Deez Nuts
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
75 comments displayed.
#10 to #8
-
hassoutobi (09/02/2015) [-]
He looks embarassed. His parents probably forced him to participate in the news report.
#2
-
icameforthewut (09/02/2015) [-]
I wonder how many people actually read his "campaign" promises instead of seeing "deez nutz" and laughed and gave the comedy vote.
#87 to #2
-
sadaurkar (09/03/2015) [-] 
Reminds me of back in secondary school. In year ten we had a thing called politics week, where each of the four houses would create their own pretend political party & run a campaign that week for the most votes. The entire school voted for the party of their choice.
Red house obviously went full communist & hoped to gain their votes that way, naming themselves the Peoples Party. Blue house managed to drum up a serious campaign. While Yellow house simply plastered posters of their leaders everywhere. My house, Green, was aptly named the Free Australia Party a.k.a fap. Needless to say fap won by a landslide.
Red house obviously went full communist & hoped to gain their votes that way, naming themselves the Peoples Party. Blue house managed to drum up a serious campaign. While Yellow house simply plastered posters of their leaders everywhere. My house, Green, was aptly named the Free Australia Party a.k.a fap. Needless to say fap won by a landslide.
#35 to #2
-
yologdogtwo (09/02/2015) [-] I would vote for a 15 year old rather Hillary in a heartbeat.
#73 to #35
-
sacrilegious (09/03/2015) [-]
... what does that argument on the right even mean? No one says that.
#76 to #73
-
yologdogtwo (09/03/2015) [-] The 2nd amendment is the one that says if the government ever gets out of hand, it's the peoples duty to retake their country. It also gives people the right to bare arms. A.K.A. Guns.
I see a Civil War in our future. It'll probably happen while we're in the middle of WW3 you know, given the strain it will put on an already strained country. ...
I see a Civil War in our future. It'll probably happen while we're in the middle of WW3 you know, given the strain it will put on an already strained country. ...
#83 to #76
-
anon (09/03/2015) [-]
That's idiotic. If WW3 broke out there's no chance we'd start a civil war. If we had a civil war there's a possibility that ww3 could happen, other countries might take advantage of the weakness and chaos. I doubt a civil war could happen in the US any time soon. It would take a lot of funding, firepower, and planning. I doubt average citizens could take on the US military.
#85 to #83
-
anon (09/03/2015) [-]
The thing about a Civil War my friend is that the US military would not only side with the US military. About half to 3/4 of the people I know in the military have said to me at least once that if a Civil War did break out they would be willing to fight the govt. Whether that is true or not, I have no idea, but as they have said I do believe at least some meant it.
#90 to #83
-
yologdogtwo (09/03/2015) [-] Given everything that has happened, we are already a strained country. In Addition to world war 3 it would put a great amount of strain on an imbalanced structure that's already wobbly at best. It would be amazing if there wasn't a 2nd civil war.
If a Civil War broke out right now it would be a war that could be broken down to Freedom vs Security. It would literally become the common man vs the government. Which, in fairness, there is already a lot of that. Just not as violent.
The government would see this as an excuse to call shots that were too sensitive before like the activation of Fema camps, Marching troops on U.S. soil or giving Tanks and other military grade weaponry to the National Guard. Imagine being drafted? You would have to choose, right then and there which side you were for.
And the Patriots would be no different. They would be accepting weapons and ammo from any source, even Russia. They would divide into cells and with a lack of communication, would attack like terrorists to anything that even remotely symbolizes what they fight against. People are sheeple in groups. Even you must realize this. And if the group wants a singular thing then the individual will probably act along. Thus causing stupidity and terrorism to **** up another otherwise noble cause.
It would **** up everything I have like, a bottle worth of vodka in me. I'm wasted. I know Sober me would be arguing this too. But drunk me probably isn't as good. I'm really trying though.
If a Civil War broke out right now it would be a war that could be broken down to Freedom vs Security. It would literally become the common man vs the government. Which, in fairness, there is already a lot of that. Just not as violent.
