause. an example of that difference in culture can be seen every time an NFL player who makes millions gets busted "all up in the da club" with his gun. his income changed... his culture didn't.

some cultures actually glorify the thug/gangster lifestyle, regardless of poverty. other cultures don't, regardless of poverty.

while i do agree there is a correlation between poverty and violent criminality, i disagree it is the cause.

I agree that culture is a factor as well, it's just not the only factor. Culture is not something that we can reform from the outside, we can't legislate what kind of music people listen to or what adults do in their relationships for example. At least I would not want to be under a government that dictates and interferes to that level.

We can argue causation as far as what came first the poverty or the breakdown in the culture, I think it's important to note that there was indeed a breakdown. Look at black culture in the 60s and 70s compared to today. What you see happen is that at the same time as many welfare programs were being expanded, the rate of single motherhood started to steadily rise. Feminism definitely played it's part in breaking down the social taboos against divorce and single motherhood. But it goes back further than that, to the decades after WW2 when there were plenty of good jobs, business loans and home loans for white people but not for minorities. That matters, it set minorities back a generation or more as far as acquiring wealth so when the welfare programs ramped up they were more vulnerable to get stuck in that trap.

I'm not making excuses for anyone, it should go without saying that nobody is forcing single moms to get pregnant or making anyone drop out of highschool. We can have that conversation, I just don't know that it's an actionable conversation. I think comparing white poverty to black poverty as far as crime goes is tough because real, homogeneously white poverty tends to be much more rural than black poverty which is mostly concentrated in urban areas, what if the races were switched geographically, would crime stats skew a different way? I think they might.

You say culture not poverty, I'm saying the negative part of the culture is a culture of poverty, the two things are intertwined. If you are born in a poor neighborhood to a single mom on welfare, you go to a shitty school because school funding is based on property taxes and you live where you live because that is the type of place that will take your rent voucher, there is no dad in your life, no dads next door either. Where are your male role models? If a man has a job he leaves the neighborhood to get it so a lot of the men you see still there are men earning money illegally. And they are strong and tough, they have nice things and the girls like them. So is it surprising that boys would look up to them in the absence of other male role models? Not really.

Back to welfare reform, because it's actionable. We are already spending the money, why not just allocate it in a way that breaks the cycle of poverty for people? And yes it could take a generation, maybe even 2 but I think we'd be on the right track.
 
You say culture not poverty, I'm saying the negative part of the culture is a culture of poverty, the two things are intertwined. If you are born in a poor neighborhood to a single mom on welfare, you go to a shitty school because school funding is based on property taxes and you live where you live because that is the type of place that will take your rent voucher, there is no dad in your life, no dads next door either. Where are your male role models? If a man has a job he leaves the neighborhood to get it so a lot of the men you see still there are men earning money illegally. And they are strong and tough, they have nice things and the girls like them. So is it surprising that boys would look up to them in the absence of other male role models? Not really.

let me be clear that i wasn't talking about 'race' culture. culture is a separate entity from skin color and wealth. by 'culture', i meant what's acceptable in that particular community.

in fact, it may be a useful exercise to assign labels to cultures according to shapes rather than anything else for no better reason that to avoid ambiguity, so just for shits and giggles, lets call the 'gun-toting, violent-crime-tolerant, gang-minded, community-wrecking' culture the "rhombus culture"...

in the era of 60-100 years ago, people who personified the "rhombus culture" tended to be italians, in the form of the mafia. not all italians joined the "rhombus culture", but there was certainly a propensity there, and that propensity had no basis in poverty. welfare would not have eradicated the mafia. when mafia members got rich, they did not turn into ward & june cleaver. the folks who joined the "rhombus culture" in that era did so because in their communities, not only was it not looked down upon to be part of it, you were a god.

who is going to help make it less cool/accepted to be a gangster in these "rhombus cultures"? that is where the change lies, not welfare.

in indianapolis, areas that have for decades been dominated by poor 'white trash' (a despicable term) are now being increasingly occupied by blacks/latinos, and the murder rate in those areas is going thru the roof.

those areas were poor before; they are poor now. the difference between then and now is that in redneck brokeass white trash communuties, flashing your piece, "rollin" & "robbin n' mobbin" just isn't part of the popular culture. a shitload of other dumbass behavior is no doubt part of that culture, but the gangster-worship lifestyle, and its associated violent crime level, is not.
 
