US Presidential Election

[Shrinweck]

I'm just playing along. What do you think this has even been?

[kali o.]

So bro fist?

[Shrinweck]

I looked for the last five minutes for a good completely out of left field Lochte bro meme picture to post but all I could come up with was this sentence

[kali o.]

I looked for the last five minutes for a good completely out of left field Lochte bro meme picture to post but all I could come up with was this sentence

[Shrinweck]

Funnily enough that was kind of what I was going to post but it worked better replying to me then the other way round

[Shrinweck]

An interesting look into one of the sub-sections of people that genuinely support Trump - Link

A little bias, but how often are you going to see a legit news organization like the BBC include the word "cuckservative" in an article.

[kali o.]

I wouldnt say the article is spot on...unfortunately, I cant elaborate, I saw the Leslie Jones nudes today and my brain is fucked.

I will simply suggest the "alt right" is the least racist or sexist group out there. The problem is - you can't respond to the current climate of "being white is bad / being male is bad" without being accused of racism and/or sexism...which is enough to make your head explode if you actually think about it.

[Julius Seeker]

I don't think there's any place where there's a climate where being a white male is bad. At least not outside of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe... And even then, only if Amazons took over.

[kali o.]

Woah woah....maybe you misunderstood the word climate (perhaps I should have said narrative) but it was clear I was talking about alt right and their "responding" to the issues.

But to your actual comment...fun fact, what demo makes up the largest group living below the poverty line? You guessed it - white males! Privilege!!

[ManaMan]

... In Canada?

[Shrinweck]

Well, sure, that's how being the majority/plurality of a population works. If you go by percent of the population (of each race individually) for living below the poverty line then that just isn't the case and that's how the measurement is usually given value.

But, yes, it's fucked up - no one sane would ignore white poverty when dealing with the issue. The idea of white privilege isn't debunked (not that that's wholly what you were getting at) just because life sucks for some people either, the same way the lack of equality in the United States isn't debunked because some successful people happen to be black or women. And obviously the whole thing about never respecting the opinions of someone because of their race/identity/gender is absurd. There's always a scapegoat. And going with "Everyone else" as the scapegoat is not going to make for a long lasting political platform... hopefully.

[kali o.]

The concept of "white privilege" is nonsense but I will put that aside. The alt right is willing to discuss complicated subjects (right or wrong). Most other groups, so it seems to me, are not. Instead they will lob out racist, sexist, transphobic or any other meaningless pejorative and poison everything immediately.

Is it wrong to limit or apply heightened screening based on someones country of origin? Are Islamic traditions and culture incompatible with western ideals? Does a country have the right...or even obligation...to protect and direct its society and growth via immigration measures? Are "diversity" programs fulfilling a purpose or a relic of a previous age? Is there a court bias in family and custody issues?

I dont claim to have the right answers to the sample of questions above - but all those questions are worth asking and discussing honestly.

As for Canada Manaman...I think the same stat applies in canada...but hey, I spend like half the year in LA lately....

[Replay]

The concept of "white privilege" is nonsense but I will put that aside. The alt right is willing to discuss complicated subjects (right or wrong).

If you were willing to discuss the concept, you wouldn't be dismissing it as nonsense. I seem to recall that the last time I tried to discuss a rather complicated subject here for right or wrong, you crapped all over the discussion, then tried to stifle it by claiming you could go out and find "forums with people calling me a neo-Nazi". (You failed at this, and didn't find anything, as I recall.)

So thus far I have not seen evidence that you are as tolerant as you believe; nor that you are willing to discuss complicated subjects for right or wrong if they personally offend *you* - but hey! I founded this place to allow discussion, so let's discuss.

I just spent a few days on LinkedIn watching an altright man who has been calling to kill all the gay people. so I can't agree that the altright is a wonderful place for freedom of thought just yet. Nor do I think the Nazi baseball cap I saw on that young altright man we were discussing previously is a point in favor of that notion - whose freedom of speech to wear it you did defend better than me, I will quite admit - but we can agree that two data points do not define a movement if you like.

Is it wrong to limit or apply heightened screening based on someones country of origin? Are Islamic traditions and culture incompatible with western ideals? Does a country have the right...or even obligation...to protect and direct its society and growth via immigration measures? Are "diversity" programs fulfilling a purpose or a relic of a previous age? Is there a court bias in family and custody issues?

I dont claim to have the right answers to the sample of questions above - but all those questions are worth asking and discussing honestly.

Nothing like a calm acceptable face and politeness to disguise xenophobia, either. But hey, let's discuss it all.

You may wish to ask the First Nations/Amerinds here as to whether or not a society should institute firm borders. I quite still believe in the ideals of the New Colossus and the Statue of Liberty - that being said, if I were Amerind, I'd possibly wish my ancestors had kicked the original European settlers out of the nation before they could institute a society that would eventually disenfranchise them, become the world's foremost military power and "world policemen", and then go hog on the notion that we have to shut all the borders and not let anyone *else* in because we have original rights to the land/manifest destiny/jingoist beliefs by any other name - so that could be an argument in your favor, possibly?

