A wall wouldn't fix anything... Most illegals come through a plane as tourists or with a visa and overstay. Most drugs come by boat and subteranean tunnels.

Trump is selling the idea of something that works, but that wouldn't change a damn thing. Pretty much his business model really.

^It works for Israel.

40% of illegal immigrants are visa overstays so just use e-verify and biomarker identification to track visa overstays. That means 60% of illegals are coming directly via border crossing, so by building a wall you solve that problem right there. I should remind you that the Berlin Wall worked pretty well for about 50 years.

Obviously the wall is not a one-size fits all solution, but its a good start.

Trump obviously means donations of the size of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. If he tried something like you outline, that would probably become public sooner or later and destroy a lot of Trump's credibility.

Later, Trump only needs several months, and it can just very well not be found out at all. Trump's fanbase wouldn't be hurt, either (since they're not hurt by anything); Trump'd just say "Why is the media saying such negativity? I got to rid this negativity from the media!" and cheers from the crowd. I mean, just look, he's probably the candidate that switched politic parties the most, yet the fanbase does like he is undoubtedly a hard-principled Republican from birth.

Trump needs to get elected. He cannot be very vocal about everything, because then he would inevitably offend somebody and lose votes.

And that's awful, and that awfulness is why awful folk can get picked. Strangely, though, open opinions, more information, less silence, these candiates are actually informing their voters more. Giving more information discourages voting by charisma.

I personally care more about the things he's vocal about than the things he isn't, at least in this election. I will assume that he's going to do something good with regards to the the topics you mentioned - he's a smart guy after all - or at least he isn't going to be a disaster in any of them.

Smart guy? He seems awfully dumb to me in things other than business. In a speech about the wall "Ha, what are the Mexicans going to do? Get a 35-foot ladder? How are they going to get down?" and then mumbles "A rope, maybe.". He just pointed out a critic flaw into building an expensive wall (not border patrol, just the wall itself), and that's not something you should do, even if your supporters are mostly deaf. And he claims that the wall will stop drug smuggling; how's that? The "gates" as are, they usually don't actually go through those, but tunnel under or catapult far above it. He's just taking a new radic approach to polit not often seen in America, and it's working, though it could have just flopped. I have no grounds to think he or any candidate in this election that has a chance are caring for the American folk except for perhaps Sanders. They're caring about themselves and their funders.

Trump does not want the US to be the world police. In fact, he's probably going to wield a lot of power internationally, but rather thanks to good deals than with military power. Let China handle North Korea.

Trump, good internationally?

David Cameron: "If he came to visit our country, I think he would unite us all against him.".

Father Franciscus: "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian...I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that."

These two folk hate his guts, and most foreign diplomats and allies of America are talking bad about Trump. King Salman claimed that Trump was a dirty deadbeat who he saved from bankruptcy twice, even more authoritarian and awful leaders allied with America hate him. He only has decent public approving of Russia.

Let Russia take care of ISIS.

Trump is for staying and going on with the war on Mashriq. Russia is planning to leave Syria, by the way, the first warplanes have started leaving. Now is he ok with Islamic Iran doing the bombings? He's for cutting the Iran nuclear deal, he still puts Iran as part of the "evil". I doubt it, at any rate.

I am absolutely convinced that Trump will apply the US military with more restraint than Obama, Clinton, or Bush.

I find that hard to believe. Bush sucked, maybe more than Donald Trump, so I'm not including him.

A: Obama
B: Clinton
C: Trump

For military drones flying over countries, not needing permission to kill "suspected terrorists"? A, B, C

Upscale the war on Mashriq? B, C

*Send footsoldiers? C

For war upon the SAR? B

Higher military spending? C

Lower military spending? B

Go on with bulk NSA spying and bugging? A, C

you have a protected class of people that it is criminal to criticize.

Yes, Trump definitely is for that, he definitely wants broader libel and "negativity" laws.

Take for instance the case of Gregory Elliott against Stephanie Guthrie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott

Elliott was challenged to court for criticizing a feminist on Twitter. All charges were dropped, but Elliott was prohibited from accessing the internet for 3 years because of it. This is what political correctness actually means. Nothing to do with politeness.

Again, this is just overboard. You can overeat, but to say that eating gives you a belly ache would be misleading.

Cruz only started talking about the wall etc. after he saw Trump having success with it. He probably doesn't care about the issue very much.

Why would Trump logically care more? Anyhow, this is just standard conservative stuff - the immigrants are ruining our country, those bastards are stealing our jobs. Trump just wants to be "grandiose" with it, and his "grandiose" got him his fanbase.

Also, in response to the Ohio attack on Trump, Cruz said that Trump is himself responsible for it because he allegedly encouraged violence.

Trump's been hypocritic on his peace-loving "Folk aren't willing to fight enough today." "If you see someone readying to throw a tomato, knock the hell out of them."

Cruz only talks about illegal immigration because he sees he can get votes with it. But when push comes to shove, he isn't going to stand by his those principles.

Of course he is. Protectionist economy helps American businesses, which are the ones funding Cruz. And this is all assuming that the candidates stand by what they say - they might not, but then it all falls down, Trump might not, Sanders might not. But if you want to talk about that, it seems like Trump has the most flipflop ideology.

