/politics/ - News & Politics

The John Oliver video is a good start.

Sleazy New York douche that was a democrat ten years ago and loves socialized healthcare. Untrustworthy in the extreme even by American politics standards.

Filthy goyim, don't vote for him, he's a con artist! Who's he taking money from? Himself? He's a puppet for his own beliefs!

Vote for someone you can trust, like Hillary.

>>10295

That's bullshit:

http://prntly.com/blog/?p=4301

>>10293

Best of the worst for the 2016 presidential race

probably will only accomplish half of what he claims he will

>>10301

I don't use youtube. Give me the damage control yourself.

>>10293

He's a Zionist, just like all the other mainstream candidates. (Admittedly, he does scare some Jews.)

http://pastebin.com/cRZDHRc6

He's a liar, just like all the other candidates.

http://www.factcheck.org/person/donald-trump/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

He makes promises the system has no intention of letting him keep.

(This is of course just my personal opinion. I believe Trump will never be allowed to deport all illegal immigrants or build a wall just because he will.)

He's currently losing in a vast majority of head to head polls against Clinton and Sanders.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

Note:

I'm not saying not to vote for Trump.

I'm not saying not to vote at all.

I'm not saying to vote for Clinton, Sanders or any other candidate.

I'm saying find the facts out for yourself and decide for yourself whom to vote for or if you should vote at all.

>>10305

>I believe Trump will never be allowed to deport all illegal immigrants or build a wall just because he says he will.)

Oops

FTFM

Forgot to proofread that part.

Apologies.

>>10308

That data is from The Daily Mail

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3410858/As-Trump-woos-primary-voters-New-York-records-indicate-NEVER-voted-Republican-presidential-primary.html

I posted this on /pol/ and it got deleted within 3 minutes. Anons on /n/ claim it's unrelated and redirected me here (Meanwhile 50% of /n/'s catalog is meme threads)

>Donald Trump functions as a jewish measuring stick for emerging racial consciousness – the objective is for him to act as a relief valve and to keep all related discourse within a semitically-correct, patriotard frame, preventing it from reaching a point of explicit racial consciousness and organization. By getting the GOP nomination, he makes the system look more open than it really is, keeping an emerging, explicitly racial segment of the population on the GOP plantation, effectively assimilating them into that wide base where they can have no power and nullifying them as any oppositional entity. In the event he was ever to go third party, he ensures valuable resources, time, and money are misdirected from building any viable fascist vanguard. Semitically-correct frame applies across the board in both scenarios.

>A Trump victory will simply serve the purpose of making a jew-rigged system look open to a segment of the population reaching racial consciousness without ever implementing any of their goals. This will keep them loyal to the GOP under the impression they can take it over, it will keep them from radicalizing. If Trump loses, he will lose fairly and the system will still look open, despite some superficial, ineffective attempts to shut him out that were designed to make him look like legitimate opposition. His audience will then remain in place waiting for the next populist cohenservitve candidate to come along and blow smoke up their asses instead of going full vanguard.

>WNs are desperate for SOMEONE ELSE to wipe their ass and do all their work for them, and they can’t see why whites trusting the government again as a result of a Trump victory is a bad thing. That “WNs who know better will still push Trump “to gain ground” b/c they want to pretend it’s not a script to get Whites to be pro-gov’t again.” This is like the same shit WNs were doing when they were clamoring for Romney to win because “ANYONE BUT OBAMA I DON’T WANT DAT GOT DAMMNED BLACK BLOODED TOWEL NIGGER IN DUH WHAYT HOUSE RUININ’ MUH MURIKA”.That nigger in the white house was the single best recruiting tool we’ve ever had and these fags were all whining about it like it’s the worst thing to ever happen.

http://ropeculture.org/2016/02/16/trumpcucks/

>>10312

Did you even bother reading it?

>>10313

I had to get through your greentext to get to your hyperlink, didn't I?

>>10311

Nazi larpers who spend more time bashing Israel and sucking Arab dick than talking about the interests of white people are more likely to be Jewish plants than Donald Trump is.

>>10301

>>10303

The video starts by insisting that "when mexico sends its people" only refers to illegals and then uses this as a basis to accuse the media of hyperbole. it's all downhill from there. But it should be noted that he repeatedly insists that Trump's use of hyperbole and obviously invented figures (which he takes the time to acknowledge) is excused as part of Trump's rhetorical style.

>>10294

Wait a minute, hold it you dummy.

This video counters it pretty well.

>>10541

>dummy

no bully

>This video counters it pretty well.

Thanks, watching it now.

>>10293

A demagogue. Think a white and rich Obama with a comb-over, replace 'change' with 'Make America great again'.

>>10300

You actually believe Trump is running out of his genuine love for America and not to profit from his presidency?

Also Trump self-financing his campaign doesn't makehim any better. He's a businessman, he expects a return on investment + profit.

>>10544

>and will make the economy healthier

How?

