or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 219

post #3271 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post

gays are evil,  

I don't care who you marry, don't force a private business to participate in something. That's pretty basic stuff. Unfortunately our culture has devolved into one of envy fueled by the instinctive desire to control your neighbor by wielding the hand of government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post

Black Lives Matter people (blacks) are bad

Has anyone here disagreed with that? It's cute how you insinuated that the only reason people don't like BLM is because they're black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post

they are trying to take our guns,

Do you think Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama support the private ownership of firearms like handguns and rifles? Simple question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post

they are trying to indoctrinate our children against the Jesus,

Of course there is a concerted effort to undermine Christianity. You aren't denying that, surely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post

Obama is a Kenyan

The birthers were kooks. FWIW - at one point a Rasmussen poll showed that 35% of democrats believed Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. But anyway, the birther theory was not pushed or supported by the party platform, so your comparison isn't great. John McCain and Mitt Romney were not pushing that nonsense. Trump supported the theory, but he's despised by the party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post

47% of the people want free stuff,

Only 47%?
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post

let's build a wall with Mexico,

15-20 million people illegally flooding into your country is an invasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post

Hillary should be locked up because (email server something),

She's being investigated by the FBI. That's sort of a big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post

Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! (If you say it enough, over years, anything might sound like a scandal even though it isn't.)

At the very least she's a piece of shit for lying to the family members of servicemen over their coffins. I suppose everything was handled perfectly. Nothing could have been done better and nobody should be blamed for anything.
post #3272 of 8748
How about:

Reason #1: It was illegal.
Reason #2: She lied about it.
Reason #3: Her e-mails proved that she (and Obama) lied about the youtube video causing the embassy attack.
post #3273 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I have lots of blame for the Trump candidacy and not all of it is for Tea Party and hard right wingers. I think when the MSM helped the Dems portray Mitt as a religious extremist is 2012 the seeds had been planted. In a push me/pull you fashion the extreme right, MSM, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultzs of the world created the shit storm of the 2016 election cycle.

I try not to watch cable news, but did Mitt really get portrayed as a religious extremist? I got mostly "out of touch fat cat."

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post
 
No.  No he didn't get portrayed as a religious extremist and, to the extent anyone hinted at the notion that he might be one, you only need sniff around his competitors for the Republican nomination to find some.  He had to convince evangelicals he was conservative enough and "not some wacko".

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 
 

Not directly.  There were a few that questioned having a Mormon in the White House (and how weird Mormons are), but nothing about extremism.

 

 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
 
 
An image that didn't require any media skill to portray considering the out of touch foot in fat cat mouth qualities Romney displayed.

 

Seem to be having trouble getting a consensus here 

post #3274 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

I don't care who you marry, don't force a private business to participate in something. That's pretty basic stuff.
So...we should be able to reject blacks from lunch counters?

"Don't force private business to do stuff" might sound like a basic thing, but it's got pretty deep implications for civil rights.
Quote:
Do you think Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama support the private ownership of firearms like handguns and rifles? Simple question.
Their personal opinions are kind of irrelevant, because they both know they're bound by the 2nd Amendment and Congressional politics. There's a 0% chance of significant restrictions of gun ownership, much less actual mass confiscation.
Quote:
Of course there is a concerted effort to undermine Christianity. You aren't denying that, surely.
What does "undermine Christianity" even mean? Not letting Christians control public society? Sure. You can't put up a Jesus statue in a courthouse or school, but there are no restrictions on private practice of religion.

It's funny to have people complain about "you can't force private businesses to serve people!" while wanting the government to force religion into people's lives.
Quote:
The birthers were kooks. FWIW - at one point a Rasmussen poll showed that 35% of democrats believed Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened.

And now a Birther is the Republican nominee for President.
post #3275 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

How about:

Reason #1: It was illegal.

