Should I bother watching this...

>Clinton's
>Bush
>Reagan
>Uncle Tom's
Hmm, nothing about the insanely disproportionate crime rates, birthrates, and absentee fathers.

One step closer to being dropped.

Anything else you'd like to add, user? Cause you're really making me think.

>crime rates
whitey made illegal thing that blacks do like walking, activism, or smoking harmless grass plus the White House rapist's 3 strikes law
>birthrates
newsflash: most "welfare queens" with 7 children are white midwestern fatties

>absentee fathers
see the point about crime rates

>whitey made things illegal
I'll agree that certain laws need to be changed, but it's illegal for whites too. Yes, black people are disproportionately affected, but it's not as if they're being framed for crimes they did not commit.

>birthrates
Newsflash: blacks make up 13% of the population, and yet the black birthrate has recently converged on the white. And as far as total welfare recipients, you need to adjust for population, dipshit.

>see the point about crime rates
Ok... checked. And I still don't know what the fuck your point is.

>or is it just a one-sided pity party where niggers point the finger at everyone and everything but themselves?

This.

They legitimately try to tell you that "the majority of rapes in America are by white men raping black women".

Also, I feel like I should mention the fact that I acknowledge there are isolated cases of blacks being framed for crimes they didn't commit.

Just thought I'd point that out before you sperg the fuck out.

>it's well researched

>whitey made illegal thing that blacks do
Yeah like murder or armed robbery. How dare they?

Go away reedit peado trip

>From the historical-revisionist that brought you Selma

Yeah, how impartial and truthful do you think it's going to be, OP?

This is the woman that rewrote LBJ into an evil racist caricature so she could lionize MLK more, and then pitched a fit when people inquired about it.

Yeah, but have you seen it? I just don't want to waste my time with a documentary which espouses a view that "systemic racism" is the only thing to blame for their current socio-economic standings.

Because this user is right . I really don't want to hate a group of people more than I already do.

We gotta keep the KANGZ down somehow.

>netflix documentary
>well researched

If you need comfy movies, this would not be it.

Half of it is obsession and the other half about for-profit prisons is truth. It could increase your anxiety.

Watch Zootopia instead.

It's another shitty, incredibly biased doc released solely because it could capitalize on nigs and poorly-educated whites that are not smart enough to realize the BLM garbage is a black-supremacist sham.

The problem is how it's going to galvanize a bunch of idiots that aren't smart enough to do their own research.

Expect to get lectured by a lot of arm-chair "experts" on Facebook and on college campuses that saw this movie and "had their eyes opened".
Kind of like that shitty doc Blackfish made every college idiot think they were an expert on marine biology and animal cruelty, but way, way worse.

>uncle toms

A term used only ironically by white people or by niggers angry some black guy with self respect isn't niggering it up enough.

The basic concept behind it is kind of sound.

Southern States did use prisoners to fill in for positions previously held by slaves. They did use a very liberal application of laws to jail people to fill the quotas. But they applied to black and white alike.

It's just that now blacks commit crimes at higher rates.

And it's also sort of moot - Illegals fill the new role that slaves could have filled.

>half of it is obsession
What do you mean?

>watch Zootopia instead
That's probably not a bad idea

This is pretty much what I figured.

See, I acknowledge that there is a history of marginalization, and it ultimately effects the current state of affairs in certain ways; however, what I have a problem with is the consistent refusal to acknowledge certain unappealing facts in the black community. There needs to be a balance and there rarely ever is.

It's got a legitimate name now.

"Respectability Politics".

>dem lawses is racist n shiet caint a nigguh smoke some weed i mean damn robbery aint even a big deal nigga we wuz stolen from africa so fairs fair nahmean laws is racist judges is racist prison is racist

>yeah but what about violent crimes like murder and rape

>see dats some racist bullshit

This is good.

Now we just need to convince the SJWs to ban the police presence in black neighborhoods to get them to kill each other at unprecedented levels.

Blaming an African American for being imprisoned for robbery or murder is just another form of victim blaming, as crime is Breaking The Law + Privilege + Power.

You don't need to do anything. That's the entire point of BLM.

They want less police presence in African American neighborhoods. It's on their list of demands.

This inevitably leads to higher crime. The trick is not to then respond to the escalating crime by increasing police presence, but simply ignoring it.

I can't tell if this is bait or leftist doublethink. I'm losing touch with reality.

>implying cops respond to crime in inner city ghettos
What would be the point? No one ever sees anything.

>found the nigger

That's a goal true, but they're not actually trying to get any legislation to pass. They've already stated they're not chasing political solutions.

I literally want to see police departments disbanded.

So you're saying that BLM is actually taking care of the problem in a convoluted fashion?

>Now we just need to convince the SJWs to ban the police presence in black neighborhoods to get them to kill each other at unprecedented levels.

This.

Or better yet....

>Sanction an island exclusively for "oppressed minorities" and their sympathizers so that they can live there in peace and never be persecuted by evil white Republicans again
>Dump all the blacks and Muslims there, along with their SJW cheer-leaders
>Leave them there and wish them the best of luck
>Watch on the secret surveillance system as it immediately degenerates into a civil war with the white cucks, women, gays and trannies on the losing end as they are strung-up and burned alive by the "oppressed minorities"
>After the civil war, if there are any survivors, they die-out due to not being able to function without the support of superior white western cultures and the free money they provide
>Quality of life on planet Earth goes up about 1000%

It's still the job.

Mind you the Baltimore police only stopped regular patrols in these neighborhoods and murder surged +50%.

It's both.

I'm just parroting the new Hot Take in identity politics - Respectability Politics (i.e, not selling drugs or raping) is a form of victim blaming. It's putting the onus on the criminal to not commit crimes, not the system to racially oppress him. Basically; Teach Cops Not To Arrest, Not Criminals To Stop Committing Crime.