As for "Islamic traditions and culture"...nope, at least a few of them aren't compatible with Western values any more than Western religions are compatible with so-called Western values. Indeed, none of the Abrahamic faiths are. Beating one's disobedient wife the way a Qu'ranic verse teaches - nope, very illegal here. Killing the gays the way the Bible and Torah both mandate as well as the Qu'ran mandates, also supes illegal. Imprisoning or killing someone for refusing to shave their beard or for refusing to go outside the city limits for a prescribed distance every time someone has to take a shit, also mega illegal; but that is Levitican law for you - an old-school mainstay of Judaism and Christianity both.

Very few believe anymore that someone should be severely punished for shaving these days, but the same Levitican law mandates the killing of gay men - and since I have spent a few days on LinkedIn keeping an eye on an altright man who has been preaching the extermination of gays, as I said, I don't believe in the notion that somehow one intolerant religion is more dangerous than the others.

In the United States, at least, we have a Constitutional mandate that protects freedom of religious belief. In Canada you do not have this, of course; but it is our electoral cycle you are trying to influence at present, not Canada's...so if your position is that banning Muslim immigration is necessary because it is culturally incompatible with Western ideals; what's your position on Jewish and Christian immigrants? What about existing Jewish and Christian Americans, or those of any other religious persuasion, who hold beliefs incompatible with Western ideals? Do they have to leave if their religious beliefs conflict with Western ideals?

Define those ideals, if you could. What are we protecting here via the proposed immigration restrictions? Who do we keep out and who do we allow to stay, and why?

You may wish to provide a real policy plank here to defend these positions, not just a mindworm hoping to get people to believe that intolerance and fear of "the other" is tolerance because you are - at least ostensibly - willing to sit down and calmly discuss it.

[kali o.]

Sorry, my brain is still fried from the Leslie Jones nudes, but I will offer you one reply...

...altright man who has been calling to kill all the gay people...

I am not sure "kill all gays" is on the altright agenda (as far as you can set an agenda), so what precisely do you want me to say...? As usual, your vague anecdotes don't leave much room for discussion.

You may wish to ask the First Nations/Amerinds....

What about existing Jewish and Christian Americans, or those of any other religious persuasion, who hold beliefs incompatible with Western ideals? Do they have to leave if their religious beliefs conflict with Western ideals?

1. I'd suggest the Indians wage a war to take their land back or stfu and drop the issue (and enjoy the tax status and other privileges). No one "owns" land - but Society requires ownership to function. All land was taken from someone else, c'est la vie.

2. You cannot control what citizens believe (well....) but we are talking about non-citizens and directed society growth here. So, I am not sure what your point is. But I will take a stab at answering -- nothing to be done, if they are citizens....domestic policy-wise, there are options I suppose. Look at Haredi Jews in Israel - culturally / functionally, they are an issue within Israel. Would I have an issue, for example, if the government were to limit and control immigration of that group (which is relatively small, but lets assume there are a billion)? No. Would I have an issue if the US decided to implement policy to prevent Haredi from exploiting the social safety nets in the US? No. In both cases, we are specifically targeting a group (discrimination), however, it would be foolish to pretend we are not addressing a real issue due to a fundamental and intractable incompatibility in culture.

People drone on and on about Islamaphobia and moderate muslims and other nonsense. But lets be real here -- there are deep cultural differences between the West and the MAJORITY of Islamic countries. Whether we are talking about views on gender, sexual orientation or law. People need to stop lying about this stuff - every single poll (EVERY SINGLE ONE) makes this clear.

For an example, here is a light read:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/04/27/the ... lim-world/

When we get into more specific questions ("should homosexuality be illegal" or "should apostates be punished" or "should all women dress modestly" or "should polygamy be legal") we start seeing even more pronounced divides. While I am personally of the opinion that each country should be free in setting societal norms and laws (even if I disagree with them), I *think* that most Americans would say...."hey, I am not cool with any of those ideas and I would like to protect our society against that".

So what is the solution? I don't know.

Terrorism is a secondary concern. Proper assimilation of ANYONE reduces potential terrorism (which is accomplished through education and/or prosperity). I don't think screening out people who will be less likely to properly assimilate, due to cultural incompatibility, is inherently bad. It's a conversation that needs to be had, with measures in place to attain the ultimate goal -- the goal being a country that accepts all and all want to assimilate, prosper and respect a unique society.

[ManaMan]

Both the Alt-Right and White Privilege could be their own topics. This thread is about the Presidential election.

...but while we're on the subject, this sums up my view of the Alt-Right:

[kali o.]

[Julius Seeker]

Woah woah....maybe you misunderstood the word climate (perhaps I should have said narrative) but it was clear I was talking about alt right and their "responding" to the issues.

But to your actual comment...fun fact, what demo makes up the largest group living below the poverty line? You guessed it - white males! Privilege!!

