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 438

post #6556 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post

Don't try to claim credit for it, you did not call it.
Trump has been talking exactly (word to word) the same political-economic opinions about US for the past 30+ years. He has been asked if he would run for over 30 years.
Who knows why he finally did it at the age of 70. Only Trump knows

Media company would be a good way out , but I would not hold my breath as he is shallow entertainer at heart, so his channels would be filled with reality TV crap.

the level of self delusion you need to believe this is just outstanding


what Medwed said is correct, what Trump said circa 30yrs ago is in synch with what he says now
whether he would fix anything is another issue

post #6557 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Not all versions of Christianity are fungible and "right minded" people do indeed like to look down their noses at evangelicals, Mormons, conservative Catholics, etc. Right minded people understand the Bible actually promoted gay marriage, multiple sexual partners, etc. and was an entirely non-judgmental religion and only retrogrades get judgey.

The portion of people that actually hold to "traditional" Christian views are ever shrinking and I would not be surprised if they're actually a minority. This is the opposite example of saying, "Obama is POTUS so therefore racism is gone." It's not every Xtian making the above claim, but rather a minority sub-set of folks that identify as Xtian, and if you don't think their views are not subject to ridicule and discrimination by many you're not paying attention.


My interest in the Bible is primarily literary (it's fascinating to read different versions of each book, and what they promote and disavow, and how everything changes over time). What's 'traditional' is always changing, either too fast or too slow, depending on your beliefs.

Sure, everyone's views are subject to ridicule, but it's one broad group (however many factions exist or like to bicker with each other) catered to politically, and largely free of something like workplace or housing discrimination, as opposed to the jokes of Bill Maher.
post #6558 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob in 89 View Post

My interest in the Bible is primarily literary (it's fascinating to read different versions of each book, and what they promote and disavow, and how everything changes over time). What's 'traditional' is always changing, either too fast or too slow, depending on your beliefs.

Sure, everyone's views are subject to ridicule, but it's one broad group (however many factions exist or like to bicker with each other) catered to politically, and largely free of something like workplace or housing discrimination, as opposed to the jokes of Bill Maher.

Once again, to say it's "one broad group" is to conveniently ignore that by employing that thought you end up with the conclusion you want vs. the conclusion one would draw from admitting not all Xtians are fungible. From abortion to gay marriage there is most assuredly a group of Xtians that feel their belief system is being actively undermined. They are quite correct no matter how much I applaud the undermining. I fail to see how you feel this group of Xtians are being "catered to" given so many recent societal developments, from abortion being a relatively new Constitutional right to the recent SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage. The group of Xtians making these claims are quite correct in saying their belief system is actively being legislated against.
post #6559 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Once again, to say it's "one broad group" is to conveniently ignore that by employing that thought you end up with the conclusion you want vs. the conclusion one would draw from admitting not all Xtians are fungible. From abortion to gay marriage there is most assuredly a group of Xtians that feel their belief system is being actively undermined. They are quite correct no matter how much I applaud the undermining. I fail to see how you feel this group of Xtians are being "catered to" given so many recent societal developments, from abortion being a relatively new Constitutional right to the recent SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage. The group of Xtians making these claims are quite correct in saying their belief system is actively being legislated against.

I don't disagree with this. I was speaking very broadly. You *can* analyze Christians as a group -- and note various advantages over other religious groups, just as you can view white people as a group and note certain advantages over non-whites. I don't believe all white men are fungible or equally advantaged. And this doesn't ignore or invalidate the rich analysis to be applied at smaller levels, whether that's the still not-so-tiny group aching for a 'small' government policing every sexual action at the individual level, or my Uncle Bob, who just needs English to be our officially recognized language, damnit.
post #6560 of 8748
Damn. Has CNN ever been this blatant with a candidate?


post #6561 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob in 89 View Post


My interest in the Bible is primarily literary (it's fascinating to read different versions of each book, and what they promote and disavow, and how everything changes over time)...

 

derail: there's an excellent book by Richard Friedman called Who Wrote the Bible?, of which the first chunk is a review of literary analyses applied to the Pentateuch/Torah. 

post #6562 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob in 89 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Once again, to say it's "one broad group" is to conveniently ignore that by employing that thought you end up with the conclusion you want vs. the conclusion one would draw from admitting not all Xtians are fungible. From abortion to gay marriage there is most assuredly a group of Xtians that feel their belief system is being actively undermined. They are quite correct no matter how much I applaud the undermining. I fail to see how you feel this group of Xtians are being "catered to" given so many recent societal developments, from abortion being a relatively new Constitutional right to the recent SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage. The group of Xtians making these claims are quite correct in saying their belief system is actively being legislated against.

I don't disagree with this. I was speaking very broadly. You *can* analyze Christians as a group -- and note various advantages over other religious groups, just as you can view white people as a group and note certain advantages over non-whites. I don't believe all white men are fungible or equally advantaged. And this doesn't ignore or invalidate the rich analysis to be applied at smaller levels, whether that's the still not-so-tiny group aching for a 'small' government policing every sexual action at the individual level, or my Uncle Bob, who just needs English to be our officially recognized language, damnit.

