Or give out condoms and birth control, and then wait 20 years.

.

Orrrrrrr, you could just help make India a nation that can sustain >1 billion people that don't severely impact their environment.

They are either not smart enough or don't care about themselves enough to do that. So I have absolutely no reason to care about their plight.

@POOHEAD189 The condom thing won't fix anything. If you want to use population reduction as a method of fixing things you are going to have to be proactive not passive. You are going to have to actively go around killing people and forcibly reeducating the rest. I would personally suggest eliminating 800-900 million of them.

<Snipped quote by catchamber>

They are either not smart enough or don't care about themselves enough to do that. So I have absolutely no reason to care about their plight.

@POOHEAD189 The condom thing won't fix anything. If you want to use population reduction as a method of fixing things you are going to have to be proactive not passive. You are going to have to actively go around killing people and forcibly reeducating the rest. I would personally suggest eliminating 800-900 million of them.

it's getting harder to tell if this is some kind of weird comedy persona

<Snipped quote by Burning Kitty>

it's getting harder to tell if this is some kind of weird comedy persona

we went from ''ree you dont speak SPANISH in MY AMERICA''

to

''lets kill 800-900 million people ex dee lulz''

<Snipped quote by Burning Kitty>

it's getting harder to tell if this is some kind of weird comedy persona

Why can't it be a dramedy?

This is an RP whose to say I am not playing character?

<Snipped quote by Mara>

we went from ''ree you dont speak SPANISH in MY AMERICA''

to

''lets kill 800-900 million people ex dee lulz''

like I said it's hard to tell

<Snipped quote by Odin>

like I said it's hard to tell

Well, Poe's law. Without a blatant display of humor, it's impossible to parody an extreme view in a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.

<Snipped quote by Mara>
Well, Poe's law. Without a blatant display of humor, it's impossible to parody an extreme view in a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.

shit, that's been my problem this whole time?

<Snipped quote by HachiRoku>

shit, that's been my problem this whole time?

if that was the problem then it's not your problem, since you're not the one making yourself look like an idiot (not now, anyway).

This is an RP

It is not

If people aren't discussing ideas of a political nature, please don't post.

Anthony Kennedy is retiring. I suspect Trump will select a "conservative" judge as the Democrats seem to point out, and the funny thing is is that the Constitution of the United States is a conservative document by its nature and by the nature of those who wrote it. After the travel ban ruling, which I find Constitutionally legal and absolutely necessary, this is another great step forward to ending the regression our country has had and hopefully prevents us from making the same mistake with irresponsible mass refugee admissions or illegal alien amnesties that have plagued the EU.

It should be noted I'm unaware of whether the EU has granted amnesties to illegal border crossers or not, I'm more connecting the refugees and illegals as similar problems EU countries and the United States currently confront.

<Snipped quote by Mara>

if that was the problem then it's not your problem, since you're not the one making yourself look like an idiot (not now, anyway).

but I always do that :c

sorry I mean politically
dont wanna get ban'd

sorry I mean politically
dont wanna get ban'd

Not doing a great job at it. I say please again.

Anthony Kennedy is retiring. I suspect Trump will select a "conservative" judge as the Democrats seem to point out, and the funny thing is is that the Constitution of the United States is a conservative document by its nature and by the nature of those who wrote it. After the travel ban ruling, which I find Constitutionally legal and absolutely necessary, this is another great step forward to ending the regression our country has had and hopefully prevents us from making the same mistake with irresponsible mass refugee admissions or illegal alien amnesties that have plagued the EU.

It should be noted I'm unaware of whether the EU has granted amnesties to illegal border crossers or not, I'm more connecting the refugees and illegals as similar problems EU countries and the United States currently confront.

There's a lot of SCOTUS drama this week which is making me raise eyebrows. There was a ruling against federal employee union dues (basically allowing people to opt out) and the left (or rather, the left on Reddit) lost their absolute SHIT over "the backbone of their funding" being struck down.... meanwhile I'm like, "how is there a law on the books that funds the democrat party?" But I'm union-dumb, if anyone has the inside track on what's up with that, I'm interested in a take.

Trump getting a second SCOTUS nominee is better than Clinton getting a SCOTUS nominee, so I say we're all winning. Once again, the Reddit left is imploding with catastrophic terror -- over (I think?) a judge who's going to, like, enforce the law. I'm, uh.... yeah. I think that's.... what a judge is... supposed to, um.... do.... Anyway Trump is Trump so the nominee could be anyone from a Neil Gorsuch lookalike (win) to Peppa Pig, I guess I'll reserve judgment until I see who we actually get, but so far the track record pleases me. 1/1 on picks to date. I like this.

Remember if Clinton won, there would be no more second amendment the minute Kennedy stepped down (unless Hillary was able to sell the seat to a higher bidder).