...and for what its worth, thanks BGB for single-handedly bringing a spark of discussion back to wickedfire and reminding us all how it used to be.

giphy.gif
 
I dont think he's a serious candidate tbh. I think he's there to make sure Hillary wins

I think you are a dripping goat's penis who should be retro-actively aborted with a fucking machete.

How do you like them apples?

And @ http://www.wickedfire.com/members/mentalydisturbd.html, FUCK you, you scumbag polesmoker. Your opinion means nought, and your mother woukld have been well advised to scrape your stupid ass out of her fucking uterus with a fucking coat hanger. Fact.

You go, BGBL & CC
 
I gotta say BabyGotBacklink writes some extremely articulate and well thought out posts on here. She clearly really looked into the deep rooted issues rather than skimming the surface.

In other news, Trump is not looking too hot in the polls lately. Trumps comments about the Khan family might be appealing to CharlesMartel and his ilk, but it's alienating everyone else including a large portion of white voters.

I really wish Trump would have shut up about it, because I'm seriously not a fan of Hillary or the DNC especially after that email leak.

Also I am irritated by how quickly Americans are forgetting these DNC email leaks, and how shy the media has been in reporting them since they've been caught red handed with collusion.
 
And furthermore, If you don't have the sac to reply here under your own profiles and voice your opinion like an adult, then keep your fucking tags and dsilikes to your self, you fucking shitbags.

You Feel Me?
 
Post a real reply- avoid the "dislike button".

And furthermore, If you don't have the sac to reply here under your own profiles and voice your opinion like an adult, then keep your fucking tags and dsilikes to your self, you fucking shitbags.

You Feel Me?

Fucking ten-minute limit. Here's the end game:

How%20Disturbing_zpszruqjiyf.png
 
I gotta say BabyGotBacklink writes some extremely articulate and well thought out posts on here. She clearly really looked into the deep rooted issues rather than skimming the surface.

In other news, Trump is not looking too hot in the polls lately. Trumps comments about the Khan family might be appealing to CharlesMartel and his ilk, but it's alienating everyone else including a large portion of white voters.

I really wish Trump would have shut up about it, because I'm seriously not a fan of Hillary or the DNC especially after that email leak.

Also I am irritated by how quickly Americans are forgetting these DNC email leaks, and how shy the media has been in reporting them since they've been caught red handed with collusion.

The polls are skewed toward Hillary.

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...arent-media-polling-prediction-comes-to-pass/

No one cares about the wrath of Khan. That guy is a Clinton Foundation tool. In case you didn't catch it in the MSM, he runs a law firm that helps foreigners buy EB5 visas. He wrote an article praising sharia law:

Daily Caller: Khan Wrote Extensively in Favor of Sharia - Breitbart

He also "Hillaried" his website:

http://www.kmkhanlaw.com/

Of course, he wasn't smart enough to wipe it from archive.org.
 
CCarter spotted :o

ico8xl.gif


@drave I like the idea of using shape names for it, inb4 fat is beautiful people are offended by it somehow lol.

Ok so that is a pretty good parallel with the american mafia on a lot of levels. The differences would be that the mafia culture was imported from Italy while the rhombus culture we see today is mostly homegrown. So what can we learn from the rise and fall of the American mafia? I mean the culture is still there in certain areas but it's only a ghost of what it once was. How did that problem begin and how did it get solved?

It started in insular Italian neighborhoods in big US cities, with the working poor. So that's familiar right? Dense pockets of one culture surrounded by another culture. In modern rhombus culture we see the neighborhoods formed this way because of segregation, government housing projects and later rent assistance programs. With the Italians it happened that way because first generation immigrants settled near other Italians, there was a language barrier and many people in the big cities were not excited about the influx of Italian immigrants. People didn't want them in their neighborhoods. That's because the English, Irish and German immigrants had gotten there decades earlier, they had gangs and territories 50 years before the Italians started coming in significant numbers. Oh yeah, white gang culture was the original gang culture in America. They owned the cops and the politicians, the Italians were the new kids on the block and so they formed gangs to protect their neighborhoods, people and their property.