White males have the highest poverty rate? Males, no; but in North America whites probably are the largest group in poverty. It makes mathematical sense considering the population of whites make up about 70% of the population of Canada and the US. Many of them live in monocultured conservative states - poor education and poor economies. While the majority of non-whites tend to live in the wealthier liberalized states. As for men vs. Women earning below the poverty line, a quick Google search reveals the median female earner earns 79% the median make earner, which means white women would make up the largest group below the poverty line.

The part I am finding a head-scratcher is that there is a climate of "being white is bad, and being male is bad.". This clearly isn't the climate anywhere. Perhaps according to crazy right-winged people like Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones, whose parents probably beat them daily with bibles; but these are also the sort of people who believe in chem trails. In the small fantasy bubbles they reside in, they might actually believe these sorts of things are true; but, it just isn't he case in reality.

[kali o.]

Dont believe ya -- cant troll me into responding to that. You already admitted to being an avid watcher of TYT -- no way you are oblivious to race politics,white guilt, etc. Your median income to poverty conclusion was too obviously stupid to suck me in...

[Replay]

I am not sure "kill all gays" is on the altright agenda (as far as you can set an agenda), so what precisely do you want me to say...? As usual, your vague anecdotes don't leave much room for discussion.

It is on the agenda of some of the alt-right, certainly. You don't seem to know who you are standing next to in that movement.

1. I'd suggest the Indians wage a war to take their land back or stfu and drop the issue (and enjoy the tax status and other privileges). No one "owns" land - but Society requires ownership to function. All land was taken from someone else, c'est la vie.

That would certainly explain your position on "renovictions" and the like. Back in the real world, taking other people's homes away without discussion of the issue or economic justice issues involved is not a beloved human behavior.

It is, however, one of the many immoral behaviors that our corporatist markets will pay a premium for - ironically enough, because the level of sociopathy and emotional blunting needed on the part of evictors is still blessedly rather rare among humans with actual compassion. Markets will undoubtedly pay a premium for bad behavior that makes money, though...

2. You cannot control what citizens believe (well....) but we are talking about non-citizens and directed society growth here. So, I am not sure what your point is. But I will take a stab at answering -- nothing to be done, if they are citizens....domestic policy-wise, there are options I suppose. Look at Haredi Jews in Israel - culturally / functionally, they are an issue within Israel. Would I have an issue, for example, if the government were to limit and control immigration of that group (which is relatively small, but lets assume there are a billion)? No. Would I have an issue if the US decided to implement policy to prevent Haredi from exploiting the social safety nets in the US? No. In both cases, we are specifically targeting a group (discrimination), however, it would be foolish to pretend we are not addressing a real issue due to a fundamental and intractable incompatibility in culture.

First of all, let's all pretend that you meant "million" instead of billion, or you are demographically disqualifying yourself from discussion through ignorance. It's not quite Gary Johnson's "what is Aleppo", but I doubt you're paying much attention. There are not even close to a billion Jewish people in the world; Israel's total population is some 8-10 million, as I recall. I doubt the population of the Haredim in Israel is even one million, but it could be approaching that worldwide.

The analogy breaks down, however - precisely because of the demographics. There *are* one billion Muslims in the world; and because there are so many, they cannot be unified - or profiled effectively in any way - the way that one might profile the Haredim. Haredim all share some very, very fundamentally hyperconservative characteristics - and contrary to what you believe, Muslims as a group do not.

But your next quote betrays the notion that you think all Muslims are as extremist as the Haredim, so...

People drone on and on about Islamaphobia and moderate muslims and other nonsense.

Moderate Muslims exist all over the place; they just get no press. I'm not surprised you don't know any, though, or imply that their existence is "nonsense".

But lets be real here -- there are deep cultural differences between the West and the MAJORITY of Islamic countries. Whether we are talking about views on gender, sexual orientation or law. People need to stop lying about this stuff - every single poll (EVERY SINGLE ONE) makes this clear.

For an example, here is a light read:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/04/27/the ... lim-world/

"EVERY SINGLE ONE", eh?

Can you show us all of them, please?

When we get into more specific questions ("should homosexuality be illegal" or "should apostates be punished" or "should all women dress modestly" or "should polygamy be legal") we start seeing even more pronounced divides. While I am personally of the opinion that each country should be free in setting societal norms and laws (even if I disagree with them), I *think* that most Americans would say...."hey, I am not cool with any of those ideas and I would like to protect our society against that".

So what is the solution? I don't know.

Terrorism is a secondary concern. Proper assimilation of ANYONE reduces potential terrorism (which is accomplished through education and/or prosperity). I don't think screening out people who will be less likely to properly assimilate, due to cultural incompatibility, is inherently bad. It's a conversation that needs to be had, with measures in place to attain the ultimate goal -- the goal being a country that accepts all and all want to assimilate, prosper and respect a unique society.

I dispute the notion that you are in any way qualified to do the screening, Kali.

Remember, you wanted to delegitimate me here on a rather permanent basis by comparing me to neo-Nazis over my own criticism of Israeli policy - you mentioned that you wanted to "go looking for other boards out calling me a neo-Nazi", as I recall. (This despite the fact that you rather assiduously defended the right of the young American neo-Nazi I confronted on the street this year to wear a swastika under our laws, but we'll ignore that for the moment.)