The government would see this as an excuse to call shots that were too sensitive before like the activation of Fema camps, Marching troops on U.S. soil or giving Tanks and other military grade weaponry to the National Guard. Imagine being drafted? You would have to choose, right then and there which side you were for.
And the Patriots would be no different. They would be accepting weapons and ammo from any source, even Russia. They would divide into cells and with a lack of communication, would attack like terrorists to anything that even remotely symbolizes what they fight against. People are sheeple in groups. Even you must realize this. And if the group wants a singular thing then the individual will probably act along. Thus causing stupidity and terrorism to **** up another otherwise noble cause.
It would **** up everything I have like, a bottle worth of vodka in me. I'm wasted. I know Sober me would be arguing this too. But drunk me probably isn't as good. I'm really trying though.
#78 to #76
-
sacrilegious (09/03/2015) [-]
Okay, well the second amendment doesn't actually say that.
But no one makes the argument "Well, we could never win, so lets repeal the second amendment."
But no one makes the argument "Well, we could never win, so lets repeal the second amendment."
#88 to #78
-
yologdogtwo (09/03/2015) [-] Heavy implication is a non verbal way of saying. Anyone who says or implies otherwise is corrupt.
Remember. They were in a ******* revolution when they wrote this **** . There is a few anti-government things implied in our constitution. If you think otherwise, well then, you're remembering what you learned in your government mandated history class.
How did that Government mandated schooling turn out for you? Did you get the job you were taught how to do in college?
And you are right. No one implicitly say's "Well, we could never win, so lets repeal the second amendment." But we have a massive movement to ban ALL guns. And another movement to force ALL gun owners to register with the government so that if a civil war ever happened, the government would have a list of people to suspect.
A government that knows all undermines the whole mentality behind what made our country great to begin with.
Freedom>Security
I'm a lottle drunk. But I know sober me would have something to say about this too.
Albeit in a more articulate manner.
Remember. They were in a ******* revolution when they wrote this **** . There is a few anti-government things implied in our constitution. If you think otherwise, well then, you're remembering what you learned in your government mandated history class.
How did that Government mandated schooling turn out for you? Did you get the job you were taught how to do in college?
And you are right. No one implicitly say's "Well, we could never win, so lets repeal the second amendment." But we have a massive movement to ban ALL guns. And another movement to force ALL gun owners to register with the government so that if a civil war ever happened, the government would have a list of people to suspect.
A government that knows all undermines the whole mentality behind what made our country great to begin with.
Freedom>Security
I'm a lottle drunk. But I know sober me would have something to say about this too.
Albeit in a more articulate manner.
#95 to #88
-
sacrilegious (09/03/2015) [-]
The part I believe your referring to states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."
A militia is (acc. to OED): A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
(The secondary definition "A military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army." does not seem to be what the Founding Fathers had in mind.)
The first three definitions of "security" read:
1 The state of being free from danger or threat.
2 The safety of a state or organization against criminal activity such as terrorism, theft, or espionage.
3 Procedures followed or measures taken to ensure the safety of a state or organization.
Note how the second amendment refers to the "security of a free state," not of its people. Rather, it calls upon its citizens to be responsible gun owners, so that, in the case of a threat against the state, they are prepared to defend it, not to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
My view on gun laws are irrelevant, I only called this out because I believe that the argument "the second amendment was instituted to allow the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" is false.
As for your government-mandated schooling question, it turned out quite well. I'm enrolled in a good college, learning about stuff I really enjoy, and I do have a job doing research in the same field I'm learning about. So I guess the answer to those questions is "quite well" and "yes."
A militia is (acc. to OED): A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
(The secondary definition "A military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army." does not seem to be what the Founding Fathers had in mind.)
