Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Verumae last won the day on November 19 2016

Verumae had the most liked content!


About Verumae

  • Rank
    Head Moderator
  • Birthday 03/15/1990

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Contact Methods

  • Steam

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. first of all, I didn't expect you to actually try to make an argument, so congratulations on that I suppose. with that said, what you've put forth is hardly an argument -- the three elements of your thesis do not in any way contradict anything anyone here has said and they don't seem to support a conclusion that is particularly relevant to this discussion. nobody is trying to figure out how this happened -- we had two shit candidates and a surplus of ignorance along with a malfunctioning electoral college. to have expected a better result would be unreasonable, but that doesn't change the fact that this outcome is absolutely undesirable. to address the only actual contentions you've made: hillary clinton is not a leftist. she is a strict centrist, more or less identical to the president we've had for the last eight years (and I won't try to say whether that's a good thing or not -- it's not relevant), hence the endorsement and the support from the "establishment" (members of which tend to benefit from stability). prior to obama, we had george W, whom hillary resembles to a much greater extent than does trump. and before that, we had bill clinton, and I'm sure you can figure out which of the two (hillary or trump) he is closer to ideologically. hillary clinton routinely flip flops on key controversial issues to stay closest to the zeitgeist and the core of the democratic and independent voting bases. she is not an extreme candidate because up until a week ago, nobody thought a candidate so far detached from generally held american beliefs would have any chance of winning the presidency. you ever think there's a reason why hillary clinton never talked about "change"? I'm not saying that hillary was a good candidate (I didn't vote for her), but there are only two words that explain why she didn't win the presidency: "emails" and "benghazi". it had nothing to do with radical ideologies of any sort that would have put the country into turmoil. trump is not moderate. he more or less does meet the criteria for an actual fascist. fascism is notoriously tricky to define, but let's consider some of its core tenets: authoritarianism (check, see: law and order), cult of personality (check, see: "god emperor), militarism (check, see: syria, china), nationalism (check, see: "america first"), demagoguery (check, see: "Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential Campaign"). I find it odd that you mention gay conversions when later on in your post you acknowledge that his pick for VP is outspoken in his support of that idea. and if society is a pendulum, then how would a shift to the left (by which I assume you mean the election of hillary clinton) somehow result in the election of an even further left-leaning candidate? the sequence of george HW to bill clinton to george W to obama -- that's a pendulum. the election of donald trump is a child swatting at the pendulum after it knocks him down when he stands in its path. again, it's okay to not like hillary clinton as a candidate, but to pretend that she is somehow more extreme than trump is completely delusional, and I can almost assure you that both of them would openly disagree with that assessment. and now we get to the insults. I'm sorry that you have such a simplistic and reductive view of politics but my concerns with trump come not from consumption of fearmongering media, but from a thorough and acute understanding of trump's beliefs, plans, and policies. I don't give a fuck whether the people who voted for him are literal KKK members or just disaffected moderates who wanted to shake things up. they voted for somebody grossly and wholly unfit to lead this country into anything but chaos. the republican party as a whole -- or at least its representation in congress and now the presidency -- is composed of obstructionist, ignorant, anti-democratic fools and I will never respect nor support them, regardless of how uninformed you think I am. and given that you at least somewhat recognize the faults in their party (or at least with their presidential candidate), I think there's a good chance you'll feel the same way within a month of the new congress convening and the new president issuing his first executive order. and, with regards to this: once again, no. don't project your own faults onto the whole of the electorate. I have a very refined and clear set of principles that guide me through all of my decisions with regard to democratic process, no matter how big or small. I didn't vote against trump because CNN and MSNBC didn't like him or because the beautiful but vapid girl from my business law class said that a vote for him is a vote to legitimize rape. I voted against him because the ideas that he represents and pushes are completely antithetical to the liberal democracy that many before us have fallen for and that all before us have prospered under. anything else?
  2. so you say you want whites to remain the minority, but even if we were to completely halt immigration, whites will lose majority status within the next few decades. how do you intend on changing that other than by gassing the melanin-enriched?
  3. that's what I thought ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I will commend you for recognizing that your most prudent choice here is to sit on the sidelines and to sling insults given that you don't seem to understand what the adults here are talking about seeing as your petulance is largely inconsequential to me, I'd just like to offer a bit of advice should you reconsider and attempt to enlighten us with your superior intelligence and argumentative ability: if you come at the king, you'd better not miss
  4. how much validation do you get from having not participated in one of the most clear-cut and one-sided arguments in history? edit: one other good thing to watch out for in north carolina, raison: if you ever see one of these restaurants, pull over immediately and go crazy I don't think you can find either one of these restaurants outside of the bible belt
  5. I think I can pretty comfortably say it would end after just a few episodes with one of us getting blasted, due in no small part to NC's liberal gun laws
  6. oh man, you'll love it here. we just ousted a retard republican governor (I guess that's redundant) but we still had a healthy majority for trump in the general election and we've got a fully republican legislature. might I recommend any part of appalachia outside of watauga and buncombe counties (ASU and UNCA respectively)? very few minorities, very little liberal influence and you'll fit in great with the eighth generation inbreds out there. and, don't worry, the minimum wage certainly isn't any higher than it is federally and there are no jobs and no industry. bonus: world class mountain biking in the summer and skiing in the winter