My reminder that by going out looking for other people's collective, mob-mentality opinions to try to destroy my credibility - if not my life generally, as those are serious accusations - you behaved more like the Nazis than I ever could...well, that point was lost then, and it is still lost now it seems.

Surprise surprise, you have failed to this day to find anything, and we will leave it at that.

I will simply state that both your demographic error and your past history of exulting in dishonesty and manipulation do not give credence or hope to the idea that you are in any way qualified to change U.S. immigration law.

You are also still not a U.S. citizen yourself, despite spending a great deal of time down in Los Angeles, correct?

[kali o.]

It is on the agenda of some of the alt-right, certainly. You don't seem to know who you are standing next to in that movement.

Don't be stupid. Racists (or insert any term here) have supported every president and been part of every movement, throughout history. You do not malign due to exceptions and outliers unless you are interested in being dishonest.

First of all, let's all pretend that you meant "million" instead of billion, or you are demographically disqualifying yourself from discussion through ignorance. It's not quite Gary Johnson's "what is Aleppo", but I doubt you're paying much attention. There are not even close to a billion Jewish people in the world; Israel's total population is some 8-10 million, as I recall. I doubt the population of the Haredim in Israel is even one million, but it could be approaching that worldwide.

The analogy breaks down, however - precisely because of the demographics. There *are* one billion Muslims in the world; and because there are so many, they cannot be unified - or profiled effectively in any way - the way that one might profile the Haredim. Haredim all share some very, very fundamentally hyperconservative characteristics - and contrary to what you believe, Muslims as a group do not.

No, I meant a billion, as it was an analogy. I fail to see any legitimacy to your objection in comparison. The Haredi have their cultural beliefs, I am dealing with a single population and they are a statistically valid sample. At no point in the analogy did I attempt confound populations with varying beliefs. I have no doubt the Muslim population in Turkey holds differing views from those in Pakistan -- and the question remains how each of those beliefs and values assimilate within western society. Any screening of applicants would be on a country by country basis anyway, as a screening based on religious background would likely fail under legal challenge.

"EVERY SINGLE ONE", eh?

Can you show us all of them, please?

Well, how intellectually dishonest of you. If you want to challenge my assertion, for which I have already provided support for, feel free to provide a recognised poll that disputes my statement.

I dispute the notion that you are in any way qualified to do the screening, Kali.

I do not recall stating I was...so what are you babbling about?

You are also still not a U.S. citizen yourself, despite spending a great deal of time down in Los Angeles, correct?

I have lost track of who I am pretending to be at this point, to play into your delusions, so I am afraid I am not sure of the correct answer.

[Replay]

Don't be stupid. Racists (or insert any term here) have supported every president and been part of every movement, throughout history. You do not malign due to exceptions and outliers unless you are interested in being dishonest.

The irony of you preaching to anyone about dishonesty is not lost on me.

Back on topic, racism is not an "exception or outlier" in alt-right thought. The term was, after all, coined by Richard B. Spencer during the founding of the website Alternative Right.

You may wish to read up on his views, which promote a "white homeland" for a "dispossessed white race", calling for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to stop the "deconstruction" of white culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer

No, I meant a billion, as it was an analogy.

You have a very, very hard time admitting it when you are wrong, don't you?

I fail to see any legitimacy to your objection in comparison. The Haredi have their cultural beliefs...

That is "Haredim". "Haredi" is the adjective form. You may wish to investigate how plurals work in Hebrew...most especially before you attack aspects of my own Jewish ancestry, as you have here in the past.

I am dealing with a single population and they are a statistically valid sample. At no point in the analogy did I attempt confound populations with varying beliefs. I have no doubt the Muslim population in Turkey holds differing views from those in Pakistan -- and the question remains how each of those beliefs and values assimilate within western society. Any screening of applicants would be on a country by country basis anyway, as a screening based on religious background would likely fail under legal challenge.

The United States already screens immigrants.

Your essential argument is that we must screen Muslims more heavily than other immigrants.

Kindly explain how this would not be a screening based on religious background under any other name.

"EVERY SINGLE ONE", eh?

Can you show us all of them, please?

Well, how intellectually dishonest of you. If you want to challenge my assertion, for which I have already provided support for, feel free to provide a recognised poll that disputes my statement.

Of course there are "deep cultural differences between the West and the MAJORITY of Islamic countries". There are deep cultural differences between the United States and Canada, for crying out loud.

But statements like "EVERY SINGLE ONE" show that you're not particularly interested in using real science here to prove an argument. There is no way that you have read "EVERY SINGLE" poll on the issue, nor have you provided more than one. The all-caps on the phrasing betrays a certain emotionality you have on the issue as well. Indeed even the poll you mentioned reveals sharp differences in how Muslims themselves view religious law, with 78% of Pakistanis recommending strict adherence to the Qu'ran, as opposed to 13% of Turks, lending support to my own argument that Muslims worldwide are not enough of a homogenous population to justify your policy suggestion.