All I see is a proposed tax cut with incresed spending and the proposed eviction of a third of the current workforce (iirc he wants to get everyone out that isn't born in the US regardless of their legal status).

All of this combined looks like the complete opposite of a healthy economy.

>>10649

>Also Trump self-financing his campaign doesn't makehim any better

See >>9892 , >>9898 , >>9920

1/3 of his campaign's contribution come from individuals. He also loaned his own campaign so he can recoup money spent via donations later.

>>10649

He's probably already profited off of the publicity. It was a no-lose situation for him.

(the best part is him obliterating the GOP's self respect in the process)

>>10541

Although some of his points are valid, such as about politifact having a democrat bias, the part where he gets butthurt about John Oliver using the word 'cancer' as an insult is very disparaging.

>I am cancer shurbiborrr!!1!111111

>Don't use cancer as insult!!!!11

Also he basically conceded that Trump does make a lot of flip-flop statements and outright lies, but then justifies it as 'being part of trump's style'

John Oliver's name attack was admittedly low-brow, but hey, it's a late night new comedy show.

>>10817

American companies will rather piss of and avoid all of it, then give up on chinease maufacturers. They're piss cheap, way cheaper than anything that would be produced in the US.

And "forcing" China?

Because it worked so well in the past? Really?

>>10677

>regardless of their legal status

>not wanting all non-whites to be deported

>>10846

looking to the past china has been rekt by japan, the british empire, and the mongols.

if anything these days are an exception with their strong manufacturing base, world class rare earth industry, unified executive, and seemingly unassailable agressive military posture in the south china sea.

just saying.

>>10726

>flip-flops

That said if you take issue with his stance on things, call him and debate him. He takes all comers.

>>10924

>>10923

>>10541

Are you on the Trump campaign's payroll? I've never even seen someone do damage control for their waifu this hard.

Donald Trump is the american Thatcher, a person in which all the snobbisms come together and with the hatred he receives tantamounting to an ideological orgasm.

Now all that needs to happen is for Bernie to lose so he can fully take the role of sledgehammer.

>>10923

>completely ignores all the lying statements he made

>Says he doesn't know who david duke is

>says he never attacked Jon stewart abot his name

There's a lot more of this kind of stuff

>>10924

So the fact that /pol/ is now shilling that hard for trump doesn't disconcert you?

>>10951

Not really. It'd only take a handful of people contriving what those stooges want to hear to get them walking in line. Or goosestepping in line, hue.

>>10996

This thread is an example >>>/pol/5311812

>>10957

>>completely ignores all the lying statements he made

Such as? Also, you do realize that even Trump himself has said he will over-state things just to make the media find the accurate number or figure since they tend to not listen to him when he does accurately claim things. All this before people started getting on him about this claim or that.

>>Says he doesn't know who david duke is

It' possible it slipped his mind.

>>says he never attacked Jon stewart abot his name

He didn't attack him. He made a comment about it. The problem here is that people seem to think even mentioning something counts a an attack. This is like calling criticism harassment.

>There's a lot more of this kind of stuff

So more stuff taken out of context or a spin put on it just for the sake of looking for something to throw hit at?

>So the fact that /pol/ is now shilling that hard for trump doesn't disconcert you?

No. A lot of people agree with a lot of his points. If anything it at least show they are showing a level realism instead of taking a "dude just wait for hitler" stance.

>>10986

>There was no discussion of Trump University.

It's your standard civil suit that the media has blown up or made out to be something serious when it is not and even when proven in the wrong, they will still fight him as vid related shows. Megyn Kelly outright lies during the debate about Trump university, claiming it had a D rating when it had an A rating at one point, whereas she claims it never did. Had she simply asked the BBB like some other news site did when they looked at this issue, this would not have happened. What is the issue here?

>There was no discussion of the fact that Donald Trump might be worth far less than he says that he is, and that he has sued people who say he is worth less. There do seem to be issues of honesty and consistency

He may be fighting how they classify worth. He has 300+ companies but he is only ever listed a being part of one, so this may be what he is referring to. They also misreport his "bankruptcies, ignoring it was done with 4 of those 300 companies for tax purposes.

>>10996

We have Cruz and Randlet supporters trying to do the same thing but to no avail. Why? Because people don't care for their policies at large or trust the candidate. I have a hard time seeing them be shilled properly anyways seeing how hostile they are to shills in the first place.

>>11000

>Such as?

http://factcheck.org/person/donald-trump/

http://politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

>It' possible it slipped his mind.

Making excuses now?

>No. A lot of people agree with a lot of his points.

And if they do that on /pol/, they're banned and/or shilled to death.

>If anything it at least show they are showing a level realism

"GOD EMPEROR TRUMP!"

"TRUMP WILL MAKE ANIME REAL!"

"PRESIDENT FOR LIFE!"

Yep. That's realism for you.

>instead of taking a "dude just wait for hitler" stance.

As opposed to taking the "dude, just wait for Trump, lol" stance?

