Seriously? I need a link. That's a clip I need to see before I die.

(The only clip that my google-fu gives me is this one: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/tar-heel-family-illustrates-why-tru mp-appeals-to-the-south/. It's a fun clip, but it's no "I support Donald Trump because I'm tired of them thar liberals calling me stupid.")

Yes, what dumb blue-collar people.

Yes, voting for the lying bombastic plutocrat because your feelings are hurt kinda proves the hypothetical liberals' point.

Which one are they voting for again?

IT WAS ALREADY SUBMITTED, BUT HERE IT IS.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/why-economic-anxiety-is-driving -working-class-voters-to-trumpism/

http://tinyurl.com/hmaluw9

Basically, these people are angry about having been fucked by the ruling class for decades, so naturally, they're gravitating toward a self-absorbed billionaire in a trucking cap. You couldn't make stuff like this up.

Thanks, JHM. I missed it the first time. Much appreciated!

>> Which one are they voting for again?

Trump, of course. See, I used words in order to convey certain meanings. Let's go ahead and examine those words.

"Lying" - Yeah, both candidates have a problematic relation with truth. But Trump is in an entirely different category from Hillary. But if you want to be pedantic (and I know you do) this word could apply to either candidate.

"Bombastic" - This clearly only applies to Trump. If you don't know the word, I suggest dictionary.com.

"Plutocrat" - Again, this only applies to Trump. He's the only one whose power derives from wealth. Clinton, although wealthy, derives her power from her long history of political involvement. (In fact, her political power is what caused her to become wealthy. In a way, she's the opposite of a plutocrat, although that's not as complementary as it sounds.)

So Ana, by your definition, when Donald Trump comes to power, he will no longer BE a plutocrat, because from then on his power will derive from his political office, rather than his wealth?

Well, with that in mind, I suppose the only way to take a stand against plutocracy is to vote Trump into power - because once he is part of the political establishment, his wealth and his connections to wealth are no longer an issue! Thanks, that's great to know.


You're definitely right about the bombastic part, too. As with JFK vs Nixon, Trump is a colorful, charismatic figure, whereas Hillary is just plain unlikable and looks like she may drop dead at any moment. The BOMBASTIC plutocrat has to be Trump. The plutocrat who DROPS BOMBS on third world countries, triggering what will be decades-worth of violence, extremism, and untold human suffering, that's Hillary.

GET IT RIGHT, VOID!

No, not at all. If Trump were to suddenly lose his wealth, people would stop listening to him. He would lose his power. That's the very definition of a plutocrat. It's not a matter of "my definition". It's a matter of what the fucking dictionary says.

As for Trump ceasing to be a plutocrat if elected... what are you talking about? He initially got his power from wealth. Once a plutocrat, always a plutocrat. That's how the word works.

Clinton, on the other hand, acquired power through political acumen. (Or political backroom deals, if you prefer that narrative.) She wasn't rich when she first got power. Instead, she used the power she already accumulated in order to become rich... which is kinda bullshit, but it's not plutocratic. See, if Hillary suddenly became poor tomorrow, she would still have her power.

Seriously: why do I need to explain basics of English to you? I get that you hate Hillary. Fine. That's neither here there. There's plenty of bad words you can accurately apply to Hillary. "Plutocratic" just isn't one of them.

BTW, I also get that you (for some reason) bristle at labeling Trump supporters rubes. But again, they are. They're gullible ignorant people who are tired of being called gullible and ignorant. Well, I'm sorry, but it's important to call a spade a spade. If it's any consolation, neither "gullible" or "ignorant" are permanent character traits. But the first step to ameliorating those traits is to correctly identify them.

>> If Trump were to suddenly lose his wealth, people would stop listening to him. He would lose his power. That's the very definition of a plutocrat.
>> He initially got his power from wealth. Once a plutocrat, always a plutocrat. That's how the word works.

These are contradictory statements. Either "plutocracy" is a function of power-derived-from-wealth, or "plutocracy" is a function of wealth, independent of where one's power derives from.