If it's of any reassurance, the mainstream black community thinks it's retarded too.

According to many people, this documentary included, the point is to mass incarcerate them and keep the Prison Industrial Complex alive and kicking.

Yeah, I guess.

But it's not the first time.

Back in the 60's as blacks moved out of the South, they adopted the same "hands off" policing mentality they had down there, which led to spiraling crime.

The liberals then demanded SOMETHING GET DONE ABOUT IT, and so police hit the areas hard. Bam, racial tensions. Back off. Things get bad. Go back in.

Around and around.

The key now is to listen to what they want (it's their communities after all) and stay out. Let them go full Favela.

That said, uppity white middle class liberals campaigned against the increased police surveillance used in Oakland, while members of the black community who actually lived in the affected areas said they quite liked the reduction in violent crime.

So who knows. Should probably have a vote on it. I don't know why people hate referendums so much.

Kek. It was kind of a rhetorical question, but yeah, I agree with you.

>Now we just need to convince the SJWs to ban the police presence in black neighborhoods to get them to kill each other at unprecedented levels.
This just gets used to justify welfare spending, healthcare entitlements, and gun control for white Americans who provide for themselves, follow the laws, and don't kill people.

>Der gunna tek away all muh guuunz
Take one of them, put it in your mouth, aim for your little brain, and pull the trigger.

>I make epic shitpost xD
A major POTUS candidate outright stated that she does not believe private citizens have a right to bear arms. I really need to make no further argument than that with the likes of you.

fuckin niggers

He's right though. Libtards always make a big fuss over the 30k or so killed per year with guns, ignoring that two thirds of those are suicides and the vast majority of the remainder is black-on-black, criminal-on-criminal violence, primarily in major cities in states with tough gun control laws like Chicago, in crimes that don't affect the rest of us one bit. Naturally, liberals like to pretend tens of thousands of innocents die in mass shootings every year, when the simple truth is they're actually quite rare, we just have a very large population and the law of large numbers comes into play.

If you are not a black gang member, your odds of dying by gun crime drop to levels equal to or less than most European countries.

She has put forth her proposals for gun control. You can look this shit up. She is not going to abolish the second amendment, nor could she even if she wanted. Now, seriously, fucking take your dumb ass out of the gene pool.

Obama can't even pass something as innocuous as universal background checks ny meams of an executive action, and people are worried about some dumb cunt taking away their guns. Fucking morons.

She quite literally stated that Heller v. DC was mistaken. Heller v. DC upheld that private individuals have a right to keep and bear arms, debunking the "militia clause" argument. She's poised to be the one who gets to replace the swing vote in a court that ruled 5-4 in the Heller case.

She was also one of the only people in the Senate to vote against the Vitter Amendment, a federal law that prohibited seizing privately held guns without just cause.

Exactly what the fuck does she have to do or say to make clear she does not believe we have a right to bear arms and will act on that belief?

I'm not saying the instant she takes office, black helicopters are going to swoop in and seize all the guns. That's an incredibly disingenuous point you're trying to make. But she doesn't have to abolish the Second Amendment if she can have it ruled in SCOTUS that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to private individuals, as four sitting justices already believe no matter how clear the wording of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms..." could possibly seem.

Don't forget, new for 2016, the DNC official platform quietly dropped wording recognizing a right to bear arms as coexisting with "common sense gun control." Every year before now, they acknowledged we had a right to bear arms, even if subject to regulation for safety purposes.

Now even the mere acknowledgement that gun ownership is a right is too much for them.

>She's poised to be the one who gets to replace the swing vote in a court that ruled 5-4 in the Heller case
>"she" is poised
No. You obviously don't know how the system works. And "she" won't even be the one to elect the next judge, as it needs approval from the senate.

>Vitter amendment
Again, you grossly overestimate the power of a president. They said the same shit about Obama, and the only bills he's signed (other than the "executive" action) regarding guns, was to allow people to carry guns on trains and in national parks -- certainly doesn't sound like someone who wants to take away your fucking guns.

It's propaganda, stop taking the b8.

>someone makes a passing reference to gun control
>a libtard or eurotrash instantly pounces in with vitrol and ignorance
It never fails. It happens literally every time.

So she's a liar when she says she's going to introduce gun control laws?

I don't get American politics.

I'm literally not arguing in favor of gun control. Just that easily-manipulated gunfags buy into the hype when republican politicians say the dems are going to abolish their beloved 2nd amendment.

The only thing I'm 100% in favor of is universal background checks.

Not at all, but it's politics on her end when she says she wants to get rid of assault rifles. She knows full well that is not going to happen, she's just pandering to her base. And as for universal background checks, like I said before, a president doesn't have the power to do this unilaterally.

>the president has absolutely no power whatsoever
You really are trying to be as disingenuous as possible. I mean, she quite literally openly stated that she does not believe we have a right to bear arms. No amount of mental gymnastics and retarded leaps of logic will get around that basic, simple, and proven fact. And she's still running for President of the goddamn United States. It's not like our President is just a figurehead like some countries' PMs are for instance.

And besides, all the Senate can do is hold a confirmation hearing. What are they going to do, refuse to confirm any new justice whatsoever until 2018 when people finally vote them out of the Senate out of irritation with not having a full court? That sounds like will end well. There's no way in hell she'll nominate a justice with a good pro-2A record, and that means at BEST we can hope for gridlock for four or eight years. At BEST.

Also, Obama blocked numerous imports from numerous countries, and the price of ammo has skyrocketed under his administration as a result, as well as some popular guns just plain no longer being available firsthand. And the executive branch oversees federal agencies like the ATF, who could do a lot to make guns less accessible without any legislation whatsoever.
>less accessible doesn't matter it only counts if it's a complete overnight ban
Nah. Bits and pieces are how they've worked on gun ownership for decades now.

>universal background checks.
You mean universal registration. You cannot enforce unviersal background checks on guns unless you know where all the guns are. It's a practical impossibility otherwise. Sure, the politicians who say we have no legitimate right to own guns suddenly want to know where all the guns are. That'll end just fucking swell, won't it. Let alone other arguments I'm sure you'll dismiss offhand, like that we should have a right to transfer our private property without Big Brother's oversight and approval.

Many states already have assault weapons bans and we did have a federal AWB before, passed by her husband if you'll recall.

And "assault rifle" is not "assault weapon." The former is a technical term with a precise definition. The latter is a vague, nebulous term that changes from state to state and from year to year and covers all sorts of weapons most people would agree are not especially dangerous or military firearms (not that a firearm being "military style" is a bad thing). Pic related, it's a product of New York's assault weapon legislation.

>n-n-n-nobody is coming for your guns I swear

Pic related, this is clearly not an assault rifle, but it's definitely an assault weapon. You'd be a real threat to rabbits and squirrels everywhere if you were to spray fire from the hip with a terrible machine gun like this.

>she quite literally openly stated that she does not believe we have the right to bear arms
No, she hasn't. I honestly don't know where the fuck you're getting this from. She's stated her current proposals, and they don't involve abolishing the 2nd.

>what are they going to do, refuse...
Yes, I could absolutely see that happening if the nominee has a record of being staunchly anti-2nd.

>There's no way in hell she'll nominate a justice with a good pro-2A record
This would be a matter of perspective on what constitutes "pro" 2A. Something tells me we would differ on this, as it's usually not as simple as being for or against it. And let's not forget that it was a conservative supreme court judge that was the swing vote in Obamacare, so it's not as black and white as you make it out to be.

>the price of ammo has skyrocketed because of Obama
What? It's because gun sales have skyrocketed and the demand is much higher. Where the hell are you getting this shit from? I mean, seriously, I had to look this up and the NRA would even disagree with you on "duuh Obama".

>you cannot enforce universal background checks unless you know where all the guns are
The fact is, loopholes need to be closed, and family members should not be able to gift their guns to each other. You're not going g to change my mind on this, and obviously I'm not going to change yours.

>Again, you grossly overestimate the power of a president. They said the same shit about Obama, and the only bills he's signed (other than the "executive" action) regarding guns, was to allow people to carry guns on trains and in national parks -- certainly doesn't sound like someone who wants to take away your fucking guns.
Do you even know what the executive branch does? The ATF has gone from mostly quiet to super aggressive since B. Hussein took office. They tried to ban green tips, and only backed off when every AR owner in the country (read: the single most popular rifle platform in America) collectively said "Oh, HELL no". They quietly reclassified arms export laws to basically give them the right to sue damn near any gun forum on the Internet for discussing any technical aspects of firearms, since that could qualify as "exporting firearms technology" under their now vague as fuck policies.

The ATF upped fines and fees for all sorts of registration and services and caused a precipitous drop in gunsmithing as a result, as well as building a quiet "shadow registry" by requiring A&Ds on essentially all gunsmithing or repair services. Last year they reversed a longstanding position that unfinished lowers do not constitute manufacture of firearms requiring manufacturing licenses (which now costs thousands of $ per year), singlehandedly killing the 80%-lower market and effectively criminalizing privately built firearms from gunsmithing shops.

The ATF has also altered the definitions of firearm classification so much literally nobody can make heads or tails of their byzantine regulations, and as such, millions of guns are in a legal gray area, where asking if a previously-legal firearm is legal or not gets an answer most honestly stated as "It depends on the mood of the ATF officer you ask." Pic related

And let's not even mention Fast & Furious. Apparently we don't have a right to bear arms, but Mexican cartels do.

Wew. There are more guns than ever, and I think you need to relax, Cletus.

>No, she hasn't. I honestly don't know where the fuck you're getting this from. She's stated her current proposals, and they don't involve abolishing the 2nd.
You're not listening. She doesn't want to abolish the 2nd, she wants to re-define the 2nd as not upholding a private right to bear arms.

Regarding the Heller case, which held that 2A protects an Individuak right to keep and bear arms, she stated, and I quote
>The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.

So, again: She doesn't want to abolish the 2nd in the sense that the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th. What she wants to do is judicially re-define it to hold that it does not, and never did, protect an individual right, but only a "collective right" invested in state-run organizations. Once it's not a Constitutional right, then any gun control, ban, fine, tax, fee, or confiscation cannot be argued to infronge on our Constitutional right. Get it now?

>refuse
For eight years?

>Obamacare
I'm talking just in gun ownership. We already know the court stands at 4-4 on this, due to the 2008 and 2010 landmark 2A cases and the justices' remarks afterwards.

>loopholes
What "loopholes"? Are you aware the "gun show loophole," for example, is a myth? Gun shows have to follow the exact same laws as gun transfers literally anywhere else. The Brady law was passed, as a compromise with Republicans, with a specific exception written into the law for some types of private transfers. This was a compromise, NOT a "loophole."

>I don't have an answer to any of what you just said, so I'll just call you an ironic nickname.

forgot muh poic. More ATF logic.

You know, in soviet military doctrine AK really is closer to submachine gun than a rifle

Why on earth would a handgun with a stock be considered a short barreled rifle I've no idea

This is how liberals argue.

>She doesn't want to abolish the 2nd, she wants to re-define the 2nd as not upholding a private right to bear arms
She's not going to redefine the 2nd amendment, you manchild. Just stop.

>for 8 years
Donald fucking Trump has a good shot of being our next pres, so if Hillary gets it, absolutely nothing would surprise me. And lets not kid ourselves, she'll be a one term pres.

>I'm just taking gun ownership
I'm aware, I was making a point.

>gunshow loopholes are a myth
Yes, I wasn't referring to gunshows, but rather the private transfers.