There needs to be a strong alternative media as well.

What makes you think that Trump supports alternative media?

It works for Israel.

Does it? As a proportion of population, Israel has 26.5%; America has 14.3%. Besides that, most Arab countries void their passports if they have an Israeli stamp on them, and in reverse. Also, Israel refuses all from most countries in the Middle East, and in reverse; this includes Lebanon, all Syrias (though some Egyptians and Jordanians allowed in).

That means 60% of illegals are coming directly via border crossing, so by building a wall you solve that problem right there.

Yes, since tunnels are 0% of what folk take.

I should remind you that the Berlin Wall worked pretty well for about 50 years.

First, it was much smaller and shorter than Trump plans. Second, it was in urban land - can't really tunnel there easily. Third, there were no powerful crossborder mafias to muck everything up.

Later, Trump only needs several months

Still, it doesn't make sense. Trump owns 8 billion, he doesn't need a million from donors and special interests.

Strangely, though, open opinions, more information, less silence, these candiates are actually informing their voters more.

Realistically, though, no candidate is going to do that. And Trump needs to win. I rather have him win than know exactly what he's going to do with Obamacare in advance.

Smart guy? He seems awfully dumb to me in things other than business.

So far, he has managed to stay the front-runner with positions that would have killed most others. And don't think that just because he's entertaining and wears a blue collar cap means he's an idiot. Ben Carson talked about two Trumps: the loud entertainer, and the thoughtful one behind the scenes.

David Cameron: "If he came to visit our country, I think he would unite us all against him.".

Father Franciscus: "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian...I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that."

Cameron says what he thinks the public wants to hear. Europe is full of delusional thinking about Trump's racism etc because their media has been lying so much.

Franciscus might be a nice guy but he's a lightweight when it comes to politics. He goes with the general trend of opposing evil racist Trump but he won't be able to do anything against Trump even if he wanted.

Upscale the war on Mashriq? B, C

Hard to say. ISIS needs to be defeated, otherwise it grows even larger. Trump might do a small campaign and finance it with oil. Or he might let Russia do it.

Higher military spending? C

Military needs to be strong to prevent conflict. Doesn't mean Trump intends to use it.

Go on with bulk NSA spying and bugging? A, C

I don't like it at all, but B should be included as well.

Yes, Trump definitely is for that, he definitely wants broader libel and "negativity" laws.

American libel laws are very weak. Making them more balanced for both parties doesn't mean he wants to kill freedom of speech.

Again, this is just overboard. You can overeat, but to say that eating gives you a belly ache would be misleading.

This is what PC means in 2016. Certainly, something needs to be done to topple PC culture.

Why would Trump logically care more?

Because Trump talked about it when even his GOP competitors said it's racist. He took tons of 'incoming' for it. Later journalists called him to apologize and admit that he was right, there are problems. Cruz only jumped into the bandwagon when he saw that it gives votes.

Trump's been hypocritic on his peace-loving "Folk aren't willing to fight enough today." "If you see someone readying to throw a tomato, knock the hell out of them."

You don't know what is inside that tomato. Trump is being targeted by professional thugs. They might indeed try to kill him. They have hit his supporters in the past, blocked ambulances. Knocking someone like that out is the exact right thing to do. Trump has not been encouraging unnecessary violence.

Trump might not, Sanders might not. But if you want to talk about that, it seems like Trump has the most flipflop ideology.

There are certain issues that Trump brought up. I doubt he will forget about those issues. He might flip-flop with something like Obamacare because that isn't his main topic.

What makes you think that Trump supports alternative media?

He's fighting the mainstream media. If mainstream media gets weak, alternative media gets stronger by comparison. I don't know if he's a friend of alternative media, but I doubt he's going to shut down the internet. He couldn't do it if he wanted.

Who's alt are you The Lord?

Trump owns 8 billion, he doesn't need a million from donors and special interests.

He obviously does - why do you think he has a "Donate" button at all? And have you thought about himself being a donor and special interest?

Realistically, though, no candidate is going to do that.

Maybe not, but they're certainly doing it more than Trump. Sanders didn't get his voters by saying like "He's going to fix America" "He'll make America great again" "I'm a smart guy.".

So far, he has managed to stay the front-runner with positions that would have killed most others.

Killed? Ha, no, he was just trying new tacts (which happened to work).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeGAnQ6DyJs

He's basically the conservative version of this^. He's just appealing to the low and common folk, while the others are trying to be polite and (somewhat more) logic.

Ben Carson talked about two Trumps: the loud entertainer, and the thoughtful one behind the scenes.

He's a Trump minion, he's not going to be badtalking, obviously.

Cameron says what he thinks the public wants to hear. Europe is full of delusional thinking about Trump's racism etc because their media has been lying so much.

Cameron says what he thinks the public wants to hear - same as Trump.Even most far-right groups in Europe criticise Trump. And do you think Arabia is somehow fooled by its media, too?

Franciscus might be a nice guy but he's a lightweight when it comes to politics. He goes with the general trend of opposing evil racist Trump but he won't be able to do anything against Trump even if he wanted.

He's the Catholic leader. He's not big in polit, but he's definitely big in demography. The Cathols, they listen to Franciscus. That's South and Middle America and elsewhere hating Trump.