I dispute the notion that you are in any way qualified to do the screening, Kali.

I do not recall stating I was...so what are you babbling about?

So who will do the screening? If you are not qualified to do it, or to shape the policy in question, then why are you promoting the policy in question?

You are also still not a U.S. citizen yourself, despite spending a great deal of time down in Los Angeles, correct?

I have lost track of who I am pretending to be at this point, to play into your delusions, so I am afraid I am not sure of the correct answer.

Ah, yes. You are losing the argument, so it is time to pull out the ol' "call-your-opponent-crazy" card.

I am still quite unsure of why you are spending so much time trying to influence our electoral cycle if you hold no U.S. citizenship - and if you do, then you have been even more dishonest with this community than I am aware of.

[Replay]

Really, Kal - it's just so stomach-turning to watch the hypocrisy. Poor Muslim immigrants should be screened more heavily than others, due to fears of improper assimilation, driven possibly by hysteria about Muslim immigrant rapes in Europe - but rich Canadian realtors who take sex junkets to Thailand with money used from "renovicting" the poor, that's all good, right? Rapes and bombing buildings are bad - but tearing down buildings and evicting the poor lawfully, and taking sex junkets to places where underage sex is legal, those are the "Western values" we are trying to protect...?

--------------

I'm worried about Muslim violence against the United States myself...because we keep doing violence to them abroad, hideous dishonest hypocritical money-driven political violence, wrapped in the flag and in declarations of war and "peacekeeping" - and it is natural that they will retaliate. We wouldn't have a refugee problem if we weren't destabilizing every Middle Eastern country with "quiet war" shenanigans - I mean, look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya...the three countries in which we most outright engaged in warfare and "nation-building" are by now quite proven to be dismal policy failures, and this notion that the Syrian unrest is just a "civil war" has to go. The refugees are being made homeless because Western powers - and Russia, and probably others - are all partaking in a free-for-all backing various rebel groups there, trying to grab control of yet another oil-rich country with the usual proxy wars.

But my calls to investigate and end those wars and false "peacekeeping" operations keep falling on the deaf ears of a nation and world community that doesn't want to hear it - so...

Anyway, despite the evidence that you provide that there are indeed untrustworthy people who want to emigrate to the United States, I will for now continue to stand by the ideals of the Statue of Liberty and the New Colossus written upon it. I think the refugees are going to cause no shortage of problems as refugees usually do. But it is essentially our goddamned fault that they are homeless, so I'll support giving them a home here over watching them starve and capsize and drown abroad...no matter how much some people don't want to hear it.

[Replay]

Back on topic, South Park nailed it on this election. It's nice to see Parker and Stone back into deep, biting, satire.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/201 ... 0-premiere

I might be done posting for awhile, ironically. Just not feeling it anymore. Since I can't really leave (or a few people start saying things behind my back they won't say to my face) I guess I won't really leave and I won't really stay. I'll just pull my best Lord Voldemort and show up and hiss when someone mentions my name.

Have fun, everyone.

[kali o.]

....but rich Canadian realtors who take sex junkets to Thailand with money used from "renovicting" the poor, that's all good, right?

Yes.

Ps - I love that you brought up Thailand. You should study up on South Thailand (since you dont travel...). Just further evidence that aspects of muslims often translates into not playing well with others. Name a country, it will likely have a muslim "problem".

I shouldnt have to be worried about my hotel being bombed by terrorists when I am supposed to be enjoying diddling underage boys and girls. Try looking at it from my perspective and have some sympathy.

[Julius Seeker]

One party, the Greens, has combatting this at the top of their agenda. Unfortunately, they have no chance of getting any votes and only really detract from the only other party that currently has it on their agenda to continue increasing investments in green and environmentally friendly technology. That's the Democrats.. The third party, he Republicans, lacks the intelligence to believe in global warming, to them it's one of those conspiracies like dinosaurs, evolution, and the Palaeolithic era.

The Republicans were at a time huge supporters of environmentalism, but starting from Reagan removing the White House's solar panels, they have been seemingly at war with it. Obama is the first US President to really move things along, in his 8 years he bumped renewable energy production from 8.49% to 13.44% of the US's total output; a nearly 60% share increase. Expect that the Democrats would at least maintain those policies. The technologies developed in the US will be crucial to the worldwide reduction in greenhouse gasses and other toxic chemicals being pumped into the world's air supply.

This is currently the most important issue facing the world. It results from overpopulation, poor education, and destructive economic practices; all of which need to be combated as well. The current Republicans are heavy supporters of uneducated anything, anti-science, poor economic practices, and trying to have people pop out as many babies as possible.

There is literally no reason to vote the Republicans except out of petty stupid things like "I dun like Hallary!!!" Or "I wants me walls to guard against the Ayyrab terrorist caming in from Maxico." This is the issue with Democracy that we've known about for literally two and a half thousand years; and we should be over it by now! Democracy can be a great system, but the people voting require intelligence and education.