  7. congratulations. you've lost the argument. you've already embarrassed yourself pitifully, but honestly, just walk away. for what it's worth, a very brief summation of why your most dear beliefs are wrong on an axiomatic level: there are nation-states for white ethnic groups. in fact, there's an entire continent you can fuck up like that if you so please. it's called europe. your race does not have the exclusive and sole right to authority over the world's third largest nation, especially not one that was taken only within the last four centuries or so by brutal genocide and conquest. every american citizen has the right to have their interests served by the state and white nationalism fails to account for that. if blacks, mexicans and other ethnic minorities are your enemies, then congratulations, you are literally a white supremacist. it really is that simple.
  8. nice try, but I've already addressed this. the fact is that people of your intelligence comprise a much larger portion of the electorate than they do of our representative bodies (make of that what you will). illegal immigrants can not vote. people who can not vote are citizens. you attempting to deny people citizenship on the basis that they may vote against you is no different from your strawman argument that the founding fathers tried to deny people electoral power because they might vote against them. you argument is literally "you are mad?" pathetic. reason frees one from anger. beyond that, to quote another great political thinker: the lion does not concern himself with the opinions of sheep this has nothing to do with my first point, but to be fair, neither did your first response. you are cancerous to democracy. every vote you cast makes the world a worse place. your ignorance is not semantics. you have no idea what you're talking about and you can't just say "but that's not what I meant" whenever you get decked for making a stupid argument. and even if it is semantics, how is it suddenly not important? it's not my fault that your public education failed to teach you about the fundamental ideological basis of our nation. are you literally a white nationalist? that's embarrassing. your race seems to be the only redeeming quality you can find in yourself. white people are not enemies of the left. I'm sorry that you enjoy feeling persecuted by anybody who doesn't seek to serve you and exclusively you. the only thing that can break "white political power in this country" would be the downfall of democracy, and as I've explained, that seems to be an idea that you and your party support -- I can only assume that you agree with that, given that you've completely failed to respond to it numerous times. furthermore, saying "liberalism winning is bad because then conservatism loses" is not an argument. it's just an inane statement, which, for what it's worth, you seem to be very good at making. conservatism is bad for this country. drinking lead-infused water and choking on the thick smog of caveman-level thought with industrial revolution era technology? you're not far from that already. as I've said, I'm looking forward to it.
  9. let me go through this post inane point by inane point. 1. I explained why the original purpose of the electoral college was to keep people like you from voting. that's ostensibly a good thing. I also explained why the product of the electoral college in its current state is extremely unfortunate. but that bit is obvious if you're not incredibly ignorant. 2. your response was "democracy is not important, what's important is that I get my way". you literally just quoted my entire post without actually so much as attempting to rebutt anything that I said. 3. you are the only one not arguing. you're just vomiting garbage onto your keyboard with the smug self-righteousness that only comes from conservatism: ie, "I'm right because that's the status quo" 4. there is no mask here. I legitimately and unashamedly believe that you should be disenfranchised, as did our founding fathers. you are cancerous to democracy. 5. liberalism is not a left-wing ideology. literally all of the founding fathers were classical liberals, as am I. go google the word "liberal", come back and explain to me how it has anything to do with the political left. 6. you still haven't once explained how even genuine left wing ideologies are in any way bad for society or how a victory for the political left would not have objectively been the best outcome of this election. your incredulity comes not from any genuine fault of argumentation but from your own ignorance. I have made many clearly structured arguments thus far but your response is to laugh from your failure to understand them. I suppose that's not out of character for you. the bit about parties is a strawman, but the democratic party objectively does come closer to serving the interests of the american people than the republican party, and if you don't believe that, congratulations, you're willfully ignorant. and if you think voting a republican into the white house -- a republican who is going to appoint top republican sycophants to be the heads of various essential federal agencies -- somehow served to kill the republican establishment, well, I don't think I can really address that without copping an easy infraction. if we can make it through the next four years without your party completely destroying our planet, our nation and our democracy, then you're going to have a very, very miserable life in about twenty years. and I'm looking forward to it. edit: john caveson, please take your reputation away from me you petulant child. you truly haven't the slightest bit what us adults are talking about here and I wish not for my own actions to enable you any bit of validation.
  10. this is pathetic. you are an embarrassment to your country and even your party. when did I imply anything about genocide? what aspect of liberalism supports genocide? what form of genocide specifically targets fascists? but yes, rest assured, I'm armed and your man crush isn't going to change that. with that said, someone in this thread actually is advocating for violence to achieve a political end: furthermore, you seem to think that this election is some kind of war, except you're literally at war with a majority of the american people: it's embarrassing enough that you think donald trump actually represents your own interest. "you" might have "won" but I can assure you, everybody lost. that includes you. and you're going to keep losing, in life, in elections, and in internet arguments if you come at me swinging with the ideological might of an elementary school student.