Hard to say. ISIS needs to be defeated, otherwise it grows even larger. Trump might do a small campaign and finance it with oil. Or he might let Russia do it.

He says he wants boots on the ground, and for someone who apparently is steadfast on what he says, it's not a might. Also, as I said earlier, Russia's leaving. Will he let Iran do it? Hmm...

Go on with bulk NSA spying and bugging? A, C

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261673-trump-sides-with-rubio-over-cruz-in-nsa-surveillance

http://recode.net/2015/02/24/hillary-rodham-clinton-talks-nsa-presidential-aspirations-with-kara-swisher/

American libel laws are very weak. Making them more balanced for both parties doesn't mean he wants to kill freedom of speech.

He doesn't want to make them more balanced, he says he wants to rid "negativity" and make them stop writing bad things. Libel and slander laws are just stupid and should be taken out fully. They're the first step to ending speech freedom. You know, in Belarus, there is a special libel law: insult the president, you get two years in gaol. And you'd be supporting this same stuff that you hate - folk getting criminally prosecuted for just being mean. Say whatever you want, that is a freedom, and noone should take away that feeling. In a sense "An idea is a far more dangerous thing than a gun. I don't give my folk guns - why should I give them ideas?" - Stalin.

This is what PC means in 2016. Certainly, something needs to be done to topple PC culture.

Well, in that case, I agree, but it should not be through the government illegalising anything.

Because Trump talked about it when even his GOP competitors said it's racist. He took tons of 'incoming' for it. Later journalists called him to apologize and admit that he was right, there are problems. Cruz only jumped into the bandwagon when he saw that it gives votes.

Again, I'm not asking if he's saying that he's the one man to end the government fat cats - I'm asking why would he try to?

You don't know what is inside that tomato. Trump is being targeted by professional thugs. They might indeed try to kill him. They have hit his supporters in the past, blocked ambulances. Knocking someone like that out is the exact right thing to do.

Neither do you. Smacking the person won't stop the tomato, it will just hurt someone 99% innocent. This isn't Tadjikistan, American presidents are not going to get killed, much less candidates.

Trump has not been encouraging unnecessary violence.

Of course he is, did you not see the few quotes I put on him? That's just the ones I recall off the top of my head, I can get several more if you're still not proven.

There are certain issues that Trump brought up. I doubt he will forget about those issues.

Why?

He might flip-flop with something like Obamacare because that isn't his main topic.

He might flip flop everything. You don't know. Rand Paul even started flipping during the candidacy.

He's fighting the mainstream media. If mainstream media gets weak, alternative media gets stronger by comparison.

No. A new mainstream media system comes back (unless he illegalises them (bad choice) or funds smaller one (mixed feelings)). It's a natural order of things. What replaced Truth is now the RIA. Spark, a former alternative medium, when it managed to slay the "mainstream", became the mainstream.

I doubt he's going to shut down the internet. He couldn't do it if he wanted.

It's eerie that you must put a disclaimer. But it's eerie for all - internet surveillence and unfreedom will of course go on in America with any candidate.

It's very interesting to read these comments. Especially X since he's so well informed about his stuff

He obviously does - why do you think he has a "Donate" button at all? And have you thought about himself being a donor and special interest?

Are you saying he's going to give himself money for invading Iraq?

Maybe not, but they're certainly doing it more than Trump. Sanders didn't get his voters by saying like "He's going to fix America" "He'll make America great again" "I'm a smart guy.".

Sanders gets his votes by spouting nonsense about Black Lives Matter and claiming that whites are all racists (except BLM fanboys). Sanders wants an issues-oriented campaign, but he quietly condones violence against Trump and his supporters, implying that they were asking for it. All the while claiming that he is the only politician who doesn't lie.

He's basically the conservative version of this^.

If it's so easy to do, then why didn't anybody else do it before Trump?

He's a Trump minion, he's not going to be badtalking, obviously.

You're a Sanders minion, so obvs you're going to badmouth Trump.

He's the Catholic leader. He's not big in polit, but he's definitely big in demography. The Cathols, they listen to Franciscus. That's South and Middle America and elsewhere hating Trump.

Franciscus is popular because the mainstream media likes him. That's all. If they stop propping him up, nobody will care what he has to say about anything. And the mainstream media will be against Trump regardless of the Pope.

He says he wants boots on the ground, and for someone who apparently is steadfast on what he says, it's not a might.

You need a few boots on the ground to take the oil. ISIS needs to be defeated somehow, and oil will be a compensation for it.

http://recode.net/2015/02/24/hillary-rodham-clinton-talks-nsa-presidential-aspirations-with-kara-swisher/

So Clinton says that Americans feel 'betrayed'. Are you naive enough to think that means she will end illegal surveillance? Clinton will do anything to get into power, she's the least likely to care about the American people. She also said that she does not condone what Edward Snowden did. So she's just as bad as Obama and Trump in this respect.

He doesn't want to make them more balanced, he says he wants to rid "negativity"

Your assumption. Good Bernie minion.

Well, in that case, I agree, but it should not be through the government illegalising anything.

No, but the culture needs to change.