No one should be voting for demagogues like Trump. Those that do should be ridiculed and shamed. He's not a leader, he has no policies, his whole campaign is about pandering to the prejudices of the morons. Trump and the current Republican Party should be run out of the US government. They represent the worst of democracy.

[Replay]

Ps - I love that you brought up Thailand. You should study up on South Thailand (since you dont travel...). Just further evidence that aspects of muslims often translates into not playing well with others. Name a country, it will likely have a muslim "problem".

The West has been systematically disenfranchising them for sixty years or more - instituting coups against their countries, playing the dirtiest of shadow politics, and killing hundreds of thousands of them. The death count is well over a million since 1948 by now, if not up into the several millions, as well as several million who have lost their homes or had them confiscated.

Generally it's over oil. I'm surprised we don't have more problems with them.

You, as usual, either don't know your history or don't care. The following six articles represent only a very, very small cross section of Western coups and ethnic cleansings against the Muslim world, but they are informative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan

Also, I do travel internationally, and have been to Cairo, Johannesburg, London, and Puerto Vallarta. The Egyptians were quite kind to me, by the way.

I have not been to Thailand though - I have no interest. I spend enough time in the States trying to get some free time away from women who want me to sleep with them these days.

I can offer you some tips if you like, so you don't have to go fly halfway across the world to get laid.

[Replay]

You know what is funny though? Every time you act like a giant asshole towards me, you continue to wreck Trump's chances in the general election.

See, I'm fuckin' sick of the lies at the heart of the Clinton campaign. She is increasingly in desperation mode because millenials largely don't like her, and Trump has tied up the polls. So she's pandering to millenials like crazy...but I doubt she's gonna return that Goldman Sachs money or agree to support the Middle Eastern peace process again, so she can't get my vote. I found it very interesting that she collapsed at the 9/11 memorial; guilt can be a powerful thing. H.W. Bush just essentially came out and endorsed her, too, which ought to be a warning sign for anyone who remembers how bad the Bush establishments were for America.

But every time I consider voting for Trump because every member of the current U.S. establishment/espionage treasonous set that I hate has come out to speak out against him, I remember who *his* fucking base is.

It's you. It's the Israeli white supremacist who was trolling Bernie Sanders' page earlier this year, tagging #whitegirlsaremagic and acting like he wanted to throw up if anyone talked about non-Caucasian women - and who tagged a bunch of U.S. espionage agencies himself when he was called out on it. It's the people who turned Pepe the Frog from a sleepy Internet meme into a racist pile of resentments. It's the modern Know-Nothings out in the desert shooting illegal immigrants and denying all knowledge when the police question them about it.

So I end up being forced to conclude that Trump does not represent any kind of significant change to the political system...just a switchover from the globalist, politically-correct, P.C., quietly-murderous-under-the-surface establishment we have now, to a more overtly murderous, angry, full-of-white-resentments establishment.

It won't get any better, nor less corrupt.

Terrible fuckin' election year. It's very, very worrying that so many people in America are willing to support these two greedy liars. Just bad all over the place.

Our country needs to wake up and remember that money isn't everything.

[kali o.]

Egyptians are meek people. Very passive. But that said, if it wasnt for the military presence (visible and not visible) that is primarily tasked with protecting the tourism industry, many of those meek and friendly Egyptians would stab you for a nickel.

As for the rest of what you wrote -- I have no interest in playing the blame game with foreign policy. I just wanted you to acknowledge there was a muslim problem. Which you did. No excuses are needed beyond that.

Lets make America great again.

[Julius Seeker]

Canadian elections: Which party has the policies that I agree with? Otherwise, did the last party succeed and should I vote for them again?
US election: Which Presidential candidate's insults and scandal accusations about the other do I believe the most.

On the topic of scandals:

[Replay]

Egyptians are meek people. Very passive. But that said, if it wasnt for the military presence (visible and not visible) that is primarily tasked with protecting the tourism industry, many of those meek and friendly Egyptians would stab you for a nickel.

Maybe. And then again, maybe not. I didn't particularly see a lot of military presence there...but this was decades ago, before decades of bad Western foreign policy remilitarized the entire region.

I can't help but note as well that if not for the paramilitary police presence in the United States, a lot of gangbangers here would stab me for free - just to distract themselves from the hell and psychosis of their own lives.

Do we thus have a platform to stand on?

I also have little doubt but that you would stab me for a nickel - if not for that pesky chance that you might get caught, and actually get in trouble for your misdeeds for once. So where is your own platform to criticize?

As for the rest of what you wrote -- I have no interest in playing the blame game with foreign policy. I just wanted you to acknowledge there was a muslim problem. Which you did. No excuses are needed beyond that.

Nope, I don't think we do have a "Muslim problem".

I think we have a warmongering problem, a deeply-unequal society problem, a sociopaths-with-money-and-power problem, a police brutality problem, an inner-city-rot-due-to-poverty problem, and a lot of other problems, though.

Most of the Muslims I have ever met treat me like a person, and with kindness. That is because I treat them like people, and with kindness.

