Donald Trump running for president

ax1 said:
Thats not all of the ways you want to suppress women and infringe on their liberties. You also support government stealing the fruits of their labor and forcing women to buy in government services without be able to opt out. Basically you suppress a women's right to be a strong rugged individual and have them hand over part ownership of herself to criminal government, and if she decides to resist the IRS is kicking her door down at gunpoint and throwing her in the slammer.
Click to expand...

Edward Bernays is at fault. The king of propaganda. He made smoking seem like a great thing for women to start. His philosophy and tactics were used for getting women too vote as well. Can't have a big part of the population not spending money on cigarettes and not paying taxes.
 
Otheridstaken said:
Edward Bernays is at fault. The king of propaganda. He made smoking seem like a great thing for women to start. His philosophy and tactics were used for getting women too vote as well. Can't have a big part of the population not spending money on cigarettes and not paying taxes.
Click to expand...

Yeah I argue with some Chinese people who say Chairman Mao and the Communists "liberated" women, lol no they didnt. They simply transferred ownership from the home to the government. This doubled the workforce and increased military. Also, women were viewed as better bureaucrats than men making them very useful to enforce policy.
 
Ok, so in actual honesty, I was speaking with my stepdad last night and I think this is what's going to happen next year:

Trump will drop from the Republican race and will enter as Independent. This will split and destroy the Republican nomination, clearing the way for Clinton. He'll then get massive kickbacks once she's in, as they have been very close personal friends for many years (both Clintons and Trump). Any takers on this? Let's get a pool$$ going lol
 
Gutterpump said:
Ok, so in actual honesty, I was speaking with my stepdad last night and I think this is what's going to happen next year:

Trump will drop from the Republican race and will enter as Independent. This will split and destroy the Republican nomination, clearing the way for Clinton. He'll then get massive kickbacks once she's in, as they have been very close personal friends for many years (both Clintons and Trump). Any takers on this? Let's get a pool$$ going lol
Click to expand...

I can see him running as an independent but even though Im the "conspiracy guy" around here I dont believe he is in it to give Clinton a helping hand.
 
ax1 said:
I can see him running as an independent but even though Im the "conspiracy guy" around here I dont believe he is in it to give Clinton a helping hand.
Click to expand...

It's not that far fetched. Even the BBC produced an article on the possibility:

Invalid Link Removed
 
Gutterpump said:
It's not that far fetched. Even the BBC produced an article on the possibility:

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Its just an opinion with not too much substance. I mean its possible yeah but we have bigger issues to deal with such as making sure neither democrat or republican get in office. Those other things are just distractions.
 
ax1 said:
Its just an opinion with not too much substance. I mean its possible yeah but we have bigger issues to deal with such as making sure neither democrat or republican get in office. Those other things are just distractions.
Click to expand...

That's where Justin Trudeau comes in, with the re-unification of North and South Canada.
 
Gutterpump said:
That's where Justin Trudeau comes in, with the re-unification of North and South Canada.
Click to expand...

Does he want federal control over both north and south? If so I think its a bad idea....if he wants unification but give something like state powers and create good competition between the two places then its up to the canadian people to decide.

I dunno to much about Canadian politics.
 
93% of blacks voted for Obama!!!

I wonder if women will match or beat that for Hillary?
 
ax1 said:
Does he want federal control over both north and south? If so I think its a bad idea....if he wants unification but give something like state powers and create good competition between the two places then its up to the canadian people to decide.

I dunno to much about Canadian politics.
Click to expand...

I have no idea anymore hehe.. haven't been keeping up with em
 
Gutterpump said:
I have no idea anymore hehe.. haven't been keeping up with em
Click to expand...

I didnt even know they were separate Im going to have to study up...I do know they have two official languages in different areas.

Canada must be subdued, its time to send the Obama compassion drones over there and drop his bombs of love and make Canada liberated and free once and for all. j/k!
 
ax1 said:
I didnt even know they were separate Im going to have to study up...I do know they have two official languages in different areas.

Canada must be subdued, its time to send the Obama compassion drones over there and drop his bombs of love and make Canada liberated and free once and for all. j/k!
Click to expand...

LOL it was just a joke, based on British history here. South Canada meaning, the US lol
 
women and men are not equal...if a woman joins a combat unit and decides it is more than she expected she has an out that men don't have...she gets pregnant and is out of there....in all fairness this should be a court martial offense.

the navy's response to women getting pregnant aboard ship---'hey, they have a right to get pregnant'. what the navy isn't saying is that the women are flown off the ship and sent to a cushy shore based duty station.

I have seen men do really desperate things like commit suicide or attempt it to get out of combat situations, it seems totally unfair to me to allow women in combat positions with a get out of jail free card!!!!
 
thebigt said:
women and men are not equal...if a woman joins a combat unit and decides it is more than she expected she has an out that men don't have...she gets pregnant and is out of there....in all fairness this should be a court martial offense.

the navy's response to women getting pregnant aboard ship---'hey, they have a right to get pregnant'. what the navy isn't saying is that the women are flown off the ship and sent to a cushy shore based duty station.

I have seen men do really desperate things like commit suicide or attempt it to get out of combat situations, it seems totally unfair to me to allow women in combat positions with a get out of jail free card!!!!
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Equal punishment for everyone.
 
Gutterpump said:
I agree with this. Equal punishment for everyone.
Click to expand...

1 encounter in a combat situation is usually a life changer for most people. I just don't see it as being fair for a woman to decide she wants out and all she has to do is get pregnant!!! like I said if she does get pregnant it should be a court martial offense, imo!!!!
 
thebigt said:
1 encounter in a combat situation is usually a life changer for most people. I just don't see it as being fair for a woman to decide she wants out and all she has to do is get pregnant!!! like I said if she does get pregnant it should be a court martial offense, imo!!!!
Click to expand...

100%!!

I had never really thought of that. Maybe they should make birth control necessary for women in the military. If only they had a long acting version of it, like men do with Trest!
 
Gutterpump said:
100%!!

I had never really thought of that. Maybe they should make birth control necessary for women in the military. If only they had a long acting version of it, like men do with Trest!
Click to expand...
sign a contract that they won't get pregnant while assigned to combat positions, I would be ok with that!!!
 
Otheridstaken said:
Most of the black votes usually go Democrat. So black and woman votes maybe.
Click to expand...

don't forget...Hispanics....and don't forget gays and transgenders....and don't forget those on entitlements...and don't forget that unions always back democrats!!!!
 
Dma378 said:
Don't forget the non-religious
Click to expand...

honestly I haven't been able to classify your group into a voting block. I would think non-religious would be pretty divided on the issues...as am I!!!
 
Definitely divided on a lot of stuff bigt. The non religious tend to lean left for the following reasons though:

Typically ok with homosexuality, at least in terms of it in morality.

Typically pro-choice

Typically environmentalist types. We believe we're on this rock forever, no one is coming to save us from it.

Typically support science more so in terms of evolution, Big Bang, etc. and educating children as such.

These are probably the biggest reasons atheists vote liberal. Obviously it's not 100%. Just generalizing here.
 
I say Trump goes third party if the RNC railroads him and blocks him from getting the nomination if he's still leading. It surely won't be to hand it over to hildabeast. Since Ryan caved and gave away the country last week, I hope he does go third party and I hope he splits the vote so bad that he demolishes the GOP candidate, regardless if he wins or not.
 
youngandfree said:
I say Trump goes third party if the RNC railroads him and blocks him from getting the nomination if he's still leading. It surely won't be to hand it over to hildabeast. Since Ryan caved and gave away the country last week, I hope he does go third party and I hope he splits the vote so bad that he demolishes the GOP candidate, regardless if he wins or not.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

So you are definitely a right leaning person, but does this statement mean you really don't like any of the candidates?
 
Analogy time... We're all on a big ship, it has been veering slightly left for a long time regardless of which party steers it. The Dems stand on the left side of it and shout their mantra, the Reps stand on the right of it to prove how conservative they are. But the boat is still steering left, just a bit less when a Rep is steering it.
If conservatives want change, a major course correction is needed. If the bible thumpers want it to change, same thing. Someone has to be put in office to upset everything. They need to quit whining that Trump was a sinner, womanizer, etc etc.
In my state the more restrictive federal gun laws get, the more our government leans the other way to offset the loss. Soon, open carry will be here, Texas' way of saying "Do it again Sam, we'll go as far as you will.
Of course Pancho Villa and Santa Ana would be proud of the ongoing reconquista, we are north Mexico now.

I can't relate to Trump very well, but that would be one hell of a slap in the face the the establishment. You see, all of them are bought and paid for by corporations and foreigners wanting to drain the middle class dry. The Saudis even owned Bush, and I voted for his ass as he was the lesser of two evils. Trump owns himself, and didn't get rich being a government official.

The establishment needs a kick in their little piss-pump.
 