  11. a pathetic argument from a pitiful ideological basis. congratulations, discontent with present circumstances and pervasive ignorance were able to mobilize enough of your delusional brethren to in a day set our country back years. but no matter, the tide of social progress is unstoppable. you'd better pray that trump declares martial law and cancels the next election, because your comrades are dying off by the day, and soon enough, when unemployment skyrockets under a homogeneously republican administration, cletus and mabel aren't going to be on your side anymore. you, as do your allies in congress and your despicable president-elect, display open and unashamed contempt for democracy. but I've got some bad news for you: after four years of trump, you're still going to be unhappy, you're still going to be unsuccessful, and you're still going to externalize all of your problems onto vulnerable demographic groups. four more years of regress beyond that won't change reality either. you are on the wrong side of history and you will be dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. of course, it is entirely possible that you are happy and successful -- I'm sure some republicans are -- but then why would one support the GOP? I suppose the answer to that lies in willful ignorance and gross delusion -- perhaps a more shameful alternative. no matter. although it is not without oscillation, progress comes and it won't be stopped. and although you may not have it that it would come through democracy, worry not -- it will come. of course, when that happens, if you don't want to live in a liberal democracy, there are still conservative strongholds on the planet that won't change any time soon. saudi arabia, russia, cuba, just to name a few. I think you'll like it there.
  12. you legitimately just need to stop talking. is that what you really think destroys a democracy? hitler was democratically elected. did germany devolve into nazism because of sore losers? and you better believe I'm exercising my second amendment right. donald trump has open contempt for democracy and private firearm ownership is one of the most important democratic institutions. he's advocated for disarming suspected criminals before with no trial or investigation. do you really think this is what's happening? that there are offices just filled with democrats around the country where they say "okay, we've been doing great importing these immigrants but I think we should aim for 10% growth this year" the only people who can vote in our elections are united states citizens. if you aren't getting the most votes from united states citizens, tough fucking luck. if people aren't keen on your shit economic policy and fascist immigration plans, that's not a fault of democracy. I'd just like to go ahead and point out that the electoral college was literally designed to stop donald trump from happening. in its original iteration, it would have done so. it had nothing to do with the balance of power between states and urban or rural areas -- that's what the senate is for, and each state gets an elector for each senator. but the winner-take-all system is a recent development and has to do strictly with game theory involving the two dominant parties. the winner-take-all system assures that while neither of them can win every election, third parties and unaffiliated candidates will never gain the slightest bit of traction. here are some facts about the electoral college: 1. under the original plan, states weren't supposed to hold elections for president. they simply selected their electors (by the means of their choosing) and the electors voted independently of each other and independently of the electorate 2. under the original plan, donald trump never would have happened, because in general, any federal public official is presumed to be more educated and more intelligent than the average voter. and while they may not necessarily be more fit to choose the president than every single voter, they're doubtlessly more fit to choose him than trump voters. because electors were not allowed to hold public office and because they were so few in number, they were considered to be largely above the pathetic tactics that are used to win the presidency today: demagoguery, corruption, pandering, ignorance, etc. alexander hamilton: 3. let's be very clear: the electoral college was designed to disenfranchise voters. because while universal suffrage may be important to a democracy, direct election of the president is not. under the original plan, the electors could never disobey the popular vote because there was no popular vote. but today, remnants of the original plan still exist, such as faithless electors. I just want trump supporters to remember that when the electoral college convenes, most electors there have the legal option to cast their ballots for clinton, johnson, stein, etc. regardless of who their state voted for, and I'd argue that they even have something of an obligation to do so. 4. under the original plan, it was considered to be improbable that any candidate would sweep the electoral college majority more than perhaps once every few elections. and if a candidate managed to do so, they were considered to be the clear choice for president. this was because the electoral college itself was intended to be a check on parties (again, the electors themselves did not have any affiliation, nor any supposed obligation to vote in a specific way -- this was before the two parties managed to consolidate power in just about every state in the union). thus, there would generally be five or so people in reasonable contention for the presidency. even a candidate markedly more popular than the rest would only get, say, 40%, and the election would be decided by the house of representatives. this was considered to be a desirable outcome, given that representatives are, like electors, generally more intelligent and educated than trump voters, and they are both directly elected and directly representative of the country's population distribution. again, there are no laws on a federal level that actually require states to cast their ballots on a winner-take-all basis. it's a completely inane idea that more or less accounts to gerrymandering (albeit from a bottom-up perspective rather than top-down) and it inarguably accomplishes the exact same effect. in this election, over half of all ballots cast literally did not matter -- that is to say, three million people in california could have stayed home and no matter what the other states decided, it could not have possibly changed the election. four million people in texas could have stayed home and no matter what the other states decided, it could not have possibly changed the election. that is not democracy. the electoral college in its current state is an abomination; it was neutered when it should have been killed. it can no longer achieve its original purpose and functions now to simply consolidate power into the hands of the two major parties. if you defend it, do so only knowing that it was designed to keep you from voting, and reasonably so.
  13. you're goddamn right http://i.imgur.com/XlNM9Lz.png