>Megyn Kelly outright lies during the debate about Trump university, claiming it had a D rating when it had an A rating at one point,

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trump-universitys-d-rating/

>Why?

Because their threads are bumplocked by the mods, their posters are banned by the mods and the threads are shitposted to death by the users.

>>11059

>http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trump-universitys-d-rating/

DEMOLISHED

tried posting that in /pol/? would love to have some keks

>>11061

>tried posting that in /pol/?

I don't want to get banned.

Besides, I already know what would happen.

/pol/ would dismiss that article out of hand because it's an article that doesn't show unconditional support for Trump.

>would love to have some keks

You think that's bad?

Virtually every poll has Trump losing to both Clinton and Sanders.

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

And then if you get into favorable ratings it's even worse...

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

It's amazing what facts you find for yourself when you don't rely on /pol/ to tell you the whole truth about Trump.

>>10878

He's not deporting the right non-whites.

He's deporting the Pablos and Marias that paint my fence, mow my lawn and take care of my children for less than peanuts. And whom I can mistreat all I want because they come with pre-broken wills from the shitholes they come from.

He's keeping the babby tray trays that'd kill us all if they had half the chance and the kikes that seem to be hellbent on keeping this anti-white racial paradigm going on forever.

>>11083

He's not specifically deporting non-whites at all. He has focused on Mexicans, but that is because they are the biggest problem in terms of illegals.

>>11096

who says mexicans have to be non-white?

He good guy

>>10293

Liar, demagogue and a cheat.

I feel bad for Americans.

We got to keep our Ron Paul but you guys get that fat turd in his place.

You could have listened!

>>11096

That's the thing. He's focusing on the illegals who are honestly the lesser evil among the untermensch instead of getting rid of the nigger menace and their zionist masters.

>>11059

>Politifact

>factcheck.org

The keks keep coming. Both websites are known for their bias.

http://www.politifactbias.com/

http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/PolitiFact-Fact-Checkers-Bias/2015/03/20/id/631565/

http://watchdog.org/121499/newspapers-need-ditch-politifact-checks/

http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_141905/Factcheck_org_--_A_Fraudulent_Fact_Check_Site_Funded_By_Biased_Political_Group.html

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/11/05/the-ten-worst-fact-checks-of-the-2012-election/#2e9bc35b57bb

Did you not watch the Stefan video? He comments on this as well. It is a rather well known issue.

>Making excuses now?

It's not an excuse. This happens to people and he has even said this.

>And if they do that on /pol/, they're banned and/or shilled to death.

What?

>Yep. That's realism for you.

They're obviously playing around. This is a common thing on both 4chan and 8chan across multiple boards. You have people on /bane/ that act as if they can later the universe via memes, /sp/ who think they can give power to a team, /v/ who thinks they can bring about ruin by willing it, and so on and so on. Each board has something they like to have fun with or aggrandize for kicks. This much is obvious and it is rather amazing to see anyone who is not from another site not understand this. It's pretty simple.

>As opposed to taking the "dude, just wait for Trump, lol" stance?

That's is not unreasonable. Wanting to see what a candidate will do is not unreasonable. Expecting another Reich to come about or the return of a long dead leader is not comparable to a candidate delivering on some of his promises.

>Megyn Kelly outright lies during the debate about Trump university, claiming it had a D rating when it had an A rating at one point,

Megyn Kelly stated that there was no A-rating at any point. She obscured the truth and then tried to make excuses for it. Did you not watch the video?

>Because their threads are bumplocked by the mods, their posters are banned by the mods and the threads are shitposted to death by the users.

Because they can never defend their points, can never refute anything posted against, and outright lie half the time. That and /pol/ found that the board was indeed being shilled to death by Applied Memetics, a group working for Ted Cruz. I wish I had saved that thread.

>>11061

He'd get laughed at for not realizing how biased that website is.

>>11067

Oh?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/trump-crushing-gop-field-in-new-florida-poll/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/252825-poll-trump-beats-hillary-head-to-head

There are polls that show Trump beating Clinton or Bernie. Fear of being banned is nonsense since if you can actually back up what you say reliably, you have little to worry. I honestly think you know you'll get blown out there so you run over here to hide.

>>11117

When you post walls of meandering text the reason people don't respond isn't because they're overpowered by your arguments, it's because they don't care.

>>11117

one of your surveys only puts trump ahead of republican candidates.

The other, indeed puts trump ahead of Hillary, but if you bother to check the statement of methodology (this is an unusually light one they're normally a four to eight page report), the sample size was a mere 1000 respondents in Fairfield Connecticut, eight of the last eleven elections in the 4th district have gone republican.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/methodology.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6

I think he's come here because his post would be buried under 1000 lines of CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP.

>>11121

>When you post walls of meandering text the reason people don't respond isn't because they're overpowered by your arguments, it's because they don't care.

>meandering

I think the posts are on point as they need be.

