POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Drydess]

honestly nobody likes the jews tho

of course jew of all people would say this

[Ad Bot]

[Rally]

KikeTheGeneric

it's inherently ridiculous to say that I don't respect conservatives. I live in the south where 90% of my friends and acquaintances and even my family are both religious and/or conservative.

(I have black friends so I'm not tribal)

I didn't say anything about conservatives, respecting them, your family, or anything you've ever done offline. You consistently treat people like stuff when you argue with them on this website. I'm not going to read your behavior patterns back to you. Take it as an unfriendly suggestion.

but quickly rally (unintentional) behind users like McJob or Alternative who make ridiculously offensive claims in comparison

I'd ask when but it's irrelevant anyway

did she say something along the lines of "as president im going to shut down breitbart" or did she say something along the lines of "i don't really like breitbart"

Has anyone answered this question yet

[Anthony Fuckstick]

of course jew of all people would say this

Jew have got to be kidding me

[IkeTheGeneric]

of course jew of all people would say this

What did he mean by this?

[Nickelob Ultra]

Annoying Orange isn't going to kill the GOP, political parties are grassroots organizations and the president is only the most prominent public position they hope to fill. both parties are experiencing ideological drift and it's inevitable that this particular era of party dominance (or non-dominance) will eventually end, but as it stands most citizens consider themselves to be conservative and there needs to be a party that represents those beliefs. and if the GOP does fall, it'll be because another party is taking its place (maybe the libertarian party, but it's much more likely that the libertarian party will just merge with republicans just like the tea party)

i'm doubtful on the tapes, but if they turn out to be the real deal then it would definitely be bad news for Annoying Orange, especially this close to the election.
probably cus he says lots of mean things that people apparently don't want their president saying

The only grassroots of either the GOP or Democratic party were Ron Paul in 2012 and Bernie in 2016.  They're grassroots in history only, and even so the presidency is only one arm of control, controlling the house and/or senate is easily as effective as controlling the executive.  See the majority of Obama's presidency, house and senate were practically Republican and our government has done very little relative to what it could do.

I definitely look forward to more parties though, what people label the GOP to be today cannot win in the future as younger voters are coming up and older voters die off or stop caring (I'm talking of the more religious types and borderline extremist types in the party, e.g. Ted Cruz, etc.).  I can only hope that at least this election will serve to pave the way for the other parties to gain some more momentum.

[Poliwhirl]

bill at the debates

[e-maxx]

Tryin' to spot dat ass

[otto-san]

The only grassroots of either the GOP or Democratic party were Ron Paul in 2012 and Bernie in 2016.  They're grassroots in history only, and even so the presidency is only one arm of control, controlling the house and/or senate is easily as effective as controlling the executive.  See the majority of Obama's presidency, house and senate were practically Republican and our government has done very little relative to what it could do.

I definitely look forward to more parties though, what people label the GOP to be today cannot win in the future as younger voters are coming up and older voters die off or stop caring (I'm talking of the more religious types and borderline extremist types in the party, e.g. Ted Cruz, etc.).  I can only hope that at least this election will serve to pave the way for the other parties to gain some more momentum.

sorry, i should have clarified that i meant party control is mostly grassroots. party control on a national level is fairly weak because they hold no power over individual members, local party leaders are the ones who are ultimately always more powerful within the party structure. representatives and senators in congress and state legislatures, as well as officials of municipal governments, all have much more real power compared to the national committee. it's a bottom-up structure rather than a top-down one, and Annoying Orange being a bad candidate just means they'll lose favorability by some margin this election and likely gain back lost ground at midterm. this structure means that there doesn't need to be any direction from the top for change to happen, if the majority of party members change, the party will naturally change as well. it's a unit that's characterized by its composition. the goal of a party is just to get people into office, and as long as the GOP can form coalitions that pull lots of votes across the nation, they'll remain powerful.

i do definitely expect that younger conservatives (and honestly liberals too) who go into politics will take with them a much more libertarian ideology, and so the ideological compositions of the parties will shift accordingly as these people start getting into office.

[Tactical Nuke]

sorry, i should have clarified that i meant party control is mostly grassroots. party control on a national level is fairly weak because they hold no power over individual members, local party leaders are the ones who are ultimately always more powerful within the party structure. representatives and senators in congress and state legislatures, as well as officials of municipal governments, all have much more real power compared to the national committee. it's a bottom-up structure rather than a top-down one, and Annoying Orange being a bad candidate just means they'll lose favorability by some margin this election and likely gain back lost ground at midterm. this structure means that there doesn't need to be any direction from the top for change to happen, if the majority of party members change, the party will naturally change as well. it's a unit that's characterized by its composition. the goal of a party is just to get people into office, and as long as the GOP can form coalitions that pull lots of votes across the nation, they'll remain powerful.

i do definitely expect that younger conservatives (and honestly liberals too) who go into politics will take with them a much more libertarian ideology, and so the ideological compositions of the parties will shift accordingly as these people start getting into office.

Another thing people like to talk about (I can guess mczealot likes to talk to himself about this in his sleep) is that if Annoying Orange loses, the alt-right will fall. Farther from the truth than the GOP falling. Just listen to our ringleader.

[beachbum111111]

Another thing people like to talk about (I can guess mczealot likes to talk to himself about this in his sleep) is that if Annoying Orange loses, the alt-right will fall. Farther from the truth than the GOP falling. Just listen to our ringleader.