Again, I'm not asking if he's saying that he's the one man to end the government fat cats - I'm asking why would he try to?

Because he took a personal risk by addressing the issues like nobody else. It could have turned out very badly for him. He might have gotten assassinated, he might have gotten branded a racist without getting any popular support.

Neither do you. Smacking the person won't stop the tomato, it will just hurt someone 99% innocent. This isn't Tadjikistan, American presidents are not going to get killed, much less candidates.

Ever heard of Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh? Both were murdered for criticizing the religion of peace. And the Netherlands isn't Tadjikistan either, but it still happens. And people who come to a private event to disrupt and throw stuff at people are not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course he is, did you not see the few quotes I put on him? That's just the ones I recall off the top of my head, I can get several more if you're still not proven.

Your quotes just proved that he had good reason to call for people to get knocked out. The media is always taking Trump quotes out of context, trying to paint him as a violent maniac and Bernie fanboys as innocent 'protesters'.

Why?

Why not? Any politician could forget their issues after election, and many do.

He might flip flop everything.

Why would he even run if he doesn't have any reason to be in office?

No. A new mainstream media system comes back (unless he illegalises them (bad choice) or funds smaller one (mixed feelings)). It's a natural order of things. What replaced Truth is now the RIA. Spark, a former alternative medium, when it managed to slay the "mainstream", became the mainstream.

I'm not talking about traditional media. I'm talking about social media. Anybody can produce content on social media, at the very least in their own blogs. How do you prevent all blogs from being viewed unless you implement Iran-like censorship (not going to happen, not even with Bernie).

It's eerie that you must put a disclaimer. But it's eerie for all - internet surveillence and unfreedom will of course go on in America with any candidate.

You're interpreting too much. Trump is not going to close down the internet, and no candidate is even able to do it. But keep misinterpreting what I say like a good Bernie minion.




Btw do I notice a change in your views over the last year? Last time I checked you were a commie nationalist homophobe. Nowadays you seem to be a red-green commie multiculturalist. Perhaps pro-gay as well? Or am I just imagining it?

This is not a world of stereotypes.

Francis is popular because he is the pope, not because of the media.

You need a few boots on the ground to take the oil. ISIS needs to be defeated somehow, and oil will be a compensation for it.

ISIS will not survive regardless of whether or not we invade it. It has only defeated some small rebels groups and a puppet that had a army trained for asymmetric warfare. How would ISIS steamroll Iraq , Iran, Turkey, FSA, Kurdistan, Syria, and Turkey let alone all the countries they want to invade. And no, even if they could consolidate Syria and Iraq, they will not be sending suicide bombers to Europe in droves, especially when you're being pushed on all borders by other countries. Your fearmongering is asinine.

Francis is popular because he is the pope, not because of the media.

Absolute nonsense. Nobody had even heard of Francis before he became Pope. He was elected by a small circle of individuals. He became popular after the media hyped him as a good guy who cares about the poor and so on. If he started supporting Trump, the media would destroy him immediately. Where do you think most people get their information about the Pope, hm? Ah right, the mainstream media!

ISIS will not survive regardless of whether or not we invade it. It has only defeated some small rebels groups and a puppet that had a army trained for asymmetric warfare. How would ISIS steamroll Iraq , Iran, Turkey, FSA, Kurdistan, Syria, and Turkey let alone all the countries they want to invade. And no, even if they could consolidate Syria and Iraq, they will not be sending suicide bombers to Europe in droves, especially when you're being pushed on all borders by other countries. Your fearmongering is asinine.

Since you apparently hold a chrystal ball that can tell the future, please tell me who is going to defeat ISIS. Will it be defeated by simply waiting and doing nothing, as you seem to suggest?

The more time goes by, the stronger ISIS' position will become. They don't need to invade anything else, they already have a huge chunk of land. Right now, they are the destination of choice for Muslims all over the world who hate the west and want to kill them. They have already sent hundreds, if not thousands, of undercover terrorists into the US and the EU. Terrorist attacks like the ones in Paris and the one in Brussels and California will undoubtedly continue. Their continued existence will inspire islamist radicals all over the world to create their own caliphate, because nobody is stopping them.

And just because everybody hates them doesn't mean they are going to get defeated. Russia is retreating, the EU is just watching as always, the US just got out of Iraq. If Iran or Saudi Arabia take over, things are not necessarily going to get better. They hate the west just as much as ISIS does.

Absolute nonsense. Nobody had even heard of Francis before he became Pope. He was elected by a small circle of individuals. He became popular after the media hyped him as a good guy who cares about the poor and so on. If he started supporting Trump, the media would destroy him immediately. Where do you think most people get their information about the Pope, hm? Ah right, the mainstream media!

He would be popular among church going Catholics regardless of the media's coverage , since he's the pope and they would hear about him. Where do you think most people would get their information about the pope if the media didn't cover him? Ah right the Catholic Church.

Since you apparently hold a chrystal ball that can tell the future, please tell me who is going to defeat ISIS. Will it be defeated by simply waiting and doing nothing, as you seem to suggest?

Who is going to defeat ISIS? The people ISIS directly attacks, I.E everyone around them. ISIS commanders are offensive in nature and want to expand. They lack any proper organization and lack many things, Jordan, Iraq , Turkey etc all have much better militaries and better resources to draw on.