 

It is my understanding that what she did was perfectly legal when it was set up.  Powell and Rice also conducted government business on private email accounts.   The only sticky matter is that there was a rule change during her tenure as Sec of State. Whether she was grandfathered in by the old rules is the point of contention.  The retroactive classifying of emails is a not a winning strategy for the GOP to use.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Reason #2: She lied about it.
 

 

Lied about what?  Not having a state.gov email account?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


Reason #3: Her e-mails proved that she (and Obama) lied about the youtube video causing the embassy attack.
 

Oh Jesus Christ!!!

post #3276 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

Oh Jesus Christ!!!

Other than "It was a lie!!!", I've never been clear why that line is supposed to matter. Making conflicting statements in the immediate chaotic aftermath of an attack doesn't appear to be a big deal, especially when you correct that statement shortly thereafter. What's the motive supposed to have been for lying, to deflect blame from radical Islam or something?


It seems to basically stem from an assumption that all bad things that happen to America must stem from incompetence or malice at the highest levels, and not just "bad shit happens sometimes." Or, just politics and trying to capitalize on any bad thing that happens. Same deal with the boat captured by Iran. It's a non-event that got turned into this supposedly huge sign of weakness. I'm sure Democrats did the same thing to Bush, but it's dumb either way.
post #3277 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

So...we should be able to reject blacks from lunch counters?

Their personal opinions are kind of irrelevant, because they both know they're bound by the 2nd Amendment and Congressional politics. There's a 0% chance of significant restrictions of gun ownership, much less actual mass confiscation.
I read that Obama was proposing Gun reform modeled after Australia. So his personal opinion , as idiotic as iy might be, does matter. Australia retroactively confiscated firearms they choose to ban while threatening anyone who does not give up arms with lengthy prison sentences.

P.S. Australia and Japan don't get enough shit in the press for their treatment of minorities, immigrants , refugees, retirees etc. because everyone is too busy foaming about Israel.
post #3278 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I try not to watch cable news, but did Mitt really get portrayed as a religious extremist? I got mostly "out of touch fat cat."

Just an example but there were constantly "polls" and "reports" on his Mormonism with a fair number of folks saying they could never vote for a Mormon...with no hue and cry from the SJW crowd. Many adjectives were applied to his religious beliefs such as "weird" and "whacko," the "garment" came under ridicule...

Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post

No.  No he didn't get portrayed as a religious extremist and, to the extent anyone hinted at the notion that he might be one, you only need sniff around his competitors for the Republican nomination to find some.  He had to convince evangelicals he was conservative enough and "not some wacko".

That was the "push me" part. He did indeed have to convince the evangelicals. This doesn't mean a completely different narrative was not promulgated for other audiences.
post #3279 of 8748
^ Where might you have read that? Because it hasn't happened, has it? But I'm sure it was printed somewhere. Better buy moar guns and hide em!
post #3280 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post


I read that Obama was proposing Gun reform modeled after Australia. So his personal opinion , as idiotic as iy might be, does matter. Australia retroactively confiscated firearms they choose to ban while threatening anyone who does not give up arms with lengthy prison sentences.

P.S. Australia and Japan don't get enough shit in the press for their treatment of minorities, immigrants , refugees, retirees etc. because everyone is too busy foaming about Israel.

 

I read that Obama was going to tear up the constitution and declare himself President fo' Life

post #3281 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

I read that Obama was going to tear up the constitution and declare himself President fo' Life

That was the last guy. I read that on democraticunderground.com so it had to be true.
post #3282 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post

I read that Obama was proposing Gun reform modeled after Australia. So his personal opinion , as idiotic as iy might be, does matter.

Considering how Obama has approximately five months left in office and mass gun confiscation has yet to occur, he'd better get cracking.

Aside from the background check rule, are guns any harder to get now than they were under Bush? Eight years of gun control hysteria from the right with Obama and you can still buy a gun with a fairly trivial amount of effort.
post #3283 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

So...we should be able to reject blacks from lunch counters?

