# Do you approve of the job the President of the United States is doing?



## nintendofan85

I figured that since President Trump is in the first few days of presidency and just yesterday his first approval rating came (45% approving, 45% disapproving, and 10% uncertain, with approval from 90% of Republicans and 11% of Democrats), I could make one as a poll here on ACC. So, here we go!


----------



## seliph

He's hardly doing the job as it is
He's too obsessed with Twitter drama that he's hardly even being a President


----------



## Red Cat

5 days down, only 1,456 to go.


----------



## LambdaDelta

this manchild's been doing his job?


----------



## Alolan_Apples

He signed an executive order to get Obamacare's individual mandate repealed, and he pulled us out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

I approve of this as of now.


----------



## Mink777

To early to call for me. Ask me a year from now.


----------



## nintendofan85

Red Cat said:


> 5 days down, only 1,456 to go.



I hope that 1,456 doesn't become 2,917.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

nintendofan85 said:


> I hope that 1,456 doesn't become 2,917.



It could be longer. Even if Trump or Pence doesn't get a third term (or even a second term), we could get another Republican instead, like Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, or some politician more right-winged than I am. It depends on how well they do.


----------



## moonford

Apple2012 said:


> It could be longer. Even if Trump or Pence doesn't get a third term (or even a second term), we could get another Republican instead, like Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, or some politician more right-winged than I am. It depends on how well they do.



I hope not. c:


----------



## Bowie

What job is he doing, exactly? Seems to me like he's just redecorating the Oval Office and sitting around taking pictures of himself.


----------



## tumut

He already raised taxes on the middle class and gave permits to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline after thousands of Native Americans protested for months so it wouldn't pollute their water. He did get rid of TPP but that's about the only good thing.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Whiteflamingo said:


> I hope not. c:



Yeah. Despite his history of racism and his cabinet picks, Trump's not even as bad as the other Republicans in the federal government right now. Politically, Trump was more left-winged than the other Republicans running in 2016, yet his offensive remarks made him unpopular.


----------



## moonford

Apple2012 said:


> Yeah. Despite his history of racism and his cabinet picks, Trump's not even as bad as the other Republicans in the federal government right now. Politically, Trump was more left-winged than the other Republicans running in 2016, yet his offensive remarks made him unpopular.



He was a democrat for like 7-9 years right? Then independent for like a year too.


----------



## Corrie

It's too early to tell yet. I haven't seen him do anything too bad yet, though I can imagine it happening soon. I hope I am wrong.


----------



## DJStarstryker

He hasn't even been in office a week yet and it feels like he's already trying to wreck things so... yeah.


----------



## King Dorado

lmao, he's only been on the job for what, like three days?  he probably still doesn't even know his way around the White House yet, much less the District of Columbia.  



Apple2012 said:


> Yeah. Despite his history of racism and his cabinet picks, Trump's not even as bad as the other Republicans in the federal government right now. Politically, Trump was more left-winged than the other Republicans running in 2016, yet his offensive remarks made him unpopular.



i agree with your assessment Apple.

- - - Post Merge - - -

the real nightmare would have been if Ted Cruz had won.  that guy's loco...


----------



## Hopeless Opus

not really. i can see things are gonna suck considering he already took down the climate change, LGBT and other important pages on their site.


----------



## Haskell

Hopeless Opus said:


> not really. i can see things are gonna suck considering he already took down the climate change, LGBT and other important pages on their site.



There are more important things than a hoax and love.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> There are more important things than a hoax and love.



LGBT issues aren't just about love (which _is_ really important, wth). It's about people's lives and being denied basic rights for being born the way they are.


----------



## toadsworthy

Raskell said:


> There are more important things than a hoax and love.



are you supporting the claim that climate change is a hoax? and who are you to judge what is important? if a man is going to discredit a well researched topic like climate change, what else is he going to discredit in I guess more "important" and controversial topics.

- - - Post Merge - - -

so he not only passed the pipeline to be built, but is prohibiting employees of certain organizations (I think the EPA) from posting social media updates or talking to reporters. what is this world we live in

- - - Post Merge - - -

yes because this man is one to tell others about what to do with their social media accounts... its laughable


----------



## Haskell

I'm gay myself. I really don't have a problem with Trump not defining LGBTQIA+ as an issue.


----------



## Munyo

Raskell said:


> *There are more important things than a hoax and love.*





Raskell said:


> *There are more important things than a hoax and love.*






Raskell said:


> *There are more important things than a hoax and love.*



uhm okay????????? Lol



Raskell said:


> I'm gay myself. I really don't have a problem with Trump not defining LGBTQIA+ as an issue.



Surprise, you're not everyone.


----------



## Bowie

Wait, so love and climate change isn't important? America (the world, really) needs a government based on the simple concept of love, and acceptance, and tolerance for one another. That's what everybody should strive for. Instead, Trump supporters go around insulting those different to them, and saying "we won" like it was a football game.

Just no.


----------



## nintendofan85

Whiteflamingo said:


> He was a democrat for like 7-9 years right? Then independent for like a year too.



He was a Democrat until 1987, then switched to Republican and stayed one until 1999, when he then became part of the "Reform Party" (a third party formed by Ross Perot in 1995) and remained a member of it until 2001, when he then switched back to being a Democrat. He stayed a Democrat then until 2009, when he then switched back to being a Republican and stayed one until 2011, when he then became an independent, but switched back to a being a Republican just a year later in 2012. So yeah, he's switched parties a total of six times.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> I'm gay myself.



The sad part.

Pence and most (if not all?) of Trump's cabinet support some form of conversion therapy. If you don't know what that is, it's literal torture for LGBT+ people. The lack of empathy you have for fellow LGBT people is sickening although I guess not surprising for someone who doesn't think love is important.


----------



## Haskell

He left the republican party once because of the racist little **** David Duke.

- - - Post Merge - - -

I don't think Trump or Pence supports conversion therapy.

I have support. I just don't support falsehoods.


----------



## Bowie

Raskell said:


> I don't think Trump or Pence supports conversion therapy.
> 
> I have support. I just don't support falsehoods.



Read.


----------



## Munyo

Raskell said:


> He left the republican party once because of the racist little **** David Duke.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> I don't think Trump or Pence supports conversion therapy.
> 
> I have support. I just don't support falsehoods.



Please do some research. Lol. 
There's even a bill named after Pence that bans conversion therapy.
Also, read up on global warming. Look at the numbers.


----------



## nintendofan85

Raskell said:


> He left the republican party once because of the racist little **** David Duke.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> I don't think Trump or Pence supports conversion therapy.
> 
> I have support. I just don't support falsehoods.



Trump has been a Democrat twice. He was one before 1987 and from 2001 to 2009. As I said, he was in the Reform Party (as I said, a party Ross Perot formed in 1995) from 1999 to 2001, but yes, controversies surrounding David Duke's involvement with that party led him to leave it in 2001 and basically was part of the reason (also because of membership from Pat Buchanan) that he ended his practically experimental 2000 presidential run. 1999 and 2011 were the only years he left the Republican Party, and his time as an independent was only for a brief year in 2011 and 2012, likely because he didn't want to appear as a Republican when he started all the birther stuff about then-President Obama, which led Obama to send his long-form birth certificate on April 22, 2011.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> I don't think Trump or Pence supports conversion therapy.



Well I guess you're in for  a treat kiddo


----------



## Soda Fox

I chose approve. While I don't agree with everything he stands for I do appreciate he is already delivering on his promises, namely backing out of TPP and eliminating the penalty for those who can't afford Obamacare. Even if I don't agree with everything, at least he is delivering on his promises swiftly. I chose that I approve of how he's fulfilling his role.


----------



## Haskell

Sorry, I don't read messages that people post if they're on my ignore list.


----------



## tumut

How can people even say climate change is a hoax when 2016 was the hottest year on record, followed by the second hottest 2015, and then 2014, and 2010. The top ten hottest years on record were all in the past two decades. Like do people think that scientists are making up the temperatures lmao?? The only reason politicians try to say its a hoax is because they receive donor money from fossil fuel companies like Exxon Mobile. I mean even if you accepted the fact that temperatures are rising, you could say that the fact that it would devastate the earth is a lie, but you're not a meteorologist/climatologist so you have no merit to say that.

Unless you have creditable research that proves otherwise (97% of scientists say it is in fact real), there's no argument whatsoever.


----------



## toadsworthy

Bowie said:


> Read.



I don't like Trump or Pence as much as people, but this article doesn't really support that Pence has outright said that he supports conversion therapy. That claim is based on inferring the meaning behind one quote of his... The article itself at the end says its "half-true". The only people who accused him of that were LGBT people themselves, so its kind of biased. I don't think based on the quote at hand that he was referring to conversion therapy either, because if you think HIV/AIDS is only spread one way, its not

Don't get me wrong conversion therapy is terrible, I would never in a million years support that. But this article doesn't do a good job of supporting the claim that "Pence supports conversion therapy" to me.


----------



## RiceBunny

Donald Trump hasn't been president for long enough for me to answer that. Ask this again in 2 years once the riots have stopped(hopefully) and ppl have calmed down a bit. Maybe he'll be a good president? Or maybe he won't. Let's try to stay positive and keep the faith that the nation isn't going to ****.


----------



## Envy

Raskell said:


> I'm gay myself. I really don't have a problem with Trump not defining LGBTQIA+ as an issue.



If only he and his cronies didn't define it as an issue, they would allow the current rights and protections for LGBT people to continue on and expand. However, that's not the case. They *do* define it as an issue. And with a Republican/Religious Right controlled government, I'm not sure exactly how much damage can be done, but it's not going to be good one way or the other.


----------



## toadsworthy

gyro said:


> Well I guess you're in for  a treat kiddo



I looked at two of those articles and they refer to the same claim I just wrote about above.... again, I think Pence is terrible, and Conversion Therapy is absolutely inane... but I don't fully believe he supports it with the loose interpretation of the quote the three articles I looked at quoted

one article tried to make the situation worse by talking about shock therapy with it. While shock therapy is probably used for it (and totally stupid and unethical) they are stringing along concepts for shock value (bad pun) to get people to read their article.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> Sorry, I don't read messages that people post if they're on my ignore list.



Clearly you do if you know they're directed to you lmao.

If you're gonna be one of those people who ask for a source when presented with anything at all you can't back out and go "Well I'm not reading them because I don't like you. Also I've just now blocked you so I can conveniently post this comment despite having responded to you previously on this very thread".

And people say _I'm_ impossible to argue with.


----------



## Munyo

I hope he pulls a catfish on his supporters.


----------



## seliph

toadsworthy said:


> I looked at two of those articles and they refer to the same claim I just wrote about above.... again, I think Pence is terrible, and Conversion Therapy is absolutely inane... but I don't fully believe he supports it with the loose interpretation of the quote the three articles I looked at quoted
> 
> one article tried to make the situation worse by talking about shock therapy with it. While shock therapy is probably used for it (and totally stupid and unethical) they are stringing along concepts for shock value (bad pun) to get people to read their article.



"...to those seeking to change their sexual behavior." sounds like conversion therapy to me.

Oh yeah also there's generally mention of shock therapy with Pence because there was a rumour that shock therapy is what he supported, though that part has been proven false.


----------



## toadsworthy

gyro said:


> "...to those seeking to change their sexual behavior." sounds like conversion therapy to me.



to me it sounds like he wants people to have less sex (hence why he talks about and purports abstinence), because sex causes HIV AIDS, so less sex = less AIDS (not agreeing with that or supporting it, but its what he is saying)... its a big jump to go from that quote to conversion therapy. Also the term sexual behavior is just odd, no one ever uses that term to in the context of LGBT

- - - Post Merge - - -

does Pence probably disagree with LGBT rights, probably if he is still thinking abstinence is best thing (a little outdated in this day and age). So people jumped on this quote and exacerbated its meaning to make Pence look even worse. When he does a perfectly fine job of that himself since he thinks he can tell people about their intimate actions....


----------



## Bowie

Listen. He doesn't like gay people. He thinks they're abnormal. He probably doesn't even know what LGBT stands for. "To those seeking to change their sexual behaviour" is just a nicer way of putting it, without causing too much drama or drawing too much attention to yourself. It's his outlet for prejudice.


----------



## Hopeless Opus

i don't think he's in any position to control what people want to do, even if he's our 'vice president' now. i really don't think it's his business if people engage in sexual activity or not lol


----------



## nintendofan85

Raskell said:


> Sorry, I don't read messages that people post if they're on my ignore list.



May I know who is on your ignore list, then?


----------



## Licorice

HELL TO THE NO


----------



## toadsworthy

Hopeless Opus said:


> i don't think he's in any position to control what people want to do, even if he's our 'vice president' now. i really don't think it's his business if people engage in sexual activity or not lol



this is my biggest gripe about all the articles floating around the last page... well said. He is a bigoted politician who thinks he knows best and wants to make people feel bad for making choices different than his opinions. This probably includes LGBT rights and I know it includes other things like termination (I live in Indiana and there is some strong viewpoints about him lol, thankfully I interact most with the liberal people of Indiana)


----------



## King Dorado

nintendofan85 said:


> He was a Democrat until 1987, then switched to Republican and stayed one until 1999, when he then became part of the "Reform Party" (a third party formed by Ross Perot in 1995) and remained a member of it until 2001, when he then switched back to being a Democrat. He stayed a Democrat then until 2009, when he then switched back to being a Republican and stayed one until 2011, when he then became an independent, but switched back to a being a Republican just a year later in 2012. So yeah, he's switched parties a total of six times.



he kept looking around until he finally realized it was the GOP that had enough rubes to put him over the top...


----------



## seliph

toadsworthy said:


> to me it sounds like he wants people to have less sex (hence why he talks about and purports abstinence), because sex causes HIV AIDS, so less sex = less AIDS (not agreeing with that or supporting it, but its what he is saying)... its a big jump to go from that quote to conversion therapy. Also the term sexual behavior is just odd, no one ever uses that term to in the context of LGBT



Homophobes are always pirouetting around the phrase "gay sex" or anything relating to it so the "sexual behaviour" thing isn't a surprise to me at all.

His spokesman (Marc Lotter) tried to deny Pence's support of conversion therapy by claiming that quote was in favour of safe sex, but then why would he take away funding from programs that encourage it and that _help_ people with HIV/AIDS? Plus with what he's said about condoms and how they're "too modern", it sounds like he just wants LGB people to suffer and live the Reagan era again to me.

I know you think the claims against him are "biased since they're all LGBT people" or whatever but I think we LGBT people have a better homophobia radar than those who aren't one of us. Pence and Lotter can dance around their own claims all they want but honestly with how violently homophobic Pence is I'm sure he's in favour of conversion therapy even if that quote wasn't about it.


----------



## toadsworthy

gyro said:


> Homophobes are always pirouetting around the phrase "gay sex" or anything relating to it so the "sexual behaviour" thing isn't a surprise to me at all.
> 
> His spokesman (Marc Lotter) tried to deny Pence's support of conversion therapy by claiming that quote was in favour of safe sex, but then why would he take away funding from programs that encourage it and that _help_ people with HIV/AIDS? Plus with what he's said about condoms and how they're "too modern", it sounds like he just wants LGB people to suffer and live the Reagan era again to me.
> 
> I know you think the claims against him are "biased since they're all LGBT people" or whatever but I think we LGBT people have a better homophobia radar than those who aren't one of us. Pence and Lotter can dance around their own claims all they want but honestly with how violently homophobic Pence is I'm sure he's in favour of conversion therapy even if that quote wasn't about it.



this just supports the mindset of people feeling attacked by him trying to then turn everything he says into even more of an attack on them, thus furthering the divide between opposing sides. If we are going to protest about things, we have to look at statements with a clear mind, find fault for what people are saying and leave our biases out of it. Also not drawing conclusions and making inferences affected by these biases and focus on facts (so looking at what he actually said rather than full force supporting an assumption about what he said)

What funding did he take away? I'm curious and know nothing about politics honestly (I just hate modern day media and news, and feel they are a huge part of making the current situation worse)


----------



## Leen

I was going to chime in, but it looks like Bowie, gyro and Dixx said it all. 

Anyone who thinks that Trump/Pence isn't anti-LGBTQ is really missing the main point. My fianc? and I are getting married asap for fear of marriage equality getting revoked in the near future.


----------



## seliph

toadsworthy said:


> this just supports the mindset of people feeling attacked by him trying to then turn everything he says into even more of an attack on them, thus furthering the divide between opposing sides. If we are going to protest about things, we have to look at statements with a clear mind, find fault for what people are saying and leave our biases out of it. Also not drawing conclusions and making inferences affected by these biases and focus on facts (so looking at what he actually said rather than full force supporting an assumption about what he said)
> 
> What funding did he take away? I'm curious and know nothing about politics honestly (I just hate modern day media and news, and feel they are a huge part of making the current situation worse)



I'm not trying to turn anything into anything that's just how I interpreted everything. Clearly you've interpreted it differently and either way neither of us can really be 100% positive of whatever the hell goes on in Pence's mind (and tbh I don't know if I want to be).

He wanted to stop the Ryan White Care Act which provides funding for people with HIV/AIDS. I can't remember if he actually got anywhere with it.


----------



## vel

He has literally been in office for what, less than a week? A week? He has already: taken the LGBT page down of the official White House page, freezed the grants of programs that include funding for research, redevelopment of former industrial sites, air quality monitoring and education, planned to cut $815 million dollars from climate, environmental, and tribe assistance programs, and signed to advance the construction of Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines.

This isn't about being a Republican or a Democratic citizen anymore. It's about our lives, our future, and our planet. If both sides continue arguing or become oblivious to the damage that is happening to our planet right before our eyes, there won't _be_ democrats or republicans anymore. We'll just be people trying to live off of a ruined world, running out of resources to feed our own families.

Although I don't completely understand politics, or whatever is going on with statistics or voters, I understand that my life might be in jeopardy in the future if Trump keeps up this work.


----------



## nintendofan85

Leen said:


> I was going to chime in, but it looks like Bowie, gyro and Dixx said it all.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that Trump/Pence isn't anti-LGBTQ is really missing the main point. My fianc? and I are getting married asap for fear of marriage equality getting revoked in the near future.



I thought a Supreme Court decision couldn't be revoked though?

- - - Post Merge - - -



vel said:


> He has literally been in office for what, less than a week? A week? He has already: taken the LGBT page down of the official White House page, freezed the grants of programs that include funding for research, redevelopment of former industrial sites, air quality monitoring and education, planned to cut $815 million dollars from climate, environmental, and tribe assistance programs, and signed to advance the construction of Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines.
> 
> This isn't about being a Republican or a Democratic citizen anymore. It's about our lives, our future, and our planet. If both sides continue arguing or become oblivious to the damage that is happening to our planet right before our eyes, there won't _be_ democrats or republicans anymore. We'll just be people trying to live off of a ruined world, running out of resources to feed our own families.
> 
> Although I don't completely understand politics, or whatever is going on with statistics or voters, I understand that my life might be in jeopardy in the future if Trump keeps up this work.



Four days to be precise.