The more time goes by, the stronger ISIS' position will become. They don't need to invade anything else, they already have a huge chunk of land.

They are already in conflict with practically everyone around them, and the involvement of those countries is steadily growing.

Right now, they are the destination of choice for Muslims all over the world who hate the west and want to kill them. They have already sent hundreds, if not thousands, of undercover terrorists into the US and the EU. Terrorist attacks like the ones in Paris and the one in Brussels and California will undoubtedly continue

The Muslims you are talking about are a small minority and can be stopped quite easily. Also they have thousands of young men and women that are either going to A. Still be terrorists after the collapse of the caliphate B. Become criminals after the collapse of the caliphate C. Become normal after the collapse of the caliphate.

Their continued existence will inspire islamist radicals all over the world to create their own caliphate, because nobody is stopping them.

Everyone around them is doing something to stop them and would up that something by a lot if we left because ISIS would be a bit more dangerous. A caliphate is a country and this caliphate is one that likes expanding, they will not just keep expanding since everyone around them is actively trying to stop them and they have started losing against them because ISIS is quite weaker.

And just because everybody hates them doesn't mean they are going to get defeated. Russia is retreating, the EU is just watching as always, the US just got out of Iraq. If Iran or Saudi Arabia take over, things are not necessarily going to get better. They hate the west just as much as ISIS does.

Russia is stopping its support of the Syrian government because they don't want the Americans to get into a conflict with them. Several EU members are bombing ISIS and though some are against committing their obligation to take in refugees now that there are refugees , there are still many taking people out of harms way. Saudi Arabia trades with the west actively and attacking them would be very unprofitable and would cut a lot of aid from the US. Iran hates the west? When? Hating Israel is a universally popular thing in the Middle East, and Israel has a habit of ethnic cleansing in Palestine and bombing Iran. Europe? They like trading with Europe now and the money that is coming in is great for them. In the late 70s? Yeah you tend to hats people who control your government for their own purposes.

Sending in our own soldiers to occupy the area would cause locals to kinda want to fight for what will become of ISIS since American soldiers are usually very belligerent and after the caliphate falls there will be people who want to attack who made it fall too, and if we're involved in that we will get attacked too.

Are you saying he's going to give himself money for invading Iraq?

It can profit.

Sanders gets his votes by spouting nonsense about Black Lives Matter and claiming that whites are all racists (except BLM fanboys). Sanders wants an issues-oriented campaign, but he quietly condones violence against Trump and his supporters, implying that they were asking for it. All the while claiming that he is the only politician who doesn't lie.

Sanders is the extreme opposite of Trump, in many ways. He also panders toward the untaught majority who want change from the norm, but I don't care about charisma or what he does for it, just his stances (as should be in any democracy). However, he's far less controversial, and lies much less than Trump. According to (http://www.politifact.com), 14% Sanders's claims are wrong; 61% Trump's claims are wrong.

If it's so easy to do, then why didn't anybody else do it before Trump?

They did, but not in America. It's a risky move. When the first nuclear bomb was tested in an American desert, some involved were strongly against: they thought such a bomb could be far more wrecking than they intended: the nuclear chain reaction would basically alight the whole atmosphere. Luckily, it was found out later that to force nuclear fusion of nitrogen or oxygen, the bomb needs to reach way higher temperatures.

It didn't burn up the atmosphere, but if you weighed the risks against the goods (the almost none), it's definitely not worth trying.

You need a few boots on the ground to take the oil. ISIS needs to be defeated somehow, and oil will be a compensation for it.

Making few assumptions:
* Petrol is good
* America needs to get more of it, even if it means war
* Mashriq would be slain by this (a new name will do the same); war would be effective

Before talking about any these, first, how can you not say you're not for war? And how can you say that Trump is not going to make America "world police"?

So Clinton says that Americans feel 'betrayed'. Are you naive enough to think that means she will end illegal surveillance? Clinton will do anything to get into power, she's the least likely to care about the American people. She also said that she does not condone what Edward Snowden did. So she's just as bad as Obama and Trump in this respect.

I say again: assuming candidates do what they say they will (otherwise all forecasts fall apart), and even if we weren't assuming it, Trump's got the worst record there, then.

Also, don't tell me that someone is just as bad as someone else. Noone is good, the point is to find the least worst.

He doesn't want to make them more balanced, he says he wants to rid "negativity"

Your assumption. Good Bernie minion.

http://rsf.org/en/news/donald-trump-wants-sue-newspapers-publishing-purposely-negative-stories

"I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."

Because he took a personal risk by addressing the issues like nobody else. It could have turned out very badly for him. He might have gotten assassinated, he might have gotten branded a racist without getting any popular support.

He's been the most quiet about issues, just keeps talking about the same ones over and over. And yeah, he took a risk, and it might have failed. But he's not getting killed, don't kid yourself. Noone kills an American president, much less a candidate that has like policies to the Republicans (despite what some Republicans say to defame Trump) that is not even shown to win in all scenari (though get close, maybe). And yeah, he is branded a racist, for some pretty good grounds. He even, when asked to denounce the KKK and white supremacists for voting for him, basically took an evasive answer, saying he didn't hear about the KKK supporting him (proven lie), nor white supremacists, and that he doesn't know who they are, and he's just going to wait for more information to make a choice.

