Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

AE14 said:
I won't jump into the biblical discussion as DD and I have been down that road for years. ;)

I am starting to not look at things as conspiracies anymore. More that they are just the "elites" arrogance to do things now right in front of our face with utter disregard.
Click to expand...

This is true. More than ever before, the discussion is in the open. The availability of information is much broader and deeper, The "secret societies" aren't so secret anymore. And yeah, they continue to impose their control and corruption with little regard of any exposure.
 
DocOptimzed said:
Donald trump is a simpleton so it would make sense that his support base is made up of simpletons?
Click to expand...

Is he though or is that just something that people say because they don't agree with him? Again, to be clear, I'm not voting for Clinton or Trump and hate both. However, if he was a simpleton, wouldn't he be living in a box now? He always had an unfair advantage by having a rich father and has made some foolish investments and bets, but he's smart enough to know how to work the system. And just because somebody is supporting a candidate doesn't mean they support every single facet of what that candidate stands for. Even if you believe Trump is a simpleton or a racist or a whatever doesn't make his supporters the same. There are a lot of reasons why people vote for a specific candidate and sometimes it has more to do with the other peple running. Sometimes people want to take a chance and see the crazier candidate as a wild card, but they are in such a bad situation and desperate for change that they are willing to try something outside of the box. So no, it doesn't make sense that his support base is made up of simpletons simply because you don't agree with his views.
 
Gutterpump said:
By doing something very unamerican and preying off the fears of inner Americans for the most part.
Click to expand...

this seems to be how most elections are won. Show me a candidate anywhere that hasn't had at least part of their campaign revolving around fear of what will happen if they are not elected. A large part of Hillary's campaign is simply to stop Trump from being President based on fear.
 
Gutterpump said:
By doing something very unamerican and preying off the fears of inner Americans for the most part.
Click to expand...

So has Hitlery, Bernie (far less extent) and almost every other crony...fear mongering war on terrorism, pre-emptive wars, fear mongering on guns, and that if government doesnt control anything society will collapse....etc
 
ax1 said:
So has Hitlery, Bernie (far less extent) and almost every other crony...fear mongering war on terrorism, pre-emptive wars, fear mongering on guns, and that if government doesnt control anything society will collapse....etc
Click to expand...

Trump did a better job of it, fed directly into hate, which is much stronger. That's how he rose so fast/strongly. It's not working too well for him now though.
 
Gutterpump said:
Trump did a better job of it, fed directly into hate, which is much stronger. That's how he rose so fast/strongly. It's not working too well for him now though.
Click to expand...

I dont see where he fed into "hate" though. I see Obama (I dont mean that as a shot on you as if you support him) feeding that like a mo'fo causing division all across the country but hate in Trump is something way overblown by his political opponents and and CiaNN news along with the others. Does he say dumbs things, yes...most of us do.
 
ax1 said:
I dont see where he fed into "hate" though. I see Obama (I dont mean that as a shot on you as if you support him) feeding that like a mo'fo causing division all across the country but hate in Trump is something way overblown by his political opponents and and CiaNN news along with the others. Does he say dumbs things, yes...most of us do.
Click to expand...

 
DocOptimzed said:
What do you think caused The Donald to win the GOP?
Click to expand...

because the republican establishment are a bunch of pu*ssies who have let Obama and his leftist agenda walk all over them...trump had the balls to speak out against political correctness and many like me were waiting for someone to do that!!!

trump has paid the price for going against the grain, the dems and repubs are both against him-they do not want someone who will rock the boat...just ask Bernie sanders!!!

trump isn't stupid, he is arrogant...he thinks he can go against liberals who have been playing this game for decades and come out ahead, instead he keeps falling into traps they set for him. his ego is getting the best of him....Hillary Clinton is winning because she has much smarter people surrounding her, as much as I hate the liberal agenda I give them credit-liberals are very good at PLAYING THE POLITICAL GAME!!!
 
ax1 said:
I dont see where he fed into "hate" though. I see Obama (I dont mean that as a shot on you as if you support him) feeding that like a mo'fo causing division all across the country but hate in Trump is something way overblown by his political opponents and and CiaNN news along with the others. Does he say dumbs things, yes...most of us do.
Click to expand...