You know quite a lot about gun legislation. Why? Quite a lot of time on your hands, huh? Quite a lot of guns, perhaps? Quite?

>I'll just call you a nickname
>and point out a fact that you'll conveniently ignore

>Why on earth would a handgun with a stock be considered a Government logic.

>She's not going to redefine the 2nd amendment, you manchild. Just stop.
What a wonderful argument. Oh, she's not going to. She just said she would for "political reasons." One of those two-faced positions she holds in public but not in private, surely.

Look, she's running for the office that appoints nominees to the Supreme Court and outright, directly, unequivocally, stated that a landmark case upholding the right to bear arms is wrong. The fact that Hillary Clinton does not believe the average joe citizen has an individual right to bear arms is one of the least ambiguous things in modern politics. Why else did the DNC drop all mention of gun ownership as a Constitutional right from their 2016 platform, despite having it in every prior election, including both of Obama's? Why did she state that the Heller decision was wrong if she doesn't think the Heller decision was wrong?

>private transfers
Are not a "loophole." They were deliberately allowed under the Brady law as a compromise to the gun rights lobby to get that law passed. Liberal politicians sure do look honest when yesterday's compromise becomes today's loophole. What will today's compromise become?

>quite a lot of guns
Do you feel there's some number that crosses into "too many"?

>>Why on earth would a handgun with a stock be considered a Government logic.
Gah, fucked up the formatting there. Anyway, government logic. That's why.

Pic related, more government logic.

>she just said that she would
No. She didn't. She doesn't want to redefine the 2nd. She doesn't want to take away your guns. You, and millions of Americans will still have 350,000,000 of them after she leaves office. In fact, much like during Obamas term, you'll probably have millions more of them.

I've stated my position on why I don't think any guns or rights will be taken away, but we can only speculate on this. And you can bring up a past record of hers, which is fair enough, but I'm going by the current proposals.

>do you feel like there's a number that crosses I to too many
Personally, yeah... one. I've lived in some sketchy neighborhoods in my lifetime, and I've never felt compelled to own one, and luckily I've never been in a situation where I could have benefitted. You're more likely to be killed by a friend or family member anyway, and I think it's a waste of money based on the off-chance that you'll be caught up in some kind of fucking firefight someday (not to mention the absurd scenario of a gov. gone rogue).

Frankly, I think people who literally get up in arms about guns are cowards.

>She doesn't want to redefine the 2nd.
She literally and directly stated that she does not agree with the current SCOTUS definition of our Seocnd Amendment rights. I just cannot make any clearer, less ambiguous argument here. I can point to her record as Senator, her argument that the government should have the right to forcibly seize private arms without due process or just cause (Vitter Amendment), I can point to her loooooong history of anti-gun legislation, votes, and public statements, and all of it combined couldn't be more clear than directly stating that individual citizens should not have an individual right to bear arms.

I own a gun or two on the off chance I'll get robbed or attacked, which has happened to me before and is what got me into guns in the first place. My sidearm and shotgun are for personal and home protection. My rifles are for hunting (for meat, not sport) or target shooting. Everything else is a collection. That seems perfectly down to earth to me.

I'd never use the word nigger anywhere else, only to push your buttons you fucking attention starved cretin

Where do you think you are?

>being respectable in civilized society is now a negative thing

we're rapidly approaching the terminal moment for western civilization

>> Questioning the use of the word "nigger"
>> On Cred Forums
Go back to your safe space.

that was the part where I dropped that shitty doc

You're just not tolerant enough. IF you were progressive and tolerant, you'd understand that looting and rape are just a leigtimate part of their culture!

Yes, I've heard your points loud and clear about Clinton's past statements. And I'll reiterate the fact that they simply do not concern me nearly as much as they concern you, for two main reasons 1) You are not looking at the current state of guns in America, and the fact that these concerns arise every election cycle, and we only ever end up with more of them. 2) it's simply not a big issue for me. There are things that I'm far more concerned about, and that everyone else should be far more concerned about. Also, the fact that Obama wanted to do much more, but guess what, he can't, because it's extraordinarily difficult to accomplish anything regarding gun control.

But the fact is, I'm completely pessimistic about guns in this country, and if a politician that I sympathized with was against any further regulations, I wouldn't give a solitary fuck.

>seems perfectly down to earth
Sure, but chances are, it still won't do you much good.

>other things to be concerned about
Yeah, well, Shillary's got a lot of other things I'm concerned about too. I just wish we had a serious "let's stop bombing third world dirt farmers" candidate. Kinda sick of breeding new generations of terrorists on our tax dollars. But hey, at least Trump never argued that bombing a country doesn't constitute military hostilities and thus, doesn't require Congressional approval under the War Powers Act. Her State Department did that exact thing over Libya.

As Jill Stein put it, in one of very rare instances of that woman saying something sensible, "Donald Trump says scary things, but Hillary Clinton does scary things."

>Sure, but chances are, it still won't do you much good.
I feel the same way about my fire extinguisher, but I still keep one in my kitchen.

To be honest, I don't relish the idea of shooting somebody. I mean, I will if I absolutely have to, if it's him or me, or him or my family, that kind of thing. But damn would I be just fine if I die an old man having gone through life never shooting anything more threatening than clay, paper, or boar.

>Donald Trump says scary things, but Hillary Clinton does scary things
I think you'd have to ignore a rather disconcerting history of Trump's unscrupulous behavior to actually believe that. And it's worth keeping in mind that Clinton has been a lifelong politician, therefore, she's obviously had a chance to accumulate more dirt in that regard.

Look, I was against Clinton, and in many respects I still am. And I couldnt agree more that we need to stop creating terrorists. It's just that I think a petulant, volatile, self-entitled, mega-rich megalomaniac with a DISTINCT authoritarian style would be more of a disaster. And it's worth noting that Trump's views on how to deal with Muslims would be another approach to pouring gasoline on the fire.