When Mussolini started trying to wipe out the mafia in Italy the mobsters that could flee came to the US and landed in these neighborhoods. These guys brought organization and structure to the Italian gangs but most historians agree that if it had not been for prohibition the American mafia would not have become the force it became, it would have stayed a street gang type of organization. Prohibition was to the mafia what crack cocaine was to modern gangs, it caused an explosion of growth. A difference of course is that while prohibition was short lived, our ban on drugs fuels criminality to this day. See my thought is that if you want to steer a group of people away from certain behavior then you remove whatever is incentivizing that behavior and then fill the void with incentives to engage in better behavior. If drugs weren't profitable people would not sell them. If drugs weren't illegal they could be sold in gas stations. People wouldn't buy from the shady guy on the street, just like we wouldn't buy alcohol from him in current day. It's not so crazy, Portugal did it.

So overturning prohibition was a good thing to do, it was only strengthening the criminal organizations. Of course the mafia went on to engage in all types of other unsavory businesses to compensate. But what ultimately undid them was not the RICO laws or the purging of the corrupt police forces or the advent of the witness protection program, those things helped sure but the #1 factor was the assimilation of Italian Americans into the rest of America. The more generations they had away from Italy, the more their strong Italian nationalism weakened. In the heyday of the mafia they would go to prison for their countrymen, never breathing a word, their loyalty and sense of community kept them insulated, disciplined and organized. Their gradual assimilation into US culture made them more into individualists. Again this is why welfare reform is so important, allow those densely packed pockets of culture to dissipate and blend with the surrounding culture. Give people opportunities and incentives to moving up and out.

If the only successful people around you are drug dealers and criminals then you might grow up thinking that that is how you get success. It's lack of opportunities but also isolation from the rest of the population that creates these types of beliefs and cycles. You pointed out that mafia guys didn't leave the mafia after getting rich, firstly leaving the mafia is not as easy as all that and secondly they were almost certainly poor and young when they got in, if you spend 10 years as a criminal you probably have an arrest record and you probably don't have many other marketable skills or you would not have got in to begin with. I'm sure very few doctors and lawyers are quitting their jobs to become drug dealers. So the trick is to create a situation where joining a gang or being a criminal would be an unattractive, non lucrative choice compared to what else is available. JMO also thank you for the discussion, I missed this place <3
 

Weird how you said none of this when the polls were showing Hillary's margins as razor thin (within the margin of error) or when Trump was leading in the polls.

Also that url you posted doesn't really say anything very compelling. It make a lot of accusations without attacking the methodology of the polling aside from creating a conspiracy about Shaw & Company Research.

Saying "Why would corporate media be attacking Trump so vociferously if Hillary Clinton was factually so far ahead? They wouldn’t. There would be no need to do so." isn't an attack on the polling methodology. It's some dude's opinion that happens to confirm your bias.
 
Weird how you said none of this when the polls were showing Hillary's margins as razor thin (within the margin of error) or when Trump was leading in the polls.

Also that url you posted doesn't really say anything very compelling. It make a lot of accusations without attacking the methodology of the polling aside from creating a conspiracy about Shaw & Company Research.

Saying "Why would corporate media be attacking Trump so vociferously if Hillary Clinton was factually so far ahead? They wouldn’t. There would be no need to do so." isn't an attack on the polling methodology. It's some dude's opinion that happens to confirm your bias.

I've posted earlier in this thread articles revealing the bias in the polls. In simple terms, they skewed the percentage of Democrats much higher than it actually is.

Regardless, Trump will win the election just like he won the nomination. People laughed when I said he'd get the nomination. They won't be laughing when he wins the presidency. In any case, I'm not sure why there are expats in this thread unless regret the choice they made.
 
In other news, Trump is not looking too hot in the polls lately. Trumps comments about the Khan family might be appealing to CharlesMartel and his ilk, but it's alienating everyone else including a large portion of white voters.

I really wish Trump would have shut up about it, because I'm seriously not a fan of Hillary or the DNC especially after that email leak.

