Donald Trump Thread

[Sarcelle]

It’s about as funny as a non-Catholic going on about nuns wearing their habby-babbys or their doing something about their bad habits or whatever.

Don’t know if it’s racist but it’s certainly insensitive. You obviously know what the actual term is. Why don’t you use it?

I chalk up the “hibby-jobbies” terminology to ignorance rather than outright hate.

 

[mary_bobo]

I have an uncle that lives in NJ and works in NYC, for big companies and individuals to have ties to the Italian or Russian mafia in that area, is not that uncommon, as many of those guys are involved in and own legitimate businesses, while its not right, but its also something most people recognize and accept if they live in the area.

I think more people would be surprised if they found Trump DID NOT have any ties to mafia or never did actually.

That part of the country is a world within itself. Folks in fly-over country don’t understand that.

 

[Thorolfr]

From today’s Guardian:

On the 2016 campaign trail, Donald Trump has insisted that he is worth more than $10bn. However, a statement filed to the Securities and Exchange Commission by Wells Fargo Securities on Trump’s behalf in 2012 indicated that the real estate developer was then worth less than half that, with comparatively few of the liquid assets that may now finance his campaign for president.

In the document, which concerned the securitization of commercial mortgages on properties including Trump Tower in New York City, Trump was described as being worth more than $4.2bn, with liquid assets of more than $250m.

A passage in the 132-page filing says: “The sponsor is Donald J Trump. Mr Trump has significant commercial real estate holdings worldwide including interests in office, retail, residential, golf-clubs and hospitality properties in markets including New York, San Francisco, Florida, Washington DC, and Scotland. As of 30 June 2011, Mr Trump reports a net worth in excess of $4.2bn and liquidity in excess of $250m.”

The Trump campaign has insisted that the businessman has converted his loan [the $43m to $50m Trump has already loaned to his campaign], into a donation. No such paperwork has yet been filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/02/donald-trump-net-worth-campaign-finances-us-election

I guess Mr. Trump’s worth has increased substantially in the last 4 years.

 

[stinkcat_14]

From today’s Guardian:

theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/02/donald-trump-net-worth-campaign-finances-us-election

I guess Mr. Trump’s worth has increased substantially in the last 4 years.

I have found that people often overvalue assets that don’t trade in the market.

 

[Thorolfr]

I chalk up the “hibby-jobbies” terminology to ignorance rather than outright hate.

Except that Ms. Chevalier wants the TSA to “get rid of” all these employees who are wearing hijabs or at least not allow any of them to wear one. So that’s not just ignorance but prejudice. And Mr. Trump should perhaps have spoken up for the religious freedom of TSA employees instead of encouraging this women in her prejudice.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Except that Ms. Chevalier wants the TSA to “get rid of” all these employees who are wearing hijabs or at least not allow any of them to wear one. So that’s not just ignorance but prejudice.

And? When did the majority of american suddenly become cured of this ailment? The majority of america, ALL people, fall in this paradigm because its comfortable.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Think about it, people prefer comfortability of their own peoples and safe zones encourage that comfort. You have to walk out of your safe zone and actually interact with other people to get over this. You have to learn to laugh at each others ball and chains that imprison you.

Most americans are prejudice because they refuse to confront the only reality that will cure this.

 

[pnewton]

I chalk up the “hibby-jobbies” terminology to ignorance rather than outright hate.

Probably true. There is a lot that Trump does not know, yet still has a “strong opinion” about.

 

[exnihilo]

The lady may just call them that. I used to work with a guy who did ‘landscraping’ rather then landscaping. I imagine most people who are outraged at this lady’s term wouldn’t make fun of or find fault with him.

But this lady has a point. If we have TSA, and we shouldn’t, why should some people be allowed to not be in uniform?

 

[Thorolfr]

The lady may just call them that. I used to work with a guy who did ‘landscraping’ rather then landscaping. I imagine most people who are outraged at this lady’s term wouldn’t make fun of or find fault with him.

But this lady has a point. If we have TSA, and we shouldn’t, why should some people be allowed to not be in uniform?

So do you also believe, for example, that any Jewish employees should not be allowed to wear a kippah or yarmulke?

 

[exnihilo]

So do you also believe, for example, that any Jewish employees should not be allowed to wear a kippah or yarmulke?

Yes. If there is a uniform everyone should have to maintain the uniform. And, government agents wearing religious items would be a violation of separation of church and state following the reasoning of most people and the courts.

 

[RPRPsych]

He’s funny in the way your old racist uncle you never invite to any family events is funny. The fact this **** is coming out of the mouth of a presidential candidate is frankly disturbing.

The fact that anyone find him saying that funny is even more disturbing. He’s not an edgy racist comedian, he’s a presidential candidate!

One can find things funny in a train-wreck sense without endorsing any sort of racism, can’t one? Trump has also made fun of my own countrymen when he took a crack at call centres, and I also found him amusing. Doesn’t mean I agree with him.

So do you also believe, for example, that any Jewish employees should not be allowed to wear a kippah or yarmulke?

Non sequitur. He was asked a loaded question and responded extempore, much like a certain Holy Father we’re all familiar with. To go from a throwaway answer to “waah, racism and intolerance” is the same leap of logic some Catholic commentators make when they go from a throwaway answer to “waah, Pope Francis is a heretic.”

 

[Trident_H]

So do you also believe, for example, that any Jewish employees should not be allowed to wear a kippah or yarmulke?

I’m not sure. I mean I guess what bothers me about the Muslim full body suit is that it’s not a religious thing even though it gets a pass as one. It’s actually a cultural option that men/women force women to wear because they believe in a world where men are not expected to have self-control. And women are responsible for any problems they get into.