>the fire extinguisher
Sure, that's actually reasonable, as you're more likely to encounter a fire someday.

Kraaaaageeeer

Bullshit, it's a problem of culture with you bustas, the solution isn't just letting y'all get away with it but rather to give opportunities for advancement, and policing to lock up the rotten apples.

Not that user, but how are you going to enforce private gun sales being illegal? I wake up one day and want to sell my pistol to my buddy. I walk over to him, put the pistol in his hand, he gives me cash, and we go our separate ways. Now what?

Also: as a side note that's a bit off topic of why I posted in the first place:
>It's just that I think a petulant, volatile, self-entitled, mega-rich megalomaniac with a DISTINCT authoritarian style would be more of a disaster.
Are you talking about Hillary Clinton here?

shut up nigger

>how are you going to enforce it?
As long as he completes a background check and registers the gun in his name, I'm fine with it.

>are you talking about Hillary
Heh, I figured I was going to get that from someone. She certainly has some of those qualities, but I believe to a slightly lesser degree. I've truly never seen a better example of the "lesser of 2 evils" option.

>As long as he completes a background check and registers the gun in his name, I'm fine with it.
He isn't going to. Now what?

>I've truly never seen a better example of the "lesser of 2 evils" option.
I mean, I guess if that's how you feel. Like I said, this isn't why I responded so I won't try to convince you of why I think Trump is a better candidate. Just wanted to make that comment while I was responding to the real thing that made me post.

>now what?
Same thing with anyone else who's caught with an unregistered firearm. I understand your point, and I'm not suggesting that the ATF start arbitrarily searching homes, but your weapon should be registered. That's all I'm saying.

>why I think Trump is the better candidate
I apologize for the personal attack, but the only fathomable reason is that you've bought into the cult of Trump. He has many of the hallmarks of a dictator, and he's managed to manipulate people on a scale that I never thought I'd witness in my lifetime.
>He cannot stand being challenged on anything
>he has made statements about roughing up protesters and controlling the press
>he's made statements about his supporters essentially being so thickheaded that there's nothing he could do to lose their support
>his wall is an oversimplified piece of propaganda
>his tax plan is a trickle-down piece of deficit busting bullshit
>his "university" was a scam and he bribed an attorney general to drop the case
>he's a pathological liar. Yes, so is Hillary, but I believe Trump is pathological in the most literal sense of the term
>he doesn't understand foreign policy
>he thinks he has the best brain and the best words and knows more about everything than everyone
>he literally condones sexual assault because of his fame (and in all likelihood raped and assaulted numerous women)
>he has 3 main lines of defense: hyperbole, lashing out, and deflection.

I could certainly go on, but I'm not even sure what compelled me to go that far. But anyway, those are some of my reasons.

>your weapon should be registered. That's all I'm saying.
I'm not going to register my firearms, regardless of what anyone says, including SCOTUS or POTUS or any other OTUS. I don't like doing things that are Unconstitutional.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

>He has many of the hallmarks of a dictator
Doesn't mean he can go out and be a dictator if he's elected president, even if that were true, fampai.

>He cannot stand being challenged on anything
I don't know about that. If he's attacked instead of consulted he doesn't put up with that.
>he has made statements about roughing up protesters and controlling the press
That was at his rally. He was having fun at his rally when someone entered his private event and protested there instead of where it is appropriate.
>he's made statements about his supporters essentially being so thickheaded that there's nothing he could do to lose their support
He was saying they were loyal.
>his wall is an oversimplified piece of propaganda
As long as we build it.
>his tax plan is a trickle-down piece of deficit busting bullshit
Have you read it, or taken this from the MSM propaganda?
>his "university" was a scam and he bribed an attorney general to drop the case
It was never a University. It was a "class" you paid for to get lessons on how someone got rich, and people started the frivolous case because they saw easy money in it. They were never guaranteed anything.
>he's a pathological liar. Yes, so is Hillary, but I believe Trump is pathological in the most literal sense of the term
Debatable.
>he doesn't understand foreign policy
Debatable.
>he thinks he has the best brain and the best words and knows more about everything than everyone
Is this a bad thing?
>he literally condones sexual assault because of his fame (and in all likelihood raped and assaulted numerous women)
Whoa, easy with the accusations, bud.
>he has 3 main lines of defense: hyperbole, lashing out, and deflection.
And the otherones

>I'm not going to register my firearms
Then don't, edgelord.
>doesn't mean he can go out and be a dictator
Agreed, but I prefer politicians who aren't caricatures of one.
>if he's attacked instead of consulted
It's not "attacked vs. consulted", it's "attacked vs. criticized", and he always responds in a disproportionately inappropriate and volatile fashion. Until he's president (let's hope it doesnt come to that), he doesn't need to be "consulted" by ANYONE, as he's not a fucking autocrat.
>he was having fun at a rally
See, this is the problem. It's not just "having fun" when youre condoning violent behavior and you're someone whom people almost worship.
>he's saying they were loyal
Kek. Whatever you wanna tell yourself.
>as long as we build it
40% come here legally and they already build tunnels. Not to mention the fact that he's grossly underestimating the cost and Mexico isn't to pay. It's not that I think it's ""racist"", but I question the efficacy.
>have you read it
Yes, the entire thing. And many esteemed economists from various Universities have predicted that it'll cost trillions of dollars in federal revenue. And I simply don't buy into the "supply side" approach to the economy, as income inequality always seems to rise (history bears this out).
>it was a class
Exactly. Calling it a University was just another part of the scam.
>debatable
>debatable
Of course, everything we're discussing is debatable.
>is that a bad thing?
Yes, and I think you have to be pretty naive to think that tact and diplomacy and a certain level of humility is important (if not paramount) to the success of any politician.
>easy with the accusations
Tell that to the women who've accused him. But don't take it from me, listen to Trump's own words.

