Joke: What's the difference between Trump supporters and Kim Jong Un supporters?

[Artistofnoname]

Us Trump supporters want liberty and freedom while Kim Jong Un supporters want enslavement and a totalitarian dictatorship.

 

However if you never want to lose an election again the North Korea is right for you because your candidate always wins.

[Guest]

On 9/24/2017 at 5:40 AM, Perspektiv said:

Those who support Trump, are brainless.

Proof that aII Hillary supporters have a brain, please? or wait, does being an SJW make someone smart? Or what?  I'm not even American but sweeping generalizations Iike yours baffle me.

 

Or are you saying that only highly intelligent people support Kim Jong Un, is that it?

[ThaHoward]

I say people of all sides might be brainless. It is ironic that the leftist US identity politics likely created more polarization and fueled Trump.

[80hours]

Definitely. The only reason I liked Trump at all (and there are a lot of things to worry about with him) was because of the complete insanity and lunacy of identity politics of the extreme leftists.

The extreme left is much more dangerous than the bible-thumping extreme right, since the latter openly admits to being anti-scientific (because as long as you don't believe that God wrote the bible and rather some ancient preacher did, you basically don't need to believe anything they say), with white nationalism being hated by pretty everyone, whereas the former pushes their expensive, invasive agenda under the guise of science and compassion.

The problem is that the results are far from compassionate, but rather invasive and divisive (and not to mention totally contradictory, with Islam's male supremacy and homophobia being one example of a set of untenable beliefs) , and since identity politics has been the worst failure in giving certain ethnicities better social/economic standing (rather it's great at coming up with excuses for its failure), it can't possibly claim to be science, which is defined by repeatable results.

[80hours]

In fact, I do believe that there's more than a speck of truth to conspiracy theorists' "new world order", with very very wealthy figures encouraging the division as a distraction and to divide the people.

[80hours]

As clarification, I am accepting of everyone's right to have their personal beliefs. Virtually all my friends are liberals, some describing themselves as extreme liberals (which they are not, since I've seen real leftist extremism).

As long as you do not force your beliefs onto others, you have every right to have your beliefs, no matter how extreme they may be.

[The Joker]

On 9/23/2017 at 8:28 AM, prib23 said:

Trump surrporters aren't internationalist or globalist for the most part. Although the Republican party is. Kim Jong Un supporters, are. Most Communist believe in Globalism for everyone by force. 

Both are narcissist no doubt. Neither are "good guys". Trump is the lesser of the two evils without a doubt. He doesn't demand worship or imprison people for dissent.

Internationalist communism kinda died with Stalin. Though Mao did try to advocate it a bit I suppose. Maoist thought got watered down when Deng Xiaoping instituted reform. Also Stalin advocated the "Socialism in One Country" policy that pretty much did away with having the Soviet Union, and by extension, all communist parties that followed every word they spoke, believe in an international union of states so to speak.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Proof that aII Hillary supporters have a brain, please?

Both candidates were horrible. You were picking from bad, to worse. 

 

10 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Or are you saying that only highly intelligent people support Kim Jong Un, is that it?

Its a possibility, but when you remove freedom of thought, its harder to gauge. Point being made. 

[Sally]

On 9/28/2017 at 2:55 PM, lazypanda said:

Trump supporters are mostly american and kim supporters are mostly korean(NORTH ). The rest of the world hates both of them equally.

Both the groups should do something better with their lives. 

North Koreans are unable to do so, since they're basically slaves and they can't leave the country.  

[iff]

15 hours ago, nijikazegirl said:

Us Trump supporters want liberty and freedom

But why when trump does not as exemplified by this tweet about forcing people to stand for the american national anthem?

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/920606910109356032

 

Is it not part of freedom and liberty to not stand for the american national anthem?

[Cimmerian]

21 hours ago, iff said:

But why when trump does not as exemplified by this tweet about forcing people to stand for the american national anthem?

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/920606910109356032

 

Is it not part of freedom and liberty to not stand for the american national anthem?

On your own time? Unquestionably.

While at work? Questionable, even if we don't all like it our freedom of speech is restricted in our work environments. Freedom of speech has had all sorts of strange qualifiers that have been declared acceptable by the courts. You don't have complete free speech in schools or the right to decide what you wear in all cases, for example. The NFL already had listed (in the Game Operation manual) that says players are expected to stand for the anthem, and in the past limitations on what can or cannot be supported (through jersey changes or emblems or stickers for all sorts of tribute or awareness campaigns) have been enforced from what I understand. I think there is a bit too much control given to employers or schools to determine what crosses the line, but unless it goes to extremes it is usually left up to the employers to decide what protests or extent of free speech they'll tolerate.