Would you agree than we can analyze Muslims as a group then? Would you find a fault with Trump asking for a shutdown of Muslim immigration to the USA? Can a rich analysis be done here on the the still not-so-tiny group of them is a problem?
post #6563 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

what Medwed said is correct, what Trump said circa 30yrs ago is in synch with what he says now
whether he would fix anything is another issue

Trump is not even remotely consistent. He's been all over the place.

Here he is in a 2013 op-ed commenting that the US needs to "leave borders behind" and embrace globalization.
post #6564 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

what Medwed said is correct, what Trump said circa 30yrs ago is in synch with what he says now
whether he would fix anything is another issue

Trump is not even remotely consistent. He's been all over the place.

Here he is in a 2013 op-ed commenting that the US needs to "leave borders behind" and embrace globalization.

Trump never argued for "no trade deals" or no free trade ever - even now he doesn't argue to break away from NAFTA but to renegotiate the deal to benefit US workers more. He argued against TPP. But he hasn't argued vs all free trade.

I don't find much fault with his statement that is quite ambiguous tbh, namely - "In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability." That's not leave borders behind - when it comes for example to immigration or leave borders alone.

even in those 2 first videos he talked about Japan and Saudi getting a lot of perks and paying very little for it, exactly what he says now, he also said USA is usually gets a bad deal on trade deals- same as he says now.

He's not king of consistency ofc, but on the topic of trade he has been hitting same notes a lot through last 30years.

This was also a talk concerning his buisness oportunity is scotland,

and what makes me wonder are words used like "Europe is a tapestry that is dense, colorful and deserving of continued longevity and prosperity. " or "It's a complex mosaic that cannot be approached with a simple formula for the correct pattern to emerge."
I would be only midlt surprised if he didn't write it himself tbh, does not sound like Trump speak
Edited by wojt - 10/19/16 at 2:57pm
post #6565 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

Would you agree than we can analyze Muslims as a group then? Would you find a fault with Trump asking for a shutdown of Muslim immigration to the USA? Can a rich analysis be done here on the the still not-so-tiny group of them is a problem?

I just wandered in here; is this guy for real?
post #6566 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Trump is not even remotely consistent. He's been all over the place.

Here he is in a 2013 op-ed commenting that the US needs to "leave borders behind" and embrace globalization.

That is rather recent. Are there reasons for him to change his mind since then? I believe in globalization, too. But, when has it gone to far? Or, what parts have gone to far? When do we need to step back and let our country catch up before we step back in again? If you deal in the stock market you can change your mind very quickly, because the markets can change quickly. Trump has far better understanding of these matters than Hillary does. Jimmy Carter idea of helping people was to tax and give. Reagan's idea was to cut taxes so companies could hire the unemployed, and, now those people would be paying taxes instead of living off other people's taxes. Two very different view points here, for helping the unemployed. Hillary tends towards Jimmy Carter. Trump tends towards Reagan. Have you ever pursued a job washing dishes, to find out, college educated is also trying to get that job? The economy is in a dive when that is happening. Jimmy Carter was nice, but clueless. Reagan was tuff, but he got people jobs.
post #6567 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob in 89 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

Would you agree than we can analyze Muslims as a group then? Would you find a fault with Trump asking for a shutdown of Muslim immigration to the USA? Can a rich analysis be done here on the the still not-so-tiny group of them is a problem?

I just wandered in here; is this guy for real?

Just wanted to point out many lefties like you are so eager to label anyone a racist or bigot, for doing with Muslims exactly what you just did with Christians. YO PUT THEM ALL IN ONE BAG.
post #6568 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto View Post

Damn. Has CNN ever been this blatant with a candidate?



Can you blame them though?

That image caption is basically a factual statement at this point. He'll keep spouting the same bullshit even after it has been shown to be bullshit (e.g. tax returns).

I'm not going to defend CNNs complete lack of bias (I don't consume them so I wouldn't know), but IMHO, even a completely unbiased source would come across as anti-Trump and slightly pro-Hillary in this election.

I'm sure people will argue with that because they've got a weird attraction to Trump's dick, but the fact of the matter is that he is a shitty candidate and a shitty person and thus no surprise that news networks would treat him like a shitbag.
post #6569 of 8748

He really isn't the ultimate bullshitter, though.  He's a lousy bullshitter.  He could learn from the Clintons or Dick Cheaney.  Even Bill O'Reilly.  He's just a pathological bullshitter. 

 

Edit:  He has billions (or maybe only millions - who knows) and I don't.  I'll grant that bullshitting has helped him go far.

post #6570 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto View Post

Damn. Has CNN ever been this blatant with a candidate?



Can you blame them though?

That image caption is basically a factual statement at this point. He'll keep spouting the same bullshit even after it has been shown to be bullshit (e.g. tax returns).

I'm not going to defend CNNs complete lack of bias (I don't consume them so I wouldn't know), but IMHO, even a completely unbiased source would come across as anti-Trump and slightly pro-Hillary in this election.

I'm sure people will argue with that because they've got a weird attraction to Trump's dick, but the fact of the matter is that he is a shitty candidate and a shitty person and thus no surprise that news networks would treat him like a shitbag.

well I agree with all of what you said, but yeah Hillary is still worse
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