>any other ones?
Any other criticisms? Sure, but I got shit to do.

>This person knows more and has better arguments
>Better insult their knowledge to invalidate them handing my ass to me!

You're cancer, off yourself.

Does anyone have a torrent link for this? the title is too ambiguous it only returns "friday the 13th" on torrent searches.

>"whitey be outlawing muh culture!!"

If you're not going to make a coherent argument, then it's probably best you stay out of it.

White use more welfare so stop complaining about blacks using it

Alright, so I just read up on the Haynes v. The U.S. case, and it seems you're a bit confused. It basically states that it's unconstitutional for felons to be compelled to register their firearms, but law-abiding citizens still have to; however, the felon can still be charged with unlawful possession -- which makes absolutely NO fucking sense to me, but if you haven't registered your firearms, you might wanna take care of that.

>there are on this board who unironically think socialized healthcare is bad and it's your fault if you're poor

>Tell that to the women who've accused him.
>he thinks accusations matter when the Clintons have a harem of rape victims settled and paid off

>Bill assaulted women, so that negates Trump's assaults
>this is the age we live in
Bill isn't running

What is per capita for 500$?

Here's the creator of the show lol

I think I'll pass

there are more whites than blacks
there are more poor white people than total black people
poor white people are less violent/criminally inclined than all blacks

>Then don't, edgelord.
I won't. But more importantly I was making a point. Millions of people will simply not do it. Straya's gun buy back program had terrible results and they don't have a Constitutional right to own them.

>Agreed, but I prefer politicians who aren't caricatures of one.
Meh, to each his own.
>It's not "attacked vs. consulted", it's "attacked vs. criticized", and he always responds in a disproportionately inappropriate and volatile fashion.
All I see are hurt feefees. People need to grow up.

>See, this is the problem. It's not just "having fun" when youre condoning violent behavior and you're someone whom people almost worship.
Oh, this is just people thinking he actually said for his supporters to go out and beat the shit out of people like the people who protest against him do.

>Kek. Whatever you wanna tell yourself.
K

>40% come here legally
That's fine. That's 60% that need to go back and come here legally.

>and they already build tunnels.
It will go underground too. The main thing is enforcing our laws which Obama refuses to do and Hillary will continue refusing to do.

>Not to mention the fact that he's grossly underestimating the cost
Still less than illegals cost us every year.

>and Mexico isn't to pay.
They won't have a choice.

>Yes, the entire thing. And many esteemed economists from various Universities

>income inequality always seems to rise (history bears this out).
Income inequality is a meme term Bernie Bros cooked up. Just because that one guy makes gorillions doesn't mean you make less.

>Exactly. Calling it a University was just another part of the scam.
Wasn't a scam though. Everyone knew what it was.

>Yes, and I think you have to be pretty naive to think that tact and diplomacy and a certain level of humility is important (if not paramount) to the success of any politician.
He's been pretty presidential now that the real race has begun.

>listen to Trump's own words.
He hasn't really said anything too bad.

No his wife who got a pedophile off of raping a 12 year old is. But what's worse is Trump's words assaulting Tumblrina, she can't go her ball this triggered.

>I won't
See: . You might wanna.

>hurt feefees
Trump has demonstrated his thin skin as much as any SJW.
>people thinking he actually said for his supporters
No, I didn't say that. I'm saying that it sets a tone that, when combined with the general tone of his campaign, is one of hatred and malice.
>60% need to go back and come here legally
Yes, unfortunately it's never that simple, is it.
>they'll go underground
Really? Did you read this in Trump's detailed and comprehensive blueprints for the wall?
>still less than illegals
Show me the evidence.
>they won't have a choice
Oh, but they will
>I'm come inequality is a meme
Sounds like you need to spend less time on Cred Forums
>just because one guy makes gorillians...
Strawman. If you look at the correlation between tax rates and income inequality throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, you'll find that generally speaking, the higher the tax rates, the lower the income inequality. Now, I'm not reducing this to taxes, but it certainly doesn't support the notion that giant tax cuts for the wealthy is the answer. Sure, corporate tax rates need to be lowered (around 10% according to a new report from the Havard business school), but not as drastically as Trump wants to lower them (especially when combined with the other cuts).
>wasn't a scam
So, perhaps scam isn't the right word, but rather "misleading". If you look through the employee handbook, it was classic shady upselling. And after all, there was a reason why Trump bribed Florida's attorney general to drop the case, and I don't believe it was simply to avoid the expense.
>he's been pretty presidential
Now THAT'S debatable. And frankly, I don't know how any sophisticated individual could think such a thing.
>he hasn't really said anything too bad
See: above

>You might wanna.
Na thanks senpai. I don't care what the government says. I might accidentally lose them in a tragic boating accident soon anyway.

>Trump has demonstrated his thin skin as much as any SJW.
How so? By telling people to fuck off after they insult or criticize him?

>No, I didn't say that. I'm saying that it sets a tone that, when combined with the general tone of his campaign, is one of hatred and malice.
Not really man.

>Yes, unfortunately it's never that simple, is it.
Seems pretty simple to me family.

>Really? Did you read this in Trump's detailed and comprehensive blueprints for the wall?
Yes. When he said it. Why wouldn't we do that?

>Show me the evidence.
Illegals come here, use our hospitals, schools, and social programs. They cost us millions every single year.

>Oh, but they will
Na. They won't.

>Strawman.
That's literally the argument.

>If you look at the correlation between tax rates and income inequality throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, you'll find that generally speaking, the higher the tax rates, the lower the income inequality.
Fuck socialism. Earn your own money. Stay away from mine.

>Now, I'm not reducing this to taxes, but it certainly doesn't support the notion that giant tax cuts for the wealthy is the answer.
Well I guess we can agree to disagree.

