@SleepingSilence XD. No worries. Also don't feel so alone. I'm a Christian, myself.

Also I'm an Independent, politically. And by that, I don't mean I vote for the Independent party. They've given Independents a bad name, recently. I mean I vote without party affiliation. I wasn't overly fond of Hillary Clinton becoming president, but I will happily say I voted for her because I was/am anti-Trump. I don't hate the guy, but he's a clear fool. His last 120+ days have proven it all over the board. Though I'm starting to think I'd rather him than Mitch McConnell handle our healthcare.

I couldn't help but find it funny that I am essentially the same as you: Christian, and independent politically, but found myself going in a much different direction. I found both candidates to be atrocious, Trump for being his uncouth self and Hillary for embodying the corrupt establishment heavily entrenched in power. Finding myself unhappy with both of them, I voted third party even though I knew they would not get the votes needed to even take one state, though I do hope this can happen in the future as the Republican and Democratic parties are falling apart at the seams.

While I could not bring myself to vote for Trump even though I consider Hillary to be a lying scum-bag with virtually no moral compass whatsoever[her campaign strategy certainly didn't help her image any + all them scandals], I still found myself hoping that Trump would win the presidency. The number one reason for this being getting a constitutional judge on the Supreme Court, if Hillary had been elected, God help America with whatever loony hard core liberal she would have tried to put on there. The hard stance on illegal immigration was a plus and also a faint hope that a business man might have the know-how to help the economy.

I could certainly say I was essentially the opposite of you, anti-Hillary but even that wasn't enough to push me to vote for Trump.

As for 2020, Trump will get a second term if he is able to bulldoze through the establishment and get even a few of the things on his agenda done. Considering all that he has accomplished in his short time as president he can certainly get a lot more done in three years time. Unless the democrats can somehow get their acts together and stop acting like violence against dissenting voices is a good thing, they will be unable to find a person who can run against Trump in 2020.

Of course what I hope will happen is that because Trump was kind of like a third party runner using the Republican party, this will encourage more third parties to get into the race who could give us people we might actually want to vote for. Here's to hoping for the rise of third parties as viable alternatives in political races! Gotta break apart the bi-partisan effort to keep everyone else out of political races. You ever look at the requirements for non-Republicans/Democrats to run for some offices? Pretty crazy how much harder they make it for other people.

i came back for the economics but everyone already moved on to fucking free will.

Oh, and since my current debate is going nowhere. How about something possibly more interesting and hopefully less personal, political/personal opinion. (try to stick to non-personal conjecture.)

2020. (assuming we don't crash into the sun.) What happens in the next election? Who do you WANT to run, and who do you think will actually try to run? Would you actually vote for the same person you voted for again, if you did? Will you not vote again and complain that elections are rigged and start a petition to succeed if you're side doesn't win? Do you think if Trump does well (to the people that voted for him.) He'll get re-elected again? Would you want the third two term president in a row even if he was? How about if he is passable/does poorly? Is there an actual difference? Will third parties ever have a damned chance? Give me your thoughts. Maybe it will lead to better discussion. *fingers halfheartedly crossed* :3

If everything goes exactly steady from here on out, Trump probably gets reelected. The biggest problem for him as that he has shown himself to be an amateur, so whereas he can obviously handle a situation where nothing happens and his party just kinda gives him bills to sign, if some major event takes place that requires executive leadership, it'll happen to him and he will have little control of the effects. This could turn out well if he gets unity votes, so the best thing that can happen for him is a 9/11 type event (perish the thought though). The worst thing that could happen to him is a recession (those are always bad because they touch most people where they live). Any situation that requires difficult leadership would be dubious for him. Like, for instance, close your eyes and imagine Trump dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis. So yeh, Trump needs an easy time.

The Dems need to find themselves. Which they will, of course. In 2008 everybody was out there like "Damn, Republicans can never recover from this shit, nobody will ever forget the Bush years" and then they recovered, though the Bush Years were a burning disaster, whereas the Obama years were just underwhelming. Right now anything that happens is going to look like the Republicans fault, so they will have to make excuses for the reality whereas the Dems will get to snipe from the comfort of opposition-partydom, and they'll grow some skills out of that.