----------



## toadsworthy

gyro said:


> I'm not trying to turn anything into anything that's just how I interpreted everything. Clearly you've interpreted it differently and either way neither of us can really be 100% positive of whatever the hell goes on in Pence's mind (and tbh I don't know if I want to be).
> 
> He wanted to stop the Ryan White Care Act which provides funding for people with HIV/AIDS. I can't remember if he actually got anywhere with it.



very true, he is butt-backwards on a lot of topics in my opinion. Yes he has supported Congress not recognizing LGBT equality rights and that is terrible. He wants to defund the Ryan White Care Act (or wanted to in 2000) which gives money to help people get treatment for HIV/AIDS because he wants it to go to getting people to practice abstinence and safe sex. Which is stupid in all honesty, because HIV can spread even if people do practice safe sex. These things are two separate entities though. Both prove Pence is an idiot, but nothing points to conversion therapy and therefore it shouldn't be assumed that he supports that.


----------



## Goshi

Haha... naw.


----------



## toadsworthy

vel said:


> He has literally been in office for what, less than a week? A week? He has already: taken the LGBT page down of the official White House page, freezed the grants of programs that include funding for research, redevelopment of former industrial sites, air quality monitoring and education, planned to cut $815 million dollars from climate, environmental, and tribe assistance programs, and signed to advance the construction of Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines.
> 
> This isn't about being a Republican or a Democratic citizen anymore. It's about our lives, our future, and our planet. If both sides continue arguing or become oblivious to the damage that is happening to our planet right before our eyes, there won't _be_ democrats or republicans anymore. We'll just be people trying to live off of a ruined world, running out of resources to feed our own families.
> 
> Although I don't completely understand politics, or whatever is going on with statistics or voters, I understand that my life might be in jeopardy in the future if Trump keeps up this work.



yeah he thinks he can run this place as like a factory of robots devoid of consequences and people's cares, but thats not feasible in the world we live in right now. Even if it does help profits for America (or whatever, I don't know economics) what will be the cost of it, and is it really going to be worth it? Groups of people feeling unheard and insignificant? More protests? There is more to this life than money


----------



## Halloqueen

vel said:


> He has literally been in office for what, less than a week? A week? He has already: taken the LGBT page down of the official White House page, freezed the grants of programs that include funding for research, redevelopment of former industrial sites, air quality monitoring and education, planned to cut $815 million dollars from climate, environmental, and tribe assistance programs, and signed to advance the construction of Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines.
> 
> This isn't about being a Republican or a Democratic citizen anymore. It's about our lives, our future, and our planet. If both sides continue arguing or become oblivious to the damage that is happening to our planet right before our eyes, there won't _be_ democrats or republicans anymore. We'll just be people trying to live off of a ruined world, running out of resources to feed our own families.
> 
> Although I don't completely understand politics, or whatever is going on with statistics or voters, I understand that my life might be in jeopardy in the future if Trump keeps up this work.


Everything I would have said. That he's done all this in less than a week is an ill omen of what is to come.


----------



## Haskell

I would debate, but y'know... I cause "controversy" to the point where I can receive an "infraction".


----------



## Bowie

Raskell said:


> I would debate, but y'know... I cause "controversy" to the point where I can receive an "infraction".



Debating and ignoring facts are two different things.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> I would debate, but y'know... I cause "controversy" to the point where I can receive an "infraction".



If you don't do anything that you got an infraction for you'll be fine. Just don't call people names or resort to personal insults.

I've gotten loads of em and I'm still here so go ahead and debate.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

gyro said:


> If you don't do anything that you got an infraction for you'll be fine. Just don't call people names or resort to personal insults.
> 
> I've gotten loads of em and I'm still here so go ahead and debate.



I got like four of them in total, none of them actually coming from political threads, but that doesn't make me the best person. But at least I'm better than Donald Trump when it comes to behavior, but I wouldn't do a good job as president.


----------



## Soraru

i'm not a white supremacist, and because i'm a part of one of the marginalized groups that he and his team are targeting, i don't have the privilege to support or be indifferent to his policies, because my family, my friends, and myself are not safe from oppression. never really were

and even if i were... _i would have enough human decency, integrity, and empathy for the innocents who are targeted to know not to support him_. so in short, no. i don't approve.


----------



## Red Cat

nintendofan85 said:


> I thought a Supreme Court decision couldn't be revoked though?



It can be reversed by another Supreme Court decision (or a constitutional amendment, but that's not happening). Like how Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. Scalia was one of the justices who voted in the minority in the same-sex marriage case, so replacing him with another anti-gay justice won't change anything, but if one of the majority justices dies / retires and Trump gets to pick a replacement, then it could be in trouble. Even then though, I highly doubt they would actually touch the case because it would spark a massive backlash and be extremely damaging politically for Republicans.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Red Cat said:


> It can be reversed by another Supreme Court decision (or a constitutional amendment, but that's not happening). Like how Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. Scalia was one of the justices who voted in the minority in the same-sex marriage case, so replacing him with another anti-gay justice won't change anything, but if one of the majority justices dies / retires and Trump gets to pick a replacement, then it could be in trouble. Even then though, I highly doubt they would actually touch the case because it would spark a massive backlash and be extremely damaging politically for Republicans.



You're right that only the Supreme Court can overturn previous decisions, but some can be superseded, which means invalidated by another law or executive action. You know that Dred Scot v Sandford never got overturned, but it became invalid due to the 13th and 14th amendments. I kinda feel that the three ACA rulings (including King v Burwell) will be invalidated if ACA gets repealed.

I do hope that Roe v Wade gets overturned though, but if they do throw the case out, they should still allow women to get abortions if the reason to having one is rape, incest, or to save the mothers' life. Meaning that states can ban abortions by any means, except for the three cases I just mentioned. I heard that Trump wants Roe overturned, but not Obergefell.

Also, if liberals care about womens' rights to have an abortion, why do they support eliminating gender restrictions in public restrooms without caring about womens' rights to privacy in public restrooms? If gendered bathrooms get eliminated, their right to privacy in public restrooms is basically gone.


----------



## ams

Apple2012 said:


> Also, if liberals care about womens' rights to have an abortion, why do they support eliminating gender restrictions in public restrooms without caring about womens' rights to privacy in public restrooms? If gendered bathrooms get eliminated, their right to privacy in public restrooms is basically gone.



As a liberal who cares about women's rights I want trans women to be able to use public washrooms safely and privately. Women's rights apply to all women.

As someone in the medical field I want women to have access to safe abortions so that they don't die alone and in pain from trying to end their pregnancies in alternative ways. Anyone who isn't afraid of this reality needs to go into an OR and see a septic uterus.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

ams said:


> As a liberal who cares about women's rights I want trans women to be able to use public washrooms safely and privately. Women's rights apply to all women.
> 
> As someone in the medical field I want women to have access to safe abortions so that they don't die alone and in pain from trying to end their pregnancies in alternative ways. Anyone who isn't afraid of this reality needs to go into an OR and see a septic uterus.



When I mean eliminating gender restrictions, it means anybody can use any restroom. I still favor keeping gendered bathrooms, which means all cisgendered men and boys must stay out of the womens' restrooms, and all cisgendered women and girls must stay out of the mens' restroom. The only exception is staff members (more particularly janitors). As for the transgender issue when it comes to restrooms, I think it should be up to the business or commercial service to decide whether restrooms should be separated by sex or gender identity. Some can force transgenders to use restrooms of their identity, some can force them to use restrooms of their biological sex, and others can allow them to access any restroom as long as it's open. But no government should get involved in the issue.


----------



## Leen

Apple2012 said:


> I do hope that Roe v Wade gets overturned though, but if they do throw the case out, they should still allow women to get abortions if the reason to having one is rape, incest, or to save the mothers' life. Meaning that states can ban abortions by any means, except for the three cases I just mentioned. I heard that Trump wants Roe overturned, but not Obergefell.



No one should tell anyone what they can or can't do with their bodies. Uteri included. Case closed.


----------



## Bowie

With the bathroom issue, I think that transsexuals should be allowed to use the bathroom of their _physical_ needs. At the end of the day, you're there to do your business. If you're transgender, there's no real reason why you can't keep using the same one, 'cause even if you feel like a woman, you still have the body of a man, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I also feel like it would just be easier if bathrooms were all unisex, though. Give everybody toilets and be done with it. You're there to do your business, not chit-chat.


----------



## Corrie

vel said:


> He has literally been in office for what, less than a week? A week? He has already: taken the LGBT page down of the official White House page, freezed the grants of programs that include funding for research, redevelopment of former industrial sites, air quality monitoring and education, planned to cut $815 million dollars from climate, environmental, and tribe assistance programs, and signed to advance the construction of Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines.
> 
> This isn't about being a Republican or a Democratic citizen anymore. It's about our lives, our future, and our planet. If both sides continue arguing or become oblivious to the damage that is happening to our planet right before our eyes, there won't _be_ democrats or republicans anymore. We'll just be people trying to live off of a ruined world, running out of resources to feed our own families.
> 
> Although I don't completely understand politics, or whatever is going on with statistics or voters, I understand that my life might be in jeopardy in the future if Trump keeps up this work.



I agree. With what I have seen so far, he is literally ruining America and even threatening to hurt the world. He doesn't care about the environment and that is dangerous. Trump is dangerous and at this point, I feel like Russia helped him win so he can start a cult-like thing where he can control all of us and make us slaves. I'm getting real worried and I'm not even American!


----------



## Leen

Bowie said:


> With the bathroom issue, I think that transsexuals should be allowed to use the bathroom of their _physical_ needs. At the end of the day, you're there to do your business. If you're transgender, there's no real reason why you can't keep using the same one, 'cause even if you feel like a woman, you still have the body of a man, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> I also feel like it would just be easier if bathrooms were all unisex, though. Give everybody toilets and be done with it. You're there to do your business, not chit-chat.



I'm not trans, so I can't speak for trans people, but understanding what I know, if you affiliate yourself with a gender and you identify with that particular sex, why would you use the other bathroom? For example, why would a trans woman use the men's bathroom if they don't identify as being a man? 

Trans folks are going to the bathroom to use the bathroom, just like every one else. 

Also, here's another thought for you, if a perv wanted to go into another bathroom, they just would.... It's not like bathrooms are keypadded with secret boy and girl codes. C'mon.


----------



## GrayScreen

I don't know why it's such a big issue to have transpeople just use the bathroom they need too. If you honestly think a transwoman is safe in a male bathroom, then I really wonder if you've actually known any transpeople...or any people point blank. As far as worrying about creepy men claiming they're trans in order to harass women, that's very VERY unlikely. I'm a hundred times more worried about moms bringing their 5-10 year old boys in the bathroom with them. I can't exactly slap a kid for peeping, even if they obviously know better.


----------



## Bowie

Leen said:


> I'm not trans, so I can't speak for trans people, but understanding what I know, if you affiliate yourself with a gender and you identify with that particular sex, why would you use the other bathroom? For example, why would a trans woman use the men's bathroom if they don't identify as being a man?
> 
> Trans folks are going to the bathroom to use the bathroom, just like every one else.
> 
> Also, here's another thought for you, if a perv wanted to go into another bathroom, they just would.... It's not like bathrooms are keypadded with secret boy and girl codes. C'mon.



I'm not transgender either, but I wear girls clothes sometimes, and plenty of girly accessories. Been mistaken for a girl plenty of times as well. When I go to a public toilet (they're kinda disgusting, so I don't make a habit of it), I go to the boys. If I identified as a woman, in my head, then I would still go to the men's because I'm a boy and I can use the urinals.

You think practically, not emotionally. I mean, that could just be me. I don't know. But a pervert could drop into any bathroom, for males or females. Just recently I read about it happening rather locally. That's why it's a good idea to avoid public restrooms like the plaque regardless. Not a good place for doing anything other than your business.

Like I said, they should just be unisex. That would save so much trouble. Give everyone their own stalls, a lock perhaps for each one, and completely get rid of urinals. Then everyone has their privacy to do what they've gotta do, and they can be whoever they wanna be.

EDIT: Of course, if you're _transsexual_, that's completely different. Not sure how anyone could be confused or offended by a physical woman heading into a woman's toilet.


----------



## toadsworthy

This isn't even about trump anymore


----------



## deSPIRIA

apparently, trump signed a pro-life law and helped the approval of two oil pipelines that could be potentially harmful to the environment. 
i want to give him a chance but, you know. stuff like this.


----------



## toadsworthy

Ashvenn said:


> apparently, trump signed a pro-life law and helped the approval of two oil pipelines that could be potentially harmful to the environment.
> i want to give him a chance but, you know. stuff like this.



He is trying to bend the laws of freedom of speech by telling workers of the EPA what to tak about and post on their website. Like get out of here


----------



## Leen

Bowie said:


> I'm not transgender either, but I wear girls clothes sometimes, and plenty of girly accessories. Been mistaken for a girl plenty of times as well. When I go to a public toilet (they're kinda disgusting, so I don't make a habit of it), I go to the boys. If I identified as a woman, in my head, then I would still go to the men's because I'm a boy and I can use the urinals.
> 
> You think practically, not emotionally. I mean, that could just be me. I don't know. But a pervert could drop into any bathroom, for males or females. Just recently I read about it happening rather locally. That's why it's a good idea to avoid public restrooms like the plaque regardless. Not a good place for doing anything other than your business.
> 
> Like I said, they should just be unisex. That would save so much trouble. Give everyone their own stalls, a lock perhaps for each one, and completely get rid of urinals. Then everyone has their privacy to do what they've gotta do, and they can be whoever they wanna be.
> 
> EDIT: Of course, if you're _transsexual_, that's completely different. Not sure how anyone could be confused or offended by a physical woman heading into a woman's toilet.



Wearing women's clothes/accessories is not the same as being transgendered. If anything, that's genderfluid. (Any trans folks reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong). Being transgendered means your biological sex AND gender does not correlate with who you are inside. Transexuals are the folks that have undergone genital corrective surgery to correspond to the sex/gender they identify with. Not everyone who is trans has the means/ability of undergoing top/bottom surgery. 

I think that trans folks should be able to use the bathrooms they feel most comfortable in. I'll agree with you, unisex bathrooms would solve it all. However, we live in a world where majority of people believe there are only "two genders" and leaves gender/sex non-conforming folks left to decide which one corresponds most to them.


----------



## Bowie

Leen said:


> Wearing women's clothes/accessories is not the same as being transgendered. If anything, that's genderfluid. (Any trans folks reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong). Being transgendered means your biological sex AND gender does not correlate with who you are inside. Transexuals are the folks that have undergone genital corrective surgery to correspond to the sex/gender they identify with. Not everyone who is trans has the means/ability of undergoing top/bottom surgery.
> 
> I think that trans folks should be able to use the bathrooms they feel most comfortable in. I'll agree with you, unisex bathrooms would solve it all. However, we live in a world where majority of people believe there are only "two genders" and leaves gender/sex non-conforming folks left to decide which one corresponds most to them.



Like I said, I'm not transgender. I identify as a boy. I just look transgender, so if somebody seen me, I could easily see them making that assumption about me. I know the difference between transgender and transsexual. I was referring to transgender people. I don't see why they'd wanna use a urinal if they didn't have a penis.

Yep. Unisex is the answer. Everyone gets to be happy.


----------



## toadsworthy

Again this is not about trump, so preferably find a different thread....


----------



## Bowie

toadsworthy said:


> Again this is not about trump, so preferably find a different thread....



The last thing anybody wants or needs is _another_ thread to talk about him.


----------



## deSPIRIA

yep okay so trump is ordering the infamous wall to be built
i understand that he's trying to stop gangs, coyotes, illegals, etc. but hoo boy, this is NOT going to go in your favour man


----------



## Red Cat

Ashvenn said:


> apparently, trump signed a pro-life law and helped the approval of two oil pipelines that could be potentially harmful to the environment.
> i want to give him a chance but, you know. stuff like this.



I know, isn't it amazing that Trump can claim to be saving lives with an anti-abortion law while on the same day also signing off on a pipeline which could poison people's drinking water?


----------



## Leen

Bowie said:


> Like I said, I'm not transgender. I identify as a boy. I just look transgender, so if somebody seen me, I could easily see them making that assumption about me. I know the difference between transgender and transsexual. I was referring to transgender people. I don't see why they'd wanna use a urinal if they didn't have a penis.
> 
> Yep. Unisex is the answer. Everyone gets to be happy.




Bowie, the point that I'm trying to make is that people should use the bathrooms that they feel most comfortable in, regardless of their equipment. Just because someone doesn't have a penis doesn't mean they are unable to use a urinal. There are ways, lol. Also, it's what makes them feel good and happy in their own skin. 

You identify as a boy so that is why you go to the men's room. So why should people who also identify as male not get to go to the men's room, too? Not trying to argue with you, just trying to make you see a different perspective because it's not a black and white matter. 

Also, I realize this is a thread about Trump and his job as president. However, trans rights are pretty relative. But I'm done talking about this now.


----------



## Bowie

Leen said:


> Bowie, the point that I'm trying to make is that people should use the bathrooms that they feel most comfortable in, regardless of their equipment. Just because someone doesn't have a penis doesn't mean they are unable to use a urinal. There are ways, lol. Also, it's what makes them feel good and happy in their own skin.
> 
> You identify as a boy so that is why you go to the men's room. So why should people who also identify as male not get to go to the men's room, too? Not trying to argue with you, just trying to make you see a different perspective because it's not a black and white matter.
> 
> Also, I realize this is a thread about Trump and his job as president. However, trans rights are pretty relative. But I'm done talking about this now.



But who wants to be in a restroom? I wanna get in and get out. Gender never crosses my mind, and the people in there with me _certainly_ don't cross my mind. Just get in, do your business, and get out before you catch a disease. That's my stance, at least. If they were all unisex, nobody would have to worry about things like that.

Also, yes. Trump has a say in LGBT+ rights. Gotta acknowledge every issue.


----------



## Red Cat

Ashvenn said:


> yep okay so trump is ordering the infamous wall to be built
> i understand that he's trying to stop gangs, coyotes, illegals, etc. but hoo boy, this is NOT going to go in your favour man



I wonder where that check from Mexico that Trump promised is... I guess it looks like American taxpayers will be paying for the wall. If Trump can't get Mexico to pay for it like he promised, the next president should send the bill to him and his family and make them pay for it.


----------



## Leen

Red Cat said:


> I wonder where that check from Mexico that Trump promised is... I guess it looks like American taxpayers will be paying for the wall. If Trump can't get Mexico to pay for it like he promised, the next president should send the bill to him and his family and make them pay for it.



Looking at Trump's history of paying honest hard-working people for their work, I wouldn't hold my breath on this one... Lol


----------



## Jawile

It's only been like, five days. I'd say wait a bit before we can judge.

But he did shoot down the TPP immediately. So I'd say yes, I definitely do approve of how he's doing right now.


----------



## seliph

"He's hardly been president" and he's already gone ahead and continued the Dakota Pipeline, banned EPA from social media, is freezing EPA's grants and contracts, is planning to eliminate arts programs and cut funding to PBS and NPR, closed investigations of Flint's water crisis, repealed ACA, is planning to eliminate the IMLS....