The first three definitions of "security" read:
1 The state of being free from danger or threat.
2 The safety of a state or organization against criminal activity such as terrorism, theft, or espionage.
3 Procedures followed or measures taken to ensure the safety of a state or organization.
Note how the second amendment refers to the "security of a free state," not of its people. Rather, it calls upon its citizens to be responsible gun owners, so that, in the case of a threat against the state, they are prepared to defend it, not to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
My view on gun laws are irrelevant, I only called this out because I believe that the argument "the second amendment was instituted to allow the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" is false.
As for your government-mandated schooling question, it turned out quite well. I'm enrolled in a good college, learning about stuff I really enjoy, and I do have a job doing research in the same field I'm learning about. So I guess the answer to those questions is "quite well" and "yes."
#86 to #78
-
anon (09/03/2015) [-]
Actually I see that argument pretty commonly. They usually frame it more along the lines of "what do you think you could do against a nuke" or "what do you think a semi-auto rifle would do against a tank" or other such things, but it all amounts the same thing....you could never win, so why keep the weapons." They never say repeal the second amendment sure, but they do say to limit it severely.
#51 to #2
-
ohemgeezus ONLINE (09/03/2015) [-] It doesn't matter anyways. He could put that he'll bring world peace and end world huger for all that matters, he's a 15 year old that can't be president
#45
-
lolollo (09/03/2015) [-] Clearly the face of a joke that wasn't properly prepared to get that far.
#6
-
slapchoppin (09/02/2015) [-] Canada in practice only really has 3 parties honestly
The Bloc and The Green Party are never going to win so nobody really takes them seriously
The Bloc and The Green Party are never going to win so nobody really takes them seriously
#41 to #6
-
anon (09/02/2015) [-]
bloc is a complete fcking joke. im surprised they still have some supporters, and it's such a small percent of the population that theyre better off just leaving entirely. no one would miss them. i mean for gods sake, they didn't even win majority support in their own province. green party is pretty hilarious though. they know their stuff but ppl don't even acknowledge them. i remember in the canadian debate, their party leader tried to get into the conversation and the other candidates ignored her completely. was sad, yet funny.
#59 to #6
-
taintedangel (09/03/2015) [-] We've actually have 6 parties now:
-Liberal
-Conservative/Torries (PC)
-New Democratic Party (NDP)
-Bloc Quebequois
-The Green Party
and finally
-The Libertarian party of Canada (who's leader Lauren Southern is running for PM too)
-Liberal
-Conservative/Torries (PC)
-New Democratic Party (NDP)
-Bloc Quebequois
-The Green Party
and finally
-The Libertarian party of Canada (who's leader Lauren Southern is running for PM too)
#37 to #12
-
tbeaz ONLINE (09/02/2015) [-]
I think they're just kind of selfish personally.
You're going to succeed from our country but keep our currency, trade, and other benefits? I don't think so.
I also enjoy having cultural appropriation wined about where the entire country must have french on every product, while I don't see a reverse english rule for the materials of quebec.
We don't want to take your culture, honestly we don't give a **** , how about you stop imposing your culture on our culture and being massive hypocrites.
You're going to succeed from our country but keep our currency, trade, and other benefits? I don't think so.
I also enjoy having cultural appropriation wined about where the entire country must have french on every product, while I don't see a reverse english rule for the materials of quebec.
We don't want to take your culture, honestly we don't give a **** , how about you stop imposing your culture on our culture and being massive hypocrites.
#36 to #6
-
tbeaz ONLINE (09/02/2015) [-]
Well I mean that's true and not true. We have as many parties as can gain popular support. The liberal and conservative have always been big ones in name but they have gone through some big changes and permutations. The NDP was a joke earlier and is now potentially a competitor. The bloc might have been destroyed lately but at one point it was just a 1% away from setting Quebec away from the rest of the confederation.
I don't know anything about USA politics really so this could be completely wrong but as far as I know no one can come up and compete against the Democrats and Republicans can they? It seems kind of broken to me to have a system with only 2 permanent choices.
Things are much more flexible to the people than in the states.
I don't know anything about USA politics really so this could be completely wrong but as far as I know no one can come up and compete against the Democrats and Republicans can they? It seems kind of broken to me to have a system with only 2 permanent choices.