>>11124

>I think he's come here because his post would be buried under 1000 lines of CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP.

And those posts are easy to ignore. If you want to have a serious thread, then one can have one. Crying that you aren't allowed is silly and rather untrue. As for the polls, the same can be said for the other polls he posted and tend to ignore the trend of most elections where the disparity between candidates tends to balance out as the election season goes on. And yes, this goes both ways but that is how it goes. Part of the reason why I feel that argument by itself is not the best or even worth having. It's something tossed in as extra and ignores how candidates tend to move towards the center in their promises and rhetoric once the primaries are over.

>>11128

I chose to examine the outlier. I agree that polling is not valuable on its own. reagan and thatcher both won in complete contradiction to the exit polls.

however I believe my point stands.

and the problem with /pol/ is that the majority of the threads are not challenging rapid-fire discussion but an all encompassing white noise. expecting minority opinion (for /pol/) to get a thorough sounding or even getting some amount of devils advocate mulling is a joke. the standard of discourse there is a joke.

>>11117

>The keks keep coming. Both websites are known for their bias.

Of course you dismiss the information out of hand. It's what I've come to expect from you trumpcucks. Any evidence that is pro-Trump is accepted unconditionally and any evidence that is anti-Trump is dismissed out of hand.

>Did you not watch the Stefan video? He comments on this as well. It is a rather well known issue.

Stefan is biased. Therefore using your own reasoning, I'm allowed to dismiss him out of hand because of his bias. See how that works?

>It's not an excuse. This happens to people and he has even said this.

How convenient.

>What?

I know you probably don't know this because you're a trumpcuck, but if you speak out against trump, you're banned on /pol/. Check out /polmeta/. Check the logs. Actually look at what is posted against Trump in those anti-Trump threads that get bumplocked. Think for yourself.

>That's is not unreasonable.

The hypocrisy is astounding. When you say "just wait for Hitler" it's an acceptable dismissal. But if someone says "Just wait for Trump" you literally have no problem with it.

It's like with Trump's Zionism. To you trumpcucks, any other candidate's Zionism automatically disqualifies them for your support but when Trump is shown to be a Zionist, at best you dismiss the information or at worst, you find no fault with it.

>Wanting to see what a candidate will do is not unreasonable.

Already making your mind up because you've seen enough evidence is not unreasonable either.

>Expecting another Reich to come about or the return of a long dead leader is not comparable to a candidate delivering on some of his promises.

What promises can Trump even keep?

Do you honestly think Trump will be allowed to build the wall, deport all the illegals or anything else he claims he's going to do because "reasons"? Do you honestly believe the Democrats and the Liberal court will ever allow a single brick of that wall to be built or a single illegal immigrant to be forcibly deported? I know you think he's running for God Emperor but be realistic.

>Megyn Kelly stated that there was no A-rating at any point. She obscured the truth and then tried to make excuses for it. Did you not watch the video?

Talk about moving the goalposts. T.U. has a D- rating. And Trump is being sued over T.U.. Did you even click the link? Oh, that's right, you dismiss "biased" information out of hand because it speaks out against your God Emperor.

>Because they can never defend their points, can never refute anything posted against, and outright lie half the time.

Again, I've defended my points. You've dismissed the info out of hand claiming it's "biased" (as if there is literally anything without bias), you haven't refuted anything I've posted and you dismiss the lies of Trump out of hand as well. But apparently I'm supposed to accept the info you posted without question.

>That and /pol/ found that the board was indeed being shilled to death by Applied Memetics, a group working for Ted Cruz.

And therefore, according to /pol/ any criticism of, disagreement with, or questioning of Trump is automatically a "paid Jewish shill". You shut down any legitimate concern over Trump.

>He'd get laughed at for not realizing how biased that website is.

See? Again you prove that any evidence questioning Trump is automatically dismissed for inane reasons.

>There are polls that show Trump beating Clinton or Bernie.

I never denied that.

On the polling sites I posted, there are several polls showing Trump beating both of them. But the vast majority of polls have Trump losing to them.

Also, I noticed you didn't even address the unfavorable ratings of Trump. Kinda hard to dismiss those, isn't it?

>Fear of being banned is nonsense since if you can actually back up what you say reliably, you have little to worry.

As you've just proven, anything someone posts that disagrees with you trumpcucks, you dismiss out of hand. Then you and a dozen others spam the report button.

Also, any anti-Trump thread is considered "shilling", "trolling", or a "raid", bumplocked and the OP banned.

I myself had been banned from /pol/ before because I disagreed with an off-topic Trump meme thread.

>I honestly think you know you'll get blown out there so you run over here to hide.

I honestly think trumpcucks have nothing but memes and catchphrases to back up your support of Trump and that's why your type remains on /pol/.

>>11124

>I think he's come here because his post would be buried under 1000 lines of CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP.

That's exactly it.

>>10809

Yea, Donald Trump's campaign killed that board. Fuck it though, we have here now.