The best person the Dems have in their arsenal is probably Tulsi Gabbard, who if it weren't for her religion would probably be the most weirdly electable candidate in the country. She'll probably be a bit young for 2020 though... still, that's who I'm watching. Then again, Trump won and people unironically think he is a good choice, so who the fuck knows, Kanye 2020 maybe.

In the end, there is too much going on to make a real prediction, but I'll pull out what I think would be the funniest future.

-Trump wins by a hair in 2020 but loses Congress and/or the Senate.
-Trump doesn't have the temperament to be a lame duck President and bitches all the time. We get all kinds of funny material here.
-Being Donald Trump, and being a lame duck, we get to call him Donald Duck.
-2020 to 2024 is just Donald Duck going on tv throwing impotent shit-fits.

i came back for the economics but everyone already moved on to fucking free will.

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>



-Trump wins by a hair in 2020 but loses Congress and/or the Senate.
-Trump doesn't have the temperament to be a lame duck President and bitches all the time. We get all kinds of funny material here.
-Being Donald Trump, and being a lame duck, we get to call him Donald Duck.
-2020 to 2024 is just Donald Duck going on tv throwing impotent shit-fits.

Wow. Donald Duck makes me waaaaay happier than it has any right to do.

@Vilageidiotx
Come for the communism stay for the Kaynesian economic policy

@Vilageidiotx
Come for the communism stay for the Kaynesian economic policy

Thomas Piketty is my spirit animal.

... the post.

A single closing statement I made at midnight. Communism doesn't exist because of capitalism. Poverty in China isn't because of America. If you think otherwise I don't know what to say.

I already said it sucks, so I'm not encouraging it. And now I'm questioning if the guy under communism would prefer getting taxed all his money at gunpoint. Or if that's suppose to imply people in those countries are being controlled by our government and NOT their fucking communism government...<.<

Although I already covered this in enough detail to make the point. Let me restate.

Imagine you don't take in enough calcium. As a result you begin to develop hypocalcemia.

A lot gets done and no decision is made by you as to how it happens.

Not to get into if free will or whatever to call it, is real or not. But this seems a bit A + B = Clear to me. Not the best analogy you could have chosen. That person didn't take calcium, that person could of done that and not developed that. I don't want to pick a mere example apart.

So is the study implying that health and certain things 'can't' be controlled by us. So therefore we can't have free will because it states we control what happens? Because that seems a little silly to me.

Although I already covered this in enough detail to make the point.

Oh you've made the argument, yes. Present evidence. (spoiler alert: it's an untestable, nonscientific hypothesis, no evidence exists).

Show me the gland which causes altruism.

@IceHeart Well let me be the first to say, a third party vote isn't 'throwing it away to insert party here'. Maybe it is a protest vote, but you still did vote. Better than nothing. Though as someone who didn't vote Trump. Did the um, slight over reactions that continued until possibly still, for the other side, make you reconsider things? I know it did for many others. Even my very left leaning brother found it pretty embarrassing.

I suppose I do think one of the major reasons he was elected is that a lot of people didn't see him as a politician. And whether you like him or not. This was the first president who won in quite a long time, who got and spent far -less- money campaigning. So I do think that's at least a good thing, as a message that money won't always win you the election. I will say if more people did vote third party, I think it might actually make the other sides actually try harder...because it would be actual competition. Like if some kind of 3rd party, strictly minority right groups party existed. I could easily see Kayne running under this label. I'd wonder how that would be responded to and if it could be well received. (Kayne or not.) But that's my own conjecture...

I'm so lost on the economic discussion now that I'm not sure who is responding to what exactly. It's less like watching a debate that can be jumped into and more like watching two great meme icebergs groan on past each other.

Also, how the hell are we having an argument about free will? Did you guys get high last night?

Like, for instance, close your eyes and imagine Trump dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis. So yeh, Trump needs an easy time.

Eh? Trump turned China against the DPRK, (partly) by destroying the Syrian chemical weapons program over dinner. I'd call that a difficult leadership situation and a home run.

Also, how the hell are we having an argument about free will? Did you guys get high last night?

I assume it was preferable to discussing the Veritas exposing CNN.

@Vilageidiotx Never heard of them. ^3^ How do you know about them?

