Trump Thread Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter XndrK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t want Clinton either, heartily, but I also think Trump has shown he’s not a tameable force; if he were, he would have controlled his response to provocations by now. He bends to no will but his own.
Well that not bending to anyone’s will and not being tamable may be why William Hill is now offering 10/1 (approximately 9% chance) odds he’ll drop out of the race before election day. Though he is currently getting 53% of the action on winning the election even though they’ve got Clinton as the 4/11 (approximately 73% chance) favorite.

sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Donald-Trump-s-Odds-of-Dropping-Out-of-Election-9122566.php

And yes you can actually bet on the results of the election as well as other prop bets related to it.
 
Oh yes, your argument is a typical one. But historically it has failed.

Remember the Unskewed Polls in 2012? Many people on the right celebrated them and thought they gave the right predictions. And they were up for a rude awakening when Romney lost by 5 points, a number much closer to what the maligned “lame stream media” polls predicted with their allegedly “skewed” polls.

Nothing beats living in an alternate universe.
I’m not one to sit by the poll reports really with any sense that any of them have any for sure predictable outcome.

I live in a Catholic universe where life is celebrated and not as Hillary would see it. Helping children with health care does not help the dead ones you fight tooth and nail for when you fight for the “right to choose up until the moment of birth.”

I’ll pass on that ticket.
 
His base voters LOVE this stuff though. During one debate the crowd went wild with applause when he said calling a woman a fat pig was okay because it was Rosie O’Donnell.Remember his comment about a female not winning enough votes? He said, “I mean look at her face”.

This is his voters idea of strong, assertive machismo and they eat it up. Unfortunately I think it says more about some of them then the candidate himself.
What does it tell about those who support him? Does it tell us anything other than what we observe every day in almost everybody; some of whom are deeply virtuous in ways we don’t recognize and oftentimes refuse to accept, and some who are whited sepulchers but socially acceptable in every way?

Sometimes all of this reminds me of nothing so much as a morality play or perhaps short story; I think Flannery O’Connor could have written it.

Which candidate would give the better account of himself/herself as a mere fellow human being among the men and women attendees in a backwoods carnival?

And do we think it would matter?
 
There is a margin of error to be taken into account.
According to the Gallup article linked to in the Guardian article I posted in post #1126, there was a 2 point of margin of error… so I think it went beyond the margin of error based on what the final result was and the Guardian analysis.
 
I don’t want Clinton either, heartily, but I also think Trump has shown he’s not a tameable force; if he were, he would have controlled his response to provocations by now. He bends to no will but his own.
I liked his nomination speech. But I agree there is an emerging pattern of uncontrolled self-destructive behavior that is worrisome. You would think that someone who was smart enough to build the kind of empire that he has would be quicker to figure out what works and what doesn’t - adaptability, modifications. I am going to give it a few more tries before I give up. But only because I really really don’t want the Democrats, more of what we have now. I am done with that.
 
It looks like Paul Ryan has already acknowledged that Trump is going to lose. As he said in a fundraising appeal today:

“If we fail to protect our majority in Congress, we could be handing President Hillary Clinton a blank check.”
 
It looks like Paul Ryan has already acknowledged that Trump is going to lose. As he said in a fundraising appeal today:

“If we fail to protect our majority in Congress, we could be handing President Hillary Clinton a blank check.”
Paul Ryan probably wants Trump to lose.The line of thought is the RHINO would rather have Hillary win and let that play out then Trump.
 
What does it tell about those who support him? Does it tell us anything other than what we observe every day in almost everybody; some of whom are deeply virtuous in ways we don’t recognize and oftentimes refuse to accept, and some who are whited sepulchers but socially acceptable in every way?

Sometimes all of this reminds me of nothing so much as a morality play or perhaps short story; I think Flannery O’Connor could have written it.

Which candidate would give the better account of himself/herself as a mere fellow human being among the men and women attendees in a backwoods carnival?

And do we think it would matter?
I’m thinking more Stephen King than Flannery O’Connor.
 
It looks like Paul Ryan has already acknowledged that Trump is going to lose. As he said in a fundraising appeal today:

“If we fail to protect our majority in Congress, we could be handing President Hillary Clinton a blank check.”
Perhaps you may be reading a little too much into it. I think I saw a while back someone posted a screenshot on Twitter or somewhere from a Hillary Clinton campaign email or a group campaigning for her, expressing concern about Donald Trump winning or something. It seems typical for campaigns or groups campaigning to express a potential disaster situation that is possible because perhaps presenting that type of picture is known to increase donations?
 