Things are much more flexible to the people than in the states.
#71 to #36
-
needsauceadmisblan (09/03/2015) [-] alright im going to give you a breif rundown on USA voteing rights and how the system came to be.
1776 first constitution 2 years latter rebellion about taxes regarding wisky
1778 alright new constitution bitches, gets a few things added to every now and then stays about the same from then to now.
1786 george washington says hes done being presedent **** ya'll
untill 1800 its some kind of cluster **** regarding electoins
then for the electoin of 1800 the electoral college group of people who are elected to vote for the president form the votes of the states multiple layers are made at the time not as ausable as now. now its its just something. is created
1800-1830s land requirements are destroyed and eventually abolished so that wage workers can vote bassicly a oprah's show for voteing rights and you can ote and you can vote and you can vote!
1830-1900s lot of mile stones in no particular order. we take land from mexico, buy the louisiana purchase, annex the republic of texas, fight a civil war, free the slaves say blacks and vote and then enforce that blacks can vote then forget about it.
1900s-1930s ww1 women can vote baned nonmedical use of alcohol immediately, lots or new restrictoins largely ignored by the bigger citys high class.roaring 20s credit buying everything ******* thing set up for a for a great depresoin.
1930s-now everyone can mostly vote excpt for territories and the populatoin of DC itself weird voteing laws make it weird. john oliver can explain if you want. y now the electoral college is less regulated now then it was at the start.
1776 first constitution 2 years latter rebellion about taxes regarding wisky
1778 alright new constitution bitches, gets a few things added to every now and then stays about the same from then to now.
1786 george washington says hes done being presedent **** ya'll
untill 1800 its some kind of cluster **** regarding electoins
then for the electoin of 1800 the electoral college group of people who are elected to vote for the president form the votes of the states multiple layers are made at the time not as ausable as now. now its its just something. is created
1800-1830s land requirements are destroyed and eventually abolished so that wage workers can vote bassicly a oprah's show for voteing rights and you can ote and you can vote and you can vote!
1830-1900s lot of mile stones in no particular order. we take land from mexico, buy the louisiana purchase, annex the republic of texas, fight a civil war, free the slaves say blacks and vote and then enforce that blacks can vote then forget about it.
1900s-1930s ww1 women can vote baned nonmedical use of alcohol immediately, lots or new restrictoins largely ignored by the bigger citys high class.roaring 20s credit buying everything ******* thing set up for a for a great depresoin.
1930s-now everyone can mostly vote excpt for territories and the populatoin of DC itself weird voteing laws make it weird. john oliver can explain if you want. y now the electoral college is less regulated now then it was at the start.
#75 to #4
-
megazman (09/03/2015) [-] The primaries are a private run organization, not an official government practice. Parties use it to prevent splitting votes among themselves by having multiple candidates. So even if he "won" that doesnt mean they have to use him as the parties candidate, and obviously they couldnt since he's 15
#9 to #7
-
whatareyouon ONLINE (09/02/2015) [-] yeah, but lets pretend they accumulated 91% of the nations votes, with then runners up having 5% and 4% respectively. are you really gonna let the guy who only got 5% of the nations votes be president only because he beat out the guy who got 4%? like the government has these "laws" for who can be president, but can we really be a government for the people by the people while simultaneously ignoring the will of the people?
#15 to #13
-
whatareyouon ONLINE (09/02/2015) [-] popular vote in a particular state does, nationwide they can have more people,but if you win the majority of states you typically win.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/what-is-the-electoral-college_n_2078970.html
if you think popular vote has 0 power i would put away your inadequate high school education and read this.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/what-is-the-electoral-college_n_2078970.html
if you think popular vote has 0 power i would put away your inadequate high school education and read this.
#19 to #17
-
whatareyouon ONLINE (09/02/2015) [-] maybe you live in one of the lawless states that don't have to, but my civilized state forces the electoral vote to follow the popular vote. but hey don't worry about it... your vote actually doesn't matter, mine however does.