Bernie Sanders can shake up the ship, all without having to be an a$$hole. But he'd likely get shot for it, likely by an NRA member.
 
thebigt said:
don't forget...Hispanics....and don't forget gays and transgenders....and don't forget those on entitlements...and don't forget that unions always back democrats!!!!
Click to expand...

“Remember, remember the fifth of November of gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gun powder treason should ever be forgot.”
 
On the topic of Hitler, did anyone catch season 1 of The Man in the High Castle?

Such an unbelievably amazing series. I've been wanting to gift it this season, but it's still only available to stream on Amazon.

Seriously though guys, highly recommended. I marathoned through the whole thing in about a week.
 
Sanders has been in Congress since 1991, if you think he's not a lifer and will shake thing up, your blind to the problem.

Cruz is the strongest on the Constitution IMO, which considering their oath is to UPHOLD the Constitution, I'll take him. But Trump has the GOP scared and trying to take him down. The fact that they can't understand why he hasn't gone down much if at all is the problem with Washington. And for all the talk about either party looking out for the people, the people knows it's all bull****. And we are tired of it. For the GOP to try and railroad any candidate that is doing so well speaks and illustrates the problem. We are screwed no matter what, so the one that causes the most shake up is who I'm pulling for at this point. Screw em.
 
Dma378 said:
Definitely divided on a lot of stuff bigt. The non religious tend to lean left for the following reasons though:

Typically ok with homosexuality, at least in terms of it in morality.

Typically pro-choice

Typically environmentalist types. We believe we're on this rock forever, no one is coming to save us from it.

Typically support science more so in terms of evolution, Big Bang, etc. and educating children as such.

These are probably the biggest reasons atheists vote liberal. Obviously it's not 100%. Just generalizing here.
Click to expand...
as a Christian:
I would be a lot more tolerant of homosexuality if I didn't feel acceptance was being forced on me-I tend to not like things that are forced on me!!! my objections to homosexuality come more from my upbringing than church doctrine, society at that time looked upon it as abnormal behavior.

I am also pro-choice for humanitarian reasons, I feel forcing a woman to have an unwanted child is not going to turn out well for that child-this is my own thought and does not agree with church doctrine.

I understand leaning to the left on environment issues, I am not a fan of big business either-but I am neutral on this as I see both sides.

I have no problem teaching children about evolution, big bang theory, etc...I was also taught this as a child. church is where creationism should be taught, unless it is a private religious school, then the choice has already been made.

I don't agree with a lot of things the republicans stand for, but to me the democrats of today seem out to destroy our country when I look at what Obama and Hillary are saying and doing.
 
thebigt said:
as a Christian:
I would be a lot more tolerant of homosexuality if I didn't feel acceptance was being forced on me-I tend to not like things that are forced on me!!! my objections to homosexuality come more from my upbringing than church doctrine, society at that time looked upon it as abnormal behavior.

I am also pro-choice for humanitarian reasons, I feel forcing a woman to have an unwanted child is not going to turn out well for that child-this is my own thought and does not agree with church doctrine.

I understand leaning to the left on environment issues, I am not a fan of big business either-but I am neutral on this as I see both sides.

I have no problem teaching children about evolution, big bang theory, etc...I was also taught this as a child. church is where creationism should be taught, unless it is a private religious school, then the choice has already been made.

I don't agree with a lot of things the republicans stand for, but to me the democrats of today seem out to destroy our country when I look at what Obama and Hillary are saying and doing.
Click to expand...

Man. This is a great post. And a reminder that so many of us, although we may favor one side more, cannot be nailed down to either side's entire list of doctrines.

I'm actually really grateful for this thread.
 
thebigt said:
as a Christian:
I would be a lot more tolerant of homosexuality if I didn't feel acceptance was being forced on me-I tend to not like things that are forced on me!!! my objections to homosexuality come more from my upbringing than church doctrine, society at that time looked upon it as abnormal behavior.

I am also pro-choice for humanitarian reasons, I feel forcing a woman to have an unwanted child is not going to turn out well for that child-this is my own thought and does not agree with church doctrine.

I understand leaning to the left on environment issues, I am not a fan of big business either-but I am neutral on this as I see both sides.

I have no problem teaching children about evolution, big bang theory, etc...I was also taught this as a child. church is where creationism should be taught, unless it is a private religious school, then the choice has already been made.

I don't agree with a lot of things the republicans stand for, but to me the democrats of today seem out to destroy our country when I look at what Obama and Hillary are saying and doing.
Click to expand...