>>11132

>Stefan is biased.

this is obviously true, but because everyone is entitled to subjective opinions this should not have a bearing on his points.

I believe it does though, because mixed in with a few very incisive points is a hell of a lot of low grade manure. This is symptomatic of someone not well versed in debate: going point for point with a comedian and satirist is suicidally moronic. If he cut his videos down by two thirds he'd have a coherent structure to make a case from.

as an example:

to address the issue of trump soliciting campaign donations he chooses to bring up the more significant campaign donations of democratic candidates (and ignore republican ones :D). these dems have made many statements thanking their supporters rather than belittling them. letting this point stand would cut roughly 2 minutes from his dry and overlong video and let him focus where he has a strong point and stop him sounding like a demagogue.

here's the point though: he's not a compelling speaker, he preaches to the converted and his total argument is never challenged. I get the feeling he's better at coaching true believers in damage control strats than convincing anybody.

also, it's kind of ironic that he's so disgusted by liberal snark when he puts on silly voices and makes dad jokes. sour grapes possibly, it's hard to be funny don't feel bad Steph. (vid related)

>>11132

>Of course you dismiss the information out of hand. It's what I've come to expect from you trumpcucks. Any evidence that is pro-Trump is accepted unconditionally and any evidence that is anti-Trump is dismissed out of hand.

You're expecting me to take the information seriously when the site and the method utilized is biased and flawed. You're literally mad because I illustrated that the sources you used are biased, a bias that has not only been illustrated and studied but recognized as well. If this is how you react to your rather shitty proof being challenged, then it is no wonder you have retreated to this low visibility, low population board where very few exist to even post let alone challenge your opinion.

>trumpcucks

Ah, you're one of those people. So who should I vote for then?

>Stefan is biased. Therefore using your own reasoning, I'm allowed to dismiss him out of hand because of his bias. See how that works?

No, I proved the bias of those websites. Not only proving it, but showed that their bias was not only has been scrutinized and studied but has been recognized as well. Prove his bias beyond declarations. Call his show and take him to task on his bias. I dare you.

>How convenient.

Things that happen to be people normally is convenient? Are you saying you never forget things? That you are a paragon of perfection? Do you see how silly you sound getting fussy over this point?

>I know you probably don't know this because you're a trumpcuck, but if you speak out against trump, you're banned on /pol/. Check out /polmeta/. Check the logs. Actually look at what is posted against Trump in those anti-Trump threads that get bumplocked. Think for yourself.

>>I know you probably don't know this because you're a trumpcuck

You speak of dismissal but you've already shown that you were never willing to listen in the first place. The funny thing is I don't see myself as a "trumpcuck". I started off in support of Bernie, then slowly ended up being in support of Trump. That said, speaking out against Trump won't get you tossed or banned. Doing so in some stupid manner without actually backing your shit, ignoring actual facts and using flawed out the ass sources will. I was a fan of Bernie while on /pol/, was critical of Trump at first, and have not been tossed to this day. I don't even agree with /pol/ in regards to race and tend spend some time on /leftypol/ and still can get along spouting my ideas without issue on /pol/ because I back up the shit I say with actuaal proof and don't use biased or flawed evidence. I mean really now.

>The hypocrisy is astounding. When you say "just wait for Hitler" it's an acceptable dismissal. But if someone says "Just wait for Trump" you literally have no problem with it.

That's not hypocrisy. You're trying to compare two entirely different things and make the one and the same. This is retarded. Hitler as a person is not coming back from the dead. At most, someone similar and even then, that is very very unlikely since it would require too many stars aligning to occur. In the case of Trump, he is simply calling for policies that lean nationalist and lean isolationist. That is no different than thinking Ron Paul could change things.

>It's like with Trump's Zionism. To you trumpcucks, any other candidate's Zionism automatically disqualifies them for your support but when Trump is shown to be a Zionist, at best you dismiss the information or at worst, you find no fault with it.

That's not true. How often have we heard /pol/ point out that there were some jews that Hitler spared? How often have we seen this or that "non-white" referred to as an honorary aryan? How often has soeone actually been a jew and still celebrated? It happens often enough. The fact that Trump causes jews fits seems to offset the jewry connected to Trump. Even more so, the connection a lot of the other candidates have to the jews seems entirely too financial or, like Cruz, to some weird fanatical degree. Trump's is less bothersome in the long run.

cont

>>11142

>Already making your mind up because you've seen enough evidence is not unreasonable either.

Granted it is not evidence from biased sources or comedians with a hate-boner for Trump.

>What promises can Trump even keep?

>Do you honestly think Trump will be allowed to build the wall, deport all the illegals or anything else he claims he's going to do because "reasons"? Do you honestly believe the Democrats and the Liberal court will ever allow a single brick of that wall to be built or a single illegal immigrant to be forcibly deported? I know you think he's running for God Emperor but be realistic.