>So, perhaps scam isn't the right word, but rather "misleading". If you look through the employee handbook, it was classic shady upselling. And after all, there was a reason why Trump bribed Florida's attorney general to drop the case, and I don't believe it was simply to avoid the expense.
It read like a pamphlet for one of those real estate classes. Why can't I think of the word..

>Now THAT'S debatable. And frankly, I don't know how any sophisticated individual could think such a thing.
He's been pretty level headed in recent months. But again, you can not like him for what he's said that's fine, that's your opinion.

>by telling people to fuck off
Well... yeah. That, and his petulant twitter tirades til early hours of the morning, calling people nasty names when they criticize him, mocking a disabled reporter like a schoolyard bully etc... that kinda stuff.
>seems pretty simple to me
That's probably because you don't know what you're talking about.
>why wouldn't we do that?
For the same reasons why you shouldn't listen to politicians on climate change, but rather the overwhelming majority of scientists who dedicate their lives to the study.
>they cost us millions every year
Again, show me the evidence that this will be more expensive than building, maintaining, and policing a giant wall. Our immigration system is broken, and it really irritates me when liberals act as if it's racist to acknowledge it, but I do not believe that The Great Wall of Trump is the answer.
>fuck socialism....
Something tells me you're not in a bracket that would be affected much by any of the candidates plans, but your thoughts on the matter seem rather juvenile and simpleminded.
>it read like a pamphlet for one of those real estate classes
Yes, and the "University" was given a D- rating by the BBB. Now, Trump will say it got an A, which is technically true, but completely misleading; it's literally because of a flaw in the rating system. They weren't receiving new students for many years, and as old complaints roll off, the rating goes up (its fucking retarded). Very few people benefitted, yet Trump touts it as if it was the most super fantastic thing ever, like he does with everything.
>he's been level headed in recent months
Relative to what? His previous behavior as an obstreperous fratboy? And gee, I wonder why he'd wanna tone things down a bit...

>Well... yeah. That, and his petulant twitter tirades til early hours of the morning, calling people nasty names when they criticize him, mocking a disabled reporter like a schoolyard bully etc... that kinda stuff.
The disabled reporter again. Not sure how many times this has been corrected. He wasn't making fun of him for his arm. He didn't even know he had a messed up arm at the time.

>That's probably because you don't know what you're talking about.
You're not here legally? You have to go back. It's pretty simple fampai

>For the same reasons why you shouldn't listen to politicians on climate change, but rather the overwhelming majority of scientists who dedicate their lives to the study.
Ah yes (((((they))))) dedicate ((((their))))) lives to it. But anyway, walls will go underground.

>Again, show me the evidence that this will be more expensive than building, maintaining, and policing a giant wall.
Because building a wall is simple. You stack bricks on top of one another. China did it 2000 years ago. It will create jobs and spur the economy.

>Our immigration system is broken, and it really irritates me when liberals act as if it's racist to acknowledge it, but I do not believe that The Great Wall of Trump is the answer.
Can we just enforce our laws then? Will that suffice?

>Something tells me you're not in a bracket that would be affected much by any of the candidates plans, but your thoughts on the matter seem rather juvenile and simpleminded.
No. Stop touching my money. Earn your own.

>Very few people benefitted, yet Trump touts it as if it was the most super fantastic thing ever, like he does with everything.
Did those who didn't benefit from it willingly go to this class?

>Relative to what? His previous behavior as an obstreperous fratboy?
Pretty much what you said. He's gotten more presidential in recent months. Before he just had to meme his way to the nomination. Now be has to appeal to Independents.

Not the guys you're arguing with but fuck me your teenage is showing.
>Muh wall goes underground
>Muh no understanding of trades
>Muh climate change denial
>Muh simplified economy

Honestly, when there aren't enough jobs for the amount of the population what are you mean to do? (put yourself in the shoes of a qualified unemployed person)

Also do you honestly think if a wall was to be built it'd be from bricks? You truly are fucking retarded

>>Muh wall goes underground
Why wouldn't we build underground a bit? Dig a trench and bury a few feet of wall, it isn't hard.

>>Muh no understanding of trades
Wut

>>Muh climate change denial
I'm not denying it. I'm saying we don't know how much is man-made, we don't know if crippling our economy will slow or reverse it. I need more proof before I get on board the renewable energy train.

>>Muh simplified economy
K

>Honestly, when there aren't enough jobs for the amount of the population what are you mean to do? (put yourself in the shoes of a qualified unemployed person)
Build a wall to stop people from coming here and flooding the markets and deport the illegals already here, driving up wages and keeping jobs in the hands of Americans.

>Also do you honestly think if a wall was to be built it'd be from bricks? You truly are fucking retarded
No, I was being facetious there.

>he didn't even know he had a messed up arm
>... and this is what Trumpets actually believe

>not here legally
Believe me, I wish I was back in Ireland, but unfortunately I am a citizen of the U.S.
>((((they)))) ((((their))))
Are you really that dense? Yes, "they" and "their". Go to NASA's website, go read something from a scientific journal, read reports from MIT... or you could just continue to listen to politicians who are in the pockets of fossil fuel companies and the conservative bloggers who orbit them.
>building a wall is simple
And maintaining a wall, and policing a wall, and addressing the current population of illegals, and getting them reintigrated, and various other intangibles that neither you nor I are qualified to address. Just because Trump is simple, doesn't mean taking care of our broken system will be.
>can we just in force our laws
It would be nice.
>stop touching my money
Kek. Ok, user
>did those who benefit willingly go to class
You seem to be missing my main point, and I wonder if you'd be so forgiving if it was "Clinton University". It's the fact that not only were the classes useless, and the sales tactics predatory, but he continues to lie about the fact that it was an utter failure.
>now he has to appeal to independents
I'm only debating this because it's fun and I'm bored, but the fact is, he lost after the recent tape was released. As his campaign was tanking, the demographic that he needed to win the most was white, educated, female swing voters, and he just lost virtually all of them. And I have to say, I'll miss the entertainment value of it all.