Creationism is one of the things that drives people away from the Church. People want logical answers to life. Spiritual ones are unfortunately not sought after. Sadly, religion along with ****ing morals are being washed down the drain. Something that Christianity preserved! I respect any Christian man or woman without a doubt.
 
thebigt said:
as a Christian:
I would be a lot more tolerant of homosexuality if I didn't feel acceptance was being forced on me-I tend to not like things that are forced on me!!! my objections to homosexuality come more from my upbringing than church doctrine, society at that time looked upon it as abnormal behavior.
Click to expand...

It's hard not to think homosexuality is abnormal. If two women or two men are all that remain of the human species that's it. Life ultimately continues when male and female have sex and produce offspring.
Although love plays a big part, ultimately homosexuality is not life affirming.
 
123abcabcabc said:
Creationism is one of the things that drives people away from the Church. People want logical answers to life. Spiritual ones are unfortunately not sought after. Sadly, religion along with ****ing morals are being washed down the drain. Something that Christianity preserved! I respect any Christian man or woman without a doubt.
Click to expand...

the church teaches values and morals, basically the difference between right and wrong...could it be that creationism is an excuse and that parents don't want their children exposed to religion, in the fear that their children will call them out on their bad behavior?

the TEN COMMANDMENTS and THE GOLDEN RULE are valuable guidelines for living a good life...I think many people today are afraid of religion because they know they are living a corrupt lifestyle-I am not singling out any group in particular, I am calling out the American lifestyle in general.
 
For me it's many more reasons than creationism for rejectin the bible. Aside from the words of Jesus, it is a poor source of morality. It is a hateful, vengeful book of scorn. The Ten Commandments should have been at least 12:

Do not rape

Do not own other people as your slaves

Instead it provides rules on rape and slavery.

The danger that revelations has put on this planet are immeasurable as well. I mean who cares about the earth if it's all going to end anyways.

Morality comes from being human. From empathy. You either have it or you don't. Prisons are full of people taught the bible their entire lives. The notion of forgiveness for anything also promotes poor morality and actions.

I have 4 children, 2 older sons, and 11 and 2 year old daughters. The sons are non believers. The 11 year old and my wife are Christians. Who attend church, help with the kid services, just got baptized last month, and take pride in their beliefs. All fine and good. But my children's and wife's morality does not come from the bible. And it is basically an atheist mantra to be good without God.

Of all the depravity, murder, war, etc in the world. It is done by religious people just by the numbers. So humanity is inclined to do what is instinctual, you can attach whatever belief system you want to the back of any person.
 
Good point.

I worked with a Christian guy, real smart R&D guy. I was talking with him about a protest I was taking part in. He was supportive. I asked him why he supports change, if that very change is against the end times of the bible. He said good question, and he didn't have an answer.
 
Otheridstaken said:
It's hard not to think homosexuality is abnormal. If two women or two men are all that remain of the human species that's it. Life ultimately continues when male and female have sex and produce offspring.
Although love plays a big part, ultimately homosexuality is not life affirming.
Click to expand...

Neither is masturbation. Sure as heck isn't a sin against God though. Nothing evil or destructive about homosexuality, or masturbation. The Church sure loves it's flock to live in guilt though.

And we are not here on earth simply to serve a "functional purpose" in all aspects of life. We are not robots. Taking pleasure in life, in living, as long as it doesn't effect others in a negative way, isn't a sin. Most of the "rules" in the bible are based off ancient times and stigmas.

Don't take this as an attack though. I'm born and raised Catholic. But I do not believe everything the church teaches. Not so much as to turn away from it though. Mankind is imperfect, and mankind runs the church, so I give it some leeway.
 
Gutterpump said:
Neither is masturbation. Sure as heck isn't a sin against God though. Nothing evil or destructive about homosexuality, or masturbation. The Church sure loves it's flock to live in guilt though.

And we are not here on earth simply to serve a "functional purpose" in all aspects of life. We are not robots. Taking pleasure in life, in living, as long as it doesn't effect others in a negative way, isn't a sin. Most of the "rules" in the bible are based off ancient times and stigmas.

Don't take this as an attack though. I'm born and raised Catholic. But I do not believe everything the church teaches. Not so much as to turn away from it though. Mankind is imperfect, and mankind runs the church, so I give it some leeway.
Click to expand...

I don't take anything as an attack.

I disagree with homosexuality not being destructive. Particularly gay men. A lot of disease spread..AIDS and Herpes are good examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top