Most of the Westerners with "Muslim problems" should try it some time.

Lets make America great again.

You aren't American.

The irony of a foreigner with questionable ethics telling us that we need to ban foreigners with questionable ethics should not be lost on anyone, I hope.

And with that I really hope to be done here. Just as with Facebook, I dislike spending time where powerful, murderous sociopaths have taken power.

It's sad that it has happened on a site I created; but then again, I gave it away - a lesson for me in the future with things that matter more about the nature of our world, and about giving away power.

Just remember though, Kal - you "have" this place because I gave it away...and that still seems to bother you.

[kali o.]

For the record, I wouldnt be "caught" - so your theory is off.

...and yes, I "have" this place. It is the cornerstone of my little piece of the Order empire. I wield global power but sit here on a throne made of lies, and trade barbs with a mentally ill fellow forum member.

PS - Something seems off in that narrative above

Anyway, gotta catch up on the debate. Peace.

[Replay]

If your position is that you are not only making death threats against me but that you are certain you can kill me without consequence - and are so full of certainty that you can do it that you want it on the record, at that - then you have provided a lot of support for my position.

To wit, we do not have a "Muslim problem".

We have a problem that we have allowed a great many violent, murderous, dishonest people to take power in Western society, and those people - who do not respect the value of human life, as you do not respect the value of human life - have provoked endless, needless war with one billion of the world's people in the name of cultural war, geopolitics, and resource grabs.

As far as the rest goes - don't worry, I am much less worried about your relationship with "the Order" than I used to be. If you were truly anyone important in the world's power structure, you would be part of the grand establishment coming out of the woodwork to aggrandize for Hillary right now...not Trump.

[kali o.]

*woooosh*

To wit: Those with real power seek to dismantle and destabilize the internal more than the external.

See what I did there again? (Probably not).

[ManaMan]

I'm going to hire my own personal ninja assassins for you both if you don't stop it.

[kali o.]

I've been trolling since at least 1996 - well before it was all cool and mainstream and alt righty.

You will not take away my constitutional right to troll, libtard. Not even under threat of totally believable ninja violence.

[Oracle]

I've been trolling since at least 1996 - well before it was all cool and mainstream and alt righty.

You will not take away my constitutional right to troll, libtard. Not even under threat of totally believable ninja violence.

Sure, you're 'trolling'. Likely distraction from your murderous ways!

[Replay]

To wit: Those with real power seek to dismantle and destabilize the internal more than the external.

Actually, those with the greatest power usually seek to make, not to break. Those with actual courage and heart don't usually seek to dismantle and destabilize. They seek to build; to create, to seek and produce happiness for themselves and those around them.

People who don't make - so can only take - are of course locked into such a pattern of dismantling and destabilizing in the hopes that others' creations will fall to them.

[kali o.]

Actually, those with the greatest power usually seek to make, not to break. Those with actual courage and heart don't usually seek to dismantle and destabilize. They seek to build; to create, to seek and produce happiness for themselves and those around them.

People who don't make - so can only take - are of course locked into such a pattern of dismantling and destabilizing in the hopes that others' creations will fall to them.

Could you name some of these powerful happy-makers? I am just curious if they are in my rolodex...

[Julius Seeker]

[ManaMan]

I think it's great how Obama's approval rating keeps going up. It's like people are now realizing: "Oh, he actually was a pretty good president comparatively".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallu ... roval.aspx

[Julius Seeker]

Admit it, you'd vote for him over the others!

[kali o.]

I think Donald is made of pure Teflon and the last week has convinced me of two things; voters are stupid and the media is approaching epic levels of dishonesty/tabloidism.

Trump should never be president though...but the sad thing is, America really can't afford much longer of the status quo (aka Hilary). You guys are fucked either way. Time to break the system. Good luck.

[ManaMan]

I think Donald is made of pure Teflon and the last week has convinced me of two things; voters are stupid and the media is approaching epic levels of dishonesty/tabloidism.

Trump should never be president though...but the sad thing is, America really can't afford much longer of the status quo (aka Hilary). You guys are fucked either way. Time to break the system. Good luck.

Wait, I thought that you were a hard-core Trump supporter!

Or were you just in it for the whole "burn it all down and start from scratch" thing?

[ManaMan]

A little late but this is funny.

[kali o.]

Wait, I thought that you were a hard-core Trump supporter!

Or were you just in it for the whole "burn it all down and start from scratch" thing?

Nah, it probably just comes off that way because I am playing whatever role-of-the-week I made up for Mental/Replay...honestly, even sometimes I get lost in the blurred lines.

I get pretty pissed off, though, when the media spins dishonestly. For his hot mic thing, from the portrayal of the media, Trump walks around grabbing chicks by the pussy while they whimper in fear -- it absolutely isn't tawdry guy speak (which no male uses in real life, and no females either!) and should be taken as literally as possible...because this issue is important and people are not stupid.... The guy was a reality TV celebrity, not a politician. I am sure his past is fully of cheap sound bites and video. Fuck off -- it's a non-issue.