"He's hardly been president" "He's not even been in for a week" "He's only been here for 5 days"; These are all _negative_ statements at this point.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

gyro said:


> "He's hardly been president" and he's already gone ahead and continued the Dakota Pipeline, banned EPA from social media, is freezing EPA's grants and contracts, is planning to eliminate arts programs and cut funding to PBS and NPR, closed investigations of Flint's water crisis, *repealed ACA*, is planning to eliminate the IMLS....
> 
> "He's hardly been president" "He's not even been in for a week" "He's only been here for 5 days"; These are all _negative_ statements at this point.



It hasn't happened yet, but it's already starting. And I don't think the whole thing will be gone. And if it is, some provisions may make it to the alternative. But the individual mandate is already disappearing.

And what is the IMLS?


----------



## Waluigi

we all knew he was gonna do this bad is anyone actually suprised

hes pretty much done the opposite of what i believe in and im firmly convinced he's going to be one of the worst presidents in history, maybe things will get better but i have very low hopes of that

when 2020 rolls round and we truly see how bad things are then we can know for certain how well he's done


----------



## deSPIRIA

Red Cat said:


> If Trump can't get Mexico to pay for it like he promised, the next president should send the bill to him and his family and make them pay for it.






haha maybe not


----------



## seliph

Apple2012 said:


> It hasn't happened yet, but it's already starting. And I don't think the whole thing will be gone. And if it is, some provisions may make it to the alternative. But the individual mandate is already disappearing.
> 
> And what is the IMLS?



the Institute of Museum & Library Services. He's noted that eliminating it would "save $230 million per year"


----------



## Waluigi

Ashvenn said:


> View attachment 192966
> 
> haha maybe not



how the hell do the british have a lower opinion of trump than nearly everyone else? a lot of british are quite pro trump, thats suprising actually


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Ashvenn said:


> View attachment 192966
> 
> haha maybe not



I'm not surprised that Mexico has a lower favorability rating than anyone else. He wants them to pay for the wall. I don't think it's a good idea.


----------



## Bowie

Waluigi said:


> how the hell do the british have a lower opinion of trump than nearly everyone else? a lot of british are quite pro trump, thats suprising actually



Probably because we have always had bad prime ministers in power (including our current one), so we kinda just got used to it. Our last prime minister had sex with a pig.


----------



## Waluigi

Bowie said:


> Probably because we have always had bad prime ministers in power (including our current one), so we kinda just got used to it. Our last prime minister had sex with a pig.



It does seem weird, but i'd bet at the least Scotland probably skewed that poll a bit. Try and find a person up here that actually likes Trump. I know about 4.


----------



## Red Cat

Ashvenn said:


> View attachment 192966
> 
> haha maybe not



Russia is pretty obvious, but I wonder why India is #2 on that list.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

I have a question about the ACA repeal. I know from the conservative viewpoint, the law should be gone, but replaced with a less extreme version. But from the liberal viewpoint, would our country be worse off if we passed the ACA then repealed, or would it be worse off if the ACA never even got implemented?


----------



## Red Cat

Apple2012 said:


> I have a question about the ACA repeal. I know from the conservative viewpoint, the law should be gone, but replaced with a less extreme version. But from the liberal viewpoint, would our country be worse off if we passed the ACA then repealed, or would it be worse off if the ACA never even got implemented?



It would be worse off if it never got passed since a lot of people who got health through the ACA wouldn't have been able to get it otherwise. That and people will get pissed off if repealing the ACA causes them to lose their health insurance which in turn means they will be motivated to vote out the people who took away their healthcare.


----------



## SensaiGallade

Fml He's actually building the wall. http://www.theladbible.com/news/pol...-is-starting-to-build-the-wall-today-20170125


----------



## xanisha

SensaiGallade said:


> Fml He's actually building the wall. http://www.theladbible.com/news/pol...-is-starting-to-build-the-wall-today-20170125


Yep and guess who's going to paying for it....(hint it's not Mexico)


----------



## Alolan_Apples

I was looking at the costs of building the wall. What I realized is that building a wall across US and Mexico will cost billions rather than trillions, which is a lot cheaper than how much the ACA really costed. This is true even if the wall was as fancy as the Great Wall of China with Star Wars technology embedded in towers. Billions sound like a lot, but it's almost nothing compared to some more expensive government programs that caused tax hikes.

- - - Post Merge - - -



xanisha said:


> Yep and guess who's going to paying for it....(hint it's not Mexico)



I don't know.


----------



## xanisha

Apple2012 said:


> I don't know.


The tax payers obviously. If mexico is not paying for it then us tax payers will have to front the bill.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Red Cat said:


> It would be worse off if it never got passed since a lot of people who got health through the ACA wouldn't have been able to get it otherwise. That and people will get pissed off if repealing the ACA causes them to lose their health insurance which in turn means they will be motivated to vote out the people who took away their healthcare.



So you think we wouldn't be in a worse shape after repeal than if we never even passed it. I can tell that people are strictly opposed to repealing the law, but the reasons why Trump and the Republicans won is a bit more complicated. I can blame political correctness and how it's gotten out of control for being part of the reason why Trump won (which is what I call "revenge voting"), but there's a lot of other reasons why he won. The ACA repeal promise isn't what lead him to winning.

- - - Post Merge - - -



xanisha said:


> The tax payers obviously. If mexico is not paying for it then us tax payers will have to front the bill.



I knew we would end up being the ones paying for the wall if Mexico couldn't get involved. I was confused when you said "guess who's paying for it", but I knew it would happen. But our funds go to our nation's property.


----------



## xanisha

Apple2012 said:


> I knew we would end up being the ones paying for the wall if Mexico couldn't get involved. I was confused when you said "guess who's paying for it", but I knew it would happen. But our funds go to our nation's property.


I meant it as sarcasm one of the big promises was to build a wall *and* to have mexico pay for it.


----------



## Red Cat

Apple2012 said:


> I was looking at the costs of building the wall. What I realized is that building a wall across US and Mexico will cost billions rather than trillions, which is a lot cheaper than how much the ACA really costed. This is true even if the wall was as fancy as the Great Wall of China with Star Wars technology embedded in towers. Billions sound like a lot, but it's almost nothing compared to some more expensive government programs that caused tax hikes.



Comparing the cost of a fence / wall to healthcare is like comparing apples to oranges. Treating injuries and illnesses for millions of people is going to cost much more than even the most high-tech wall imaginable. Keeping people healthy is absolutely a worthwhile use of government funds; there aren't many better ways to spend the money than that. Building a wall on the other hand is a lot more questionable. It's not even guaranteed to work because people can still enter illegally in other ways like taking a "vacation" by plane and then staying here indefinitely.


----------



## Envy

Donald Trump should pay for the wall himself. Remember a million is "a small loan" in his mind. Surely he can do it.


----------



## xanisha

Red Cat said:


> Building a wall on the other hand is a lot more questionable. It's not even guaranteed to work because people can still enter illegally in other ways like taking a "vacation" by plane and then staying here indefinitely.


This is very true, many studies show that a good portion of the people that are here illegally come here legally first and then just overstay their visas. So a wall won't really stop much of anything, instead if we really want illegal immigration reform we should implement a better visa system. But so many people seem to just love this wall or is convinced that it will work and that there are no flaws with it, so I doubt visa reform will happen.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Red Cat said:


> Comparing the cost of a fence / wall to healthcare is like comparing apples to oranges.



I'm getting sick of being told that. I was told this on gaming boards when I compared ACNL to ACHHD and ACaF to ACCF. They were trying to tell me that they don't compare, but I still choose to compare them because they're still Animal Crossing games. I don't care how different the gameplay is. They're still in the same franchise. 

I know it doesn't sound like that healthcare and border wall compare, but they're still both political actions. I was trying to point out how much cheaper the wall is opposed to government-funded programs for individuals. Not only that, but by even spending on health insurance for many, they're still not guaranteed healthcare. Doctors are very unlikely to accept patients that have insurance that does not pay well (for example, Medicaid). Without insurance, they couldn't get healthcare because they are poor. With this kind of insurance, they wouldn't get healthcare because they wouldn't pay well, as they underestimate the costs of labor. This is a lose-lose situation, yet it would be worse to have socialized medicine since it wastes more money.

Socialized medicine is not just expensive, but it's also making healthcare harder to get. In places like Canada and UK, doctors have a maximum wage. That means after operating on a certain number of patients, they reach the salary cap. At this case, they would not get paid anymore no matter how much they work. So they stop working after they reach the cap. This creates healthcare waiting times, which is bad for those who need healthcare desperately. When I was assigned surgeries (where I undergo surgery), I get mine in less than a month. In places with universal healthcare, you may have to wait up to two years (or even longer) to get the surgery you were assigned. I know this doesn't happen in the United States, but that's because we were paying doctors by patient rather than maximum wage. As much as it's good to care for those who are poor, we should also care about those who provide healthcare.

So socialized medicine is not just more expensive than building a wall, but it's also not cost-effective. Would you rather not spend on something, or would you rather spend millions just to get very little output?


----------



## Haskell

I just realized something.

Does *anyone* actually care what *anyone* has to say about *politics* on the *internet*? 

It's a waste of time to be discussing with someone *your opinions *when in reality,* they're worthless*. Our *opinions are worthless*.


----------



## King Dorado

Red Cat said:


> Russia is pretty obvious, but I wonder why India is #2 on that list.



I wondered the same after media showed euphoric citizens there celebrating his election, i guess its bc Trump has been vocal about USA doing more business with India, and about India becoming a bigger part of global security efforts...  also, i think their current Prime Minister is a sort of Indian version of Trump...


----------



## Red Cat

Apple2012 said:


> I'm getting sick of being told that. I was told this on gaming boards when I compared ACNL to ACHHD and ACaF to ACCF. They were trying to tell me that they don't compare, but I still choose to compare them because they're still Animal Crossing games. I don't care how different the gameplay is. They're still in the same franchise.
> 
> I know it doesn't sound like that healthcare and border wall compare, but they're still both political actions. I was trying to point out how much cheaper the wall is opposed to government-funded programs for individuals. Not only that, but by even spending on health insurance for many, they're still not guaranteed healthcare. Doctors are very unlikely to accept patients that have insurance that does not pay well (for example, Medicaid). Without insurance, they couldn't get healthcare because they are poor. With this kind of insurance, they wouldn't get healthcare because they wouldn't pay well, as they underestimate the costs of labor. This is a lose-lose situation, yet it would be worse to have socialized medicine since it wastes more money.
> 
> Socialized medicine is not just expensive, but it's also making healthcare harder to get. In places like Canada and UK, doctors have a maximum wage. That means after operating on a certain number of patients, they reach the salary cap. At this case, they would not get paid anymore no matter how much they work. So they stop working after they reach the cap. This creates healthcare waiting times, which is bad for those who need healthcare desperately. When I was assigned surgeries (where I undergo surgery), I get mine in less than a month. In places with universal healthcare, you may have to wait up to two years (or even longer) to get the surgery you were assigned. I know this doesn't happen in the United States, but that's because we were paying doctors by patient rather than maximum wage. As much as it's good to care for those who are poor, we should also care about those who provide healthcare.
> 
> So socialized medicine is not just more expensive than building a wall, but it's also not cost-effective. Would you rather not spend on something, or would you rather spend millions just to get very little output?



I hate to bring out the analogy again, but comparing Animal Crossing games to public policy is like comparing apples to oranges. I'm not an expert on healthcare in Canada and the U.K., so maybe people from those places can respond to your comments about their healthcare systems. The issue with healthcare anywhere is supply and demand. There are a lot of people who get sick and injured and not enough people who are skilled enough to become doctors, surgeons, etc. as well a scarcity of medical equipment and space. So the question becomes how to distribute healthcare in the most optimal way. In the United States, you can get the best healthcare in the world... if you have the money to pay for it. You may be able to get a procedure done faster here than in other countries, but people with lower incomes here may never get a procedure they need because they can't afford it.

It's kind of an ethical question as to what is the best way to distribute healthcare. The U.S. gives people a larger incentive (pays them more) to become doctors, but that means you have to pay more to get medical care. If there were no restrictions on how much doctors and surgeons could get payed, then theoretically there's no limit you could be charged to get a life-saving procedure. Most people are uncomfortable with allowing people to put a price on a life this way.


----------



## Bowie

Trump administration has informed the Palestinian Authority that it is freezing the transfer of the $221,000,000 authorised by the Obama administration in its final hours. Who wants to bet it never gets sent? Trump will probably want to use it to replace all the furniture in the Oval Office with golden furniture (because changing the curtains wasn't enough).


----------



## vel

Raskell said:


> I just realized something.
> 
> Does *anyone* actually care what *anyone* has to say about *politics* on the *internet*?
> 
> It's a waste of time to be discussing with someone *your opinions *when in reality,* they're worthless*. Our *opinions are worthless*.



You do know there's something called a polite and civil argument where both sides take turns giving their opinions and we both mutually agree, or politely disagree, right? We aren't shoving our opinions to make people change theirs, we're putting our opinions out there so people can understand each other. Our opinions aren't worthless; they help us build relationships with others. There's a difference.


----------



## Haskell

vel said:


> You do know there's something called a polite and civil argument where both sides take turns giving their opinions and we both mutually agree, or politely disagree, right? We aren't shoving our opinions to make people change theirs, we're putting our opinions out there so people can understand each other. Our opinions aren't worthless; they help us build relationships with others. There's a difference.



Depends on the way you look at it. But in all reality, when do people change their opinions from a few messages between strangers?


----------



## Red Cat

Raskell said:


> I just realized something.
> 
> Does *anyone* actually care what *anyone* has to say about *politics* on the *internet*?
> 
> It's a waste of time to be discussing with someone *your opinions *when in reality,* they're worthless*. Our *opinions are worthless*.



You've spent enough time discussing your opinions here. What's with the sudden change of heart?


----------



## Haskell

I realized that I spent hours that I could be doing homework trying to exchange my opinion on here. 

I realized that these political threads give bad first impressions. It carries out to other parts on TBT.

I realized it doesn't start friendships, it ends friendships, it blocks friendships from starting.

I realized that* it's not worth it*.


----------



## Red Cat

Raskell said:


> I realized that I spent hours that I could be doing homework trying to exchange my opinion on here.
> 
> I realized that these political threads give bad first impressions. It carries out to other parts on TBT.
> 
> I realized that* it's not worth it*.



Okay. Bon voyage. We'll survive without you.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> Depends on the way you look at it. But in all reality, when do people change their opinions from a few messages between strangers?



If posts are informative and people are open minded it can happen really easily



Raskell said:


> I realized that I spent hours that I could be doing homework trying to exchange my opinion on here.
> 
> I realized that these political threads give bad first impressions. It carries out to other parts on TBT.
> 
> I realized that* it's not worth it*.



It is worth it though. It's the future of a country and of millions of people, it's worth discussing. Just because your conversations with people held up like wet bread doesn't mean people haven't been taking in information and thinking of what's been said here.

As for first impressions most of us have seen each other elsewhere on the forum so, meh. Why not go do your homework rather than try to silence the rest of us?


----------



## Red Cat

gyro said:


> It is worth it though. It's the future of a country and of millions of people, it's worth discussing. Just because your conversations with people held up like wet bread doesn't mean people haven't been taking in information and thinking of what's been said here.
> 
> As for first impressions most of us have seen each other elsewhere on the forum so, meh. Why not go do your homework rather than try to silence the rest of us?



No! Don't encourage him goddammit!


----------



## Haskell

I'm not even taking a negative approach to this. I don't like how some people are. This is what I am talking about. I give my opinion and it damages my reputation, any possible friendships, and it gives bad first impressions.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Red Cat said:


> No! Don't encourage him goddammit!



I'm not going to get upset because he is stating that _what's happening _will _affect the future_.


----------



## seliph

Red Cat said:


> No! Don't encourage him goddammit!



I'm not encouraging him believe me.



Raskell said:


> I'm not even taking a negative approach to this. I don't like how some people are. This is what I am talking about. I give my opinion and it damages my reputation, any possible friendships, and it gives bad first impressions.



If your opinion damages your reputation so much maybe.... just _maybe_...... your opinion sucks.

Also if you're worried about it so much just don't say anything?


----------



## Haskell

"Everyone should have their opinion and be able to voice it. No matter what it is. Of course, that does not mean your opinion is always right. But, you're certainly entitled to your opinion." - Tim McGraw


----------



## vel

Raskell said:


> I'm not even taking a negative approach to this. I don't like how some people are. This is what I am talking about. I give my opinion and it damages my reputation, any possible friendships, and it gives bad first impressions.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to get upset because he is stating that _what's happening _will _affect the future_.



Just gonna state first: italicizing or bolding your words isn't going to make your argument any stronger. Sorry. But I think you could take it differently too. If someone disagrees with your opinion, that's disagreeing, not hating or anything. Unless they're literally bashing you for having an opinion, that isn't your fault lol. Continuing on, if you can't handle having a civil discussion with people that disagree with you, it really isn't worth coming on these types of threads at all. People are going to disagree, you have said it yourself. Maybe try asking why doesn't the other person agree, or what their opinion is, or something like that. It is possible to be civil, you just have to choose to be civil yourself first.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> "Everyone should have their opinion and be able to voice it. No matter what it is. Of course, that does not mean your opinion is always right. But, you're certainly entitled to your opinion." - Tim McGraw



Cool! Didn't say anything against that. Just said that my opinion is that yours aren't very good and that's why you give me bad impressions.


----------



## Haskell

Very well said, Vel. I disagree with you on many fronts of your post (and your others) but, nicely worded.

*
I hope you all do not take these threads too seriously and research and form your own opinions.*

I will be taking an appearance on these threads less as I believe (you don't have to), "it's not worth it".


----------



## Corrie

I feel sad that trump is going against clean energy just for "more jobs." What a long term damage for a short term thing. Like, you can find Americans more jobs elsewhere beside really damaging the environment some more. When China says you're ****ed up, you're ****ed up, and China is the leading cause of pollution. You know you messed up when China is scolding you.


----------



## vel

Corrie said:


> I feel sad that trump is going against clean energy just for "more jobs." What a long term damage for a short term thing. Like, you can find Americans more jobs elsewhere beside really damaging the environment some more. When China says you're ****ed up, you're ****ed up, and China is the leading cause of pollution. You know you messed up when China is scolding you.



I agree, he cares more about materialistic things, such as money, or things money can buy. He doesn't seem to care for anything other than things you can own. He doesn't think about the environment (he probably thinks he can buy Mother Nature of something honestly), nor what will happen to it after he creates these "jobs." It's sad to see the world tilting toward materialistic things and needs when life is about things that you can't hold.


----------



## Bowie

I know a lot of you guys don't believe in the afterlife, but from what I've read, people like him are forced to live (albeit temporarily) in a void of existence in which they witness all the materialistic things they love, but they are unable to indulge in them or interact with them in any way. Over time, their desires will fade, and that's when they're ready to leave.

Supposing that's true, I can't wait for Trump to have to go through that.


----------



## Munyo

Imagine being priviledged enough to not care about his presidency or to say, "Let's give him a chance."
He already effed it up for people, and it's just 5 days in.


----------



## Soraru

when a "opinion" is defending/supporting a racist, sexist, homophobic, white supremacist of a president and in support of his "political views" when it really is malice and bullying/targeting marginalized groups, of course people, especially members of said targeted marginalized groups are not going to have a great impression on those who are in support of their oppression. much less even want to associate with one.