I was surprised that it was allowed just because it is their job and there's a whole list of behaviors that would get you reprimanded or fired from a job, even if it was a protest against something, especially if it gets designated as disruptive to the work environment. (Heck, negative press has been enough to get people fired from other jobs.) In sports, it does seem like a requirement to stand for the anthem-- both the crowd and players usually do so.

 

After having seen how he talks before, seeing strong wording that still doesn't 1) hint at creating a policy that would force his opinion into action or 2) throw dissenters in jail, he's not crossing a freedom line. Might it be in bad taste to use the bully-pulpit this way? It could be, but its not much different from what other Presidents have done; shame another side or political action, convince, or draw attention to an event or issue that is important (either to them personally, or to the American people) because they have an audience who will pay attention to what they say. All that tweet did was report the NFL's decision and state his opinion on the respectfulness of that decision-- while he could've hoped to influence the NFL's decision he had no actual say in the decision and he didn't claim or threaten otherwise, so ultimately the NFL are the ones with the freedom/liberty issue if there is one.

 

Both our current and previous Presidents are loud-mouths when it comes to these sort of events as far as I'm concerned but as long as they personally don't try to instigate national policy for their comments they're not crossing any freedom-lines even if they might be crossing into speaking in bad-taste considering their office.

[iff]

@Cimmerian is there not a difference between the concept of freedom & liberty and constitutional concept of freedom of speech (which applies to state laws)?

[Cimmerian]

15 minutes ago, iff said:

@Cimmerian is there not a difference between the concept of freedom & liberty and constitutional concept of freedom of speech (which applies to state laws)?

Oh most definitely. If you were referring to the former, I can see what you were getting at. Ultimately any choice or denial of choice would violate the absolute concept of freedom or liberty. (That's actually a fun conversation to take to extreme scenarios when the question shifts to, what is or isn't allowed under the concept of freedom.)  But it's rather unreasonable to hold people's commentary to the conceptual standard and claim they're breaking the criteria for "freedom and liberty" (outside of a semantic or theoretical argument) when we are forced to deal with the lawful or constitutional standard in reality. 

 

(Wrote this first, but I think it may be less relevant after re-reading your question.)

Spoiler

I was mentioning the more law-related since people can always argue about whether an act or response violates their own personal concept of freedom, but since none of us have absolute freedom and liberty it usually comes down to constitutional protections and legal allowances in these sort of situations instead of how much we agree or disagree with an action or form of speech being restricted (the more conceptual). The difference between the two is definitely what people get frustrated about a lot in arguments for these sort of intangible concepts that we may all define slightly differently (equality's another good one) since they think the former must apply to the latter, but a society wouldn't have many rules if it went with the conceptual, more-open one, instead of a working definition. The differences on the idea of what constitutes freedom & liberty as a concept versus how or if that exact interpretation is enforced, defended, or protected bogs down these situations a lot, so it's a habit to go towards the more operational definition instead of the never-ending but fun to discuss concept side. 

 

[Yatogami]

The standing for the Anthem was never about a violation freedom of speech, its a political diversion to draw away from the real issue. That is shitting on America, and everything that it stands for. Kneeling for the anthem, is anti-american. Which is why it is such a big deal. 

 

YOU HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUT NOT FREEDOM FROM CONSEQUENCE OF YOUR ACTIONS. Like the Leftists love to say. 

 

People watch sports to get away from politics, and to have fun. But since the Left loves to politicize everything they can. People got pissed off. Only in America, can a millionaire black person claim to be oppressed. That is why millions of people were burning their NFL memorabilia, because they were sickened by the politicization of a problem that doesn't actually exist anywhere on the levels people think it does.  

 

Keep politics out of the fucking NFL, and keep it out of the entertainment industry. No wonder everyone is getting pissed off all the time, because you cannot escape politics anymore because the Left injected them into literally everything with Identity politics. 

[ChillaKilla]

On 10/24/2017 at 4:07 PM, Yato said:

keep it out of the entertainment industry.

If you want to keep OUR politics out of the entertainment industry, keep YOUR entertainers out of politics..

[Yatogami]

27 minutes ago, ChillaKilla said:

If you want to keep OUR politics out of the entertainment industry, keep YOUR entertainers out of politics..

Says the side that elected Arnold Schwarzenegger first.

[ChillaKilla]

24 minutes ago, Yato said:

Says the side that elected Arnold Schwarzenegger first.

*incorrect buzzer noise* Ronald Reagan. And really? Are we doing the whole “you started it” BS? Are we not adults?

[Yatogami]

12 minutes ago, ChillaKilla said:

*incorrect buzzer noise* Ronald Reagan. And really? Are we doing the whole “you started it” BS? Are we not adults?

Oh lol, I wasn't the one saying an entertainer is somehow unqualified to be in politics when there are many in politics. I was just pointing out that your entertainers are in politics too. So what this means is your witty little meme isn't really funny because it's the pot calling the kettle black.