But that aside...Trump...as president...? Are you fucking kidding me? This is the best America can offer for the job? He is a reality TV celebrity....not a politician.

The US needs an America first policy for a decade or two. The government squandered prosperity from the 90's and mortgaged your futures, spending lavishly and working towards globalization. Problem is -- things aren't prosperous and the policies are now running on fumes. Hilary isn't going to change anything and the US can't afford that.

PS - yes that photo is funny.

[ManaMan]

The US needs an America first policy for a decade or two. The government squandered prosperity from the 90's and mortgaged your futures, spending lavishly and working towards globalization. Problem is -- things aren't prosperous and the policies are now running on fumes. Hilary isn't going to change anything and the US can't afford that.

What do you think this would look like? Avoiding foreign military entanglements? Tariffs?

[kali o.]

What do you think this would look like? Avoiding foreign military entanglements? Tariffs?

Serious economic and tax reform. I'm not smart enough to figure out those details, but closing international tax loopholes, encouraging investment in domestic manufacturing / resources, etc. When the US gets to compete on a global stage with other countries that pay a fraction of wages and far less in benefits, you end up with the US being slowly removed from several important industries. That might work in some fairy tale where the US suddenly moves to a service / product economy and everyone magically moves up a level, but that's not how it works. In the same manner a country protects and invests in the food production sectors, so too should they for manufacturing and resources.

Could you introduce tariffs to equalize the discrepancy on a country by country basis? I guess. I am not sure what is legal and what isn't. But there should be a solution that is adjusted annually.

Illegal immigration remains a serious issue. You've got a big drain with social safety nets domestically; never mind illegals that don't pay any taxes. It's not racist to protect your borders and deport illegals without a legitimate sanctuary concern.

2017 is going to see interest rates start trending upwards. And that is actually both good news and bad news, but with serious economic ramifications. They couldn't be held low much longer and the actual consequences of the last decade will start to emerge.

I am not sure how I feel about military stuff. Depends what you mean by entanglements. I think it deserves to be invested in, though, and international bases make sense. I think the military could probably use some better cost controls though; and nation building shouldn't be something the US ever does again. The US should do a better job of cooperation with allies abroad, and offload the financial burden in some manner. Things like Gitmo need to go and the US should do a bit of soul searching to shrug off the remnants of the Bush fear era and retake the moral high ground with sensible foreign policy (note: this is not to be confused with leftist progressive SJW nonsense).

Trump doesn't have solutions -- though he might manage to introduce a few ham-fisted bandaids. Actually, I really liked Ron Paul for the above issues. It is a shame the republicans/media screwed him over and I think the US lost an opportunity for a legitimate reformer.

[Julius Seeker]

2:00 to the end.

[ManaMan]

Serious economic and tax reform. I'm not smart enough to figure out those details, but closing international tax loopholes, encouraging investment in domestic manufacturing / resources, etc. When the US gets to compete on a global stage with other countries that pay a fraction of wages and far less in benefits, you end up with the US being slowly removed from several important industries. That might work in some fairy tale where the US suddenly moves to a service / product economy and everyone magically moves up a level, but that's not how it works. In the same manner a country protects and invests in the food production sectors, so too should they for manufacturing and resources.

Could you introduce tariffs to equalize the discrepancy on a country by country basis? I guess. I am not sure what is legal and what isn't. But there should be a solution that is adjusted annually.

I've thought for a long time that the US should have per-nation tariffs adjusted regularly that adjust for differences in things like:

• Environmental Regulations
• Labor Regulations
• Government subsidies
• Taxes

...basically anything that affects the cost of manufacturing. While I think that most environmental & labor regulations are probably good things, they do impose costs on businesses. How much do they cost US businesses? How well are they enforced in other nations? If a manufacturer in the US has to pay to haul away dangerous wastes, keep the factory safe, pay for health insurance, sick time, vacation, etc. while a manufacturer in nation X can just externalize these costs (dump waste, run sweatshops) it's unfair. Both to the businesses & the workers. I think without it, free trade is somewhat undemocratic: it encourages a race to the bottom for fewer environmental & labor regulations to attract the coveted jobs. That's probably the idea.

Illegal immigration remains a serious issue. You've got a big drain with social safety nets domestically; never mind illegals that don't pay any taxes. It's not racist to protect your borders and deport illegals without a legitimate sanctuary concern.

While I think many immigration fears are overblown, nations DO have the right to control their borders & immigration. Also, culture is very important to a nation and too much immigration too fast changes culture. This causes backlash and racism, etc. You see this with Trump. A lot of pro-immigration folks are *really* open-border folks. There is an argument to be made for open borders but at least be honest about it. That being said, immigration is necessary in advanced nations. It drives economic growth. Just look at Japan, one of the most xenophobic nations. It's economy's been in the toilet for decades now. They need new people but they only want Japanese people. Problem is, with economic success birthrates fall and Japan's is one of the lowest. Their obsession with life-like robots is largely driven by their xenophobia.

[ManaMan]

Good analysis from Ezra Klein of How Clinton has used the debates to take out Trump: