***the Official Donald Trump Thread***

[SilentSnow 1]

Trump not running. Not that it matters since he had no chance. Best case scenario for him was to drag down the political discussion and improve the chances for a "serious" Republican candidate, but he failed to do even that. For a party that supposedly wants to "take back the country" they are doing a horrible job. At the rate Republican candidates are backing away Obama might end up running virtually unchallenged. Of course there could be a more cynical interpretation than incompetence- Republicans don't really want to change things. They would rather consolidate the massive "gains" they've made over the last 30 years. They are happy to let Obama win again since he gives them most of what they want. Their most successful strategy is to do nothing and blame the Democrats for everything, so why mess up a good thing? They'll get back to the serious business of tearing down the country in 2016.

[Balloon guy 158]

Trump not running. Not that it matters since he had no chance. Best case scenario for him was to drag down the political discussion and improve the chances for a "serious" Republican candidate, but he failed to do even that. For a party that supposedly wants to "take back the country" they are doing a horrible job. At the rate Republican candidates are backing away Obama might end up running virtually unchallenged. Of course there could be a more cynical interpretation than incompetence- Republicans don't really want to change things. They would rather consolidate the massive "gains" they've made over the last 30 years. They are happy to let Obama win again since he gives them most of what they want. Their most successful strategy is to do nothing and blame the Democrats for everything, so why mess up a good thing? They'll get back to the serious business of tearing down the country in 2016.

So you think the republicans want to destroy the country, but are stealthily letting the democrats do it for them so they don't have to take the blame?Which means the democrats are destroying the country by their own hand, because they are incapable of seeing that they are just doing the work of the republican party?So the republicans are evil, but smart.The democrats are evil and stupid.I guess we finally agree on something.

[SilentSnow 1]

So you think the republicans want to destroy the country, but are stealthily letting the democrats do it for them so they don't have to take the blame?Which means the democrats are destroying the country by their own hand, because they are incapable of seeing that they are just doing the work of the republican party?

I would rewrite it as- The rich(who completely own the Republican party) want to eliminate the middle class and return us to the gilded age. This would be difficult without some cooperation from the Democrats so they do what they can to make sure that enough elected Democrats go against the will of their base that they can get their way while falsely claiming that both parties are equally to blame. The best case scenario in politics is an opponent that votes in favor of your position. You get your way without having to take the blame for an unpopular position. Democrats vote in favor of Republican positions vastly more often than Republicans do in favor of liberal positions. There is a 90-10 rule in politics. Even if one group is 90% to blame for something enough people fall for propaganda that you can use that 10% to completely obfuscate the truth. So what this means is that a large group of Democrats are disenfranchised since they can never expect many of the politicians they elect to keep their campaign promises. They know exactly what is happening but for various reasons they don't have the numbers to stop it.If you want a slogan-Most Republicans are evil, but smart.A few democrats are evil enough to sell out and go along with them.Also, smart is relative. In the short run they get their way but in the long run they are killing the golden goose that they rely on.

[Balloon guy 158]

I would rewrite it as- The rich(who completely own the Republican party) want to eliminate the middle class and return us to the gilded age. This would be difficult without some cooperation from the Democrats so they do what they can to make sure that enough elected Democrats go against the will of their base that they can get their way while falsely claiming that both parties are equally to blame. The best case scenario in politics is an opponent that votes in favor of your position. You get your way without having to take the blame for an unpopular position. Democrats vote in favor of Republican positions vastly more often than Republicans do in favor of liberal positions. There is a 90-10 rule in politics. Even if one group is 90% to blame for something enough people fall for propaganda that you can use that 10% to completely obfuscate the truth. So what this means is that a large group of Democrats are disenfranchised since they can never expect many of the politicians they elect to keep their campaign promises. They know exactly what is happening but for various reasons they don't have the numbers to stop it.If you want a slogan-Most Republicans are evil, but smart.A few democrats are evil enough to sell out and go along with them.Also, smart is relative. In the short run they get their way but in the long run they are killing the golden goose that they rely on.

You don't know any rich people do you?You want to know how many of them got rich?By selling things to the middle class.I mean this is like saying that sharks want all the fish to die so that they stop eating their food supply.You are classically fooled by the class warfare of the left. This leaves you paranoid. The next step is to start wondering who really killed JFK, where did they fake the moon landings, and how did George W. Bush bring down the Twin Towers without anyone knowing.The notion that there is a consensus amongst 'the rich' is your next crazy idea. More rich people are democrats than republicans anyway.Class warfare is propaganda, you have swallowed the hook, the line and the rod and reel. You are a sheep, following the people who are laughing at you behind your back.The republicans want to raise the lower people up to a higher level, the democrats want to bring the upper people down to a lower level. That is the only difference between them.That and republican women are 10xs hotter than democrat women, which explains why you guys are so angry and pissed off all the time. Plus all the gay guys are in the democrat party, so the few hot women you got get to compare you guys to the hot gay guys and it makes you guys look even uglier.Meanwhile, we republican men are knee deep in babes, without well built hot guys to distract our women.Which explains why we are better men.

[SilentSnow 1]

You don't know any rich people do you?You want to know how many of them got rich?By selling things to the middle class.I mean this is like saying that sharks want all the fish to die so that they stop eating their food supply.The notion that there is a consensus amongst 'the rich' is your next crazy idea. More rich people are democrats than republicans anyway.The republicans want to raise the lower people up to a higher level, the democrats want to bring the upper people down to a lower level. That is the only difference between them.That and republican women are 10xs hotter than democrat women, which explains why you guys are so angry and pissed off all the time.

That is why I used the golden goose analogy. The middle class helped the rich get rich, but many of them are too shortsighted to see this and pursue policies that hurt the middle class. I doubt that more of the rich are democrats, but if they are they would be smart. America as it is made them rich. Fundamentally changing it like Republicans want to do is a very risky strategy. It's a well known fact that the middle class and the poor have been doing relatively/absolutely worse for thirty years now. The idea that the Republicans want to help the poor and middle class is just a pathetic lie at this point. If this is in fact their goal then their policies have been complete failures for decades now. I'll take my chances with the women since there are proportionally more liberal than conservative women. Since you do have a way with words, I guess I'll finish with posting your own-Denial of class warfare is propaganda, you have swallowed the hook, the line and the rod and reel. You are a sheep, following the people who are laughing at you behind your back.

[AmScray 355]

I'll take my chances with the women since there are proportionally more liberal than conservative women.

You must be new to life.Conservative women are, many times over, more freaky than liberal women. I realize this is counter intuitive, but nevertheless, absolutely true. I mean, Utah is the US state that views the most porn, yet is also probably the most straight up fucking Praise God conservative. The only slight advantage liberal women have over conservative women is that they're more open to doing other broads, but this is negated by the daddy issues that incited their liberal beliefs in the first place, and they're lazy as hell in the sack. Much like liberals in general, they expect someone else to do all the work while they just sit there with their butt in the air and receive all the benefit. Conservative women are the opposite of this in every single way.You'd think this is just too narrow to be anything but isolated anecdote. It isn't. It's "bet everything you have" consistent and reliable.

[brvheart 1,752]

You must be new to life.Conservative women are, many times over, more freaky than liberal women. I realize this is counter intuitive, but nevertheless, absolutely true. I mean, Utah is the US state that views the most porn, yet is also probably the most straight up fucking Praise God conservative. The only slight advantage liberal women have over conservative women is that they're more open to doing other broads, but this is negated by the daddy issues that incited their liberal beliefs in the first place, and they're lazy as hell in the sack. Much like liberals in general, they expect someone else to do all the work while they just sit there with their butt in the air and receive all the benefit. Conservative women are the opposite of this in every single way.You'd think this is just too narrow to be anything but isolated anecdote. It isn't. It's "bet everything you have" consistent and reliable.

Do you have a link/proof for this?

[SilentSnow 1]

Do you have a link/proof for this?

I think someone did a study once and Utah had the highest rate of online subscriptions to porn. So you can decide if this means that Utah--for whatever reasons actually watches the most porn. -the study wasn't accurate.-buys more porn because they are too dumb to find it for free. -buys more online porn because all other types of porn(magazines, videos, etc) are banned in Utah.As for Amscray's post, I think a theory this groundbreaking will take some hands-on research.

[El Guapo 8]

Do you have a link/proof for this?

Pretty sure this is "common knowledge" at this point.

[brvheart 1,752]

I'm not questioning Scram, but I'm curious.

[vbnautilus 48]

I'm not questioning Scram, but I'm curious.

Porn In the USA: Conservatives are Biggest ConsumersThe biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

conservatives are just the biggest suckers. LOL @ porn subscriptions

[brvheart 1,752]

So I'm still not disagreeing with anyone on anything, but that article/study is terrible. There is statistical bias all over the place. They only used receipts from one company. Didn't include any porn viewing that is free. And drew far reaching causation conclusions based on even slight correlation.I found the actual study: http://people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf

[AmScray 355]

So I'm still not disagreeing with anyone on anything, but that article/study is terrible. There is statistical bias all over the place. They only used receipts from one company. Didn't include any porn viewing that is free. And drew far reaching causation conclusions based on even slight correlation.I found the actual study: http://people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf

I think a more accurate test would be to break down originating IP addresses by geography on a site like Redtube, XVideos, etc. Still, people would say "HAHAHA THEY ONLY USED ONE SITE!!!" but sites like that are very much 'middle earth' in what they offer and have no built in bias to slant by geography or porn type preference, as opposed to breaking down the state by state viewers of Scat porn subscribers, where you would probably find it skewed heavily to states with the most German genetics. It would also be most interesting to see what states watched the most gay porn. I'll just come out and say this: on a per capita basis, I think Texas takes this down.

[vbnautilus 48]

So I'm still not disagreeing with anyone on anything, but that article/study is terrible. There is statistical bias all over the place. They only used receipts from one company. Didn't include any porn viewing that is free. And drew far reaching causation conclusions based on even slight correlation.I found the actual study: http://people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf

After reading the paper I can't agree with your assessment. Rather than a "slight correlation", the author shows a regression analysis which shows statistical significance for the relationship between conservative views and porn memberships at levels that exceed all scientific standards (e.g. for religious views, p = .002. That means a result this large by chance alone occurs only 2 in 1000 times.)I also don't see where he draws any conclusions on causation. He is talking about the relationship between demographic variables and his (perhaps inadequate) measure of porn viewing. Could you please point me to where you causal conclusions?( however, its not even clear what kind of interpretation error one could realistically make here -- are you suggesting that watching porn causes people to become more conservative? )

[brvheart 1,752]

After reading the paper I can't agree with your assessment. Rather than a "slight correlation", the author shows a regression analysis which shows statistical significance for the relationship between conservative views and porn memberships at levels that exceed all scientific standards (e.g. for religious views, p = .002. That means a result this large by chance alone occurs only 2 in 1000 times.)I also don't see where he draws any conclusions on causation. He is talking about the relationship between demographic variables and his (perhaps inadequate) measure of porn viewing. Could you please point me to where you causal conclusions?( however, its not even clear what kind of interpretation error one could realistically make here -- are you suggesting that watching porn causes people to become more conservative? )

I was talking about the article and it's author, not the study. I "slashed" it with "study" because I hadn't read the study prior to my post.That being said, I'm sure you've already seen it, but some dude at the wjs breaks things down a little*: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123601531011211321.html*I haven't read that entire article yet.

[AmScray 355]

( however, its not even clear what kind of interpretation error one could realistically make here -- are you suggesting that watching porn causes people to become more conservative? )

We all know the answer to this, even though it's probably one of those things that couldn't ever be quantified scientifically enough for Asians to understand.The reasons conservatives look at more porn is twofold.1) Their conservative social beliefs attempt to quash a natural human desire, thus causing sexual frustration.2) Many of them are inherently perverse people who overcompensate for this by externally pushing "conservatism" as a dissociative mechanism against their own undesirable, internal urges. Porn acts as a natural relief outlet for 1 and/or 2. It's no different than why so many fags become priests. Due to their innate homosexual bend, they reach a point of self-loathing and guilt that is so profound, they attempt to disavow sexuality all together by "turning to god". Obviously, this relationship can only last for so long and before you know it, an alter boy is taking one up the ass. This is a shame as most closeted gay priests are significantly more "moral" from the outset than the openly flaming queers who have anonymous sex in bathhouses, but that same moral construct forces them to try and bottle something up that cannot be contained. Eventually, brain chemistry takes over and it fails. The conservative/porn interplay is a lot more innocuous, since they can simply come home from church, close the door behind them and not risk anything criminal, or really even getting caught. Bust a nut, say five hail Mary's, pretend it never happened, then go back out into the world as an upstanding citizen once again.

[hblask 1]

It somehow seems appropriate to me that a Donald Trump presidential thread has turned into a Mormon porn discussion.

[ezelisko 0]

It somehow seems appropriate to me that a Donald Trump presidential thread has turned into a Mormon porn discussion.

You are confused with the similarities between the two?