<Snipped quote by Gwynbleidd>

There's a lot of SCOTUS drama this week which is making me raise eyebrows. There was a ruling against federal employee union dues (basically allowing people to opt out) and the left (or rather, the left on Reddit) lost their absolute SHIT over "the backbone of their funding" being struck down.... meanwhile I'm like, "how is there a law on the books that funds the democrat party?" But I'm union-dumb, if anyone has the inside track on what's up with that, I'm interested in a take.

Trump getting a second SCOTUS nominee is better than Clinton getting a SCOTUS nominee, so I say we're all winning. Once again, the Reddit left is imploding with catastrophic terror -- over (I think?) a judge who's going to, like, enforce the law. I'm, uh.... yeah. I think that's.... what a judge is... supposed to, um.... do.... Anyway Trump is Trump so the nominee could be anyone from a Neil Gorsuch lookalike (win) to Peppa Pig, I guess I'll reserve judgment until I see who we actually get, but so far the track record pleases me. 1/1 on picks to date. I like this.

Remember if Clinton won, there would be no more second amendment the minute Kennedy stepped down (unless Hillary was able to sell the seat to a higher bidder).

If Clinton won, America would be headed towards a catastrophic war with Russia. Thank the Lord this did not happen. There's a lot to be thankful for regarding her not claiming the presidency.

I've been hearing some about Ted Cruz, which is highly doubtful. One, why repeat the mistake of Alabama. Don't fuck with a senate seat that the incumbent has massive popularity with.

Then, there's Jeanine Pirro which would be... a complete troll move. As much as I enjoy the thought, I don't think it's the right pick. There's a lot of talk about Britt Grant or Amy Coney Barrett. I'm going to predict it'll be one of these two, especially because it seems to fit a recent trend of Trump appointing women into high positions within our government.

If I had MY choice: Thomas Rex Lee would be the selection. Although, I do really like Britt Grant.

I hate to butt in, but the wording of 'conservative' and 'liberal'— rather, the way they've been misconstrued in American politics— is always something that ticked me off. On a traditional political scale, conservative means authoritarian and liberal means libertarian: i.e., conservative referring to traditional group-oriented politics, while liberal refers to progressive individualism. Oddly enough, in politics, it's noted that the scale got flipped 90 degrees, to which the authoritarian right is 'conservative' and the whole left is 'liberal', with no proper words left standing for the libertarian right.

I hate to butt in, but the wording of 'conservative' and 'liberal'— rather, the way they've been misconstrued in American politics— is always something that ticked me off. On a traditional political scale, conservative means authoritarian and liberal means libertarian: i.e., conservative referring to traditional group-oriented politics, while liberal refers to progressive individualism. Oddly enough, in politics, it's noted that the scale got flipped 90 degrees, to which the authoritarian right is 'conservative' and the whole left is 'liberal', with no proper words left standing for the libertarian right.

At some point we decided words can change in meaning and usage, which is fair... to an extent. To my mind, the concept of conservatism being authoritarian is structurally unsound historically. Conservatism is based in small government and the individual rights of man, which is the ideological opposite of authoritarianism. Libertarianism (as it stands today), arguably, is the true original form of conservatism which would also make it closest to the vision of the founding fathers. You're not alone in the irritation of shifting definitions. Liberal no longer means what it was meant to mean anymore, and the same could be said of conservatism. Both of these shifts are responsible by far left individuals outright changing what the parties stand for, and this goes for the Mitt Romney's, McCain's, and the Bush's who significantly expanded government power. I'd also add that Obama did the same thing: see the NDAA.

This is why I'm particularly glad that Trump is in office, we can now see who is ACTUALLY conservative and who is not. And, he's also getting politicians to reveal how left of center they truly are.

<Snipped quote by HachiRoku>

At some point we decided words can change in meaning and usage, which is fair... to an extent. To my mind, the concept of conservatism being authoritarian is structurally unsound historically. Conservatism is based in small government and the individual rights of man, which is the ideological opposite of authoritarianism. Libertarianism (as it stands today), arguably, is the true original form of conservatism which would also make it closest to the vision of the founding fathers. You're not alone in the irritation of shifting definitions. Liberal no longer means what it was meant to mean anymore, and the same could be said of conservatism. Both of these shifts are responsible by far left individuals outright changing what the parties stand for, and this goes for the Mitt Romney's, McCain's, and the Bush's who significantly expanded government power. I'd also add that Obama did the same thing: see the NDAA.

This is why I'm particularly glad that Trump is in office, we can now see who is ACTUALLY conservative and who is not. And, he's also getting politicians to reveal how left of center they truly are.

Granted, the American conservative movement has always more or less been the Coolidge/Reagan/Ben Shapiro type. The point I was trying to make was that Democrats are synonymous to liberal, and that Republicans are synonymous to conservative. I do agree that American conservatism is based on values similar to those of the classical liberal movement as a whole, and it's interesting to see the honest shift Trump is making. While I don't agree with every facet of his policy, it really is interesting to see how he's led to the polarized left and right to expose themselves (although he isn't really bringing them together by any means). It's refreshing to see CNN criticize everything he says and FOX circlejerk everything he does, because at least you know to trust both equally low.