Well personally the one major thing I could see stopping Trump from reelection going to war or continuing all the drone strikes. It certainly drew a lot of ire from his own side from the attack that wasn't explained. Also I'd consider both of them to be utter disasters. (and Obama literally pretty much did everything Bush did but worse.) But I guess throwing that aside.

Do you think he'll be elected regardless of success? Because we can't seem to just elect someone once and switch them out? "We need 8 yearz bruh!" mindset that we almost seem cursed with two term presidents. Like whether I like someone or not, I'm really certain having two term presidents are particular helpful to them or us or the country. It's pretty obvious being president drains your mental and physical health, and most people can't deal with that pressure. So doesn't it kind of seem like were giving these people a well paid death sentence? Among other things. <.< I dunno, maybe that's just me.

@Vilageidiotx The debates are boring and you're missing nothing. :P

Well someone brought it up passingly, someone else engaged in discussion. So of course it was bound to be debated over. <.<

It's pretty obvious being president drains your mental and physical health, and most people can't deal with that pressure.

America will re-elect Trump just to see that weird hair turn gray.

<Snipped quote by Andreyich>

We fucked off ten or so years ago and it hasn't exactly gotten better. It wasn't exactly better twenty years ago, or thirty, or a hundred, or a thousand. Let's be fair.

Doesn't matter, at least the shit isn't coming over to first world countries before. I mean, why do people think it's a good idea to depose vaguely secular leaders in the middle east to replace them with radical Islamic nutjobs on the preface of "muh freedom" and with the actual reasoning of "muh money."

<Snipped quote by Andreyich>

I think hate is pretty prejudice.

Hate is a type of prejudice, but prejudice is not all hate. Thinking East Asians are, on average, better at maths and such than me is not really hate. But it is, nevertheless racism.

@Andreyich Okay, when you say "fear of being beat in the street" does that mean you've never actually experienced any violence of any kind?

Where do you live? <.< If that's too personal, pm me or be vague. But I'd hope it's a bit more concrete than that.

I live in Belarus but travel a lot for work. I have over the last few years been to Hungary, America, Poland, Cuba, Finland and all ex-member states of the USSR, along with for the moment being in Canada. Despite the extremely high poverty of Eastern Europe I've only been beaten thrice and twice it was kind of my own fault for being a drunkard and yadda yadda, AND that was the only crime I ever experienced there. In America I've had shit stolen from me repeatedly, and also got in a few fights; when I went to Canada I looked up what the whitest cities are in relation to where I need to go to work. Couldn't really find a result since google knew I was being rayciss so I instead settled for a nice Ukrainian-German community. Not even saw a single crime except for when I had to drive to the actual city for shit, the city being Toronto and much more """diverse.""" I'm actually learning French so I can ask the lads I'm working for if I can go to Quebec.

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>



... the post.

That's not what happened. The marxists went on to kidnap and shoot children, and mass murder people. Slaves were also the people conquered or indebted, it was more or less their own fault and the alternative was to live like the Franks with a life expectancy of like, fifteen. You have a tiny bit of a point with feudalism but even then the alternative was always worse.

I'm afraid it's not us who have to check our privilege, it's you. The ebil capitalists can't force you anymore, go make your collectivist or ancom or whatever bullshit utopia in the forest where these fucktard ideas won't spread.

@Andreyich

AND that was the only crime I ever experienced there. Despite the extremely high poverty of Eastern Europe I've only been beaten thrice and twice it was kind of my own fault for being a drunkard. In America I've had shit stolen from me repeatedly, and also got in a few fights.

Okay, from just that example. In Europe you were beaten, not just assaulted, but beaten...but it sounds like bar brawls? So that leads to is this where all the crime is taking place? When your drunk? You get drunk a bar and when you wake up the next morning your money is missing? Cuz uh, I have explanations for that. :P

Where in America was this exactly? And you consider yourself "racist", but racist toward what exactly? Or is it a wide range of things?
<.<

Because america isn't getting more violent. Violent crime has fallen by 51 percent since 1991, and property crime by 43 percent. In 2013 the violent crime rate was the lowest since 1970. And many places of Europe have higher burglary/theft and assault crimes. Like I think I know where this is going, and I'll comment about it when we cross that road.

But I've been assaulted and mugged as well, but I'm not sure if it changed any of my social or political opinions. I guess aside from most crime isn't punished well enough. <.<