----------



## piichinu

I disapprove especially of the cutting of the funding for certain organizations

- - - Post Merge - - -

But I'm lucky enough to be in a position to say that I'll be fine after this is all over


----------



## LinkToTheWorld

gyro said:


> Cool! Didn't say anything against that. Just said that my opinion is that yours aren't very good and that's why you give me bad impressions.




There is no such thing as a good or bad opinion. 
You can disagree and/or dislike somebody's opinion. That doesn't make your opinion a good one and theirs bad. Even if their opinion reflects badly on them for whatever reason. It's still just that, an opinion. 

I think (or hope) Trump is just trying to make an impression at the moment. I see it as a bit of a novelty to him...
Hoping that once it wears off the job might lose its shine for him. Could go the opposite way of course


----------



## deSPIRIA

LinkToTheWorld said:


> There is no such thing as a good or bad opinion.
> You can disagree and/or dislike somebody's opinion. That doesn't make your opinion a good one and theirs bad. Even if their opinion reflects badly on them for whatever reason. It's still just that, an opinion.


Sorry but I have to disagree. "Good" opinions are subjective. However, a stupid, terrible opinion would be something like, "All men are pigs. It's alright for me to kill myself and my children so this filthy man will never get custody or see his children again. (Yes, that has happened.)" or, "All women should respect the stronger sex. It's alright to hit them when they misbehave. Women should know their place." It reflects you as a selfish human being who does not deserve to be heard. Even if those opinions are extreme, they make no sense. You can't just say, "oh it's an opinion it's okay they can say whatever the hell they want, I won't judge them"


----------



## LinkToTheWorld

Ashvenn said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree. "Good" opinions are subjective. However, a stupid, terrible opinion would be something like, "All men are pigs. It's alright for me to kill myself and my children so this filthy man will never get custody or see his children again. (Yes, that has happened.)" or, "All women should respect the stronger sex. It's alright to hit them when they misbehave. Women should know their place." It reflects you as a selfish human being who does not deserve to be heard. Even if those opinions are extreme, they make no sense. You can't just say, "oh it's an opinion it's okay they can say whatever the hell they want, I won't judge them"



At what point did I say it's okay for somebody to say whatever they want? People should be respectful with their opinions, that would be great. But there is no opinion police to say which is good or bad. Especially in a subject like this. Not the extreme examples you gave. 
Never in a conversation have I ever heard anybody say ' that is such a bad opinion'. They disagree with it maybe. But I've never debated anything with somebody to be told my opinion is wrong. Because that's ridiculous


----------



## N e s s

He's already said that the wall is getting started, as well as he will begin to ban muslims from certain countries.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Also, you know what I find incredibly ironic? All these people are against raising taxs, yet the only way this worthless wall is getting paid is by the american people. Donald Trump is prioritizing the handful of americans who have been harmed by mexican immigrants while over in Flint Michigan thousands of people have been harmed by the unclean water. Or how about getting people health care?


----------



## cornimer

All I've heard about him doing so far is approving of the pipeline and taking down the climate change, LGBT+ and civil rights webpages. And I heavily disapprove of all of that. So not off to a great start.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

I have a suggestion. Since the EPA is silenced, I suggest we should save the environment ourselves. Plus, did you know eco-friendly methods of everyday life actually cost more money to produce little output? Coal, oil, and natural gas are not just responsible for the CO2 emissions, but what I learned is that they can be used anywhere at any time with no limits. And they cost less money to produce more output. Stuff like solar and wind energy, they may produce no waste or pollution, but they cost more to produce less output. And there are geographical limits to these kind of resources (except solar and biomass). Not only that, but coal and oil had manufacturing purposes rather than just energy.

We also get a lot of CO2 emissions from cars, but electric cars and hybrid cars are more expensive to move more slowly than gas-powered cars. So if you want the government to regulate how we save the environment, you're gonna have to face the consequences of economics.


----------



## deSPIRIA

LinkToTheWorld said:


> At what point did I say it's okay for somebody to say whatever they want? People should be respectful with their opinions, that would be great. But there is no opinion police to say which is good or bad. Especially in a subject like this. Not the extreme examples you gave.


They were extreme for a point. Off topic, but it was for a point. Of course no one would say your opinions were bad because they're not that extreme.
Maybe I misread a few things. But isn't it an opinion to call an opinion good or bad? But then again, everything's subjective.


----------



## DJStarstryker

Apple2012 said:


> We also get a lot of CO2 emissions from cars, but electric cars and hybrid cars are more expensive to move more slowly than gas-powered cars. So if you want the government to regulate how we save the environment, you're gonna have to face the consequences of economics.



They're not more expensive though. I bought a used Prius (hybrid) about a year ago for $10k. It's really easy to get a used Nissan Leaf (electric) for less than $10k. In a country where so many people like to buy brand new $50k+ SUVs and trucks that have love burning gas... yeah. People can afford to buy electrics and hybrids. They just don't. 

People could also learn to not be lazy and walk more. That would help. I had co-workers in my previous job who would literally get in their car to drive to a fast food restaurant across the street for lunch. ACROSS THE STREET!


----------



## seliph

LinkToTheWorld said:


> There is no such thing as a good or bad opinion.
> You can disagree and/or dislike somebody's opinion. That doesn't make your opinion a good one and theirs bad. Even if their opinion reflects badly on them for whatever reason. It's still just that, an opinion.
> 
> I think (or hope) Trump is just trying to make an impression at the moment. I see it as a bit of a novelty to him...
> Hoping that once it wears off the job might lose its shine for him. Could go the opposite way of course



Mmmm sorry but there are definitely good and bad opinions.
If your "opinion" is that those of a different race, religion, sexuality, or gender/gender identity should be treated lesser then your opinion is bad, and that's putting it lightly.


----------



## Leen

LinkToTheWorld said:


> At what point did I say it's okay for somebody to say whatever they want? People should be respectful with their opinions, that would be great. But there is no opinion police to say which is good or bad. Especially in a subject like this. Not the extreme examples you gave.
> Never in a conversation have I ever heard anybody say ' that is such a bad opinion'. They disagree with it maybe. But I've never debated anything with somebody to be told my opinion is wrong. Because that's ridiculous



There's a thing called popular and unpopular opinions for a reason.


----------



## cIementine

i don't agree with his beliefs or the republican view in general, but i can kinda appreciate his work ethic????. while i don't agree with the majority of what he is planning to do, he's at least keeping his promises, which on one hand is frightening for liberals but at least is true to his word. i think the TPP removal is a good thing, but the wall, the white house pages, the pipeline and the muslim registry stuff is bs. he's doing a lot now and it's been less than a week, but it makes me wonder what he's going to do in the rest of his term. it seems he views the country as a business deal and not a constitution. he is benefitting the economy of the country but not the people. 
to add to the discussion about trump/pence being anti-lgbt+, they really are lmao. pence is definitely worse than trump on this though, by far.


----------



## forestyne

I was gonna hold back on replying to this thread, being British and all, but everything that's happened within the past few hours, especially involving the Doomsday Clock, Trump agreeing with torture and no political leaders wanting to meet with him rather than our Prime Minister, I'm strongly inclined to say no.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Then again, what's the point of arguing for? There's nothing you can do that'll make someone go "okay, maybe we should sack this bloke" and move the presidency to someone even more sinister, cheap Pence. I don't like it, but these are the consequences of the actions of voters. (aka ya dun goofed)


----------



## Romaki

No approval and wishing for more education in the US.


----------



## xSuperMario64x

Keep on disapproving ^^ I'll just be sitting here keeping faith in our president no matter how stupid he may sound or act.


----------



## Red Cat

xSuperMario64x said:


> Keep on disapproving ^^ I'll just be sitting here keeping faith in our president no matter how stupid he may sound or act.



Faith is belief without proof, and Trump definitely hasn't done anything to prove that he'll be a good president. I'd put money on Jesus returning to Earth in the next 4 years before I'd put money on Trump becoming a changed man and being a good president.


----------



## Munyo

So right now, he's targeting sanctuary cities. 
I don't approve of that.


----------



## RedRum2514

I can't believe hes actually building the wall, he may be the first politician to go through with his promises! and apparently hes working on deporting immigrants esp ones with a criminal record, which I think is great! why can't australia do that? makes me want to live there now honestly! I really think he may do america some good. I mean a few things hes doing aren't that great, but I think its worth it to get rid of those ungrateful immigrants! and if the immigrants don't like whats hes doing, then they should move back to there own country! and unless they have american blood in them they can gtfo, even if they were born there. I certainly think the way hes going now is a terrible start, but theres room for improvement and I think america will survive, even prosper.

I'm stating MY opinion and I don't require your hate as it wont change my mind! Good day.


----------



## LinkToTheWorld

gyro said:


> Mmmm sorry but there are definitely good and bad opinions.
> If your "opinion" is that those of a different race, religion, sexuality, or gender/gender identity should be treated lesser then your opinion is bad, and that's putting it lightly.



Where on this thread has somebody said anything like that? They haven't. 
That's the idea of debate threads. People have differing opinions and you might not like them or I might not like them but it doesn't mean they're wrong or they 'suck'. Like I said, there's no opinion police to decide who is right or wrong. 
If somebody finds it too difficult to listen to somebody's opinion, respect that it's their opinion and either move along or debate it without being insulting, then they should avoid topics like this.


----------



## LinkToTheWorld

Leen said:


> There's a thing called popular and unpopular opinions for a reason.



Unpopular and popular doesn't mean the same as good and bad.


----------



## Haskell

Munyo said:


> So right now, he's targeting sanctuary cities.
> I don't approve of that.



I approve. Sanctuary cities are breaking the law. Illegals are illegals. Point. Period. Blank.


----------



## deSPIRIA

xSuperMario64x said:


> Keep on disapproving ^^ I'll just be sitting here keeping faith in our president no matter how stupid he may sound or act.



i'm curious. would you still have faith in trump if he did or said something that would cross the line for you? or is there nothing that trump can do that's too far do you think?


----------



## Waluigi

xSuperMario64x said:


> Keep on disapproving ^^ I'll just be sitting here keeping faith in our president no matter how stupid he may sound or act.



Attitudes like this are more dangerous than anything.


----------



## Red Cat

Raskell said:


> I approve. Sanctuary cities are breaking the law. Illegals are illegals. Point. Period. Blank.



Here's some questions for you: Why do you care if Los Angeles or Chicago chooses to harbor illegal immigrants? And what happened to the 10th Amendment and States' rights that conservatives love so much? Trump targeting cities that overwhelmingly voted against him sets a bad precedent and will probably come back to bite conservatives in the ass. If Trump can successfully defund sanctuary cities, then the next Democratic president could defund states that limit abortion access for example and this back-and-forth would get ugly pretty quickly.


----------



## MasterM64

Red Cat said:


> Here's some questions for you: Why do you care if Los Angeles or Chicago chooses to harbor illegal immigrants? And what happened to the 10th Amendment and States' rights that conservatives love so much? Trump targeting cities that overwhelmingly voted against him sets a bad precedent and will probably come back to bite conservatives in the ass. If Trump can successfully defund sanctuary cities, then the next Democratic president could defund states that limit abortion access for example and this back-and-forth would get ugly pretty quickly.



The reason why Trump is going after these cities has nothing to do with the fact that they voted against him. Trump is going after these cities because they are not enforcing immigration laws that require them to collaborate with U.S. immigration authorities which lead to the reporting/detainment/deporting of illegal immigrants. If you enter this nation illegally, you broke the law and should be held accountable like anyone else who breaks the law. How would you feel if someone broke the law and then didn't get punished for it or were given a lesser punishment merely because of political correctness or interest by politicians?


----------



## Red Cat

MasterM64 said:


> How would you feel if someone broke the law and then didn't get punished for it or were given a lesser punishment merely because of political correctness or interest by politicians?


I feel this way when a cop shoots an unarmed black person for no reason and doesn't get punished for it like anyone else who commits murder because they're cops and the politically correct thing to do is to glorify the police and rationalize all of their actions no matter how obviously heinous it appears on the video.


----------



## Soda Fox

Red Cat said:


> Here's some questions for you: Why do you care if Los Angeles or Chicago chooses to harbor illegal immigrants? And what happened to the 10th Amendment and States' rights that conservatives love so much? Trump targeting cities that overwhelmingly voted against him sets a bad precedent and will probably come back to bite conservatives in the ass. If Trump can successfully defund sanctuary cities, then the next Democratic president could defund states that limit abortion access for example and this back-and-forth would get ugly pretty quickly.



I think it's fair. I'm pretty sure the 10th Ammendment states that a state can do as it chooses with its own resources so if the Federal Government cuts funding to that state it's just staying in line with the ammendment.

Same if abortion was federally legal but states didn't comply. Cut funding to that state and let that state handle it's decisions. If the state can't then it will need to follow federal law to get funding again. I don't see anything wrong with that. I just see it as Federal Government is like a parent, if your parent is taking care of you you should follow their rules (of course you can always try to come to a compromise). If you want to live by your own rules then you need to take care of yourself.


----------



## seliph

LinkToTheWorld said:


> Where on this thread has somebody said anything like that? They haven't.
> That's the idea of debate threads. People have differing opinions and you might not like them or I might not like them but it doesn't mean they're wrong or they 'suck'. Like I said, there's no opinion police to decide who is right or wrong.
> If somebody finds it too difficult to listen to somebody's opinion, respect that it's their opinion and either move along or debate it without being insulting, then they should avoid topics like this.



It's an example. Also like it's been said: thinking someone's opinion is bad or that it sucks is also an _opinion_ and you can't say "well you're wrong" about that.
And again, I'm not going to respect someone's opinion if it is dehumanizing anyone. Sorry but not really.


----------



## Red Cat

Soda Fox said:


> I think it's fair. I'm pretty sure the 10th Ammendment states that a state can do as it chooses with its own resources so if the Federal Government cuts funding to that state it's just staying in line with the ammendment.
> 
> Same if abortion was federally legal but states didn't comply. Cut funding to that state and let that state handle it's decisions. If the state can't then it will need to follow federal law to get funding again. I don't see anything wrong with that. I just see it as Federal Government is like a parent, if your parent is taking care of you you should follow their rules (of course you can always try to come to a compromise). If you want to live by your own rules then you need to take care of yourself.



Yeah, except that people living in those cities and states still have to pay federal taxes, so it wouldn't be fair for the federal government to just take money from those places and not give any back. A lot of states have already been disregarding Roe v. Wade, but have still received federal funding because using the money as leverage to control individual communities further polarizes our country which is unhealthy. If Trump wants local communities to enforce federal immigration laws, then he needs to work with those communities to develop solutions instead of playing dictator and ramming stuff down their throats, because all that will lead to is retaliation and retribution in the future.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

MasterM64 said:


> The reason why Trump is going after these cities has nothing to do with the fact that they voted against him. Trump is going after these cities because they are not enforcing immigration laws that require them to collaborate with U.S. immigration authorities which lead to the reporting/detainment/deporting of illegal immigrants. If you enter this nation illegally, you broke the law and should be held accountable like anyone else who breaks the law. How would you feel if someone broke the law and then didn't get punished for it or were given a lesser punishment merely because of political correctness or interest by politicians?



I agree. Foreign matters (such as immigration and terrorism) should be left up to the federal government to decide. It's not to the states or to the cities. In an age of polarization, people would prefer if everything was taken at a federal level, but some things should be left up to the federal government as others are to cities and states.

The federal government should only handle issues like crime and punishment, Bill of Rights issues, foreign issues, and serious issues regarding civil rights, the environment and economics. Examples include the death penalty, protecting endangered animals, suppressing political correctness, and keeping same-sex marriage legal (and yes, it should be legal).

The state governments should take care of issues like moral issues (i.e. abortion), caring for citizens (i.e. Social Security), regulating controversial products (i.e. gun control), and important issues with the economy and environment.

If the law should decide on some things, but shouldn't be up to the state or federal government, it should go to the city government, such as city taxes, ordinances, and the lesser serious issues on the economy and environment (like recycling requirements).

Finally, other issues (like the bathroom debate, obesity, censorship, and behavior codes) should be left to the businesses and institutions, and not to the law. Those issues should stay out of politics.


----------



## piichinu

i read something about trump prioritizing christian refugees!! i definitely dont mind this as christians have been persecuted since long before the war by a certain group of people, also nobody has cared about them throughout this entire war for some reason... so it's good they at least might have a chance of being noticed by ppl now

annd iirc if that isn't feasible he'll close off refugees from syria entirely? i dunno all the details tho.

- - - Post Merge - - -

as for the sanctuary thing, even if it's not what people agree with, law is law and we should have to follow it. it's ok to disapprove of a law and protest against it if they think it's an injustice buuut it doesnt seem like thats whats happening in these states (edit: to clarify i mean like having the actual intent to fight for some changes rather than casually breaking the law). correct me if im wrong tho idk much about this


----------



## xSany

Honestly the US presidency is all a facade, because that country is being ruled not by the previous presidents but by the elite, bankers. The elected presidents are just puppets. Trump is just another puppet, and no matter how hard he preaches about making america great again, no matter what changes he brings it will end up biting the people in the butt eventually. The citizens of the USA are their slaves, their source of income, do the math. I don't see a bright future for the US and the rest of this world. It's time for people to wake up and realise what is happening.


----------



## deSPIRIA

an important thing also: if anyone on the thread has said or had the mindset of, "i want obama back! he was a great man! he did nothing wrong!" take a look at this.


----------



## xSany

Ashvenn said:


> an important thing also: if anyone on the thread has said or had the mindset of, "i want obama back! he was a great man! he did nothing wrong!" take a look at this.
> View attachment 193209



Screw Obama, he was indeed horrible.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Ashvenn said:


> an important thing also: if anyone on the thread has said or had the mindset of, "i want obama back! he was a great man! he did nothing wrong!" take a look at this.
> View attachment 193209



I totally agree with this. Also, George Bush saved more lives than any other president has, even when he declared war on terror in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I know the thread isn't about Bush, but I wanted to add that in case people continue trashing Bush or Trump while praising Obama.


----------



## Red Cat

badgrl2 said:


> i read something about trump prioritizing christian refugees!! i definitely dont mind this as christians have been persecuted since long before the war by a certain group of people, also nobody has cared about them throughout this entire war for some reason... so it's good they at least might have a chance of being noticed by ppl now
> 
> annd iirc if that isn't feasible he'll close off refugees from syria entirely? i dunno all the details tho.



He said that thing about taking Christian refugees during the campaign but then walked it back later. It's almost impossible to do some kind of religious test for refugees to see what religion they really are. Trump now plans on banning all refugees from countries with terrorism problems, and that will include Christians as well as Muslims. So basically, the Christians in that area are getting screwed by Trump because once again, instead of coming up with a well-thought-out policy, Trump is going with an easy blanket plan that won't work and will have unintended consequences.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Apple2012 said:


> I totally agree with this. Also, George Bush saved more lives than any other president has, even when he declared war on terror in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I know the thread isn't about Bush, but I wanted to add that in case people continue trashing Bush or Trump while praising Obama.