The wall is plausible. Many times the idea has been floated and was only defeated by neocons and democrats. Even then, a fence has been erected here and there but is generally discarded thanks monetary issues. Using the wall and illegal immigration as a bargaining tactic along with a possible financial solution is not something that has been floated before so it can work. As for democrats, they rolled over when Bush pushed for the Iraq war and various other measures since they realized that people were against them if they tried to go against Bush. The very fact that the wall has so much support, the fact that even sources that are biased against Trump agree that the wall would work (CNN), indicates that such is a possibility. Hi deporting every single illegal is unlikely. More than anything, he can push for legislation that makes it harder to hire them and harder for sanctuary cities to harbor them. He can make it even harder for them to seek medical care or use various loopholes in the medical system to treat chronic conditions like chronic kidney disease/failure.

>Talk about moving the goalposts. T.U. has a D- rating. And Trump is being sued over T.U.. Did you even click the link? Oh, that's right, you dismiss "biased" information out of hand because it speaks out against your God Emperor.

There was no moving of goalposts. If you watched the debate, Trump said that the university had an A-rating. He conceded that it had a D-rating at first but that it went up. He also stated that it only went down because it had been left alone and that information was not being sent out, essentially left to rot. Megyn Kelly refused to acknowledge that it indeed had an A- rating at one point.

>Again, I've defended my points. You've dismissed the info out of hand claiming it's "biased" (as if there is literally anything without bias), you haven't refuted anything I've posted and you dismiss the lies of Trump out of hand as well. But apparently I'm supposed to accept the info you posted without question.

You have not defended any of your points. Instead, posted a source that was biased with biased information. And I've refuted everything you've posted. This is your problem. You want people to outright accept your flawed information from biased sources and take them as fact. That is stupid and doesn't make sense. Then again, that may be why you're hiding out here.

>And therefore, according to /pol/ any criticism of, disagreement with, or questioning of Trump is automatically a "paid Jewish shill". You shut down any legitimate concern over Trump.

No, it simply calls into question the person commenting and their intentions/information. If the person debates in good faith and actually comments on information presented at them, then it is hard to call them a shill. If they skip over counter information, then how is one supposed to take them seriously? If they are that bad at presenting their shit, then why should anyone listen?

>See? Again you prove that any evidence questioning Trump is automatically dismissed for inane reasons.

The source of information as well as the bias of the people examining the information is not inane. Again, you're just mad because instead of doing the fact-checking yourself, you are relying on someone else and get mad when that someone else turns out to be biased out the ass and unreliable. I'm not going to take information from a black nationalist on the origin of species now will I? Nor would I do such a thing with a white nationalist. Shit is silly.

>>11143

>I never denied that.

But you failed to highlight it either.

>On the polling sites I posted, there are several polls showing Trump beating both of them. But the vast majority of polls have Trump losing to them.

>Also, I noticed you didn't even address the unfavorable ratings of Trump. Kinda hard to dismiss those, isn't it?

Actually I did address that in my other post (we have IDs you know). Those things change when the general election rolls around so that alone is not that great of a measure of anything. Romney was doing well in the polls and got slaughtered in the general election.

>As you've just proven, anything someone posts that disagrees with you trumpcucks, you dismiss out of hand. Then you and a dozen others spam the report button.

Again, you are mad because you don't get to push unreliable sources. Even when that information is in support of Trump or opposed to someone opposed to Trump, /pol/ will call them out. The one thread slamming Ted Cruz had people making fun of the OP at various points for using politifact. The thread should still be up if you care to look for it.

>Also, any anti-Trump thread is considered "shilling", "trolling", or a "raid", bumplocked and the OP banned.

No, this only happens when the OP does a shit job defending their points and resorts to shitposting. It doesn't help that brit/pol/ themselves have admitted to shitposting American political thread because they find it funny. There are a lot of anti-Trump threads that are allowed to run their course. At this point, you just sound butthurt over the moderation in which case, that's not my problem. I'm fairly neutral in regards to everything else on /pol/ and I have yet to be banned.

>I myself had been banned from /pol/ before because I disagreed with an off-topic Trump meme thread.

Well, now I see where the butthurt comes from. That said, there is some hostility to people who sound like they are from reddit but this is the case for a majority of the boards mostly because no one (most people) likes reddit. So that can always affect things. You do sound like you're fro reddit and have turned whiny because the reliability of your sources have not panned out which, instead of proving their reliability or digging yourself have instead decided to toss a fit and cry about moderation. Can you imagine a thread, where a discussion is supposed to take place and instead, the OP has a meltdown and starts shitting everywhere because he gets called out, can you imagine such a thread thriving or being kept about? No. It would get shutdown on any board. Try this on /v/ but instead talk about video games in general. Eventually people would delare it another kind of console thread and it would be shutdown. On /a/, it would be likened to shipping threads and shutdown. So on and so on.

>I honestly think trumpcucks have nothing but memes and catchphrases to back up your support of Trump and that's why your type remains on /pol/.

If that is the case, it seems to be working for Trump and the board, both which are doing well. You're free to come back (bans are easy to get around), and get blown out again if need be. Seeing as how you're main issue stems from moderation more than anything, I may leave this alone and let the election cycle speak for itself.

>>11144

>>You're free to come back (bans are easy to get around), and get blown out again if need be.

>get banned by the mods for having the temerity to have your own opinion IE 'consensus cracking'

>'blown the fuck out'

Maybe he's just not a cuck. Why would he return to a board that bans people for wrongthink?

All the other shit is just damage control, and pretty pitiful damage control at that. Getting banned for having sources that some people don't like doesn't happen on /v/ and it doesn't happen on /a/, you're just misreprenting things because on some level you have to know this shit is pathetic.

>>11142

>>11143

>>11144

You know, I was going to respond to all that...I even started to...but it's not worth any more of my time.

I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change my mind.

You accept all evidence in favor of Trump without question.

You dismiss all evidence against Trump out of hand.

You believe that there is nothing wrong with the moderation on /pol/.

You believe that people aren't banned for simple dissent on /pol/.

You believe there is no legitimate reason as to why someone would not unconditionally support Trump as you do.

You believe all those people who do not unconditionally support Trump are "Jews", "shills", "trolls", "Liberals" or "Democrats".

You do not think for yourself.

You think how /pol/'s memes tell you to think.

You're a trumpcuck.

And I'm done with you.

>Wants to stop violent videogames

>Wants to censor the internet

He is pretty much a meme though so all the kids like him.

Why Donald Trump's Tax Returns May Prove He's Not That Rich

http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/donald-trump-tax-returns-income/

>>11168

Man I hate that kind of journalism. Wait till you actually know instead of spewing a bunch of ifs and maybes.

>>11172

Can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. You think journalism is only about report news?

>>11171

>He is also anti-abortion

no, he isn't. He doesn't care, he just says that for the conservative vote

>>11176

While you're probably right, this is another issue. What is he saying that is just bullshit to go along with the flow or garner popular support?

I'm not expecting perfection in our fucked up society, but there has to be some recognition that Trump remains a big question mark, even if you believe he is the best choice among major candidates, and probably everyone here thinks he is, unless they like Sanders.

>>11364

>He's likely the best candidate possible that has a real chance at winning.

The problem is, that's the exact, same argument I heard for McCain and Romney.

They both lost.

If you look at the head to head polls as they stand right now, Trump loses.

If you look at the unfavorable polls, Trump is the least liked candidate. Hillary has a higher unfavorable rating than Trump.

>>11366

Trump would demolish hillary. Theres no debate about that. forget what the polls say, not even the democrats want hillary in office. Its just biased rigged polls to attempt to make trump not get GOP ticket.

>>10295

Bingo. Don't forget yuppie.

>>11378

I disagree, I think Hillary will beat Trump. Trump will win the white male vote, maybe even the white vote overall, but will get destroyed with both the black and Hispanic vote.

> The modern GOP’s increasing reliance on a shrinking pool of older, white, and working-class voters — and its failure to attract nonwhite voters — would seem to present an enormous obstacle to the eventual Republican nominee. In 1980, when nonwhite voters were just 12 percent of the electorate, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and was elected in a landslide. But in 2012, when nonwhite voters accounted for 28 percent of the electorate, Mitt Romney took 59 percent of white voters — and lost the presidential race by 4 percentage points. Without a total brand makeover, how can Republicans expect to prevail with an even more diverse electorate in 2016?…

> If the electorate evolves in sync with the Census Bureau’s estimates of the adult citizen population (admittedly, a big if), the white share of the electorate would drop from 72 percent in 2012 to 70 percent in 2016; the African-American share would remain stable at 13 percent; the Latino portion would grow from 10 percent to 11 percent; and the Asian/other segment would increase from 5 percent to 6 percent. If the 2012 election had been held with that breakdown (keeping all other variables stable), President Obama would have won by 5.4 percentage points rather than by his actual 3.85-point margin.

> In addition, the group with which the GOP does best — whites without college degrees — is the only one poised to shrink in 2016. President Obama won just 36 percent of these voters in 2012, while 42 percent of white voters with college degrees pulled the lever for him. But if the electorate changes in line with census estimates, the slice of college-educated whites will grow by 1 point, to 37 percent of all voters, while the portion of whites without degrees will shrink 3 points, to just 33 percent of the total.

> In other words, the GOP doesn’t just have a growing problem with nonwhites; it has a shrinkage problem as well, as conservative white seniors are supplanted by college-educated millennials with different cultural attitudes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/10/the-demographics-of-2016-look-brutal-for-republicans/

>>11432

>blacks

>voting

also, there are no swing states with a substantial Latino population

>>11378

>Trump would demolish hillary.

In a debate, possibly. Though once Hillary is the nominee, the media is solely on her side.

>forget what the polls say

But those same polls are used to prove that Trump is winning in republican primary states...