 
I've been watching the olympics...men and womens events. it becomes apparent after only a short time how much better the men are than the women. men are stronger, faster and quicker...if men are so physically superior than women then why are women being on the special forces commando units?

if women really want equality then do away with men and womens sports and just have sports, let the women compete with the men!!!
 
thebigt said:
I've been watching the olympics...men and womens events. it becomes apparent after only a short time how much better the men are than the women. men are stronger, faster and quicker...if men are so physically superior than women then why are women being on the special forces commando units?

if women really want equality then do away with men and womens sports and just have sports, let the women compete with the men!!!
Click to expand...
The way I see it, if somehow a woman is physically capable of meeting the physical requirements of being in the special forces (or whatever job) then yeah, they should be allowed, but I don't think the standards/requirements should be lowered so that women can be included. Have we discussed this ITT yet?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
The way I see it, if somehow a woman is physically capable of meeting the physical requirements of being in the special forces (or whatever job) then yeah, they should be allowed, but I don't think the standards/requirements should be lowered so that women can be included. Have we discussed this ITT yet?
Click to expand...

to me, if a women meets the standards for an elite commando unit then those standards are too low....it is apparent that women can't compete with men in physical competition otherwise there would not be women and men separate events in sports...can you imagine women boxers and kickboxers fighting against men...no, I didn't think so.
 
Have y'all discussed the events in Milwaukee in here yet?
 
thebigt said:
to me, if a women meets the standards for an elite commando unit then those standards are too low....it is apparent that women can't compete with men in physical competition otherwise there would not be women and men separate events in sports...can you imagine women boxers and kickboxers fighting against men...no, I didn't think so.
Click to expand...
So you're telling me that if somehow, perhaps a genetic anomaly, a woman were able to meet, or even surpass, the physical requirements, then instead of allowing her to join, they should raise the requirements, even if it means kicking out some people who are already in who wouldn't meet those new requirements? I'm talking purely hypothetical here, but if a woman is somehow on par with the males already doing the job, then why shouldn't she be allowed? It may be very, very rare, but it's a possibility, no?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
So you're telling me that if somehow, perhaps a genetic anomaly, a woman were able to meet, or even surpass, the physical requirements, then instead of allowing her to join, they should raise the requirements, even if it means kicking out some people who are already in who wouldn't meet those new requirements? I'm talking purely hypothetical here, but if a woman is somehow on par with the males already doing the job, then why shouldn't she be allowed? It may be very, very rare, but it's a possibility, no?
Click to expand...

you obviously have never been in the military...when you inject women into a otherwise all male position there are many changes that need to be made. I am saying that to go thru all the necessary changes it would not be productive for a very rare anomaly. we are not talking about bathrooms here, there are lives at stake!!!
 
muscleupcrohn said:
So you're telling me that if somehow, perhaps a genetic anomaly, a woman were able to meet, or even surpass, the physical requirements, then instead of allowing her to join, they should raise the requirements, even if it means kicking out some people who are already in who wouldn't meet those new requirements? I'm talking purely hypothetical here, but if a woman is somehow on par with the males already doing the job, then why shouldn't she be allowed? It may be very, very rare, but it's a possibility, no?
Click to expand...

A couple women have already surpassed the male requirements (and passed all tests) and they're still not sure what to do with them. I'll find and repost the article. We've discussed it all here before I think. Most of the Republicans here think it's a risk to have them in the field due to thinking women must be inferior, or a sexual distraction.
 
thebigt said:
you obviously have never been in the military...when you inject women into a otherwise all male position there are many changes that need to be made. I am saying that to go thru all the necessary changes it would not be productive for a very rare anomaly. we are not talking about bathrooms here, there are lives at stake!!!
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about that aspect; that's a different issue really. I'm referring to you saying that if a woman IS able to meet the physical requirements, then the requirements need to be raised. What if some anomaly/outlier exceeded the physical requirements; would you then raise them to such a high level that it would exceed that of some of the men already doing the job? Wouldn't it be easier to just explicitly say women can't/shouldn't do the job then instead of keep changing rules to keep them out?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I'm not talking about that aspect; that's a different issue really. I'm referring to you saying that if a woman IS able to meet the physical requirements, then the requirements need to be raised. What if some anomaly/outlier exceeded the physical requirements; would you then raise them to such a high level that it would exceed that of some of the men already doing the job? Wouldn't it be easier to just explicitly say women can't/shouldn't do the job then instead of keep changing rules to keep them out?
Click to expand...