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Guy923


      I can't believe Verumae was the hero we needed all along

    3. kayohgee


      ur mae eVerything

    4. Razputin


      Be careful Verumae, rep is a dangerous drug

  14. it wasn't subSPUF without me so we're already off to a good start if you must argue about something else, then might I offer a gentle reminder that SPUFdark is by a massive margin still the best theme? SPUFblue comes in a distant second and SPUFlight is more or less the theme equivalent of voting for donald trump
  15. Trump really is uniquely unqualified to be president. We've had bad presidents before but Trump is legitimately fucking terrifying. He's a loose cannon who more or less believes in using overwhelming force to crush his enemies (this is well-established in his shady business practices and his tendency to come after people with his team of crack lawyers), but this time, his enemies are the American people at large. We know this to be the case because the American people at large did not elect him, and he's been open about curtailing free speech and civil liberties for just about anyone he deems to be an enemy of the state (or, more accurately, a critic of his regime). The president really does have a fuckton of power, equal to at least 1/3 of Congress, which -- by the way -- is controlled by the people nearest to being his ideological allies. Let's not forget that the biggest threats to humanity today could potentially wipe us out within the century, none of them are ISIS or even tangentially related to Islam, and they've all been completely ignored or outright denied by Trump. He's going to choose at least one supreme court justice, the heads of several federal agencies, he's going to have authority over both the military and our nuclear arsenal and you can rest assured that he's not going to get any more intelligent within the next month. We already have extrajudicial killings going on daily both at home and abroad, despite crime rates being at an all time low and there not being a single credible threat to our national security, but Trump has advocated for the expansion of the military both overseas and within our borders. Unless by some turn of events he hits a very late puberty and grows the fuck up, we are more or less guaranteed to have the worst four years since the civil war but, owing to the increasing consolidation of power occurring both under the status quo and under the new authoritarian regime, these four years might very well be our last. But hey, anyone who didn't vote for him is just a PC policeman hurt feelings liberal who wants to fill our country with Mexicans and institute Sharia law, am I right?