Ever heard of Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh? Both were murdered for criticizing the religion of peace. And the Netherlands isn't Tadjikistan either, but it still happens. And people who come to a private event to disrupt and throw stuff at people are not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

One politic candidate figure killed 14 years ago, and a common murder. Ok, well, Olaf Palme was killed in 1986. He was also pretty controversial and social democrat. The point is, it happens rarely, especially in countries where they have a whole private brigade as bodyguard, like America or Britain.

And people who come to a private event to disrupt and throw stuff at people are not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

They absolutely are innocent. They broke no laws, they are free to do what they want, even if it irks someone else. If they attack someone, they are not innocent, but it is their freedom to say and protest whatever they wish. And even if you are for this, then you should be all for poltic rightness; it aims to stop criticism of (some) folk.

Your quotes just proved that he had good reason to call for people to get knocked out. The media is always taking Trump quotes out of context, trying to paint him as a violent maniac and Bernie fanboys as innocent 'protesters'.

Trump frankly owes loads to the media. The American media (and he does likes it) show him as a radic bloke who(thinks he)'s all alone against corruption. Participating in the debate, asking the most frains to him, allowing him to do controversial things like skip out a debate, this is controversy that he loves. Anyhow, out of context? No, not at all. They could be taken out of context. Anyhow, show me how it's out of context?

Furthermore, what I say or anyone else says, that gives 0% grounds to hurt anybody. 0%. Such thinking that it's ok to hurt someone if they say something you believe is mean, biased, or stupid, this is the same thinking 'Freedom to Forget' laws use to gaol folk, and it's frankly a restriction on free speech, of which there should be 0 of.

Why not? Any politician could forget their issues after election, and many do.

This is not what I was asking. Why would Trump be special about this?

Why would he even run if he doesn't have any reason to be in office?

What do you mean, 'reason'? Every American president in the last, oh, 80 years, have been selfish authoritarian warmongerers. His 'reason' is that he gets to adjust some laws, probably most importantly to him and friends, probably corporate taxes and superprogressive taxes, get some bribes, embezzle, do all that good stuff like it's been done.

I'm not talking about traditional media. I'm talking about social media. Anybody can produce content on social media, at the very least in their own blogs. How do you prevent all blogs from being viewed unless you implement Iran-like censorship (not going to happen, not even with Bernie).

Sanders as policy is against spying, he seems the least likely out of the candidates. But anyhow, what makes Trump a supporter of internet and blogging, and what's to say that it doesn't become the new mainstream (and yeah, technically everyone can self-publish, but there's hassle, money, and popularity involved, same as real life).

Trump is not going to close down the internet, and no candidate is even able to do it.

Hopefully.

You're interpreting too much. But keep misinterpreting what I say like a good Bernie minion.

Ok, tell me why you did put the disclaimer? Why don't you curb it, Goebbels.

Edited 3/25/2016 06:17:02

Btw do I notice a change in your views over the last year? Last time I checked you were a commie nationalist homophobe. Nowadays you seem to be a red-green commie multiculturalist. Perhaps pro-gay as well? Or am I just imagining it?

Communist:

I think there's value to left and right, it's an ultimate frain of what's better: competition or cooperation. Competition drives innovation, it gives more freedoms, and better rewards folk on merit using an addictive exponentially growing income based on income inequality, and also lets you choose what you want for yourself, instead of wasting your money for what others may or may not want. Minimum wage, "worker rights", throw these out the window, these stifle job making and freedoms, both to the worker and the hirer. If you want to work at an awful job, that's your choice.

Cooperation means that businesses have to spend less time worrying about sabotaging each other and advertising and spend that money, it is for community instead of everyone for oneself, and it makes sure that everyone is well-off, and in some ways is more a meritocracy: everyone who wants to go to higher school can; and instead of spending money for food, it's spent on internet access. Random events like an expensive surgery won't suck up all the money you've worked for and more. Minimum wage and "worker rights": while minimum wage may make less jobs in the short run, in the long run, the worker has more money, money to spend on business, which then gets more money to spend on workers. And both these make sure that noone has to risk their life and make sure that all jobs are significantly better off than no jobs.

I am very right, though am for ridding minimum wage, free higher schools, worker rights, but I definitely see the good things of the left and why folk like it.

Nationalist:

No, never here. Informed (as I lived there) devil's advocate, maybe.

Homophobe:

Yes, but I have different opinions that most other homophobes. I think it's not my choice nor law to stop two folk from agreeing to do something to each other that's disgusting. I believe in letting the faith's high council or leader choose whether to allow gay marriage within their marriages, and certainly do not believe that some atheist principles do as if they own the faith. Frankly, I go beyond that, I allow the faith's high council or leader to choose whether to ban any kind of marriage within their shrines, whether it be based on *faith of the person* (seriously, I say this as an atheist, but atheists should not be able to get married; no faith would allow this), ethnicity, or weight. But I believe, for those left out in faith marriages, that they get in apatheist civil unions that would economically count the same as a marriage, allowed for any consenting denizens. In short, I'm in between, but probably closer to for-gay marriage than against.