The friendstuff is not the alt right ringleader

[Tactical Nuke]

The friendstuff is not the alt right ringleader

Maybe not but he's one of us at the very least

[Magus]

They say that if you don't learn history, you'll end up repeating it.
This is, of course, false. But it sure does rhyme.
Let's go on this adventure of comparing modern times to the buildup to WW2.
Recently we've moved from monopolar (America forget yeah) to a more multipolar world (the U.S. has to share with Russia, China, etc.) Multipolar is less stable than monopolar.
The world in 1929 was multipolar. Then, the great depression happened.
The great recession happened in 2008.
In the 1930s, radical leaders took over, such as Riddler, Stalin, Blue Meanie, Franco, and Tojo.
In recent times, we've had Brexit, a resurgence in nationalist and/or fascist parties across Europe (such as the Golden Dawn in Greece), Annoying Orange, Sanders, radicals everywhere.
It took a war to end the great depression.
We are still feeling the effects of the great recession.
Further, America has been incredibly divided, through politics, through race, through class.
Is it possible for us to recover from the great recession without WW3?
Where do we go from here?
And worst of all, it's going to be us that have to figure this out (as my ICE teacher is fond of reminding us).

[SeventhSandwich]

Recently we've moved from monopolar (America forget yeah) to a more multipolar world (the U.S. has to share with Russia, China, etc.) Multipolar is less stable than monopolar.

Your terminology is confusing here, but if you're talking about spheres of influence, the United States has more military might than pretty much every other country combined. We're more monopolar in that respect than back during the Cold War.

It took a war to end the great depression.
We are still feeling the effects of the great recession.
Further, America has been incredibly divided, through politics, through race, through class.
Is it possible for us to recover from the great recession without WW3?

We didn't get into WWII in order to exit the Great Depression (or at least that's not the consensus among historians). Likewise, the Great Recession is pretty much over already by most people's measure.

[Jairo]

They say that if you don't learn history, you'll end up repeating it.
This is, of course, false. But it sure does rhyme.

that doesn't rhyme

Let's go on this adventure of comparing modern times to the buildup to WW2.
Recently we've moved from monopolar (America forget yeah) to a more multipolar world (the U.S. has to share with Russia, China, etc.) Multipolar is less stable than monopolar.

1. I think you mean unipolar and 2. is multipolarity less stable than unipolarity? I think the opposite would be true

The world in 1929 was multipolar. Then, the great depression happened.

there are a lot of things you could've reasonably attributed the cause of the great depression to, but multipolarity isn't one of them

In the 1930s, radical leaders took over, such as Riddler, Stalin, Blue Meanie, Franco, and Tojo.

as a consequence of the great depression? not entirely. some of the men you've mentioned here came to power for reasons not caused by the economic downturn

In recent times, we've had Brexit, a resurgence in nationalist and/or fascist parties across Europe (such as the Golden Dawn in Greece), Annoying Orange, Sanders, radicals everywhere.

sanders isn't a fascist, nationalist, or radical, so I'm not sure why you mentioned him here

It took a war to end the great depression.

that is indeed true

We are still feeling the effects of the great recession.

the united states maybe, but we and the world have recovered quite a bit since 2008

Further, America has been incredibly divided, through politics, through race, through class.

I've already been picky enough so I won't touch this

Is it possible for us to recover from the great recession without WW3?
Where do we go from here?

we're already doing a pretty bang-up job of recovering right now, so I don't think a world war is very necessary

[Magus]

Your terminology is confusing here, but if you're talking about spheres of influence, the United States has more military might than pretty much every other country combined. We're more monopolar in that respect than back during the Cold War.

Monopolar/multipolar refer to number of superpowers in the world. And yes, we do still retain our military might. But can we still safely act as the world's policeman?

We didn't get into WWII in order to exit the Great Depression (or at least that's not the consensus among historians). Likewise, the Great Recession is pretty much over already by most people's measure.

Well, obviously we didn't go into it specifically because of the depression, but the depression, through the radicalization, caused the war, and helped end it in the U.S. (and then the U.S. threw massive piles of cash around to build up markets to sell products, because poor people can't buy products) We still see the increase in radical movements in many places.
Dunno if this is a reputable source, but:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/01/12/six-years-later-93-of-u-s-counties-havent-recovered-from-recession-study-finds/

that doesn't rhyme
1. I think you mean unipolar and 2. is multipolarity less stable than unipolarity? I think the opposite would be true
there are a lot of things you could've reasonably attributed the cause of the great depression to, but multipolarity isn't one of them

Yes, I did mean unipolar. I guess multipolar might not be quite so war prone when we've got MAD hanging over everybody's heads.
Also, I meant those things happened at the same time, but I wrote that poorly.

sanders isn't a fascist, nationalist, or radical, so I'm not sure why you mentioned him here

Well, maybe slightly radical, what with his talk of a political revolution, but yeah, not quite so radical.

the united states maybe, but we and the world have recovered quite a bit since 2008
I've already been picky enough so I won't touch this
we're already doing a pretty bang-up job of recovering right now, so I don't think a world war is very necessary

I guess this proves I'm not really good at arguing politics. Probably should stop parroting stuff from ICE classes onto the BLF.
Didn't quote the stuff I agree with.
You guys make points I agree with much better than I can, it seems.