It’s pretty much like holding up a sign saying women cause men to sin. Instead of saying men can choose where their mind takes them.

So what I have against it is the whole idea. The whole measure on measure that leaves responsibility at women’s feet all over again. It brands women as sex-objects and insults men as being thought of as hardly more than animals.

So to see this kind of costume on a TSA agent sort of annoys from 2 angles. On the one it tells me that the person in charge of security on the plane is also the same person who thinks I’m no better than a constantly lusting animal. With a stone age cultural code to match.

And at the same time it reminds me that we wouldn’t even need so much airport screening in the first place if that very same culture hadn’t attacked us in the first place. If they hadn’t taken our easy and trusting social build and used it against us to score ‘moral’ points. I mean it was a cultural war that got us here. And here’s the very same symbol of that war being used to remind us of the ground they’ve won. So yeah. Call me some kind of phobe. But I don’t like the idea. Not at all.

Because I still remember when we were treating women as equals. Across the board. And it was working out just fine.

Maybe call me old-fashioned. I guess.

Peace.

-Trident

 

[Thorolfr]

Yes. If there is a uniform everyone should have to maintain the uniform. And, government agents wearing religious items would be a violation of separation of church and state following the reasoning of most people and the courts.

What about this?

The US supreme court on Monday ruled in favor of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman who was denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a headscarf for religious reasons.

The justices decided the case, which united Christian, Muslim and Jewish and other religious organizations, with an 8-1 vote, ruling in favor of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which sued the company on behalf of Elauf.

“The EEOC applauds the Supreme Court’s decision affirming that employers may not make an applicant’s religious practice a factor in employment decisions,” said EEOC chair Jenny Yang, in a statement.

“This ruling protects the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices.”

theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/01/supreme-court-rules-favor-muslim-woman-hijab-abercrombie-fitch

But you think that this Supreme Court decision should only apply to employees in private businesses and not to Federal employees even though this is just an article of clothing and doesn’t really infringe anyone else’s religious liberty?

 

[Sarcelle]

I’m not sure. I mean I guess what bothers me about the Muslim full body suit is that it’s not a religious thing even though it gets a pass as one. It’s actually a cultural option that men/women force women to wear because they believe in a world where men are not expected to have self-control. And women are responsible for any problems they get into.

It’s pretty much like holding up a sign saying women cause men to sin. Instead of saying men can choose where their mind takes them.

So what I have against it is the whole idea. The whole measure on measure that leaves responsibility at women’s feet all over again. It brands women as sex-objects and insults men as being thought of as hardly more than animals.

So to see this kind of costume on a TSA agent sort of annoys from 2 angles. On the one it tells me that the person in charge of security on the plane is also the same person who thinks I’m no better than a constantly lusting animal. With a stone age cultural code to match.

And at the same time it reminds me that we wouldn’t even need so much airport screening in the first place if that very same culture hadn’t attacked us in the first place. If they hadn’t taken our easy and trusting social build and used it against us to score ‘moral’ points. I mean it was a cultural war that got us here. And here’s the very same symbol of that war being used to remind us of the ground they’ve won. So yeah. Call me some kind of phobe. But I don’t like the idea. Not at all.

Because I still remember when we were treating women as equals. Across the board. And it was working out just fine.

Maybe call me old-fashioned. I guess.

Peace.

-Trident

We are not talking about the Muslim full body suit here, which is the burka.

We are talking about the hijab, which is just head covering.

The Amish women wear head covering and so do some Catholic women when they attend mass.

 

[exnihilo]

What about this?

theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/01/supreme-court-rules-favor-muslim-woman-hijab-abercrombie-fitch

But you think that this Supreme Court decision should only apply to employees in private businesses and not to Federal employees even though this is just an article of clothing and doesn’t really infringe anyone else’s religious liberty?

I don’t think the decision should apply to private businesses. I think private businesses should be able to hire and fire employees for any reason. I certainly believe they should be able to enforce any dress code.

The mere display of a religious symbol has been determined to be an establishment of religion. So of course government agents should not be allowed to wear religious articles.

 

[sallybutler]

If the uniform allows for a scarf or head covering of the employee’s choice , then I have no problem with a hijab.

However, I am getting tired of anyone who uses their religion as an excuse for forcing their employer to allow them to not follow the same rules everyone else in the position has to follow. This includes Christians, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Hindus, atheists, etc. If you can’t do your job according to what the person paying you says is necessary, find a new job. This includes uniforms, jewelry, days of the weeks, activities, etc.

He who has the gold makes the rules.

 

[on_the_hill]

Are able bodied veterans being denied TSA jobs? Has the veterans status for preference in hiring been revoked? Maybe all the unemployed veterans who aren’t working for the TSA don’t want to work for the TSA.

I have an idea: in order to rid the TSA of hibby jobbers we can require veterans to work for the TSA as a condition for receiving veterans benefits. If a veteran refuses to work for the TSA he/she will be ineligible for benefits and instead we will allocate his/her benefits to the hibby jobbers.

Let’s make America great again.

 

[on_the_hill]

.

However, I am getting tired of anyone who uses their religion as an excuse for forcing their employer to allow them to not follow the same rules everyone else in the position has to follow. This includes Christians, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Hindus, atheists, etc. If you can’t do your job according to what the person paying you says is necessary, find a new job. This includes uniforms, jewelry, days of the weeks, activities, etc.

He who has the gold makes the rules.

What about using religion as an excuse to not provide birth control?

 

[Trident_H]

We are not talking about the Muslim full body suit here, which is the burka.

We are talking about the hijab, which is just head covering.

The Amish women wear head covering and so do some Catholic women when they attend mass.

Oh ok. Thanks for pointing that out. I was sort of having a bit of trouble figuring out how they could do their job when they can’t even see their own hands.