#20 to #19
-
notblindguy (09/02/2015) [-] I know you aren't arguing about this kid becoming president.....
#21 to #20
-
whatareyouon ONLINE (09/02/2015) [-] It's completely impossible, but if you want to think inside the box be my guest.
#28 to #21
-
notblindguy (09/02/2015) [-] you are correct it is impossible I never said it was possible
#54 to #4
-
anon (09/03/2015) [-]
Yes it is impossible for him to win. There is an age requirement, as the video says in the end. He won't win because a majority of America, though retarded, knows that they are voting for a leader. Despite the fact that a large portion is saying **** like "OMG weee neeeed a womaan prezzzz, be progressive guys! *********** matter! OMG OMG" and **** like that. Honestly, I ******* hate the media for pushing all this ******** on people purely because they know they'll eat it up due to how special they'll feel. It's literally like the southpark episode where people started buying priuses and snorting their own farts.
#11 to #4
-
notblindguy (09/02/2015) [-] you can't be serious.....
without getting into the 10 million reasons we'll go with the first one, you must be over the age of 35 to be president
without getting into the 10 million reasons we'll go with the first one, you must be over the age of 35 to be president
#16 to #11
-
whatareyouon ONLINE (09/02/2015) [-] in theory pretend some terrible mistake was made and he was listed as a 3rd party in the election, then won enough states to actually win the election. can we really be a government for the people by the people while simultaneously ignoring the will of the people? if the majority of the US population as a whole wants someone as a president i don't think the old laws would hold.
I know this is actually impossible, but do the impossible break the unbreakable row row fight the power.
I know this is actually impossible, but do the impossible break the unbreakable row row fight the power.
#22 to #16
-
atrocitustheking (09/02/2015) [-] It would be refreshing to have a younger leader. Yeah, he may not have the experience, but he might not be constrained by the same old tired ideas that dominate washington b/c it's only allowing old ***** to join. We need new ideas, and it certainly isn't going to come from some senile old man who goes to the mailbox to check his email.
#32 to #30
-
notblindguy (09/02/2015) [-] unless dad has over 100 million I don't think he'll even have a chance
#29
-
anon (09/02/2015) [-]
Becomes president
Goes to white house
"So, can jet fuel melt steel beams?"
Goes to white house
"So, can jet fuel melt steel beams?"
#31
-
chaoticlaw (09/02/2015) [-] Deez Nuts is the only mentally mature candidate in the entire race. Which is ironic, for what should be obvious reasons.
#14
-
protectorofjam (09/02/2015) [-] Does anyone have a link to his campaign page, I'm actually intrested in what he supports and says about issues.
#77
-
aznzeus (09/03/2015) [-] Frankly I think it shows failure in the candidates that so many people are willing to vote for a joke than actual people. We should recast
#50
-
leifbunny ONLINE (09/03/2015) [-] "Hopefully this paves the way for more parties. Canada has like... four!"
I don't care what the other countries are getting, Brady, you're getting 2.
Seriously though... adding more parties won't solve **** , especially when you don't understand why other countries have those. We need to stop pandering to archetypes and ideals and decide "Which one will solve real problems?" instead of "Oh look, he's on my side! No no, his policies aren't ******* retarded! He's an X, like meeeeeee!"
I don't care what the other countries are getting, Brady, you're getting 2.
Seriously though... adding more parties won't solve **** , especially when you don't understand why other countries have those. We need to stop pandering to archetypes and ideals and decide "Which one will solve real problems?" instead of "Oh look, he's on my side! No no, his policies aren't ******* retarded! He's an X, like meeeeeee!"
#64 to #50
-
vegasstoner (09/03/2015) [-]
having more parties definatly would help. loads of people vote for someone simply because theyre the same party. or at least close than the other candidate because there's only 2 to choose from. i'm personally a fan of just not having parties.
#72 to #65
-
vegasstoner (09/03/2015) [-]
precisely. thats what the founders and especially george washington wanted. but that plan collapsed real quick.
