It would be interesting to see. I know he'd probably get rid of affirmative action and screw over a lot of people. He'd also get rid of socialized health care, and probably drive up the prices of everything.But, I feel as if an era of hardship is necessary for historians to show how bad things can get, when people don't pay attention.No one seems to care anymore.I know that Hillary would be safer, she is over qualified for the position, however, Trump has the ability to create so much.He'd be like a dictator from old times. It would be like reliving history.

If you let some children be born to parents that aren't ready, you know that they will statistically grow up to be extremists and go to war. If you give people the choice of whether to be parents, you know they will more likely to grow up to talk out their problems, and not be soliders. Choose ...

I've noticed that when you are bad, you get things even when no one wants you to get things.I've noticed that when you are good, you only get things, when people want you to have them.Thus, being bad is the logical option for those that are disliked and oppressed, right?

For example, power rangers was clearly taken from Super Sentai, the first OS was made in Japan, but the American government snuffed it out, so that they could take the credit, what are some others? I'm thinking it is money, however, in a time where we are trying to give different societies a reason to strive for more (and sources of pride), I think that credit should be given where it is due.

Steve King mentioned how no other group of people has made as many contributions to humanity as the West.https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=24&v=med0tr9q5FsHe does have a point. What are contributions made outside of the West to humanity as a whole?

The emphasis on keeping people getting along and happy, rather than on progress and making things work will cause society to break down. Or, keeping people happy and having their basic needs met will make society take care of themselves. Please explain your argument.

Whether political, business, inequality, trade etc ...This is why, people and events like:1) Nelson Mandella2) Mahatma Gandhi3) Martin Luther King4) The tank man of Tiananmen Square5) The Stonewall riotsMaterialized ... right?

Do you think that Justin Trudeau would have been able to rise to a country's leader in the states?By his very nature, he was born rich, privileged and in the spotlight. He is clearly part of the 1%. Wouldn't that make it difficult for him to understand the issues and lives of normal people? I know he was a teacher and he is soft spoken compared to Trump, however, most teachers havent really experienced life. 

Old people would make a lot more sense, because they'd have less time left in order to talk about the killing. There would be less time left for unintended social consequences. Furthermore, no one will listen to lonely old people.

Would you kill 10000 people to reduce the risk of violent outbreaks in a unstable area for the next 200 years?

In my experience, girls if given strength are just as violent as men. So why don't they kill as much? Is it societal factors? Do they lack resolve?The same applies to suicide, men are 3 times more likely to succeed at killing themselves, compared to woman. What is the cause of this? Violent crimes among young woman are up 3x in the last decade. Is this a byproduct of gender equality?

How would you handle the Al Qaeda leader's following threat: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/news/al-qaeda-leader-warns-gravest-consequences-boston-marathon-121304664.html?The prisoner would be transported somewhere he cannot meet with family or friends as punishment.I'd have these radicals killed secretly and on paper it will say that they are still alive. I'd have them moved to secret encampments and poisoned randomly. I'd have key people assassinated systematically and break up their support structure and blame it on internal rivalry so that the hate is drawn away from each other and targeted among themselves. It is a horrible thing to do, however, that is war. You can't risk radicals escaping or influencing other people. I'd make it quick, there would be no speech, no rhyme or reason given in case someone was listening (you never know when someone is listening). Just poison or a quick bullet shot to the head when no one was around. One possible approach would be to hold a bunch of radicals in a common place, and blow it up. Then blame it on a Muslim group that tried to rescue them. The issue here is that a bunch of radicals have probably already infiltrated the west because men were let in. You have to address problems without the law getting in the way in this case periodically, especially, when you know the people are guilty. Ethics when solving problems with destructive people doesn't seem to work from my experience. Or I'd release a news cast saying he escaped, when I really killed him and disposed of the body.Ways to get rid of the body without leaving a trace would be mainly acid. You can destroy all DNA, bones etc ... so that it wont pop up later, or you could use the tar pits, or you could feed the meat to animals/pigs. They are too difficult for people to check, however, the body would eventually pop up.What I wouldn't do, is make a huge public scene about it.Then I'd start silent rumors (because they are powerful), using women, because they like to exaggerate and twist things into random things, about it being the wrath of God that is making these people disappear.I'd also publish random sightings of these people periodically in the news using old footage/photos to convince people that they are still alive.Murder should not be rewarded. Furthermore, this approach would also dispel the need for utilizing racism to start a war against another community.You could also infect with a disease a radicals prisoner and let them go by bargaining. The infection would spread among the people they came in contact with. You could have a vaccine made in the future. Of course, it would have to be timed properly and innocents would die, however, the rad

Did you know that over half of all taxes paid go towards supporting old people? You cut that and suddenly you have a ton more than can be used to improve education systems, build parks. These old people are entitled, irresponsible, racist, biased, and mean. Why do we have to support them, when they are no longer capable of contributing to society? They are basically dead meat.

A lot of the stories that are floating around about Satan and Lucifer don't actually exist in the scriptures. They all are derivatives from a single line in the scriptures. In reality, Satan isn't a name, it is title and doesn't mean bad things. He is actually on God's side.

So girls want gender equality. However, 70% of homicide victims are men, only 30% are woman. From my experience, guys and girls are equally assholes. So why is it that a murderer is more likely to go after a guy, compared to a girl? Where is the equality?

Like, guys don't usually have issues with easy girls and call them sluts and whores. Rather, they'll either ignore them, or pay attention to them. The ones that usually attack girls for those tendencies are other girls. Yet, girls tend to attribute these things to guys being behind it. What is with that?Unless, it is a jealous guy.

Have you ever heard a guy use the term slut in a non-perverted way? I believe only girls really call other girls sluts. A guy may call a girl whore, but it is much less often than a girl will insult another girl with that same word right? If anything guys in general sorta think better of easy girls compared to non-easy girls who they'll pay less attention to, right? Is my logic flawed? To me, it seems like girls and parents attack each other more for their sexuality, while guys sorta just go for it. I heard Jim Jeffries say how he loves sluts, and then this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inN4dxQsQc4said something similar. Then I thought to myself, perhaps, he is onto something, right? Guys really don't insult easy girls ... girls do ...Unless the guy is trying to force the girl to sleep with him or he is jealous.

I don't really feel like skimming the Quran again myself. However, I'd like to know the contradictions in it (which I am certain exist), in which at one point, the book says one thing, and at another point, it says the total opposite concerning the same principle.

This seem pretty contradictory to me ...

So from what I hear, God asked Lucifer to serve humanity and he said no. The same God that created the flood to wipe out most of humanity initially ... the same god that said at one point, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". The same God that put a baby in 12 year old Mary's body, rather than making the baby appear out of thin air. The same God that kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden for eating the forbidden fruit .... The same God that let his son, Jesus, die on the cross ...So apparently, Lucifer was the favorite, and then God liked humans better. So God said, humans are better than you, serve them ...I don't know, it doesn't seem right to me ... Imagine the same situation with your father and brother, and your dad tells you to serve your brother and bow down to him, because he likes him better after you've done so much for your father out of love ... I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me.God seems petty, mean, and irrational to me.

I've been pondering this issue quite a bit. I know racists like Trump because of how the media represents him. However, I recall on Trump's show: The Apprentice, he chose a black candidate as the winner. However, the black candidate was extremely centered and had tons of credentials to back him up making him the clearly better choice.However, never before have I seen Trump attack another candidate as vicariously as he attacked Obama.Most people who are racist, don't realize it. However, when it comes to criticism and attacks, they are more forgiving of people of the same race, verses people of other races. Plus, they are more likely to make generalized claims/jokes about people of the race that they dislike. I was reviewing the following videos:https://youtu.be/zKRnO51HYRghttps://youtu.be/jjoB1-lYprIhttps://youtu.be/37zvOZ17eSEPrior to Obama, Trump was never politically outspoken. Trump became politically outspoken and started to attack politicians only when Obama ran. Obama was the first politician he attacked. What do you think?I am leaning towards the fact that Trump is racially biased, and he doesn't know it. Also, I believe a mistake people often make is that debt is a bad thing. Some types of debt are good if they pay off in the long term. For example, investments in education and security. Unfortunately, these policies often take 20 years before their benefits become evident.

It seems that often times, they are not held accountable for their actions. Plus, as adults, they continue to have stuffed animals.

I heard a rumor that Trump's great grandparent ran a brothel or something like that.

I was watching his show "The Apprentice season 1", and I saw him give chances to clearly problematic people, he should have gotten rid of earlier based on what they said. What do you think?