A statement that he later backed away from.

Meanwhile, the drone program that's championed by Obama and his ilk, has killed 90% innocent civilians in some cases. Even intentionally killing a 16-year-old American citizen by blowing up the entire restaurant he was in. Don't worry though, we also blow up our own hostages and those of our allies sometimes as well.

In case you're heart is bleeding for those poor souls whose lives were unduly cut short by having red-hot metal fragments inexplicably shred their organs and blast waves crush the skulls of their children before them, fret not, for chairman Sanders fully endorses and pledges to continue the program if elected.

A factually correct paraphrasing of Sanders' position would be, "I endorse and pledge to continue the willful killing of innocent civilians, in instances where we have reason to believe that someone who is not very nice might be in that general area".

Do you really want a petulant and ill-tempered 74-year-old Communist bum, who thinks it's okay to willfully murder civilians, and who supports the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in Syria -- to have any real power? Or is this simply more feigned outrage? Surely innocent people are just as dead when a "progressive" kills them, right? I mean, communism alone has lead to the death of nearly 100 million people in the last century...

That's one of the most delicious ironies of the current age, that all these professional umbrage-takers have so diluted their accusatory buzzwords that they've essentially neutered their own movement. Ten years ago, calling someone a racist had a degree of weight to it, it was a serious accusation; but nowadays it just comes across as whiny and pathetic to most reasonable people. Being considered a racist is almost comical in some circles now, and the accusation is bandied about as a joke in itself -- casually calling someone a racist because they're afraid of black dogs or don't like black coffee, for instance.

In the grand scheme of things, the social justice movement has done more harm to minorities and women than any institution since Jim Crow. It's only a matter of time before no one really cares if a person is racist, and then it will only be a matter of time before racism becomes once-again commonplace and open. It's interesting from a strategic standpoint, that the only way for the SJW cult to save themselves and their movement from complete ruin, is to take their foot of the gas, take a few steps back, and distance themselves from many core elements of their collective ethos -- but to do so would also mean the collapse of the whole in exchange for the survival of a few specific chosen causes.

In essence, the entire movement could be characterized as a lone communist transvestite fox-kin, eye's closed tight on their grimaced face, pissing into the wind and screaming about how they hate getting pissed on.

Once again, you insist on only arguing within this false paradigm in which "BUT HES A RAYSIS!!" is a legitimate refutation, it isn't. This Hegelian dialectic you're gravitating towards is but a trap for fools, and is a calling card for the sort of neoliberal protoserfs that you'd expect to be following a self-professed Communist such as Sanders. You don't address the actual substance of any of my arguments because you can't formulate a cogent response; instead, you redirect the basis of the argument back to the original subjective crux of whether or not Trump is a racist, with the implication being that this would somehow disqualify him. Until you can see past this fundamental flaw in your reasoning, there isn't much point in me trying to provide another legitimate counterargument. It's analogous to arguing with child who responds to every riposte with "because!" -- ultimately, the child becomes the lesser of fools as the debate progresses.

It reminds me of something Bernie once said,

Is your reading comprehension really that poor, or are you, as the British would say, "taking the piss"?

Anyway, since you don't like constructive arguments or complex abstract thought, here's another famous Bernie Sanders quote:

It's written in a book, so that makes it true? Interesting logic. I guess Abraham Lincoln really was a vampire hunter after all.

For your information, the book was "Trumped!: The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump-His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall", and it was written by a former Trump employee, "John R. O'Donnell", who had previously been fired by Trump from his job as the president of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, for his poor performance.

The full quote, as alleged by the disgruntled former employee:

"I have black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else. Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control... Don't you agree?"

Let us assume for a moment that this is a legitimate quotation and that it accurately reflects his understanding of the situation -- what about it is wrong? Is it wrong because it's factually incorrect, or is it wrong because it hurts your fee-fees? Would such a sentiment, objectively an accurate portrayal of reality -- impair his ability to lead and make effective decisions? No? If on the other hand, his capacity for objective thought were so diminished as to render him incapable of recognizing the truth in that situation -- instead leading him to supplant objectivity with a narrative based solely on emotion and social expectation -- would he then be of diminished capacity as a leader? Objectively, yes.

Cute. 

I know it's a quote by Margaret Sanger, racist neoliberal demigod and founder of Planned Parenthood -- I just thought we were just making shit up, since you posted that blatantly false Trump quote?

Doesn't hold a candle to the racist quotes attributed to Sanders.

You could've saved yourself a little time and just posted "I have no legitimate arguments".

I think he has legitimately good intentions, but as the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Sanders is an ardent communist, and has been his entire adult life; and many of his policies betray a rather severe naivete about world affairs and human nature -- even to the extent that they could be described as "child-like". His proposition for dealing with ISIS highlights that lack of understanding particularly well in its assertion that ISIS should be fought using a Saudi-Iranian coalition -- anyone who knows the politics of the region understands why that's simply ludicrous. Regardless of all the finer points that could be made demonstrating the glaring lack of critical thought many of his policies necessitate, ultimately, anyone who openly exalts the virtues of communism, especially given its propensity towards industrialized democide and extreme universal poverty, simply doesn't deserve serious consideration. He would be played like a rented fiddle by any world leader with an ounce of real strategic agency.

Hillary, Cruz and Kasich are obviously the distillate of some cryptic malodorous miasma of dark primordial evil, and a more enlightened society would promptly dispose of them in the most imposing volcano known.