[Gloomy]

Isn't Arnold Swarzenegger a Repulican?  

[Yatogami]

1 hour ago, Gloomy said:

Isn't Arnold Swarzenegger a Repulican?  

He is registered as Republican, but he isn't a Republican. Since he supports practically the same platform Liberals do. Not to mention governor of California...the biggest blue state ever. He is a RINO (Republican in name only).

[Artistofnoname]

On 10/22/2017 at 5:20 AM, iff said:

But why when trump does not as exemplified by this tweet about forcing people to stand for the american national anthem?

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/920606910109356032

 

Is it not part of freedom and liberty to not stand for the american national anthem?

 

Sure you are free to sit it out. However that doesn't mean you are free from criticism. Also like with the NFL people have made their statements known by voting with their money which is hurting the brand.

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

On 9/23/2017 at 9:02 AM, Skycaptain said:

One of them has a choice, the other doesn't 

If Hillary Clinton is your alternative, do you really have a choice? 

 

8 hours ago, ChillaKilla said:

If you want to keep OUR politics out of the entertainment industry, keep YOUR entertainers out of politics..

I personally love watching the Leftist politics in the "entertainment industry". Lecturing average American's about morals when they themselves appear to have none. I've never seen more entertaining acting than the last few months. 

 

 "Oh we had no idea Harvey Wienstien was a rapist" 

"What? Ben Affleck is a pervert? Wow I am shocked he always seemed so nice"

"Oh I didn't know Kevin Spacey had sexually assault 14 year old..... Is he gay, I had no idea"

[ChillaKilla]

11 minutes ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

If Hillary Clinton is your alternative, do you really have a choice? 

 

I personally love watching the Leftist politics in the "entertainment industry". Lecturing average American's about morals when they themselves appear to have none. I've never seen more entertaining acting than the last few months. 

 

 "Oh we had no idea Harvey Wienstien was a rapist" 

"What? Ben Affleck is a pervert? Wow I am shocked he always seemed so nice"

"Oh I didn't know Kevin Spacey had sexually assault 14 year old..... Is he gay, I had no idea"

I’m so glad you can see the humor in child molestation /s

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

Just now, ChillaKilla said:

I’m so glad you can see the humor in child molestation /s

I never said I find humor in child molestation, nice try though. I find humor in people with no morals trying to tell me about how I need to change my morals.

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

On 21/10/2017 at 9:06 PM, FictoVore. said:

Proof that aII Hillary supporters have a brain, please? or wait, does being an SJW make someone smart? Or what?  I'm not even American but sweeping generalizations Iike yours baffle me.

So it's the left which make massive generalisations? *Ahem*...

On 22/10/2017 at 2:05 AM, 80hours said:

Definitely. The only reason I liked Trump at all (and there are a lot of things to worry about with him) was because of the complete insanity and lunacy of identity politics of the extreme leftists.

The extreme left is much more dangerous than the bible-thumping extreme right, since the latter openly admits to being anti-scientific (because as long as you don't believe that God wrote the bible and rather some ancient preacher did, you basically don't need to believe anything they say), with white nationalism being hated by pretty everyone, whereas the former pushes their expensive, invasive agenda under the guise of science and compassion.

The problem is that the results are far from compassionate, but rather invasive and divisive (and not to mention totally contradictory, with Islam's male supremacy and homophobia being one example of a set of untenable beliefs) , and since identity politics has been the worst failure in giving certain ethnicities better social/economic standing (rather it's great at coming up with excuses for its failure), it can't possibly claim to be science, which is defined by repeatable results.

I guess not

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

So it's the left which make massive generalisations? *Ahem*...

Eh? I'm not even American so it's not like I care either way but if a Trump supporter said 'all Hillary supporters are brainless' I'd want 1) proof that ALL Trump supporters have a 'brain' and 2) proof that ALL Hillary supporters are brainless.

 

The person I was responding to seemed to be saying that to be a Trump supporter, you have to automatically be stupid (seemingly implying that all Hillary supporters 'have a brain').. When if you've ever looked at extreme SJWs (as one example) many of them clearly lack a lot of common sense, critical thinking skills, and basic life experience - yet not one of them supports Trump, most of them were voting for Hillary. Just saying, you don't have to be stupid or highly intelligent to support one side or another, there are geniuses and vegetables on both sides. Someone isn't automatically brainless though just because they have a different political perspective from you... Obviously.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

Neither have fully functioning frontal lobes.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[ChillaKilla]

2 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

The Left only hates one of them.

Show me where we don’t hate Kim Jong-Un? Maybe the Left™ isn’t the hive mind you think it is...

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

@ChillaKilla The way I'm thinking right now: *Prays to nothingness* (Please don't point to tankies )