To those against gay marriage: Ok, fair enough, but you better not be hypocritic on this. Are you against tattoos and skin piercings, too? They're also disgusting things that physically scar a man. What about Warlight? Nerd addicting game, promotes antisocial weirdos who can't talk. Maybe we should ban almost all video games and fiction books altogether for doing this. And board games. Ban chess. Also, ban throwing up, that's disgusting, since it's a natural happening (gayness is not uncommonly found in nature) that happens semi-involuntarily like gayness (just don't do upon your impulse; for throw-up, close your mouth), although it is known that it can be faked like gayness.

To those for gay marriage: Ok, fair enough, but you better not be hypocritic on this. You better be for necrosexual, transexual, bisexual, genderfluid, trisexual, kilosexual, asexual, sexless, polygamic, minotaur, and penis marriage, since all these other even more weird things also are natural and can have the same arguments applied from for-gay marriage to them.

Green-red:

Not left, but definitely for legalising all drugs. It's not my choice what one folk does to oneself.

Multiculturalist:

I doubt most who've talked with me about this would agree. I don't think I'm for multiculturalism, either. I want to rid arbitrary geographically and politically influenced social barriers between mankind like cultures. I don't see why when a tongue or culture dies, that it is a sad happening, in my opinion, it's great, one less barrier to communication cut. This needs to happen more often. Now, I'm definitely not for forced assimilation, and many ways of how assimilation has been practised was anti human rights.

He would be popular among church going Catholics regardless of the media's coverage , since he's the pope and they would hear about him. Where do you think most people would get their information about the pope if the media didn't cover him? Ah right the Catholic Church.

Ok, I'm trying to follow that logic without it sounding retarded. So, Pope Francis gets elected. Next Sunday, every Catholic goes to church, without exception. The priests are told to hold a sermon saying the following: "Do not support Donald Trump... He is a false prophet... Build bridges instead of walls... Do not vote for Donald Trump..."

No, I can't. It just sounds retarded.

Who is going to defeat ISIS? The people ISIS directly attacks, I.E everyone around them.

Wow, EVERYONE is going to defeat ISIS. Belgium will defeat ISIS. Japan will defeat ISIS. Iraq will defeat ISIS. Thanks for the info.

The Muslims you are talking about are a small minority and can be stopped quite easily.

I see. So that's why there are areas in Paris, Berlin, Malmö etc that the police cannot even enter because of Muslim violence. It's just a small group of radicals that can easily be controlled. You clearly know what you are talking about. Please enlighten us more about Islam, as you seem to be an expert on it.

Russia is stopping its support of the Syrian government because they don't want the Americans to get into a conflict with them.

Yes! The Russians are just acting in the best interest of the US. Couldn't have put it better!

Iran hates the west? When?

Iran calls the US the great Satan. But who knows, maybe it's just an act of love.

Sending in our own soldiers to occupy the area would cause locals to kinda want to fight for what will become of ISIS

I'm sure many of the local 'moderate Muslims' quietly support ISIS. But that doesn't really make your case that west-hating, radical Muslims are an insignificant minority, does it?

I see. So that's why there are areas in Paris, Berlin, Malmö etc that the police cannot even enter because of Muslim violence. It's just a small group of radicals that can easily be controlled. You clearly know what you are talking about. Please enlighten us more about Islam, as you seem to be an expert on it.

Totally false. The idea that there's areas in Paris that the police can't enter is Foxnews bullshit, it has been proven to be false, and don't take it from the media, but from me. I'm french and those things don't exist. Berlin and Malmö situations must be the same.

About Islam, you're again totally being stupid about it. You think it's a problematic religion, when it is not. Did you know that since 9/11, Christian terrorists killed more then Muslim ones in the US? Of course not, you're an alienated american.

TL;DR

Debating on a game forum doesn't mean shit.

Edited 3/25/2016 15:17:43

According to (http://www.politifact.com), 14% Sanders's claims are wrong; 61% Trump's claims are wrong.

Checked the site. A many of Trump's statements have a grain of truth, but are hyperbolic. He does it to mobilize people, which is a good thing, but it downgrades his truth-o-meter values. For example, Trump says real unemployment is 26%. Politfact says it's 10% or at most 15%. Still a lot higher than official figures of 5%.

Some of the Politfact claims are simply untrue. They use a number of newspaper headlines to prove that illegal immigration didn't become a bigger talking point since Trump candidacy. It's a weak argument and obviously untrue.

They did, but not in America. It's a risky move.

Exactly, it's a risky move. Why would Trump risk so much for a topic he allegedly doesn't really care about?

Before talking about any these, first, how can you not say you're not for war? And how can you say that Trump is not going to make America "world police"?

I am not 'for war' or 'against war'. At the moment, ISIS is becoming too dangerous to exist. If the Russians kill it, fine. But it needs to be taken out. Maybe install another secular dictator, but Muslim radicalism clearly needs to be stopped. Responding to immediate threats to safety doesn't mean world police. Attacking Saddam, who was not a threat, was an act of a world police.

I say again: assuming candidates do what they say they will (otherwise all forecasts fall apart), and even if we weren't assuming it, Trump's got the worst record there, then.