Trump is the only viable candidate left, and perhaps the last-best-hope for the survival of this nation. If you give honest thought to his policies, especially in contrast with those of the other candidates, I'm confidant that you'll arrive at the same conclusion. If for nothing else, one need only look to those who so vehemently oppose him -- as it reads like a veritable who's-who of the worlds most vile human wretches.

She's technically her "top aide", but I'm guessing she's more of a "bottom aide", or maybe a "pillow princess aide" -- if you catch my drift. Bill supposedly makes no secret of the fact that she's kissed more beavers than he has.

Trump:
General non-interventionist, protectionist, would rather let Russia and Assad deal with ISIS in Syria than involve the US, anti-Iraq war, etc; would consider cutting off their oil supply to starve their organization.

Cruz:
Carpet bomb the entire area into oblivion, enthusiastically suck Israel's dick.

Clinton:
Largely responsible for the whole mess to begin with, literally helped funnel Libyan arms to ISIS after she got done wrecking that country, supports toppling Assad, long history of kicking hornets nests, top aide has ties to Muslim Brotherhood.

Sanders:
LOL, GUYS, GUYS LISTEN, HE, H-HE THINKS HE'S GONNA GET SAUDI ARABIA AND IRAN TO FOR-, SERIOUSLY GUYS LISTEN, T-TO FROM A COALITION TO FIGHT ISIS HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

The CDC is probably just looking to justify expanding their budget. If historical precedence means anything, they'll be getting "Zika" money fifty years from now and using it to buy new office furniture every year.

You're correct in that the white crime rate is enormously inflated, but as far as I know there aren't any comprehensive statistics that take hispanics into account. The FBI is generally the best source for national crime data, and they categorize all hispanics as broadly "white", but even if they didn't, many of the municipal police departments that contribute to the FBI's database do. This deliberate obfuscation is undoubtedly done for political purposes as well. Even the most emasculated of neoliberal fuckboi serfs, in the most stringently thought-policed of progressive fiefdoms, would begin to question things if Rachael Maddow told them that their beloved minorities are committing 97% of all violent crime.

Examples for the uninitiated:

Yes, casually re-tweeting false statistics clearly proves a deeply ingrained malicious racism -- he should have used the real statistics instead:



Meanwhile, the Democratic front-runner, Hillary "Super Predator" Clinton -- a champion of the "three strikes" bill, disciple of noted racist and eugenicist Margret Sanger, friend and admirer of KKK leader Robert Byrd -- just got done performing an overtly "racist" sketch with a Democratic mayor. I await your righteous indignation.

I'll entertain this notion of him being hypothetically racist or bigoted, despite any real evidence that that end, if you'll entertain the following question:

In what way would being a racist or a bigot disqualify him from the presidency, or even betray some underlying mental/ethical incompetence that would lessen his ability to lead?

It's a necessary prerequisite for anyone who attains such status, regardless of their character, that they have a penchant for objective truth. Show me one great American president, and I'll show you a racist. Even the biggest champions of the neo-liberal causes are either avowed racists, such as LBJ -- or are more subtlety racist, as is the case with most modern "liberals". Racism, in its current definition, is an emergent property of anyone sufficiently cognizant of the human condition. To recognize that human races have differences, and that those differences contribute to their relative abilities, is nothing more than to recognize objective truth.

I gather that the point of your posting this thread was to highlight traits you find objectionable in Trump, with the expectation that others would object to them as well, and the ultimate goal of shifting their consensus to be more in line with your own. To that I ask, where is your moral outrage when liberals infantilize and belittle minorities? Is it not the pinnacle of overt racism to treat blacks and Hispanics as inherently less-able, and in need of special governmental assistance? Was it not racist to incentivize the dissolution of black families, through neoliberal welfare programs that mandated the father not be present in the home? Is is racist to promote the systematic abortion of black babies, to such a degree that currently more are being aborted than born? Is it racist to promote the influx of illegal immigrants, with the clear understanding that their labor directly undercuts the earning potential of minority communities in the United States, with the direct causal result being greater poverty, crime and moral decay? Is it not racist to do all these things under the guise of being a savior figure to the mentally deficient lackeys, just to secure their fealty at the ballot box?

There are two basic methods by which humans obtain knowledge, objective truth and consensus. Objective truth has been the bedrock of western civilization since the days of Hermes, and it could be argued that its preeminence in western philosophy, heretofore being held as thoroughly unimpeachable, has directly resulted in nearly every facet and conveyance that modern society relies upon. The ultimate aim of modern liberalism is the destruction of objective truth, in favor of consensus -- for the mere fact that consensus can be controlled and manipulated. Nothing in their ethos is rooted in true fairness or equality, and they have no legitimate heritage with enlightenment ideals -- they only want to consolidate power. Regardless of whatever public face they may wear, the philosophical lineage of the neoliberal politician is that of their communist ideologues. I suggest you give that postulation some serious thought before you lend your proverbial sword to their cause.

I'm admittedly a racist, and a sexist; but I'm also a moralist, and none of those attributes are in conflict with one another. Neither racism or sexism should imply malice -- that's a modern contrivance and a media narrative that has no objective merit, and is used far more often to stifle free thought, than it is to highlight injustice.

Food for thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

You're actually trying to run another scam, after several people deliberately conspired to give you a get out of jail free card?

Kid, you're playing with fire and don't even know it. You should quit before you get burned.

He deleted the post, but you can still see where he was quoted by myself and others. Either way, I believe he was lying.

He just mentioned he has ~700,000 FZ, which equates to ~$105,000 @ $0.15/FZ; more than enough to finish paying people off.

700k FZ? That's great, you can finish paying off those people you scammed!

Actually, I did take screenshots. Album: http://imgur.com/a/0mnoe