WTF? Between 9/11 happening during his presidency and starting 2 wars which killed hundreds of thousands of people, Bush _saved_ lives? Obama was far from perfect, but at least he left office with a much higher approval rating than Bush.


----------



## moonford

Red Cat said:


> He said that thing about taking Christian refugees during the campaign but then walked it back later. It's almost impossible to do some kind of religious test for refugees to see what religion they really are. Trump now plans on banning all refugees from countries with terrorism problems, and that will include Christians as well as Muslims. So basically, the Christians in that area are getting screwed by Trump because once again, instead of coming up with a well-thought-out policy, Trump is going with an easy blanket plan that won't work and will have unintended consequences.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? Between 9/11 happening during his presidency and starting 2 wars which killed hundreds of thousands of people, Bush saved lives? Obama was far from perfect, but at least he left office with a much higher approval rating than Bush.



I was just about to say, Bush killed over 1 million innocent people in Iraq.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Red Cat said:


> WTF? Between 9/11 happening during his presidency and starting 2 wars which killed hundreds of thousands of people, Bush _saved_ lives? Obama was far from perfect, but at least he left office with a much higher approval rating than Bush.



He only started the wars to capture the islamic fascists, not kill innocent beings. As for those who said he invaded Iraq for oil, I not just disagree. I have an antipathy for people who believe that.


----------



## moonford

Apple2012 said:


> He only started the wars to capture the islamic fascists, not kill innocent beings. As for those who said he invaded Iraq for oil, I not just disagree. I have an antipathy for people who believe that.



Yes but he still killed innocent people, it doesn't matter what the motivation was, he still killed over 1 million innocent people, disgusting and you feel a deep dislike for people believing he invaded Iraq for oil? Very intolerant, you criticize left wingers for being 'more intolerant' than right wingers yet you have constantly shown hate for those who have views that oppose yours and another thing I can't believe your defending that filthy old man.


----------



## Red Cat

Apple2012 said:


> He only started the wars to capture the islamic fascists, not kill innocent beings. As for those who said he invaded Iraq for oil, I not just disagree. I have an antipathy for people who believe that.



Um... when a war is started, troops and innocent people are going to die whether that's the intention or not. That's what a war is. That's why military action should only be used when it's really, really necessary. In the case of Iraq, it wasn't necessary. Saddam Hussein was a bad dude, but he didn't represent an imminent threat to other countries. I don't know why or how the Iraq War got started, but most people agree in retrospect that the war was a terrible decision and destabilized the region in addition to the many lives that were lost.


----------



## Haskell

Ashvenn said:


> i'm curious. would you still have faith in trump if he did or said something that would cross the line for you? or is there nothing that trump can do that's too far do you think?



I think he is extremely being moronic and unintelligent on the supposed three million illegals voting in the 2016 election.

There is voter fraud. SOME illegals vote. SOME do vote in two states. SOME are just registered to vote in two states. Voter fraud is voter fraud. He was attacking it on the campaign, he's attacking it now. How he's attacking it and what he thinks of the estimates is what I am saying is moronic and very unintelligent.


----------



## xSany

No matter what, they still have innocent blood on their hands, that will never be forgiven. If all i think those murderers ( that's what they are) should be publicly executed. Really i have no respect for people who defend those who commited mass murder on innocent people, this isn't about religion these wars are only for money and stealing land. Open your eyes. Also look up the definition of terrorism, has nothing to do with religion or whatever, but it has everything to do with government. Seriously do some research and don't believe what the media is feeding you, cuz they are feeding you lies, lies and more lies. #Brainwash #ZombieNation.


----------



## Munyo

Honestly, Obama was a mess. He ignored DAPL until later. He sent drones and killed many civilians. Reading the individual stories from the victims' families was disturbing. Not sure where his mind was.
But that doesn't excuse Trump's actions. It's just both horrible people.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Another thing I approve of Trump is that he's doing what he promised to do. He made a couple promises since the election to the inauguration, and he is fulfilling them quickly. Obama was bad at keeping up to his promises. He made some in 2008, failed on a couple of them in 2012. But Obama isn't the only president who had a bad record of failing to do what he promised.


----------



## Haskell

My president, Donald J. Trump is putting America first. We, the great nation of Mercia' has had this mentality that we need to be the world police. Since Trump is destroying that mentality, many are angry and confused. 

Employment is only in the 70s in the U.S terroritory of Puerto Rico. In the 20s for unemployement. That means practically one out of four people are unemployed. Why not assist Puerto Rico?

Veterans in America are NOT getting the care they deserve. There was this veteran who got a cut wound on his leg... later he ended up dead. Dead. Dead. When the coroner was examining his body there were maggots for crying out loud! Only a few hours later after his death! A few hours! Tf? Also, look at that veteran that committed suicide in the parking lot for being denied medical treatment! ��

We're trillions of dollars in debt? Why? Our economy is garbage. We don't tax the same like other countries do for imports. 

There are many things wrong with ourselves that we need to fix and work on before focusing on other countries. We're too busy trying to police the world rather than focus on ourselves. We need to be selfish. Why don't the countries who are in the Middle East with billions in their government help themselves?


----------



## misakixx

im not an american but he already banned entry to us from 7 different countries for 90 days and i heard they can even cause americans not being able to return home.
he also signed  an executive order for 2 controversial pipelines which will basically ef up the environment and destroy native american burials and pollute the water. he thinks it will create jobs while studies have shown otherwise.
sounds like hes doing a real ****job.
hes starting on the wall while he doesnt even have enough money to pay for it and mexico refuses to pay for it (gotta love that) so he will most likely use tax money. meanwhile they could spend that money on education or improving their healthcare first. i think they still have veterans on the streets there like america what you doing D: and like repealing obamacare will do anything good when he doesnt seem to have a plan to replace it yet. :/


----------



## nintendofan85

misakixx said:


> im not an american but he already banned entry to us from 7 different countries for 90 days and i heard they can even cause americans not being able to return home.
> he also signed  an executive order for 2 controversial pipelines which will basically ef up the environment and destroy native american burials and pollute the water. he thinks it will create jobs while studies have shown otherwise.
> sounds like hes doing a real ****job.
> hes starting on the wall while he doesnt even have enough money to pay for it and mexico refuses to pay for it (gotta love that) so he will most likely use tax money. meanwhile they could spend that money on education or improving their healthcare first. i think they still have veterans on the streets there like america what you doing D: and like repealing obamacare will do anything good when he doesnt seem to have a plan to replace it yet. :/



He says he's on the side of the veterans but I don't see why the wall would have to be more important.


----------



## DJStarstryker

misakixx said:


> im not an american but he already banned entry to us from 7 different countries for 90 days and i heard they can even cause americans not being able to return home.
> he also signed  an executive order for 2 controversial pipelines which will basically ef up the environment and destroy native american burials and pollute the water. he thinks it will create jobs while studies have shown otherwise.
> sounds like hes doing a real ****job.
> hes starting on the wall while he doesnt even have enough money to pay for it and mexico refuses to pay for it (gotta love that) so he will most likely use tax money. meanwhile they could spend that money on education or improving their healthcare first. i think they still have veterans on the streets there like america what you doing D: and like repealing obamacare will do anything good when he doesnt seem to have a plan to replace it yet. :/



Yeah, I just read about this. I lived overseas for 3 years. The idea that Trump is causing US citizens who haven't done anything wrong to get arrested - ones that were on planes while this happened and had NO WARNING - is completely ridiculous and kinda terrifying. What country is he going to lock down next? He complains about China and taking away jobs. Is he going to block people coming from China next? And then US citizens who are coming back on the plane from their vacation to China to visit the Great Wall and such will get arrested or kicked out of the country?

WTF. No. Just no.


----------



## Waluigi

With the new immigration laws in place, it's good that we're keeping them immigrants out of the US entirely. They'd be making a mistake moving to the US with how trump's running it.


----------



## Haskell

Brush. The pipeline will have us have moderate gas prices when we get out of NAFTA. .-.
"Causing Americans not to go home." Bruh. That's fake news. Lol

- - - Post Merge - - -



Waluigi said:


> With the new immigration laws in place, it's good that we're keeping them immigrants out of the US entirely. They'd be making a mistake moving to the US with how trump's running it.


You mean deporting illegals like any other country does? K...

- - - Post Merge - - -



DJStarstryker said:


> Yeah, I just read about this. I lived overseas for 3 years. The idea that Trump is causing US citizens who haven't done anything wrong to get arrested - ones that were on planes while this happened and had NO WARNING - is completely ridiculous and kinda terrifying. What country is he going to lock down next? He complains about China and taking away jobs. Is he going to block people coming from China next? And then US citizens who are coming back on the plane from their vacation to China to visit the Great Wall and such will get arrested or kicked out of the country?



Where do you come up with these assumptions? Lol. It is common for POTUSes to block immigration from terror stricken regions. .-.

- - - Post Merge - - -



nintendofan85 said:


> He says he's on the side of the veterans but I don't see why the wall would have to be more important.



Hmmm... I wonder why many veterans support him then? Maybe because he's on their side... .-.

- - - Post Merge - - -



misakixx said:


> D: and like repealing obamacare will do anything good when he doesnt seem to have a plan to replace it yet. :/



Ok then? Have you been keeping up with current events?


----------



## Red Cat

Trump has been in office for about 10 days and he's already managed to piss off at least 10 countries. At this rate, Trump will be able to accomplish something in his first 100 days that no other U.S. president has: to make the entire rest of the world hate the United States.


----------



## Haskell

Red Cat said:


> Trump has been in office for about 10 days and he's already managed to piss off at least 10 countries. At this rate, Trump will be able to accomplish something in his first 100 days that no other U.S. president has: to make the entire rest of the world hate the United States.



He's changing things for the better. Um, Britian wants him to visit. lol >3 Um, Russia wants to work with US to defeat ISIS. Uh, China wants to meet. >3

He's not letting America get stepped on. He's putting us first.


I thought political threads were done. .-. *sigh* Hello, addictive habit. I'm Issac.


----------



## Koden

Red Cat said:


> Trump has been in office for about 10 days and he's already managed to piss off at least 10 countries. At this rate, Trump will be able to accomplish something in his first 100 days that no other U.S. president has: to make the entire rest of the world hate the United States.



hopefully one day something clicks in his head...in fact im surprised that with the amount of time he spends writing idiotic comments on social media that hes even gotten anything done. good on him.


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> hopefully one day something clicks in his head...in fact im surprised that with the amount of time he spends writing idiotic comments on social media that hes even gotten anything done. good on him.



He's using twitter as a platform to stay engaged with his supporters and for politics. But.. I guess I have to concede to the fact that many Americans, even his supporters, want him to stop using twitter.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> He's changing things for the better. Um, Britian wants him to visit. lol >3 Um, Russia wants to work with US to defeat ISIS. Uh, China wants to meet. >3
> 
> He's not letting America get stepped on. He's putting us first.
> 
> 
> I thought political threads were done. .-. *sigh* Hello, addictive habit. I'm Issac.



Wow! 3 countries VS at least 10. How is he changing things for the better btw?

Another note: "America first" was also the slogan used by the fascists in WWII, just a random fact I'm gonna throw out there

Another another note: Legit question wtf is >3


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> He's using twitter as a platform to stay engaged with his supporters and for politics. But.. I guess I have to concede to the fact that many Americans, even his supporters, want him to stop using twitter.



i have nothing against him using social media, its what he puts on it thats the problem

- - - Post Merge - - -



gyro said:


> Wow! 3 countries VS at least 10. How is he changing things for the better btw?
> 
> Another note: "America first" was also the slogan used by the fascists in WWII, just a random fact I'm gonna throw out there
> 
> Another another note: Legit question wtf is >3



most of those countries are going to end up hating us in the end anyways


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> i have nothing against him using social media, its what he puts on it thats the problem



I agree that twitter causes problems for him. I don't agree why however.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Koden said:


> most of those countries are going to end up hating us in the end anyways



uh, countries aren't going to change their opinion as quick as you might think. not the government, at least. 

n. korea has been shouting "death to us" for a while. so has other countries.


I have to respectfully disagree.


----------



## seliph

Koden said:


> most of those countries are going to end up hating us in the end anyways



Honestly I'm pretty sure you're already on China's bad side with all the crap Trump's said about them. Wanting to meet doesn't mean "we're friends now".

Not really sure about Britain.


----------



## Koden

gyro said:


> Honestly I'm pretty sure you're already on China's bad side with all the crap Trump's said about them. Wanting to meet doesn't mean "we're friends now".
> 
> Not really sure about Britain.



I agree, especially with that whole global warming fiasco


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> I agree, especially with that whole global warming fiasco



Trump has respected evidence by 25% of scientists and by many people that global warming is a hoax.

Just keep in mind the guy he put up for EPA does believe in global warming. >3


----------



## Red Cat

Raskell said:


> Um, Britian wants him to visit.



Um, no. There is currently a petition in the U.K. to ban Trump from visiting. That's the opposite of wanting him to visit. Many MPs there have condemned the executive order.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> Trump has respected evidence by 25% of scientists and by many people that global warming is a hoax.
> 
> Just keep in mind the guy he put up for EPA does believe in global warming. >3



... Do you think 25% is good...



Red Cat said:


> Um, no. There is currently a petition in the U.K. to ban Trump from visiting. That's the opposite of wanting him to visit. Many MPs have condemned the executive order.



I'm wheezing omg how haven't I heard about this


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> Trump has respected evidence by 25% of scientists and by many people that global warming is a hoax.
> 
> Just keep in mind the guy he put up for EPA does believe in global warming. >3



the scientists that give him the evidence are working for him for a reason. you cant exactly alter facts, but it seems that idea is being throw down the toilet


----------



## Haskell

Red Cat said:


> Um, no. There is currently a petition in the U.K. to ban Trump from visiting. That's the opposite of wanting him to visit. Many MPs there have condemned the executive order.



Ok. I respectfully disagree. I'm heading to bed.

Goodnight, Red Cat! ^_^


----------



## Koden

Red Cat said:


> Um, no. There is currently a petition in the U.K. to ban Trump from visiting. That's the opposite of wanting him to visit. Many MPs there have condemned the executive order.



seriously? man thats incredible. lucky Britian


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> the scientists that give him the evidence are working for him for a reason. you cant exactly alter facts, but it seems that idea is being throw down the toilet



Scientists that have came out and said it in 2006-2016... I'm not even sure he has any business in the sciences. He used to have them with hotels, golf courses that openly and have openly admitted gay couples and minorities,


----------



## LambdaDelta

I can't believe we're already at Saturday Night Massacre R2

ps I lied


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> seriously? man thats incredible. lucky Britian




Look at what is happening with Europe though. 

13% of refugees say they support ISIS.

Ok, I seriously need to go to bed. Debate you all later.. >3


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> Ok. I respectfully disagree. I'm heading to bed.
> 
> Goodnight, Red Cat! ^_^



Y

You can't

You can't "disagree" with whether something is literally happening right now or not w h a t

That's like me going "I respectfully disagree that Red Cat has commented in this thread"


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> Scientists that have came out and said it in 2006-2016... I'm not even sure he has any business in the sciences. He used to have them with hotels, golf courses that openly and have openly admitted gay couples and minorities,



so he had business that are open to minorities, good for him, earning more money off of them, that doesnt mean he himself wants anything to do with them

- - - Post Merge - - -



gyro said:


> Y
> 
> You can't
> 
> You can't "disagree" with whether something is literally happening right now or not w h a t
> 
> That's like me going "I respectfully disagree that Red Cat has commented in this thread"



"alternative facts"


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> so he had business that are open to minorities, good for him, earning more money off of them, that doesnt mean he himself wants anything to do with them



at that time, it hurt his business hun

Ok! Debate later. I'm serious this time. See ya'll l8ter!


----------



## LambdaDelta

also **** this ****ing breitbart nazi being appointed to the nsc

anyone want to tell me about how trump's administration isn't just a bunch of fascists now?


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> at that time, it hurt his business hun
> 
> Ok! Debate later. I'm serious this time. See ya'll l8ter!



dont call me that lol. rest up <3

- - - Post Merge - - -



LambdaDelta said:


> also **** this ****ing breitbart nazi being appointed to the nsc
> 
> anyone want to tell me about how trump's administration isn't just a bunch of fascists now?



also, agreed.


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> dont call me that lol. rest up <3
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> also, agreed.



It's a Texan thing, but sure! ^_^ Ok! Good night everyone!


----------



## Red Cat

gyro said:


> Y
> 
> You can't
> 
> You can't "disagree" with whether something is literally happening right now or not w h a t
> 
> That's like me going "I respectfully disagree that Red Cat has commented in this thread"



Or like when Tom respectfully disagrees that Raskell has commented on a thread. Oh wait... That's a little different.


----------



## LambdaDelta

I think we're *all* respectfully disagreeing that Raskell comments on threads tbh


----------



## Koden

LambdaDelta said:


> I think we're *all* respectfully disagreeing that Raskell comments on threads tbh



hes not a bad person, he just digs holes for himself sometimes, we all disagree on one thing or another


----------



## Red Cat

LambdaDelta said:


> I think we're *all* respectfully disagreeing that Raskell comments on threads tbh



It gives us useful insight into the brain or possibly lack thereof of a Trump supporter.


----------



## MorningStar

Sidestepping the arguing in the thread itself to put in my very brief reply to the thread itself.

Trump hasn't quite been president long enough to do any of the horrible crap I'm afraid he's gonna do. But the fact he's president at all makes me fear for my future. I guess my actual answer to this thread is, I'm scared, and I'm skeptical, but we will see.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Koden said:


> hes not a bad person, he just digs holes for himself sometimes, we all disagree on one thing or another



I mean there's a clear difference between disagreeing with a thing and just constantly being flat-out full of **** about it

Apple2012 is someone I disagree with on a ton of things, but at least he generally know what he's talking about


----------



## Alolan_Apples

LambdaDelta said:


> I mean there's a clear difference between disagreeing with a thing and just constantly being flat-out full of **** about it
> 
> Apple2012 is someone I disagree with on a ton of things, but at least he generally know what he's talking about



Now that is true, at least the second part. And guess what. The Time publication has reported that the Republicans are turning their backs on Trump. That's how extreme his immigration block is. If even the Republicans in Congress can't tolerate this, then he has serious issues. I know they already hate Ted Cruz. Just like how the left wing is hating on the extreme left, the right wing is hating on the extreme right. Even I can't sympathize for the right-winged extremists, such as McCarthyists and crony capitalists.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Apple2012 said:


> Now that is true, at least the second part. And guess what. The Time publication has reported that the Republicans are turning their backs on Trump. That's how extreme his immigration block is. If even the Republicans in Congress can't tolerate this, then he has serious issues. I know they already hate Ted Cruz. Just like how the left wing is hating on the extreme left, the right wing is hating on the extreme right. Even I can't sympathize for the right-winged extremists, such as McCarthyists and crony capitalists.



well that's good at least. I'll accept anyone, right or left, that opposes this clear authoritarian power grab

we can get back to disagreeing with each other, but also having general respect for the system and its laws made to check the powers in place, afterwards


----------



## Lululand

Welp, kinda hard to agree with him with the whole Visa mess he's caused the other day...