Back to the basics:
  1. Supreme Court Justices … left wing appointees would permanently tilt the United States to the left.
  2. Code:
    Southern Border is porous ... right now there is no one stopping the flood of undocumented people AND HEROIN entering the United States.
  3. Code:
    The U. S. tax structure is the worst in the developed world.
  4. Code:
     Veterans are getting terrible treatment from the Veterans Administration.
  5. Code:
      U.S. Foreign Policy is a disaster.   [Most recent example:  $400 MILLION in CASH flown to Iran under conditions of secrecy.   If it was legitimate, they would do an electronic transfer.  And that's just the latest.]
  6. Code:
       Radical Islamic Terrorism is uncontested.
  7. Code:
       Second Amendment.    Gun control only controls law abiding citizens.    Inner city crime and gang crime and black-on-black crime is epidemic.
  8. Code:
        The economy.   Record numbers of people on food stamps.   People forced into part-time work owing to restrictions by government controlled medical legislation.   Make participation in government controlled medical to be optional:  if you can find a better and/or cheaper plan then take it.
  9. Code:
        Restrictions on religion.    [Example:   Why should the Little Sisters of the Poor be forced to purchase contraception?] [Example:  Why should someone who posted dissection of aborted babies be prosecuted?]
  10. Code:
       Education:   The United States ranks around 27th in math.   WHY????
  11. U.S. Military is not being kept up to date. Navy is behind in technology and numbers and readiness. Aircraft are kept going using parts from the boneyard instead of buying new stuff. Troops are not training enough. Focus on social changes.
 
Not in “any way it wants to”. For instance, the policy may not violate the 1st amendment. The qualification may not be based on membership in a specific religion. However, I heard Trump has now backed away from that stance and is now saying he would ban immigration based on region.
The 1st amendment doent apply someone that isnt an United State citizen or that is here legally. If congress wants to ban any one that is Islamic it may do so. They can not claim their 1st amendment rights because they dont HAVE a 1st amendment right. A person in Iraq that wants to come here cant claims any of the Constitutional right have been violated as they have no US constitutional rights.
 
You are interpreting freedom of speech too liberally. Even for citizens there are laws that limit the amount of campaign contributions.
How many hoops can you jump thru to justify your wrong position?

Congress shall make no law to limit respecting an establishment of religion

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

Congress shall make no law to limit the the press;

Congress shall make no law to limit right of the people peaceably to assemble,

Congress shall make no law to limit petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
  1. Code:
        Restrictions on religion.    [Example:   Why should the Little Sisters of the Poor be forced to purchase contraception?] [Example:  Why should someone who posted dissection of aborted babies be prosecuted?]
This would be “Restrictions on Christian religion,” no?

If freedom of religion is protected for Catholics, it’s also protected for Muslims and Satanists. Under our Constitution, the government cannot pick and choose which religions it likes. Muslim-owned businesses will have the right to refuse service to Christians. Satanist groups will have the right to form after-school groups in public schools. That’s what freedom of religion looks like.

Keep in mind that Trump, who thinks Planned Parenthood does wonderful work for women – “except for when it comes to abortion” – by basic process of deductive reasoning thinks contraceptives are “wonderful” (since he differentiates between abortion and contraceptives) – are you saying he will appoint SCOTUS justices who go beyond his anti-abortion/pro-contraceptive views to be more appropriately anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive? That’s a tall order.
 
First off, I am not a Republican nor Democrat. I would say I am an Independent voting for the best person for office based on values not power. I wasn’t going to say anything but I have to step in.

The hyprocrisy is apparent when the same religious denominations which the Christian research group LifeWay at the behest of pro-life group Care Net, paints a very different picture of those seeking abortions than you might imagine. The study interviewed 1,038 women who had received an abortion. Surprisingly,** a full 70 percent of these women were Christian.**.
reverbpress.com/religion/abortion-rates-highest-among-christians-according-stunning-survey-results/

What did Jesus say about judging others? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Clean up your own house before trying to impose moral standards on those that don’t accept your belief system.