>not even the democrats want hillary in office.

Democrats will vote for Hillary no matter what because Trump is the "big bad White racist" to them.

>Its just biased rigged polls to attempt to make trump not get GOP ticket.

How exactly does that work?

Anyone who votes for Trump obviously doesn't care about the polls (or the facts for that matter).

>>11433

>>blacks

>>voting

You're kidding, right? Blacks came out in droves in the last presidential election to vote for the Democrat.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/09/blacks-outvoted-whites-in-2012-the-first-time-on-record/

>>11443

>Blacks came out in droves in the last presidential election to vote for the Democrat

that was Obama, a black guy

most don't care about Hillary

>>11444

>that was Obama, a black guy

A Democrat Black guy.

>most don't care about Hillary

I have no idea where you're getting that.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/hillary-clinton-african-americans-georgia-virginia-220073

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/109083/20160115/presidential-election-poll-2016-hillary-clinton-has-strong-lead-among-black-latino-voters-sanders-winning-white-vote.htm

http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-hillarys-lock-on-black-support-1457478630

If you really think the gibs me dat's will ever support a Republican over a Democrat, you've got another thing coming.

>>11450

Blacks will never support a republican, I know that.

My point is most blacks could care less about politics. the few that do are supporting hillary. Look at 2000 and 2004, the blacks that voted went for Gore and Kerry but most didn't vote because most simply don't give a shit. Same will happen this election. (not to mention, there has been record low democrat turnout this year.)

Obama was a special exception because many really, really wanted a black pres.

>>11432

>I think Hillary will beat Trump

It's going to a narrow win, but I'd bet on Hillary winning in the general election

Do you guys Actually think Trump has a chance again st Hillary?

>>11452

>My point is most blacks could care less about politics. the few that do are supporting hillary.

And I've offered evidence to the contrary.

If you have some piece of evidence that proves Hillary won't get a vast majority of the entire black vote or that a vast majority of the registered black voters will stay home, let's see it.

Otherwise I'll go off the evidence backed opinion that virtually the entire black electorate will be supporting Hillary just like they did with Obama.

>>11547

If the polls stand where they are right now, no.

Something major would have to change before Trump beats Hillary.

The entire leftist base will unite with Hillary. Trump divides the rightist base.

>>11730

>The entire leftist base will unite with Hillary. Trump divides the rightist base.

I've heard past comments floating around before that Trump's real purpose in the race was solely to divide the Republicans so that Hillary can claim the presidency.

>>11547

No

Even if Trump wasn't going to be the candidate, the GOP had no chance this election, the demographic shift has tilted far enough along with the white population to ensure victory for the left

>>11785

>I've heard past comments floating around before that Trump's real purpose in the race was solely to divide the Republicans so that Hillary can claim the presidency.

I've heard that too. I don't think the Democrats are collectively that smart. I just think Trump wants to be President and decided to go Republican because he believes he has a better chance at winning. If he ran as a Democrat, he'd be a super rich, white, male business owner running as a liberal candidate. Doesn't really fit the (D) narrative.

>>11790

There are still a number of election cycles before whites are an absolute minority, and you can add another decade or two if your sense of racial inclusiveness extends to East Asians. Meaning, you would support policies that would be of benefit to both groups.

Basically, you would need a far greater degree of racial solidarity than anything observed today.

>>11807

Whites don't need to be a minority, there are enough that are locked into the democratic party that they tilt the advantage over to the Democrats

>>11810

Not if SHTF. Not if the Overton window is truly broken.

People will steer veer left or right, but the rules against talking honestly about race get tested more every day. Don't expect it to last another decade. It may not last another 4 years.

>>11785

Trump is also a liberal, a nazi and part of the KKK.

Trump is a great candidate, just because /pol/ mods shill him doesn't mean he's shit, they just do whatever the majority wants to preserve their position at the top of the echo chamber. I really want to see what happens when he gets into office and actually tries to run the country.

>>12533

>Trump is a great candidate

He looks better than the rest, but is far from great.

And with his recent backapddling I don't know if he'll keep that small edge he currently has.

>>11818

this pretty much sums up the anti-trump talking points, but it's backfiring. neo-nazis hear he's a nazi and vote for him. RINOs hear he's basically a liberal and vote for him. it's kind of hilarious. he's the Teflon Trump.

Donald Trump has some good points, like him or hate him.

He has called out the outsourcing of American jobs and provided some logical suggestions as solutions.

He has a pretty damn good healthcare reform plan (not anything like Obamacare or a single payer system).

He has a great tax reform plan that, if put into action, would help the poor and lower middle class save money, while *raising taxes on corporations that outsource American jobs.

He wants our borders to be protected, that is not a bad thing - you must have a decent legal immigration system to remain a sovereign nation.

He wants to repeal Common Core from the education system (both liberals and conservatives disagree with current Common Core standards).

I don't buy into all the propaganda against him. He has suggested some very reasonable solutions to a lot of problems we have today.