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> hes not a bad person, he just digs holes for himself sometimes, we all disagree on one thing or another



Just because I have a different opinion. Doesn't mean that's wrong.

I understand and acknowledge I'm on a community with a strong liberal vibe. No one else who supports Trump wants to talk about it because a) they don't care b) their reputation will fall c) it's not worth it d) they'll get attacked.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Lululand said:


> Welp, kinda hard to agree with him with the whole Visa mess he's caused the other day...



You mean the logical Visa thing? >3

- - - Post Merge - - -



Apple2012 said:


> Now that is true, at least the second part. And guess what. The Time publication has reported that the Republicans are turning their backs on Trump. That's how extreme his immigration block is. If even the Republicans in Congress can't tolerate this, then he has serious issues. I know they already hate Ted Cruz. Just like how the left wing is hating on the extreme left, the right wing is hating on the extreme right. Even I can't sympathize for the right-winged extremists, such as McCarthyists and crony capitalists.



"Republicans" are turning "their backs" because of the liberal bias against them. People are getting attacked (literally) for having their own opinion.

Trump has the guts to do what needs to be done.


----------



## visibleghost

lmao raskall people are being attacked literally for being themselves, you all with your hateful opinions are attacked or w/e because you are saying and doing ****ty, hateful, bigoted things. 
it isn't on the same level as opression of minorities so dont say that "fighting hate with hate is bad !!!" thing Please

anyways im waiting for trump to die lmao can the lizard people step up and do their job Thanks


----------



## DJStarstryker

While I want Trump out, I also don't want Pence to take charge either. You guys gotta remember that if Trump dies/steps down/is impeached/whatever, Pence gets to take over.


----------



## Corrie

To be honest, at this point, trump is not in this for the country, he is in it for himself and his business deals which is totally awful. I want that idiot to get impeached asap. Get him out!!


----------



## mondogecko9

Just don't talk Politics in general; Politics and Religion are the two things that humans either find out what they believe, or are born into it, and forced into believing whatever their parents, and their parents, and their parents, and so on. It will get you nowhere to try and change it for another person.


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> Just because I have a different opinion. Doesn't mean that's wrong.
> 
> I understand and acknowledge I'm on a community with a strong liberal vibe. No one else who supports Trump wants to talk about it because a) they don't care b) their reputation will fall c) it's not worth it d) they'll get attacked.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the logical Visa thing? >3
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> "Republicans" are turning "their backs" because of the liberal bias against them. People are getting attacked (literally) for having their own opinion.
> 
> Trump has the guts to do what needs to be done.



i never once said that your opinion was wrong, so dont go pulling words out of nowhere if you could kindly manage that

- - - Post Merge - - -



Corrie said:


> To be honest, at this point, trump is not in this for the country, he is in it for himself and his business deals which is totally awful. I want that idiot to get impeached asap. Get him out!!



the thing is that as of now, he may be making unintelligent choices but not enough to get him impeached, and I feel like that is exactly how the entire presidency is going to be.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Koden said:


> the thing is that as of now, he may be making unintelligent choices but not enough to get him impeached, and I feel like that is exactly how the entire presidency is going to be.



Trump did the same thing Andrew Johnson did that got him impeached. But by today's standards, Johnson was wrongfully impeached. If Trump did stuff like lying about scandals he was engaged in, sharing nuclear secrets with one of the enemies, or actually done other highly illegal things, he would get impeached. Some stuff like Nixon's Watergate Scandal, Reagan's Iran-Contra Scandal, and Clinton's Lewinsky Scandal are actually normal for politicians. Although they are bad, they aren't worth impeaching for. Stuff that Obama did to us that was horrible, as well as Trump's refugee block, are acts of corruption (which are neither impeachable offenses nor scandals). I do believe that being corrupt should get you impeached, but that would result in all future presidents facing impeachment.

The bad news is, Trump is not gonna get impeached. The Republicans wished Obama got impeached too, but he didn't do anything in office worth impeaching for.


----------



## Koden

Apple2012 said:


> Trump did the same thing Andrew Johnson did that got him impeached. But by today's standards, Johnson was wrongfully impeached. If Trump did stuff like lying about scandals he was engaged in, sharing nuclear secrets with one of the enemies, or actually done other highly illegal things, he would get impeached. Some stuff like Nixon's Watergate Scandal, Reagan's Iran-Contra Scandal, and Clinton's Lewinsky Scandal are actually normal for politicians. Although they are bad, they aren't worth impeaching for. Stuff that Obama did to us that was horrible, as well as Trump's refugee block, are acts of corruption (which are neither impeachable offenses nor scandals). I do believe that being corrupt should get you impeached, but that would result in all future presidents facing impeachment.
> 
> The bad news is, Trump is not gonna get impeached. The Republicans wished Obama got impeached too, but he didn't do anything in office worth impeaching for.



It's kind of like they do just enough so that they won't be impeached, but also enough to upset a majority of the country. It's a strange middle ground


----------



## visibleghost

DJStarstryker said:


> While I want Trump out, I also don't want Pence to take charge either. You guys gotta remember that if Trump dies/steps down/is impeached/whatever, Pence gets to take over.



the lizards will take care of that too :>>>>

no but in all seriousness ik that. but, like, i hate trump and want to get rid of him. idk what pence would do tho. preferably i would just like someone who doesnt want to take away human rights and someone who isnt a racist, sexist, homophobic butthole as president but Yeah

- - - Post Merge - - -

also lmao impeached is a funny word i imagine someone being put in a peach costume but i guess thats not what it means. from context i guess it is something bad that maybe would make him unable to keep being the president, but i like the idea of putting him in a giant peach too


----------



## Koden

visibleghost said:


> the lizards will take care of that too :>>>>
> 
> no but in all seriousness ik that. but, like, i hate trump and want to get rid of him. idk what pence would do tho. preferably i would just like someone who doesnt want to take away human rights and someone who isnt a racist, sexist, homophobic butthole as president but Yeah
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> also lmao impeached is a funny word i imagine someone being put in a peach costume but i guess thats not what it means. from context i guess it is something bad that maybe would make him unable to keep being the president, but i like the idea of putting him in a giant peach too



oh, wait, youve never heard the word impeached?


----------



## visibleghost

Koden said:


> oh, wait, youve never heard the word impeached?



nah english isnt my first language and i rarely read about actual politicians in english so /:


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> You mean the logical Visa thing? >3



wow, I didn't know that denying legal citizens entry was "logical"

or denying citizens from countries where no terrorist attacks on us in recent history have come from, but allowing countries where we have had terrorist attacks, simply because they're a part of Trump's business empire

oh, and let's not forget that pesky "separation of church and state" thingy


ps for all the bull**** lies about "safety", they actually just basically gave ISIS its biggest recruitment tool yet. and I've no doubt that they're actually hoping for another terrorist attack by middle-eastern groups, simply so they can lay claim to needing even tighter restrictions. it's how fascists work, after all


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> wow, I didn't know that denying legal citizens entry was "logical"
> 
> or denying citizens from countries where no terrorist attacks on us in recent history have come from, but allowing countries where we have had terrorist attacks, simply because they're a part of Trump's business empire
> 
> oh, and let's not forget that pesky "separation of church and state" thingy
> 
> 
> ps for all the bull**** lies about "safety", they actually just basically gave ISIS its biggest recruitment tool yet. and I've no doubt that they're actually hoping for another terrorist attack by middle-eastern groups, simply so they can lay claim to needing even tighter restrictions. it's how fascists work, after all



13% of Syrian Refugees say they support ISIS. Those are just the ones that aren't smart enough to hide their support. 

Do I think all of Syrian Refugees are bad? No! Do I think Trump is right on the refugee ban? Yes! So does more than half of America according to recent polling. >3

He's not banning legal citizens. lol www.fakenews.com

- - - Post Merge - - -



LambdaDelta said:


> wow, I didn't know that denying legal citizens entry was "logical"
> 
> or denying citizens from countries where no terrorist attacks on us in recent history have come from, but allowing countries where we have had terrorist attacks, simply because they're a part of Trump's business empire
> 
> oh, and let's not forget that pesky "separation of church and state" thingy
> 
> 
> ps for all the bull**** lies about "safety", they actually just basically gave ISIS its biggest recruitment tool yet. and I've no doubt that they're actually hoping for another terrorist attack by middle-eastern groups, simply so they can lay claim to needing even tighter restrictions. it's how fascists work, after all



People of Obama's administration even named those countries that Trump is naming to be a terror of region. It's just different because.... it's a white man. Y'know?


----------



## Red Cat

Raskell said:


> People of Obama's administration even named those countries that Trump is naming to be a terror of region. It's just different because.... it's a white man. Y'know?



Obama's administration said it was unsafe to travel to those countries. They didn't say it was unsafe for people to travel to the U.S. It's a lot harder to do terrorism in the U.S. than it is in those countries. That and our screening system already did a good job at weeding out terrorists from entering. There have been many more terrorists coming over from Saudi Arabia than those countries combined, but it just so happens that Trump has hotels there so that country is not on the list. So even if Trump believes immigrants from the Middle East are high risk, he is willing to put his business interests over the safety of the U.S.


----------



## Haskell

Red Cat said:


> Obama's administration said it was unsafe to travel to those countries. They didn't say it was unsafe for people to travel to the U.S. It's a lot harder to do terrorism in the U.S. than it is in those countries. That and our screening system already did a good job at weeding out terrorists from entering. There have been many more terrorists coming over from Saudi Arabia than those countries combined, but it just so happens that Trump has hotels there. So even if Trump believes immigrants from the Middle East are high risk, he is willing to put his business interests over the safety of the U.S.



Good job? Look at Fort Hood, Orlando, California! It's not doing a good enough job. 

He is putting the safety of the U.S over support. That's what a good POTUS does. He got rid of all ties to his business. "[


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> He got rid of all ties to his business. "[



clearly not, when all the allowed countries in the region conveniently happen to also be counties with business ties


----------



## Red Cat

Raskell said:


> Good job? Look at Fort Hood, Orlando, California! It's not doing a good enough job.
> 
> He is putting the safety of the U.S over support. That's what a good POTUS does. He got rid of all ties to his business. "[



The Fort Hood and Orlando shooters as well as one of the the San Bernadino shooters were born in the U.S. Do you just assume that every Muslim or brown-skinned person is an immigrant? Now there will probably be more American-born terrorists since the president is hostile towards Islam and Muslims.

Trump did not get rid of all of his business ties. He gave his business to his kids who can probably call daddy at any time and ask for a favor. That's why Saudi Arabia isn't on the ban list, because even though there are terrorists born in that country, Trump doesn't want to piss off the Saudis who could retaliate against his businesses there.


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> Good job? Look at Fort Hood, Orlando, California! It's not doing a good enough job.
> 
> He is putting the safety of the U.S over support. That's what a good POTUS does. He got rid of all ties to his business. "[


You realize his ban of immigrants from those muslim majority countries would stop exactly none of those if they were in effect then

- - - Post Merge - - -

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/seal-american-girl-die-first-trump-era-u-s-military-n714346
look at Trump's first military raid, an 8 year old was killed wow nice


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> You realize his ban of immigrants from those muslim majority countries would stop exactly none of those if they were in effect then
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/seal-american-girl-die-first-trump-era-u-s-military-n714346
> look at Trump's first military raid, an 8 year old was killed wow nice



You do realize that there are causalities during war, right? wow.

Trump didn't kill that eight year old. The extremists of the beautiful religion of Islam did.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Dixx said:


> You realize his ban of immigrants from those muslim majority countries would stop exactly none of those if they were in effect then



Can I borrow your crystal ball? 

You realize that if something not's working... we should stop and change that something... failed policies by democrats. Look at Chicago! Perfect example! Been under "liberal rule" for a while... decades!

- - - Post Merge - - -



Red Cat said:


> The Fort Hood and Orlando shooters as well as one of the the San Bernadino shooters were born in the U.S. Do you just assume that every Muslim or brown-skinned person is an immigrant? Now there will probably be more American-born terrorists since the president is hostile towards Islam and Muslims.
> 
> Trump did not get rid of all of his business ties. He gave his business to his kids who can probably call daddy at any time and ask for a favor. That's why Saudi Arabia isn't on the ban list, because even though there are terrorists born in that country, Trump doesn't want to piss off the Saudis who could retaliate against his businesses there.



Lol, ok. Sources? .3.

As Trump said, "The truth always comes out!"


Which person does America trust more? Trump or Hillary?
Trump > Hillary


----------



## tumut

we shouldn't even be bombing the middle east lol what we need to do is cut off the supply of weapons from ISIS and terror groups not bomb the region and kill civilians I thought republicans were pro-life lol I guess that doesn't count if ur muslim


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> we shouldn't even be bombing the middle east lol what we need to do is cut off the supply of weapons from ISIS and terror groups not bomb the region and kill civilians I thought republicans were pro-life lol I guess that doesn't count if ur muslim



Failed policies. It hasn't been working... ISIS has grown, tripled their territory since Barack took office! :-(

So now you're calling me a xenophobe? Cool. Call me that. .3. You don't know one thing about me. I happen to have several Muslim friends that have no problem for me supporting Trump. Most of them support Trump too. I also have to had stuck up for an actual xenophobic comment. Trump is doing what no one else has the guts to do, thankfully. It's tough, but it has to be done.


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> You do realize that there are causalities during war, right? wow.
> 
> Trump didn't kill that eight year old. The extremists of the beautiful religion of Islam did.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> Can I borrow your crystal ball?
> 
> You realize that if something not's working... we should stop and change that something... failed policies by democrats. Look at Chicago! Perfect example! Been under "liberal rule" for a while... decades!


Maybe because the Chicago police force doesn't do their job and enforce anti-gun policies and let guns be trafficked into the state from Missouri and Indiana. Also like the poorest, most miserable states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky) have been under republican rule so that argument is weak af

And yes, the drone strike that the POTUS directly ordered killed two Americans, America first XD.


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> Maybe because the Chicago police force doesn't do their job and enforce anti-gun policies and let guns be trafficked into the state from Missouri and Indiana. Also like the poorest, most miserable states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky) have been under republican rule so that argument is weak af
> 
> And yes, the drone strike that the POTUS directly ordered killed two Americans, America first XD.



So what you're saying is that... police suck, Trump is anti-American, Louisiana is poor, Mississippi is poor, Alabama is poor, Kentucky is poor. K... 

Sources? .3. 'drone attack'


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> Failed policies. It hasn't been working... ISIS has grown, tripled their territory since Barack took office! :-(
> 
> So now you're calling me a xenophobe? Cool. Call me that. .3. You don't know one thing about me. I happen to have several Muslim friends that have no problem for me supporting Trump. Most of them support Trump too. I also have to had stuck up for an actual xenophobic comment. Trump is doing what no one else has the guts to do, thankfully. It's tough, but it has to be done.
> 
> View attachment 193533


Are u assuming I approve of Obama's actions? He was a medicocre president and it's sad and ironic he even won the novel peace prize

Also "i have muslim friends xd I'm not a xenophobe" is as bad as "i have black friends what do u mean I'm not racist". You certainly support xenophobic policies anyway.


----------



## Trent the Paladin

DJStarstryker said:


> While I want Trump out, I also don't want Pence to take charge either. You guys gotta remember that if Trump dies/steps down/is impeached/whatever, Pence gets to take over.


Pence seems to have a brain at least which is a step up from Cheeto Dumptruck. If they keep disregarding the constitution ya keep pushing back, keep challenging them. 

Also Trump was banning legal citizens.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> Which person does America trust more? Trump or Hillary?
> Trump > Hillary




Given that Hillary won the popular vote, I'm fairly certain Hillary > Trump would be more accurate


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> So what you're saying is that... police suck, Trump is anti-American, Louisiana is poor, Mississippi is poor, Alabama is poor, Kentucky is poor. K...
> 
> Sources? .3. 'drone attack'







from the ny times


----------



## Red Cat

Tom said:


> Pence seems to have a brain at least which is a step up from Cheeto Dumptruck. If they keep disregarding the constitution ya keep pushing back, keep challenging them.
> 
> Also Trump was banning legal citizens.



That's a good nickname for Trump.


----------



## Haskell

Tom said:


> Pence seems to have a brain at least which is a step up from Cheeto Dumptruck. If they keep disregarding the constitution ya keep pushing back, keep challenging them.
> 
> Also Trump was banning legal citizens.



Either give sources to him banning legal citizens or stop talking about it, please. >3

- - - Post Merge - - -



Dixx said:


> from the ny times




That's a map... could be from anyone. You could say 'ny times' but... Source? Actual source? Link to their website where they represented that map?

And I was looking for the 'drone attacks'.

- - - Post Merge - - -



LambdaDelta said:


> Given that Hillary won the popular vote, I'm fairly certain Hillary > Trump would be more accurate



The electoral college is much more sophisticated and complicated.

Hillary was also a women. She was guaranteed a few k votes from artards.

And... voter fraud. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...voting-–-by-the-millions/ar-AAmqoG2?ocid=iehp


----------



## tumut

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/the-poorest-states-of-america/
I said it was from the NY times...here u go

Not to mention the Southern states also have some of the highest crime rates


----------



## LambdaDelta

DJStarstryker said:


> While I want Trump out, I also don't want Pence to take charge either. You guys gotta remember that if Trump dies/steps down/is impeached/whatever, Pence gets to take over.



tbh, I'm not as worried about that anymore, since at this point it's clear that Trump won't be the only one gutted out of power. if it comes down to it, we'll almost certainly be having Watergate-levels of governmental staff removal


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> tbh, I'm not as worried about that anymore, since at this point it's clear that Trump won't be the only one gutted out of power. if it comes down to it, we'll almost certainly be having Watergate-levels of governmental staff removal



That would have happened if Killary got elected.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Dixx said:


> https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/the-poorest-states-of-america/
> I said it was from the NY times...here u go
> 
> Not to mention the Southern states also have some of the highest crime rates



Source for drones attacks and 'southern states' highest crime rates? lol

Cities have the highest crime rates.


----------



## Hopeless Opus

lol i don't think the electoral college should even be a thing. i've always thought it should be by america's popular vote, the system blows.

also, it didn't matter if hillary was a woman or not, people wanted her to be president because she was the better option. even though hillary wasn't the best choice for the democratic party and i definitely would've rather had bernie, i would've rather had the first woman president than someone who's going to start world war 3. he should've stuck to his tv show.


----------



## Trent the Paladin

Raskell said:


> Either give sources to him banning legal citizens or stop talking about it, please. >3


Here though, scroll down and it mentions specifically 394 green card holders.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> And... voter fraud. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...voting-–-by-the-millions/ar-AAmqoG2?ocid=iehp



>sourcing an opinion article

it's amazing how much you constantly one-up yourself in terms of sheer stupidity


----------



## Haskell

Tom said:


> Here though, scroll down and it mentions specifically 394 green card holders.



That's from rueters. I have no idea of what it is.

Any chance you could source from a more trusted news source?


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> That would have happened if Killary got elected.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> Source for drones attacks and 'southern states' highest crime rates? lol
> 
> Cities have the highest crime rates.


More people=more crime, of course if you live in a town of a few thousand there's a lower crime rate 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...peration-al-qaeda-base-pentagon-a7554631.html
r e a d, inb4 "this has strong liberal bias...yes wrong."