Also, don't tell me that someone is just as bad as someone else. Noone is good, the point is to find the least worst.

I already admitted that Trump's stance on mass surveillance is horrible. If you want to find the best or least bad, you have to look elsewhere, because all the candidates are just as bad regarding the NSA.

http://rsf.org/en/news/donald-trump-wants-sue-newspapers-publishing-purposely-negative-stories

You have to be careful how you change the law, but I can absolutely understand Trump's view. The media has questioned his disavowal of the KKK, which was supposedly not energetic enough, but they never make such stories about Bernie and Hillary not condemning BLM. The media brands Trump and his supporters as violent maniacs as they respond to 'protester' violence, but they never tell the other side of the story. These professional thugs hit Trump supporters, police officers, block ambulances and so on. The end result of this one-sidedness is that people see Trump as a monster, and these violent protesters as freedom fighters. People don't get a balanced picture. It's very hard to prove malice in such cases, but it's clearly there.

But he's not getting killed, don't kid yourself.

You are obviously minimizing the issue. Not just Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, Olof Palme, but also Kennedy was assaassinated. There was an assassination attempt against Reagan. It's total nonsense to say that it couldn't happen, especially against a controversial candidate like Trump. The reason why more US presidents haven't been killed is because the security is good and aggressive enough. This is exactly why 'protesters' throwing tomatoes should be knocked out.

And yeah, he is branded a racist, for some pretty good grounds.

In that case, the media should also brand Hillary and Bernie racists, as neither of them condemn BLM.

They absolutely are innocent. They broke no laws, they are free to do what they want, even if it irks someone else. If they attack someone, they are not innocent, but it is their freedom to say and protest whatever they wish. And even if you are for this, then you should be all for poltic rightness; it aims to stop criticism of (some) folk.

Throwing a tomato or hitting someone has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Nor is shouting so loud that others cannot speak in the spirit of freedom of speech. And them entering Trump's private event may not be illegal, but they certainly have no business there.

If Trump opponents want to voice their oppositon, they can do it somewhere else. They don't need to disrupt his rallies.

The American media (and he does likes it) show him as a radic bloke

The media tries to display Trump as a racist and a misogynist and an overall radical guy. They are trying to get his ratings down. It is true that Trump knows how to play the media and get his ratings up, but that doesn't mean the media have tried to help him. They tried to destroy him.

Anyhow, show me how it's out of context?

The context the media is conveying is that BLM are oppressed by racism and have a legitimate cause to protest, more legitimate than the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church for example. The media doesn't show footage of these thugs hitting the police, blocking ambulances, shooting with guns etc. It is very different to hit someone who hits the police and blocks ambulances than someone who simply enters a room and shows a sign. A very different context.

Another example. The media makes a big deal about Trump wanting to kill free speech because he wants to change the libel laws. How much do you hear, however, about this:
http://www.wired.com/2013/10/obama-nixon-media-war/
Obama's efforts to control the media are worst since Nixon. Why isn't this frontpage news everyday, like Trump's libel laws are? It's dishonest and misleading.

and what's to say that it doesn't become the new mainstream (and yeah, technically everyone can self-publish, but there's hassle, money, and popularity involved, same as real life).

Because people have a choice. Nobody can prohibit you from starting a blog, but people can deny you the right to open a TV channel in many countries. Plus, you need an expensvie TV studio, you need to broadcast a minimum amount of stuff etc. All this hassle goes away with your personal blog.

Ok, tell me why you did put the disclaimer? Why don't you curb it, Goebbels.

The same disclaimer can be put with anybody. Obama, for instance. He already has a proven track record of censoring the mainstream media. Harder to do with the social media, however.

Totally false. The idea that there's areas in Paris that the police can't enter is Foxnews bullshit, it has been proven to be false, and don't take it from the media, but from me. I'm french and those things don't exist. Berlin and Malmö situations must be the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area#Belgium
Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden. All have no-go zones because of Muslim immigrants. In France, they just term it 'sensitive urban zones' because hinting at Muslims would be racist (even though Islam isn't a race). But don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of your beliefs.

I trust the New York Times, Le Figaro, and various police departments more than your word. Either you are extremely naive or a liar.

About Islam, you're again totally being stupid about it. You think it's a problematic religion, when it is not. Did you know that since 9/11, Christian terrorists killed more then Muslim ones in the US? Of course not, you're an alienated american.

Since you don't understand maths, let me help you: 2% of US population committed less terrorist attacks than 70% in total. Those 2% still committed more per capita. Now don't tell me that maths is a Fox News plot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfLf6tO7vSA

Se your no-go zones in paris proved wrong by french people. If you don't like this guy speaking in english because he's a "liberal prick", go to the french version of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-tTHmrsXB8.

I've read that you accept the idea that everything trump says it's false because it raises awareness. That's totally stupid and just proves that trump supporters will accept any bullshit he says. But no problem, I'll pray for your brains.

Since you don't understand maths, let me help you: 2% of US population committed less terrorist attacks than 70% in total. Those 2% still committed more per capita. Now don't tell me that maths is a Fox News plot.

That's hardly a statistics problem my point here, but the fact that christian terrorism isn't really covered by the media, while muslim are, and thus even though the first ones kill more.