Also I am irritated by how quickly Americans are forgetting these DNC email leaks, and how shy the media has been in reporting them since they've been caught red handed with collusion.

I'm with you, it's frustrating that it isn't the scandal it needed to be. But it's not in vain, because if nothing else look how close Bernie Sanders got to becoming the nominee. Clinton had decades of name recognition, a war chest full of wall street money, the media in her pocket and the full weight of the DNC behind her and she still just barely squeaked out the nomination against a little known independent senator from Vermont. On paper and according to politics as usual she should have buried him very early on. It's pretty remarkable. Change is coming, it's right under the surface, hopefully it's a change for the good.

As much as it's tempting to say "Fuck it, let's roll the dice on Trump" I have some reservations that I just can't shake and it has nothing to do with the wall or the "muslim tests" or any of the other stupid, sensational shit he says to get free air time or whatever. What gets me the most is his lack of experience and knowledge about governing anything. Running a business is not the same as running a country, it just isn't.

It is painful to watch him fumble with basic foreign policy concepts and stumble over how our own government even works. And ok sure, I hate Hillary enough that I could tell myself that he'll surround himself with good advisers and that will help him to lead but I don't think in fact that he will do that. And I'm basing that on everything he has done in his campaign thus far. If there has been a pile of shit to step in, he has stepped in it. Not that I want him to be a focus group android like Hillary but for fucks sake it's like he has nobody around him that will tell him "Yeah you might not want to do that, you moron."

I think the perfect example is the way he handled being asked about the Bible. Trump is not some big Christian, but he tried to pretend he was to appeal to the religious right. For months when they asked about his favorite Bible verse he would not give one, he said at one point it was "too personal". Then he comes back later and reveals that his favorite verse is "An eye for an eye" which is an old testament verse that Jesus Christ specifically refuted in the new testament in what is surely the most famous speech given by Jesus ever. FOR FUCKS SAKE DONALD, is there nobody around you that could have sat you down and given you the cliff notes version of Christianity if you were going to pretend to be one and help you memorize a passable Bible verse? It literally would have taken an hour of his time to do so yet he fumbled and flailed and fucked it all up for months. Apply that same level of unpreparedness to things like foreign relations and he could do some serious damage.

Can we just skip the election this one time?
 
In any case, I'm not sure why there are expats in this thread unless regret the choice they made.

Because free speech that's why. I may not live there but I was still born there, I still grew up there, I still have all my family there, I have plenty of clients I do business with there, I still live next door to there and still have to deal with the fallout of US elections and policy.

I notice you didn't address anything in my last reply to you, I think I've been perfectly civil. We even agreed on several points. If someone critiquing one of your viewpoints makes you uncomfortable enough to want to silence that person then maybe you should look extra hard at that view point and why you are unable to defend it.

TLDR: You mad bro?
 
Because free speech that's why. I may not live there but I was still born there, I still grew up there, I still have all my family there, I have plenty of clients I do business with there, I still live next door to there and still have to deal with the fallout of US elections and policy.

I notice you didn't address anything in my last reply to you, I think I've been perfectly civil. We even agreed on several points. If someone critiquing one of your viewpoints makes you uncomfortable enough to want to silence that person then maybe you should look extra hard at that view point and why you are unable to defend it.

TLDR: You mad bro?

No, your posts are too long to reply to. Shorten them up. Otherwise ain't no one got time for that.
 
No, your posts are too long to reply to. Shorten them up. Otherwise ain't no one got time for that.

No it's because Babygotbacklink owned your ass hard. It's pathetic that you're asking her for a superficial cliff notes version, but I think we pretty much established that you're a skin deep kinda guy.

Also wasn't Trump leading in the polls against other Republican nominee hopefuls? Back then the polls were on your side, yet you're pretending they weren't.

Yeah here we go:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination

Trump took the lead pretty early on over a year ago, yet you're derping on about how he was an underdog in the polls then and he's an underdog now.

I'm not sure why there are expats in this thread unless regret the choice they made.

Like Babygotbacklink said, most if not all expats, have friends, family and business interests back in the states you massive tool. We are free to comment.