- - - Post Merge - - -



LambdaDelta said:


> >sourcing an opinion article
> 
> it's amazing how much you constantly one-up yourself in terms of sheer stupidity


ROFL


----------



## Haskell

Hopeless Opus said:


> lol i don't think the electoral college should even be a thing. i've always thought it should be by america's popular vote, the system blows.
> 
> also, it didn't matter if hillary was a woman or not, people wanted her to be president because she was the better option. even though hillary wasn't the best choice for the democratic party and i definitely would've rather had bernie, i would've rather had the first woman president than someone who's going to start world war 3. he should've stuck to his tv show.



You wouldn't be crying about the electoral college if Hillary had won...

A lot of what you said is not explained to its fullest potential. Care to elaborate more?


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> I'm a tool of fascism that can't think objectively on my own and also don't know when I'm being used.



ok, cool to know


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> >sourcing an opinion article
> 
> it's amazing how much you constantly one-up yourself in terms of sheer stupidity



So you're calling me stupid?

I know it is opinionated but I generally agree with it. If you asked and had a discussion instead of just harping on anyone with a different opinion, you'd know that I knew it was an opinion. 

It is... or at least was a general consensus that...

voter fraud is quite easy if you do it right
millions of illegals are in this country illegaly


----------



## Trent the Paladin

Raskell said:


> That's from rueters. I have no idea of what it is.
> 
> Any chance you could source from a more trusted news source?



No look it up yourself. If you're too lazy to look outside Breitbart and Fox News that's literally not my problem. Squawking "SOURCE SOURCE" for everything you disagree with doesn't net you brownie points.


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> ok, cool to know



You have nothing better to say than twisting what I said? You're just like the media. Please stop posting if you have anything to provide to this thread. In all seriousness. That isn't contributing, it's more being a troll in my opinion.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Tom said:


> Breitbart



wow, that explains a whole lot if true

- - - Post Merge - - -



Raskell said:


> You have nothing better to say than twisting what I said? You're just like the media. Please stop posting if you have anything to provide to this thread. In all seriousness. That isn't contributing, it's more being a troll in my opinion.



fascists and fascist supports deserve to be trolled

just like how nazis deserve to be punched


----------



## Haskell

Tom said:


> No look it up yourself. If you're too lazy to look outside Breitbart and Fox News that's literally not my problem. Squawking "SOURCE SOURCE" for everything you disagree with doesn't net you brownie points.



Did you just get upset?

It's hard to look up anything by myself when everyone here disagrees with me since... I am the only one that's bold enough to dare say I support Trump.

I don't even look at Brietbart (anymore). I looked at it once. Once.

I cite NY Times, WP, Tweets, Eyewitnesses, CNN, Fox, et cetera. 

I'm not looking for brownie points. I don't need, nor want any from anyone here.


Also... I was getting squaked at for sources before tons of times. That's fair but unfair when I do it to the other side?


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> voter fraud is quite easy if you do it right
> millions of illegals are in this country illegaly






Here's an informative video, please tell me how u "do it right"


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> Also... I was getting squaked at for sources before tons of times. That's fair but unfair when I do it to the other side?



I've only ever seen you accept sources that work for your agenda, or can otherwise be twisted around to still mostly fit. so honestly, yes.


----------



## Hopeless Opus

Raskell said:


> You wouldn't be crying about the electoral college if Hillary had won...
> 
> A lot of what you said is not explained to its fullest potential. Care to elaborate more?



but i never thought it should've been that way, not only just because hillary lost. the concept has always been stupid to me. if one runner gets more votes from the people they should win, not because some small group of people decided something.

and not really sure how i should expand - i think that donald trump is entirely capable of bringing us into the next world war, which i really did not want to live to see. he's bringing other countries into this, especially with the muslim ban which i think was a mistake. this is only going to make some of them way angrier than they were with us. and i don't think it's fair that muslims who have been loyal to this country are not allowed back in just because of who they are when they have done nothing wrong to us. there are bad people out there and i get it. but there are a ton of bad americans too. 

i know that trump thinks what he's doing is right, and i know his followers think that too. but in reality, this is the beginning of something terrible. and when the president of mexico refuses to pay for that wall, then what? are we just going to declare war on them? it just makes no sense. they're our neighbors, we don't need them to be enemies with us.

and about hillary, i don't think people voted her just because of her gender of all things. lol


----------



## Red Cat

Yeah, the whole source thing is stupid. If you're going to post something, just check to make sure it's true before you post it. No one gives a crap about an article you link to because no one wants to waste their time reading it. If someone generally posts stuff that's true, I take them at their word and if someone repeatedly posts fake stuff, then I assume that everything they say is incorrect. Much easier than dealing with sources.


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> Here's an informative video, please tell me how u "do it right"



"Part of the problem is that election laws in the United States are a complicated hodgepodge of federal, state, and local rules, regulations, and red tape." - Tom Fitton


----------



## LambdaDelta

oh and, re: electoral college

are you by any chance aware of gerrymandering? because this is precisely why the electoral college is a failure of an idea in modern times


----------



## tumut

It's pretty said that Hillary won by a larger margin of popular votes than Obama did in 2012 and still lost.


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> It's pretty said that Hillary won by a larger margin of popular votes than Obama did in 2012 and still lost.



Trump won states that Obama won both times. Trump won states that democrats had held for a while.


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> Trump won states that Obama won both times. Trump won states that democrats had held for a while.


Which goes to show what a ****ty candidate Hillary was, and how ****ed up the democrats have become in the past decade. Literally anyone else could've beaten Trump. Even Martin O'Malley ****ing plastic boy himself.


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> Which goes to show what a ****ty candidate Hillary was, and how ****ed up the democrats have become in the past decade. Literally anyone else could've beaten Trump. Even Martin O'Malley ****ing plastic boy himself.



Trump built up a movement we have not seen before. 

If 'literally anyone else could've beaten Trump' then why didn't...

Ted Cruz?
Ben Carson?
Bernie Sanders?
Gary Johnson?
Jill Stein?
Willie Wilson?
John Wolfe Jr?
Michael Alan Steinburg?
Rocky De La Fuente?
John Kasich?
Marco Rubio?
Jeb Bush?
Carly Fiorina? 
Rand Paul?
Mike Huckabee?
Rick Santorum?
Chris Christie?
Jim Gilmore?

Huh? Out of all these people... (and more)...


----------



## DJStarstryker

Raskell said:


> Good job? Look at Fort Hood, Orlando, California! It's not doing a good enough job.
> 
> He is putting the safety of the U.S over support. That's what a good POTUS does. He got rid of all ties to his business. "[



None of those people were refugees though. Refugees in general, even before this ban, get much more strict scrutiny than people coming into the country on other visas (tourist, school, work, etc). If someone wanted to come into the country to do something bad in the country, they wouldn't do it on refugee status.

Heck, the biggest terrorist attack on US soil, 9/11, wouldn't of been affected by this ban. Most of those people were Saudi nationals (which isn't affected by the ban) and came on tourist visas.

That's why this ban is dumb. It's not making us any safer, and is in fact causing many people lots of issues and making the rest of the world trust us less.


----------



## Haskell

DJStarstryker said:


> None of those people were refugees though. Refugees in general, even before this ban, get much more strict scrutiny than people coming into the country on other visas (tourist, school, work, etc). If someone wanted to come into the country to do something bad in the country, they wouldn't do it on refugee status.
> 
> Heck, the biggest terrorist attack on US soil, 9/11, wouldn't of been affected by this ban. Most of those people were Saudi nationals (which isn't affected by the ban) and came on tourist visas.
> 
> That's why this ban is dumb. It's not making us any safer, and is in fact causing many people lots of issues and making the rest of the world trust us less.



While I respect and understand your opinion. I don't agree with it. At all. 

I think the ban is another step forward to making America safe.


----------



## Koden

Didn't he mention at one point that he wanted to "ban all Muslims"?


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> Didn't he mention at one point that he wanted to "ban all Muslims"?



He wants to ban all and any immigration from terror stricken regions. As well as block immigration from people that have recently visited those terror stricken regions.


----------



## forestyne

Raskell said:


> While I respect and understand your opinion. I don't agree with it. At all.
> 
> I think the ban is another step forward to making America safe.



'kay, but there are people who have a right to be in america who can't be.

And what's the point of banning Syrian refugees? There's no way of telling who's a terrorist and who's not, most are just fleeing the war caused BY IS. I know it's safety measures, but refusing people based on where they've come from, their religion and what they post on their social media accounts doesn't seem fair and isn't keeping terrorists out. people say all kinds of crazy **** on twitter.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Raskell said:


> He wants to ban all and any immigration from terror stricken regions. As well as block immigration from people that have recently visited those terror stricken regions.



I thought he wanted to ban Mexicans too, or was that just making them pay for the wall? I think he did mention banning all muslims if it came to it but then again nobody took his campaign seriously at that point.


----------



## Haskell

forestyne said:


> 'kay, but there are people who have a right to be in america who can't be.
> 
> And what's the point of banning Syrian refugees? There's no way of telling who's a terrorist and who's not, most are just fleeing the war caused BY IS. I know it's safety measures, but refusing people based on where they've come from, their religion and what they post on their social media accounts doesn't seem fair and isn't keeping terrorists out. people say all kinds of crazy **** on twitter.



13% have admitted they support ISIS. Those are just the ones that are not thinking rational on admitting that.

Government should be able to see social media accounts before allowing anyone into this country.

Where they come from happens to be a region of terror. A region which is in such terror where people are set on fire. We cannot and have not been correctly accessing and vetting the people from that region. Look at Europe.


----------



## Haskell

forestyne said:


> 'kay, but there are people who have a right to be in america who can't be.
> 
> And what's the point of banning Syrian refugees? There's no way of telling who's a terrorist and who's not, most are just fleeing the war caused BY IS. I know it's safety measures, but refusing people based on where they've come from, their religion and what they post on their social media accounts doesn't seem fair and isn't keeping terrorists out. people say all kinds of crazy **** on twitter.



13% have admitted they support ISIS. Those are just the ones that are not thinking rational on admitting that.

Government should be able to see social media accounts before allowing anyone into this country.

Where they come from happens to be a region of terror. A region which is in such terror where people are set on fire. We cannot and have not been correctly accessing and vetting the people from that region. Look at Europe.


----------



## Koden

forestyne said:


> 'kay, but there are people who have a right to be in america who can't be.
> 
> And what's the point of banning Syrian refugees? There's no way of telling who's a terrorist and who's not, most are just fleeing the war caused BY IS. I know it's safety measures, but refusing people based on where they've come from, their religion and what they post on their social media accounts doesn't seem fair and isn't keeping terrorists out. people say all kinds of crazy **** on twitter.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> I thought he wanted to ban Mexicans too, or was that just making them pay for the wall? I think he did mention banning all muslims if it came to it but then again nobody took his campaign seriously at that point.



hes destroying one of the most important things that this country was founded on, freedom to practice any religion, by "banning" people from a certain nation or with a certain religious value youre completely going against that

- - - Post Merge - - -



Raskell said:


> 13% have admitted they support ISIS. Those are just the ones that are not thinking rational on admitting that.
> 
> Government should be able to see social media accounts before allowing anyone into this country.
> 
> Where they come from happens to be a region of terror. A region which is in such terror where people are set on fire. We cannot and have not been correctly accessing and vetting the people from that region. Look at Europe.



what exactly does "thinking rational on admitting that" mean?


----------



## forestyne

Raskell said:


> 13% have admitted they support ISIS. Those are just the ones that are not thinking rational on admitting that.
> 
> Government should be able to see social media accounts before allowing anyone into this country.
> 
> Where they come from happens to be a region of terror. A region which is in such terror where people are set on fire. We cannot and have not been correctly accessing and vetting the people from that region. Look at Europe.



But that doesn't necessarily mean they're all terrorists, that's jumping the gun too early. I don't like battered cod, but a lot of British people love fish and chips. Not everyone's the same. Watch lists exists for that very reason, but people can (very rarely) slip through the cracks. There's Americans killing other Americans. And Anonymous are doing a better job at exposing ISIS links than the government is. Maybe they should try, oh yea, in-dept screening.


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> what exactly does "thinking rational on admitting that" mean?



If you support ISIS, you aren't going to rationally say you do when you are trying to "flee from them"...

- - - Post Merge - - -



forestyne said:


> But that doesn't necessarily mean they're all terrorists, that's jumping the gun too early. I don't like battered cod, but a lot of British people love fish and chips. Not everyone's the same. Watch lists exists for that very reason, but people can (very rarely) slip through the cracks. There's Americans killing other Americans. And Anonymous are doing a better job at exposing ISIS links than the government is. Maybe they should try, oh yea, in-dept screening.



You're comparing food to violent terrorists. 

One bad skittle can ruin the bag.


----------



## forestyne

Koden said:


> hes destroying one of the most important things that this country was founded on, freedom to practice any religion, by "banning" people from a certain nation or with a certain religious value youre completely going against that
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> what exactly does "thinking rational on admitting that" mean?



Wonder where the sources are for that statistic.

Wasn't there a whole rebellious phase of America wanting to be independent and "free"? Freedom does not look like deporting races/religions.


----------



## Koden

forestyne said:


> Wonder where the sources are for that statistic.
> 
> Wasn't there a whole rebellious phase of America wanting to be independent and "free"? Freedom does not look like deporting races/religions.



what statistic are you talking about? i dont think i referenced any

also i agree with you, we can be very close minded sometimes


----------



## forestyne

Raskell said:


> If you support ISIS, you aren't going to rationally say you do when you are trying to "flee from them"...
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> You're comparing food to violent terrorists.
> 
> One bad skittle can ruin the bag.



I'm comparing not being the same as other people. That tainted view on an entire religion, just for people who go AGAINST what that religion is about, is exactly what's wrong with the world today.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Koden said:


> what statistic are you talking about? i dont think i referenced any
> 
> also i agree with you, we can be very close minded sometimes



Sorry, I meant the 13% of refugees admitting to supporting IS.


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> what statistic are you talking about? i dont think i referenced any
> 
> also i agree with you, we can be very close minded sometimes



We are going to be deporting illegals. Not races. There's a difference.

Time to put "America First."


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> If you support ISIS, you aren't going to rationally say you do when you are trying to "flee from them"...
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> You're comparing food to violent terrorists.
> 
> One bad skittle can ruin the bag.



it doesnt ruin the bag unless you let it

- - - Post Merge - - -



Raskell said:


> We are going to be deporting illegals. Not races. There's a difference.
> 
> Time to put "America First."



but did he not say at one point that he did not want any people who are Muslim to enter the country? im not talking about deportation right now, im talking about access to the country legally


----------



## forestyne

I watched a documentary on a family having to flee Syria. Their dad was killed by ISIS and they couldn't even speak English when fleeing (not to America). So how are they meant to understand "Do you support ISIS?" when they have a different word for it?


----------



## Haskell

forestyne said:


> I watched a documentary on a family having to flee Syria. Their dad was killed by ISIS and they couldn't even speak English when fleeing (not to America). So how are they meant to understand "Do you support ISIS?" when they have a different word for it?



There are people that understand both English and Arabic.


----------



## forestyne

Raskell said:


> We are going to be deporting illegals. Not races. There's a difference.
> 
> Time to put "America First."



Okay, sure, but you're banning people who have a right to be there and then calling them "illegals". Also where's your source for the 13% of refugees admitting to supporting ISIS? I'd like to see it for myself.


----------



## Haskell

http://www.bing.com/search?q=13% of...-23&sk=&cvid=6EC7A60274364CFCAB52AA83DA967998

Look at all the various websites with the polls...


----------



## Koden

forestyne said:


> I watched a documentary on a family having to flee Syria. Their dad was killed by ISIS and they couldn't even speak English when fleeing (not to America). So how are they meant to understand "Do you support ISIS?" when they have a different word for it?



i dont think hes referring to the linguistics of it, just the idea of "do they support ISIS? How do we know?"


----------



## forestyne

Raskell said:


> There are people that understand both English and Arabic.



True. But not always.


----------



## Haskell

forestyne said:


> Okay, sure, but you're banning people who have a right to be there and then calling them "illegals". Also where's your source for the 13% of refugees admitting to supporting ISIS? I'd like to see it for myself.



Huh? You're getting the refugee ban mixed up with our right as a country to deport people who illegally entered America.

Both are necessary. 

He's not just rejecting everyone. He's just doing a better job of vetting than everyone else! It's sad, but we have to be tough. We can't welcome all refugees w/ open arms. Trump's point is to put America first and to help America. To increase our security. No wonder more than half of America supports Trump's refugee ban. 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...fugees-into-us-this-week/ar-AAmsPM9?ocid=iehp


----------



## Koden

"According to a poll by the Arab Opinion Project, under the Doha-based Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, found that 13 percent of Syrian refugees hold a positive view ISIS — including 4 percent that had a very favorable opinion.Nov 16, 2015"

I wonder if that 4% is a part of the 13% who overall support or if it is separate


----------



## Haskell

forestyne said:


> True. But not always.



I'm sure translators would be available. We aren't a third-world country.


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> Huh? You're getting the refugee ban mixed up with our right as a country to deport people who illegally entered America.
> 
> Both are necessary.
> 
> He's not just rejecting everyone. He's just doing a better job of vetting than everyone else! It's sad, but we have to be tough. We can't welcome all refugees w/ open arms. Trump's point is to put America first and to help America. To increase our security. No wonder more than half of America supports Trump's refugee ban.
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...fugees-into-us-this-week/ar-AAmsPM9?ocid=iehp



perhaps its because half of the country is insensitive.


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> "According to a poll by the Arab Opinion Project, under the Doha-based Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, found that 13 percent of Syrian refugees hold a positive view ISIS — including 4 percent that had a very favorable opinion.Nov 16, 2015"
> 
> I wonder if that 4% is a part of the 13% who overall support or if it is separate



Probably is, honestly.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Koden said:


> perhaps its because half of the country is insensitive and racist.



Woah! Don't go there! Please!

You're like Hillary Clinton calling half of America "deplorables!"

Seriously. That is a faarrr stretch.


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> Probably is, honestly.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> Woah! Don't go there!
> 
> You're like Hillary Clinton calling half of America "deplorables!"
> 
> Seriously. That is a faarrr stretch.



ever stop and think about how many people are just brought up to treat other differently based on the most ridiculous of things? it's not exactly impossible.


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> ever stop and think about how many people are just brought up to treat other differently based on the most ridiculous of things? it's not exactly impossible.



That is as a stretch as saying millions voted illegally. 

Nothing's impossible, but... don't blame an election on the voters. If you aren't happy with the results, blame it on the person who lost. The voters exercised their right.


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> Trump built up a movement we have not seen before.
> 
> If 'literally anyone else could've beaten Trump' then why didn't...
> 
> -snip-
> 
> Huh? Out of all these people... (and more)...


I was talking about the democratic nominee please understand context it's not hard, and yeah I'm sure Sanders could have beat him except they were never actually opponents in the election.