Oh, by the way, the GOP promotes a culture of death. How can i say that? Very simply, 35% of all teenage pregnancies end in abortion. Many more if you impose your view on outlawing contraceptives!

Who is going to pay for the prenatal care for the mother? Who is going to pay for complications arising from pregnancy? Who is going to pay for the medical malpractice insurance? Who is going to pay for the hospital costs? Who is going to pay for daycare? Who is going to pay for feeding, clothing and housing of the child? Who is going to pay for medical, dental, vision of the child? Who is going to pay for the utilties? Who is going to pay if the child has down syndrome or is autistic? Are you?

The GOP wants to end entitlement programs for the poor, the elderly and the disabled. Many cry out about the govt. paying for such services by taxing them. They don’t want any of thier wealth to be redistributed to groups mentioned above. They want to cut Medicaid and Medicare programs, cut food stamps where the majority of recipients are children and the elderly, they want to get rid of universal healthcare, cut section 8 housing costs.

Hyprocrisy and you just can’t make this stuff up. For an example, the Alabama Republicans are escalating their war against the poor on receiving food stamps or financial support if they own cars.They can have cars if they are employed. However in some counties in Alabama, the unemployment rate is 40%. The Anti-Gay Alabama GOP governor Robert Bentley who touted his Christian faith and conservative “family values” engaged in an extramarital affair with his former communications director Rebekah Mason Christian mother of 3 using taxpayer’s expense to fund their indiscretions. Her Christian husband at the time was the director Director the Governor’s Office of Faith-based and Volunteer Service. In the mean time, he removed salary caps on his advisers while cutting Medicaid, SNAP, and teacher salaries in his state.

Why is this important? Because the GOP plans on slashing funding to Social Security, Medicaid, Food Assistance and Pell Grants. Their strategy is to call welfare recipients too lazy to work. To arouse their base against those on food stamps, make claims that people are buying lobster and champagne at check out stands. GOP passed a bill slashing $100M from food stamps while boosting farm subsidies and boosting money for crop insurance. 45 percent of food stamp benefits went to children under 18, totaling about 20 million youngsters. Nine percent of recipients were age 60 or older, and nearly 10 percent were disabled adults who were under 60.

Why is this important? If you outlaw abortion, the children will starve to death, die for lack of medical care or freeze to death for lack of clothing, heating, and housing.

Of all developed countries in the world, data on the well-being of children in 35 developed nations the United States is 34 out of 35 only Romania is the worst. The bottom 90% in the U.S. hold 73% of all debt. 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%.The richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.

My position is you cannot legislate your version of morality on immoral society under a democracy. Prohibition didn’t work in America. It only gave rise to organized crime. So where are the plans that will address all these issues if abortion is banned? Enough with the slogans. Will not God hold the individual women responsible? Mercy triumphs judgement James 2:13.

If a fetus is considered life, why are they not baptized and given a Christian burial by the church?

In the Christian Bible, Jesus stated: when you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just. Luke 14:12-14
This doesn’t read like there’s actual concern about whether the baby is a person who deserves protection.
One can imagine abolitionists working to end slavery, but being criticized for not working hard enough (in the eyes of their political enemies) to create the kind of economic conditions that would make slavery less profitable. “You don’t really care about slaves, or you would do more than just try to make it illegal. You don’t see things from the point of view of struggling slave-owners.”
Well, perhaps there is a point of view the pro-choices don’t see…
 
Congress shall make no law to limit respecting an establishment of religion
The exact wording is:
*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. *
What you wrote was a mash-up of the two clauses. But the two clauses address two different issues, and both of them are important. The first clause prevents the Congress from establishing a state religion, or making laws that treat one religion differently from another. The second clause prevents Congress from passing laws that interfere with the citizens’ exercise of their freedom of religion.

It is the first clause that most directly affects the proposed ban on Muslims. Such a law would respect non-Muslim religions, or even atheism, as superior. There is no way the courts will ever allow that, whatever private interpretation of the Constitution you may have.

That said, this whole discussion is moot, since Trump is no longer talking about banning Muslim immigration, so it doesn’t really matter what we think is constitutional on this issue.
 
Why do you give Trump a pass on greed, but criticize the success of the Clintons? I think he has been more financially successful, if you just want to criticize success. I personally do not criticize either of them for just being successful. That is the American way.
The Clinton’s made their money by selling political access and favors. You see nothing wrong with this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top