A private business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. We aren't talking about the fire department or the ER. If my wife and I had went to a bakery prior to our wedding and they didn't want to do business with us because we are an interracial couple, we wouldn't have tried to force them into participating in our wedding. I would have told them to fuck off and found someone who actually wanted to be a part of our wedding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Their personal opinions are kind of irrelevant, because they both know they're bound by the 2nd Amendment and Congressional politics. There's a 0% chance of significant restrictions of gun ownership, much less actual mass confiscation.

It's about incremental steps, you know that. They won't need to physically enter your home and confiscate anything. Enacting severe penalties for being in possession of a banned firearm is all they need. Do you think that's going to be far fetched 20, 30 or 50 years from now? We hear this sort of thing all the time. It's always considered crazy to assume that government will continue to encroach, despite that being the case 100 percent of the time. Six years ago it was nonsense to assume that Democrats would attempt to expand Obamacare to illegals. Hillary has openly supported this, and CA is exploring a loophole to make it happen as soon as possible.

We seem to agree that some democrats have personal opinions that favor outlawing most firearms. Are you suggesting that we're okay because of the historic constraint shown by government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

What does "undermine Christianity" even mean?

I'm not interested in playing that game, as I've stated before when you asked me to define patriotism. You know what I mean and you know what's happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

It's funny to have people complain about "you can't force private businesses to serve people!" while wanting the government to force religion into people's lives.

I don't want religion forced on anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

What's the motive supposed to have been for lying, to deflect blame from radical Islam or something?

That's part of it, but it was just before an election. A terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 wouldn't play very well with the public, especially when it was fumbled in a number of ways.
post #3284 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


A private business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. We aren't talking about the fire department or the ER. If my wife and I had went to a bakery prior to our wedding and they didn't want to do business with us because we are an interracial couple, we wouldn't have tried to force them into participating in our wedding. I would have told them to fuck off and found someone who actually wanted to be a part of our wedding.

 

 

Aren't banks and mortgage companies private? 

 

 

0004111.jpg

post #3285 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

A private business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. We aren't talking about the fire department or the ER. If my wife and I had went to a bakery prior to our wedding and they didn't want to do business with us because we are an interracial couple, we wouldn't have tried to force them into participating in our wedding. I would have told them to fuck off and found someone who actually wanted to be a part of our wedding.

So....yes, lunch counters should be able to deny blacks service.

Just need to establish the principles we're supposedly working under here.
Quote:
It's about incremental steps, you know that. They won't need to physically enter your home and confiscate anything. Enacting severe penalties for being in possession of a banned firearm is all they need. Do you think that's going to be far fetched 20, 30 or 50 years from now? We hear this sort of thing all the time. It's always considered crazy to assume that government will continue to encroach, despite that being the case 100 percent of the time. Six years ago it was nonsense to assume that Democrats would attempt to expand Obamacare to illegals. Hillary has openly supported this, and CA is exploring a loophole to make it happen as soon as possible.

We seem to agree that some democrats have personal opinions that favor outlawing most firearms. Are you suggesting that we're okay because of the historic constraint shown by government?
We're, what, 50 years into this whole gun control experiment and it's still trivially easy to get a gun legally in most of the country (state laws being the limiting factor).

This is a very slow moving ploy.
Quote:
I'm not interested in playing that game, as I've stated before when you asked me to define patriotism. You know what I mean and you know what's happening.

I don't want religion forced on anyone.
No, I really don't know what you mean. Again you're making a really broad statement without giving examples or even clarifying what you're talking about.

The vast majority of "war on Christianity" complaints hinge around stuff like removing Christian monuments from courthouses or idiocy like Starbucks coffee cups. It's either that or "we should be able to discriminate against gays and/or harlots in our businesses."
Quote:
That's part of it, but it was just before an election. A terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 wouldn't play very well with the public, especially when it was fumbled in a number of ways.

But the corrected statement about the real cause being a terrorist attack came out like two days later, and not because of intense pressure or anything. They just made a new statement. "Oh we said it was because of Youtube but it was terrorism." That's a scandal?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field