name me 1 sport where top women athletes could compete against top men athletes...if they can't do it in sports then they shouldn't be able to do it in the most elite fighting force.

serena Williams is touted as the best woman tennis player of all time...any man in the top 100 at any given time would beat her ass.
 
thebigt said:
that should be the bar...anytime a woman is able to pass the test standards need to be raised.
Click to expand...
So what do you do if there are already men serving in these positions who no longer meet the requirements? Do you kick them out? It's pretty clear that the issue many people having with women serving in these roles is not purely due to physical ability (as demonstrated ITT), but other reasons. Why not just explicitly state that women can't serve in these positions due to the REAL reasons everyone is thinking instead of retroactively changing and hiding behind physical requirements?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
So what do you do if there are already men serving in these positions who no longer meet the requirements? Do you kick them out? It's pretty clear that the issue many people having with women serving in these roles is not purely due to physical ability (as demonstrated ITT), but other reasons. Why not just explicitly state that women can't serve in these positions due to the REAL reasons everyone is thinking instead of retroactively changing and hiding behind physical requirements?
Click to expand...

it is physical ability....there are approximately 35,000 special forces [seals, rangers, special operations aviators, green berets]....maybe this number needs to be whittled down some in order for special forces to be elite!!! if women are able to pass the requirements then it is not elite, imo.
 
thebigt said:
it is physical ability....there are approximately 35,000 special forces [seals, rangers, special operations aviators, green berets]....maybe this number needs to be whittled down some in order for special forces to be elite!!! if women are able to pass the requirements then it is not elite, imo.
Click to expand...
So what if you raise the requirements and then the same woman, or a different woman, meets those requirements the next month/year? You raise the requirements again, and just keep kicking out the male soldiers who don't meet the requirements? It's hypothetical conversation really though.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
So what if you raise the requirements and then the same woman, or a different woman, meets those requirements the next month/year? You raise the requirements again, and just keep kicking out the male soldiers who don't meet the requirements? It's hypothetical conversation really though.
Click to expand...
you are the king of hypothetical aren't you??? what if I win the lottery-what if....you could go on forever whatifing the f*ck out of everything...dude you really are a true blue democrat, lol.

GEEZ
 
the top women cannot compete against men in sports, any sport.!!! if women can pass the physical requirements for the most elite fighting force in the world then those standards are not high enough...Period!!!!
 
thebigt said:
you are the king of hypothetical aren't you??? what if I win the lottery-what if....you could go on forever whatifing the f*ck out of everything...dude you really are a true blue democrat, lol.

GEEZ
Click to expand...
Are you serious? I've adamantly stated that I'm a libertarian here too many times to count, criticized Obama, Clinton, the NSA, and the liberal media numerous times, supported the second amendment, etc. Yeah, I'm a real democrat. Try to keep up on the thread.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Are you serious? I've adamantly stated that I'm a libertarian here too many times to count, criticized Obama, Clinton, the NSA, and the liberal media numerous times, supported the second amendment, etc. Yeah, I'm a real democrat. Try to keep up on the thread.
Click to expand...

It's the ultra-conservative go-to when someone doesn't agree with them, to call someone a libtard democrat lol...
 
thebigt said:
the top women cannot compete against men in sports, any sport.!!! if women can pass the physical requirements for the most elite fighting force in the world then those standards are not high enough...Period!!!!
Click to expand...
So what about gays and transgender individuals? Me thinks your opposition to women in special forces isn't based on physical requirements at all.
 
Look at something as simple as Crossfit, those chicks are unbelievable athletes. Strong, great endurance, discipline, work ethic, and admittedly probably greater physical specimens than the majority of men on the planet. Comparing them directly to men cross fitters is unfair, but comparing them to the average man, or even the average military man, I would say they are in better shape and stronger. If they can pass the test as it stands now they deserve it. It's a willingness to be special forces, seals or whatever that separates them. If the regular Joe men wanted to all do it they may have an edge over those women. But they don't. So if a few women who have that mental edge, meet the physical requirements and pas the test with the willingness to do what the majority of enlisted men choose not to do. Good for them man. Go kick ass.
 