>Are you really that dense? Yes, "they" and "their". Go to NASA's website, go read something from a scientific journal, read reports from MIT... or you could just continue to listen to politicians who are in the pockets of fossil fuel companies and the conservative bloggers who orbit them.
Wew lad. Keep listening to scientists that are on the dole of government programs and in green energy corporations pocket. You're kidding yourself of they don't alll have self interests to push that narrative, as much or more than big evil fossil fuel corps do the opposite.

>And maintaining a wall, and policing a wall, and addressing the current population of illegals, and getting them reintigrated, and various other intangibles that neither you nor I are qualified to address. Just because Trump is simple, doesn't mean taking care of our broken system will be.
Maintaining the wall will create jobs. We already have the budget to police and enforce our borders but Obama refuses to. They're called ICE.

>It would be nice.
I agree.

>You seem to be missing my main point, and I wonder if you'd be so forgiving if it was "Clinton University". It's the fact that not only were the classes useless, and the sales tactics predatory, but he continues to lie about the fact that it was an utter failure.
Honestly I'd probably be more critical if it were Clinton U, I won't lie. But I wouldn't keep harping on it like it's a huge game changer like people do with Trump U.

>I'm only debating this because it's fun and I'm bored, but the fact is, he lost after the recent tape was released. As his campaign was tanking, the demographic that he needed to win the most was white, educated, female swing voters, and he just lost virtually all of them. And I have to say, I'll miss the entertainment value of it all.
I think that tape is this week's Increasingly Nervous Man's talking point. Once something else comes up everyone will forget about it like all the other "career ending scandals".

>keep listening to scientists who are on the dole
You know, this whole time, I've given you the benefit of the doubt, but I now realize that I'm talking to a complete imbecile.

There are trillions upon trillions of dollars invested in fossil fuels, and you're talking about a climate change "industry". Perhaps if you actually read up on the matter outside of Cred Forums and Breitbart, you'd have a more well-rounded perspective on why you're an idiot.
>maintaining the wall will create jobs
Yeah, not enough.
>I wouldn't keep harping on it like it's a game changer
Like hell. You'd lump it right in there with Benghazi and the emails. ("Duuuh lock her up, lock her up")
>this week's nervous man's talking point
He's literally admitting to sexual assaulting women because of his fame. He's displaying his self-entitled narcissism like never before. This is different, and if you can't see that, I really don't know what to tell you.

>You know, this whole time, I've given you the benefit of the doubt, but I now realize that I'm talking to a complete imbecile.
Was the statement false?

>There are trillions upon trillions of dollars invested in fossil fuels, and you're talking about a climate change "industry". Perhaps if you actually read up on the matter outside of Cred Forums and Breitbart, you'd have a more well-rounded perspective on why you're an idiot.
Protip: there are billions and billions in green energy too. Everyone has an interest for self serving profits. You actually think those people give a shit about the environment? They care about profit, and if it helps the environment, neat.

>Yeah, not enough.
What's enough? It's more than we have working on the wall now.

>Like hell. You'd lump it right in there with Benghazi and the emails. ("Duuuh lock her up, lock her up")
I'd bring it up but it's no Benghazi and emails scandal.

>He's literally admitting to sexual assaulting women because of his fame. He's displaying his self-entitled narcissism like never before. This is different, and if you can't see that, I really don't know what to tell you.
It was banter in a private conversation with some reporter guy like a decade ago. I've had some pretty vulgar banter with my buddies in private too that if someone heard might make me seem like a womanizing sexist but I'm not. You've never joked around and said like "I'd fuck her desu senpai"?

>Government dole
You realize that oil corporations are the richest in the entire private market? Why would clean energy be on the "government forefront" when it would be more profitable to just go with the oil lobbies?

Because the oil tycoons already have that on lockdown. Make and patent giant windmills, solar panels, and all other sorts of alternative energy, then make it political and get regulations passed that increase your companies' profits and foothold in the energy business. I'm not defending oil companies, they do it and have been doing it forever. I'm saying the same thing happens with green energy companies and politicians. Make sure your scientists agree, oh and be sure to skew stats too (no one argues climate change or global warming or whatever the meme term this decade for it is, is happening. What people argue is the solutions or even if we can help stop it or slow it or how much we can help)

>was the statement false?
No, but much like everything that relates to your God-Emperor, it's misleading.
>there are billions in green energy
Yes, and you're saying that it's one big conspiracy to make us switch? This is potato-tier conjecture, user. I mean, its so fucking weak and speculative, I don't even know how to address it.
>more than we have working on the wall now
How about we focus on our crumbling infrastructure first, which would put a whole lot more people to work than the wall.
>it's no Benghazi or emails
>waaaah, 4 innocent freedom fighters
Benghazi is based on a mountain of speculation and very few objective facts that implicate Clinton. And the emails? Yes, she was reckless, and she lied. You don't know the law better than the widely respected director of the FBI and the entire DOJ. Accept it.

>it was banter in a private convo
>"you can do anything you want to women when you're famous. I don't even wait, I just kiss them. You can grab them by the pussy"
Uhh no, I can't say I chalk that up to banter with buddies. Maybe you just have some really sleazy friends, ever think about that?

>make sure your scientists agree
You are basing this on NOTHING

>make sure to skew a few stats
This is one of the main misconceptions that the deniers spew. They don't "skew" the stats; they have made many adjustments due to various weather and environmental factors that inhibit the weather stations ability to accurately monitor the climate. But it's worth noting that there have been an almost equal amount of adjustments to the cooler degrees as the warmer.