If, in your dictionary (which dictionary, exactly?), the true criteria for "plutocracy" is that one's political power _derives_ from wealth, then the moment one's political power ceases to derive from wealth (such as by being elected to office, in which case one's power would derive, not from wealth, but from "political investment" and "democratic mandate"), one would cease to be a plutocrat. Either your definition is wrong and both of the candidates are plutocrats, OR, Trump can and will cease to be a plutocrat as soon as he has gained political office.

You can't have it both ways.

The American Heritage Dictionary offers the following three definitions for "plutocracy":

1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

As per all three definitions, if you are a government ruler, AND you are wealthy, you qualify as a plutocrat. There are no provisions exempting certain wealthy rulers from the definition based on what came first (her power or her wealth), nor is there any definitional concern over what her power "derives from" (be it wealth, political toadying, or the will of the masses). Wealth, and government rule. That is all.

Mr Anax, I do not mean to sound rude, but if you are going to cite a "fucking dictionary", perhaps it would behoove you to actually check a dictionary first? You have been caught in a trap by Mr Void, and are now clearly trying to find some post-hoc "No True Plutocrat" rationalization, in order to avoid admitting that plutocracy is NOT an issue establishment Democrats can take the moral high ground on.

... in fact, if you want to be technical, Trump *doesn't even qualify as a plutocrat now*. Again, as per the dictionary, in order to qualify as a plutocrat, one must be both wealthy AND part of the government. Trump is certainly wealthy, but he is merely a political hopeful, and is not yet part of the government. He does not rule, and indeed has not ruled, anything yet.

"Would-be plutocrat", perhaps that phrase would be appropriate for describing Mr Trump? "Soon-to-be plutocrat", oh without a doubt. But of the two mainstream candidates - going by the dictionary! - it turns out that both you and Mr Void were incorrect, and ONLY Hillary can be rightly defined as a plutocrat.

Of course, the question then becomes: which one of you is the asshole?

Hopefully, my calling you an asshole will convince you to vote for Jill Stein. Because you don't want to keep being such a big, dumb, blue-collar white liberal, do you?

>>>Hopefully, my calling you an asshole will convince you to vote for Jill Stein.

No, but I'd fuck her. Same with Gary Johnson.

::Fry.jpg::

Not sure if rape culture or just plain sexism...

Well, don't worry your pretty little head about it.

No one is above criticism except one-third his age young ladies JHMF wants to bone and shitty ghost comedy reboots.

That's a micro-aggression, John.

The day I learned about microaggression theory was the day I learned that feminists could also be bullies.

John Holmes MRAtherfucker.

Incidentally, what's your take on political assassinations, John? Are you for, or against them?

>Nominal
No one is above criticism except one-third his age young ladies JHMF wants to bone and shitty ghost comedy reboots.

Nominal, let's assume that simply claiming to know who I want to bone, and and saying that a movie is shitty counts as criticism. Do you see me claiming that this a violation of my rights? On the contrary, it's why I'm here. When I shoot my mouth off, I expect to hear from you, but you can expect to hear from me, especially when all you've got are unproven assumptions that I don't happen to think are true.

What he means is "Oh no guys this bed we've been making for the last 50 years is really uncomfortable"

Gmork was molested as a child lol

nope

It's pretty sad how you'd attempt to use that as an insult - I know people who were molested, and it's not something to bring up casually. At best, you're saying victims of molestation are somehow at fault, at worst you're saying they deserve it.

There isn't an ounce of satire in anything you've ever said on this site, and that's the saddest thing about you. A non-racist doesn't spend all his free time racially trolling a mostly-liberal video aggregate site. A racist does that.

It's painfully obvious there's zero satire in what you say. A decent human being acting as you have would have been repulsed by their actions by now.

Lol at your diddled friends

Lord knows Hillary did that.

Also; to imply that the alt-right is rooted in anything economic or otherwise materialistic is simply ignorance. These are people who seek emotional truths, not a white picket fence lifestyle.
These are members of the warrior caste who've been dispossessed, made inert, and seek their generation's great ordeal in order to retake power.

Is "cultural Marxism" really a thing? It sounds like nonsense to me, like "economic surrealism".

You know everything there is to know about the latest Twitter drama involving {current movie actress}, but this is the first you've heard about cultural Marxism...?

"PoETV is my last shot at love, and I know it will learn to hate me."
im a fast learner - i got as far as 'warrior caste'