Dma378 said:
Look at something as simple as Crossfit, those chicks are unbelievable athletes. Strong, great endurance, discipline, work ethic, and admittedly probably greater physical specimens than the majority of men on the planet. Comparing them directly to men cross fitters is unfair, but comparing them to the average man, or even the average military man, I would say they are in better shape and stronger. If they can pass the test as it stands now they deserve it. It's a willingness to be special forces, seals or whatever that separates them. If the regular Joe men wanted to all do it they may have an edge over those women. But they don't. So if a few women who have that mental edge, meet the physical requirements and pas the test with the willingness to do what the majority of enlisted men choose not to do. Good for them man. Go kick ass.
Click to expand...
There is the belief that putting one or two women in combat situations with an otherwise all-male group can lead to unwanted problems, but that's not related to physical requirements at all, so why hide behind them?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Are you serious? I've adamantly stated that I'm a libertarian here too many times to count, criticized Obama, Clinton, the NSA, and the liberal media numerous times, supported the second amendment, etc. Yeah, I'm a real democrat. Try to keep up on the thread.[/QUOTE

if you are a libertarian, then count me out, lol....you sure do talk like a liberal dem!!!
Click to expand...
 
thebigt said:
muscleupcrohn said:
Are you serious? I've adamantly stated that I'm a libertarian here too many times to count, criticized Obama, Clinton, the NSA, and the liberal media numerous times, supported the second amendment, etc. Yeah, I'm a real democrat. Try to keep up on the thread.[/QUOTE

if you are a libertarian, then count me out, lol....you sure do talk like a liberal dem!!!
Click to expand...
How do I talk like a liberal democrat? The liberal stance on the issue is to lower physical requirements to allow women in. That is insane, and I disagree with it.

Have you even read any of my other posts ITT besides the ones on this subject? Don't form an opinion on my entire political mindset based on one rather minor and specific issue.

I think pot should be legalized for recreational use. I must be a hardcore liberal pothead, right? Actually, I don't even smoke or use pot at all.

I support the second amendment, so I must be a hardcore conservative, right?

I also dislike common core, affirmative action, welfare, immigration laws, "free" college, Obamacare, etc.
Click to expand...
 
Dma378 said:
Look at something as simple as Crossfit, those chicks are unbelievable athletes. Strong, great endurance, discipline, work ethic, and admittedly probably greater physical specimens than the majority of men on the planet. Comparing them directly to men cross fitters is unfair, but comparing them to the average man, or even the average military man, I would say they are in better shape and stronger. If they can pass the test as it stands now they deserve it. It's a willingness to be special forces, seals or whatever that separates them. If the regular Joe men wanted to all do it they may have an edge over those women. But they don't. So if a few women who have that mental edge, meet the physical requirements and pas the test with the willingness to do what the majority of enlisted men choose not to do. Good for them man. Go kick ass.
Click to expand...

the elite are supposed to be the best of the best. the best men can outdo the best women in any physical contest...

I tell you what...lets just have one Olympics for everyone, no mens and womens divisions. at least all that is up for grabs is medals, not lives.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
thebigt said:
How do I talk like a liberal democrat? The liberal stance on the issue is to lower physical requirements to allow women in. That is insane, and I disagree with it.

Have you even read any of my other posts ITT besides the ones on this subject? Don't form an opinion on my entire political mindset based on one rather minor and specific issue.

I think pot should be legalized for recreational use. I must be a hardcore liberal pothead, right? Actually, I don't even smoke or use pot at all.

I support the second amendment, so I must be a hardcore conservative, right?

I also dislike common core, affirmative action, welfare, immigration laws, "free" college, Obamacare, etc.
Click to expand...

but you seem to be supporting political correctness!!!

there really truly is a difference between men and women...men were blessed with more physical abilities, but women were blessed with the greatest gift of all-the ability to give birth!!!
Click to expand...
 
thebigt said:
the elite are supposed to be the best of the best. the best men can outdo the best women in any physical contest...

I tell you what...lets just have one Olympics for everyone, no mens and womens divisions. at least all that is up for grabs is medals, not lives.
Click to expand...
Are these elite combat units actually the best in the world at any given physics attribute or test though? There's much more to being an elite soldier than just being a freak athlete in great shape. LeBron is a genetic freak of a man, but he's not an elite soldier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top