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> That is as a stretch as saying millions voted illegally.
> 
> Nothing's impossible, but... don't blame an election on the voters. If you aren't happy with the results, blame it on the person who lost. The voters exercised their right.



what are you talking about? Not once in my statement did I mention the election? You dont need to start another spiel, I'm well aware that people exercise their right to vote


----------



## forestyne

Koden said:


> i dont think hes referring to the linguistics of it, just the idea of "do they support ISIS? How do we know?"




Is a poll a reliable way of telling who supports ISIS, though?

(So much lag, sorry I'm slow with replying.)


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> I was talking about the democratic nominee please understand context it's not hard, and yeah I'm sure Sanders could have beat him except they were never actually opponents in the election.



Sanders got an unfair chance thanks to the DNC. I like how everyone's totally talking about that...

- - - Post Merge - - -



forestyne said:


> Is a poll a reliable way of telling who supports ISIS, though?
> 
> (So much lag, sorry I'm slow with replying.)



Depends on the pollsters. Pollsters got the election wrong.


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> You're like Hillary Clinton calling half of America "deplorables!"
> 
> Seriously. That is a faarrr stretch.


She got so much **** for this and it was one of the few words of truth that came out of her mouth throughout the election because let's face it half of Trump supporters are ****ing deplorable


----------



## Koden

forestyne said:


> Is a poll a reliable way of telling who supports ISIS, though?
> 
> (So much lag, sorry I'm slow with replying.)



well first you have to ask if polls are reliable in any way and I think that it just depends on many people are actually telling the truth. In these circumstances it might be possible that more people support ISIS. Either way, it doesnt mean we should block all refugees from entering in my opinion


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> She got so much **** for this and it was one of the few words that came out of her mouth throughout the election because let's face half of Trump supporters are ****ing deplorable



So you're defending her even though you're acknowledging she's in the wrong?...

It wasn't half of Trump supporters. That itself is a stretch. She called every. single. Trump. supporter deplorable...


----------



## forestyne

aaa so much argument to catch up with T-T.

Also, these sites seem to be mainly anti-ISIS news sites, based purely on reporting on Islamic State. I'm aware vigilance is safe, but in-depth screening measures are probably safer.


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> well first you have to ask if polls are reliable in any way and I think that it just depends on many people are actually telling the truth. In these circumstances it might be possible that more people support ISIS. Either way, it doesnt mean we should block all refugees from entering in my opinion



So what you're saying is we should take the risk of more terror attacks that could be easily prevented?


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> So you're defending her even though you're acknowledging she's in the wrong?...
> 
> It wasn't half of Trump supporters. That itself is a stretch. She called every. single. Trump. supporter deplorable...



believe it or not, its possible to still defend someone who makes some wrong choices. just because you support someone doesnt mean everything they do is perfect or even decent for that matter

- - - Post Merge - - -



Raskell said:


> So what you're saying is we should take the risk of more terror attacks that could be easily prevented?



no, if you would read what i said- we shouldnt block all refugees. that doesnt mean let anyone come and go as they please


----------



## Haskell

forestyne said:


> aaa so much argument to catch up with T-T.
> 
> Also, these sites seem to be mainly anti-ISIS news sites, based purely on reporting on Islamic State. I'm aware vigilance is safe, but in-depth screening measures are probably safer.



What's wrong with anti-ISIS? They publicly execute people of a certain gender, certain sexuality, certain religion... and pretty much everyone that doesn't agree with them. They burn people alive for Christ's sake!


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> So you're defending her even though you're acknowledging she's in the wrong?...
> 
> It wasn't half of Trump supporters. That itself is a stretch. She called every. single. Trump. supporter deplorable...


http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-basket-of-deplorables/
except she didn't

And yes I hate Hillary but I agree with her on that one statement


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> believe it or not, its possible to still defend someone who makes some wrong choices. just because you support someone doesnt mean everything they do is perfect or even decent for that matter
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> no, if you would read what i said- we shouldnt block all refugees. that doesnt mean let anyone come and go as they please



What we've had as a "vetting" program, many Americans don't think is working.

Trump is talking about re-shaping vetting.

Um. Where was that article... here you go, http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...fugees-into-us-this-week/ar-AAmsPM9?ocid=iehp

It's just being more careful and putting America first.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Dixx said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-basket-of-deplorables/
> except she didn't
> 
> And yes I hate Hillary but I agree with her on that one statement



That Trump supporters are deplorable? 

Why are Trump supporters deplorable?

They aren't the ones rioting and violently protesting because their candidate didn't get elected. They aren't the ones who are violently attacking the supporters of the opposing candidate.


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> What we've had as a "vetting" program, many Americans don't think is working.
> 
> Trump is talking about re-shaping vetting.
> 
> Um. Where was that article... here you go, http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...fugees-into-us-this-week/ar-AAmsPM9?ocid=iehp
> 
> It's just being more careful and putting America first.



trust me ive heard you say it plenty of times but thank you for the added bonus. my point was that i wish there was some middle ground we could meet, everything is so extreme in cases like this


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> trust me ive heard you say it plenty of times but thank you for the added bonus. my point was that i wish there was some middle ground we could meet, everything is so extreme in cases like this



I can understand what you're saying.


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> What we've had as a "vetting" program, many Americans don't think is working.
> 
> Trump is talking about re-shaping vetting.
> 
> Um. Where was that article... here you go, http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...fugees-into-us-this-week/ar-AAmsPM9?ocid=iehp
> 
> It's just being more careful and putting America first.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> That Trump supporters are deplorable?
> 
> Why are Trump supporters deplorable?
> 
> They aren't the ones rioting and violently protesting because their candidate didn't get elected. They aren't the ones who are violently attacking the supporters of the opposing candidate.



ever stop and think that maybe theres a reason people are rioting against Trump so much? Also, you cant fight the fire by saying that all the protests are bad. youd be doing the exact same thing as calling all trump supports deplorable. http://kdvr.com/2017/01/21/hundreds-of-peaceful-trump-protests-overshadowed-by-violent-acts-arrests/


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> ever stop and think that maybe theres a reason people are rioting against Trump so much?



I do. 

He's introducing a different idea of "America First" instead of "America Is The World Police." Many are confused.

Also. All the liberal propaganda about him.

Trump is a humble, benevolent man.


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> That Trump supporters are deplorable?
> 
> Why are Trump supporters deplorable?
> 
> They aren't the ones rioting and violently protesting because their candidate didn't get elected. They aren't the ones who are violently attacking the supporters of the opposing candidate.


half of trump supporters pls read 

Do u mean the womens march which was the largest single day protest in history and had 0 arrests

And yes half of Trump supporters are racist, bigoted, ignorant, and generally gross individuals


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> I do.
> 
> He's introducing a different idea of "America First" instead of "America Is The World Police." Many are confused.
> 
> Also. All the liberal propaganda about him.
> 
> Trump is a humble, benevolent man.



no need to do any butt kissing, Mr. Trump isnt around. theres always propaganda, its not as if everything comes crashing down just on him, both candidates had their fair share of media coverage


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> Trump is a humble, benevolent man.


delusional


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> Where they come from happens to be a region of terror. A region which is in such terror where people are set on fire. We cannot and have not been correctly accessing and vetting the people from that region. Look at Europe.



white nationalist groups are becoming more prominently noticed and are empowered by this ****

so does this mean America is a region of terror, or are you just a thinly-veiled racist idiot that can only see terrorism when a non-white person does it?



Raskell said:


> Time to put "America First."



nvm, ignore my last question, because I just hit the nail on the ****ing head


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> half of trump supporters pls read
> 
> Do u mean the womens march which was the largest single day protest in history and had 0 arrests
> 
> And yes half of Trump supporters are racist, bigoted, ignorant, and generally gross individuals



How are they 'racist', 'bigoted', 'ignorant', 'generally gross individuals'. 

How would you feel if I said that about Hillary or Bernie supporters? 

Seriously dude, that's a stretch. A long one.


----------



## forestyne

Raskell said:


> What's wrong with anti-ISIS? They publicly execute people of a certain gender, certain sexuality, certain religion... and pretty much everyone that doesn't agree with them. They burn people alive for Christ's sake!



I'm lagging, bear with me ;-;

Can't that be considered propaganda? I sometimes wish they'd just jump out and say "it's just a prank, bro, it's just a social experiment bro". I don't agree at all with what ISIS are doing; most of us saw it. But banning all refugees won't solve the problem.


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> delusional



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9FPbgeQFvY




*One Youtuber Commented/Summed Up This Video*



1) Trump’s private jet flew a seriously ill jewish boy from California to New York for medical treatment.

2) The time that Donald Trump saved Ed McMahon’s house by purchasing it and allowing Ed to continue living in it.

3) Trump has donated his money to several health organizations including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, Alliance for Lupus Research, Autism Speaks, Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America, and many more.

4) Donald Trump called on the family at its home after their son, Ryan White, died of AIDS at age 18.

5) He saved an ice skating rink in Central Park by taking over the over – budget project, and finishing the rink by Christmas time for free. He was two months ahead of schedule, and $750,000 under budget. He also operated the ice skating rink for a year, and donated all profits to charity.

6) Donald Trump and Mel Farr teamed up to help young Detroit artists Appear at Carnegie Hall.

7) Donald Trump kept the Harlem Hoops program alive after learning the man who ran it was killed during the September 11th attacks.

8) How Trump Fought Antisemitism and Racism in Palm Beach Two Decades Ago

9) Barbara Res, at 33 years old became the first women to ever be put in charge of supervising the construction of a skyscraper, when Donald Trump hired her in 1980.


10) Donald Trump’s flagpole got fined $1250 per day, but sued the city citing the 1st amendment. Eventually they cut a deal ($100,000) that benefited Iraq War Veterans, the American flag and/or the local VA hospital.

11) After Jennifer Hudson’s mother, brother, and nephew were murdered, Trump sheltered her and her family at the Trump International Hotel & Tower free of charge.

12) Trump offered a $10,000 reward to the Buffalo bus driver who stopped a young woman from leaping off a bridge to her death in 2013.

13) Donald Trump was on ground zero after the September 11th attacks. He sent over 200 of  his own people to look for survivors in the wreckage.

14) Donald J. Trump and his siblings gave a $1 million gift to the hospital that treated their parents.

- - - Post Merge - - -



forestyne said:


> I'm lagging, bear with me ;-;
> 
> Can't that be considered propaganda? I sometimes wish they'd just jump out and say "it's just a prank, bro, it's just a social experiment bro". I don't agree at all with what ISIS are doing; most of us saw it. But banning all refugees won't solve the problem.



Mass murder isn't propaganda. It's mass murder.  That's actually happening.

What will solve the problem then? Clearly, things weren't working under the Barack Administration.


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9FPbgeQFvY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *One Youtuber Commented/Summed Up This Video*
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Trump’s private jet flew a seriously ill jewish boy from California to New York for medical treatment.
> 
> 2) The time that Donald Trump saved Ed McMahon’s house by purchasing it and allowing Ed to continue living in it.
> 
> 3) Trump has donated his money to several health organizations including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, Alliance for Lupus Research, Autism Speaks, Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America, and many more.
> 
> 4) Donald Trump called on the family at its home after their son, Ryan White, died of AIDS at age 18.
> 
> 5) He saved an ice skating rink in Central Park by taking over the over – budget project, and finishing the rink by Christmas time for free. He was two months ahead of schedule, and $750,000 under budget. He also operated the ice skating rink for a year, and donated all profits to charity.
> 
> 6) Donald Trump and Mel Farr teamed up to help young Detroit artists Appear at Carnegie Hall.
> 
> 7) Donald Trump kept the Harlem Hoops program alive after learning the man who ran it was killed during the September 11th attacks.
> 
> 8) How Trump Fought Antisemitism and Racism in Palm Beach Two Decades Ago
> 
> 9) Barbara Res, at 33 years old became the first women to ever be put in charge of supervising the construction of a skyscraper, when Donald Trump hired her in 1980.
> 
> 
> 10) Donald Trump’s flagpole got fined $1250 per day, but sued the city citing the 1st amendment. Eventually they cut a deal ($100,000) that benefited Iraq War Veterans, the American flag and/or the local VA hospital.
> 
> 11) After Jennifer Hudson’s mother, brother, and nephew were murdered, Trump sheltered her and her family at the Trump International Hotel & Tower free of charge.
> 
> 12) Trump offered a $10,000 reward to the Buffalo bus driver who stopped a young woman from leaping off a bridge to her death in 2013.
> 
> 13) Donald Trump was on ground zero after the September 11th attacks. He sent over 200 of  his own people to look for survivors in the wreckage.
> 
> 14) Donald J. Trump and his siblings gave a $1 million gift to the hospital that treated their parents.



so how do these things relate to him being a good political leader?


----------



## forestyne

Koden said:


> no need to do any butt kissing, Mr. Trump isnt around. theres always propaganda, its not as if everything comes crashing down just on him, both candidates had their fair share of media coverage



I genuinely think Donald Trump is lurking Animal Crossing forums and putting good word in about himself. That would explain all of this.


----------



## Koden

forestyne said:


> I genuinely think Donald Trump is lurking Animal Crossing forums and putting good word in about himself. That would explain all of this.



i wonder if he doesnt allow new villagers to come live in his town then, because thats ridiculous eh?


----------



## forestyne

Raskell said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9FPbgeQFvY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *One Youtuber Commented/Summed Up This Video*
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Trump’s private jet flew a seriously ill jewish boy from California to New York for medical treatment.
> 
> 2) The time that Donald Trump saved Ed McMahon’s house by purchasing it and allowing Ed to continue living in it.
> 
> 3) Trump has donated his money to several health organizations including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, Alliance for Lupus Research, Autism Speaks, Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America, and many more.
> 
> 4) Donald Trump called on the family at its home after their son, Ryan White, died of AIDS at age 18.
> 
> 5) He saved an ice skating rink in Central Park by taking over the over – budget project, and finishing the rink by Christmas time for free. He was two months ahead of schedule, and $750,000 under budget. He also operated the ice skating rink for a year, and donated all profits to charity.
> 
> 6) Donald Trump and Mel Farr teamed up to help young Detroit artists Appear at Carnegie Hall.
> 
> 7) Donald Trump kept the Harlem Hoops program alive after learning the man who ran it was killed during the September 11th attacks.
> 
> 8) How Trump Fought Antisemitism and Racism in Palm Beach Two Decades Ago
> 
> 9) Barbara Res, at 33 years old became the first women to ever be put in charge of supervising the construction of a skyscraper, when Donald Trump hired her in 1980.
> 
> 
> 10) Donald Trump’s flagpole got fined $1250 per day, but sued the city citing the 1st amendment. Eventually they cut a deal ($100,000) that benefited Iraq War Veterans, the American flag and/or the local VA hospital.
> 
> 11) After Jennifer Hudson’s mother, brother, and nephew were murdered, Trump sheltered her and her family at the Trump International Hotel & Tower free of charge.
> 
> 12) Trump offered a $10,000 reward to the Buffalo bus driver who stopped a young woman from leaping off a bridge to her death in 2013.
> 
> 13) Donald Trump was on ground zero after the September 11th attacks. He sent over 200 of  his own people to look for survivors in the wreckage.
> 
> 14) Donald J. Trump and his siblings gave a $1 million gift to the hospital that treated their parents.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> Mass murder isn't propaganda. It's mass murder.  That's actually happening.
> 
> What will solve the problem then? Clearly, things weren't working under the Barack Administration.



Doesn't make him a good political leader. He has no political experience. The last President with no experience was Eisenhower, and that didn't go smoothly.


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> so how do these things relate to him being a good political leader?



They don't. They are referencing him being a humble and benevolent man. 

Define a good political leader. Not an example. Define what it is, in your own words?

- - - Post Merge - - -



forestyne said:


> I genuinely think Donald Trump is lurking Animal Crossing forums and putting good word in about himself. That would explain all of this.



If you genuinely think that. That is delusional itself. That's what being delusional is, actually.


----------



## forestyne

Koden said:


> i wonder if he doesnt allow new villagers to come live in his town then, because thats ridiculous eh?



Probably built a wall around the beach. And made the islanders pay for it.


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> i wonder if he doesnt allow new villagers to come live in his town then, because thats ridiculous eh?



I feel like this statement is ridiculous. You're trying to compare a game to the real world.


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> How are they 'racist', 'bigoted', 'ignorant', 'generally gross individuals'.
> 
> How would you feel if I said that about Hillary or Bernie supporters?
> 
> Seriously dude, that's a stretch. A long one.


1. KKK, neo-Nazis, xenophobes, unaccepting and violent individuals. Have you seen the blacks and Hispanics attacked by his supporters at his rallies? He is largely supported by the uneducated if u look at exit polls
2. I wouldn't care because 99.9% of them aren't 
3. Not really


----------



## Haskell

forestyne said:


> Doesn't make him a good political leader. He has no political experience. The last President with no experience was Eisenhower, and that didn't go smoothly.



America is trillions dollars in debt. Trump, a business man will know how to get us out.

He's always been intrigued and into politics.

And, like I said. That was referencing him being a humble and benevolent man.


----------



## forestyne

Raskell said:


> They don't. They are referencing him being a humble and benevolent man.
> 
> Define a good political leader. Not an example. Define what it is, in your own words?
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> If you genuinely think that. That is delusional itself. That's what being delusional is, actually.



A prime example of a ripened idiot. Have you ever heard a joke before? I'm a paranoid schizophrenic, don't tell me what being delusional means in your mind.


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> They don't. They are referencing him being a humble and benevolent man.
> 
> Define a good political leader. Not an example. Define what it is, in your own words?



Someone with political experience who is capable of making good moral choices alongside the normal choices a political leader has to make. Someone who isn't just in the run because they know they can be. A good person who respects people of all sex, race, and religion.


----------



## forestyne

Raskell said:


> America is trillions dollars in debt. Trump, a business man will know how to get us out.
> 
> He's always been intrigued and into politics.
> 
> And, like I said. That was referencing him being a humble and benevolent man.



Billions of dollars out of the tax payers' money to build that wall will definitely get you all out of your debt! Because Mexico ain't paying for it.


----------



## LambdaDelta

forestyne said:


> I genuinely think Donald Trump is lurking Animal Crossing forums and putting good word in about himself. That would explain all of this.



I was going to mock-emulate a Trump tweet in response, but then I realized I certainly have a far greater vocabulary than him and would fail at that. Sad.


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> America is trillions dollars in debt. Trump, a business man will know how to get us out.
> 
> He's always been intrigued and into politics.
> 
> And, like I said. That was referencing him being a humble and benevolent man.



Being 'intrigued' by politics does not mean he knows what he is doing. I'm intrigued by people who can draw, but im not good at it


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> 1. KKK, neo-Nazis, xenophobes, unaccepting and violent individuals. Have you seen the blacks and Hispanics attacked by his supporters at his rallies? He is largely supported by the uneducated if u look at exit polls
> 2. I wouldn't care because 99.9% of them aren't
> 3. Not really



Exit polls? You mean these... https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/
"the uneducated" 

Two simple facts:
* Just b/c you go to college, doesn't make you smart.
* The people who have attained a high school diploma and a college degree are pretty much balanced between Trump and Hillary.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> America is trillions dollars in debt. Trump, a business man will know how to get us out.



only one appropriate response here


----------



## Haskell

Koden said:


> Being 'intrigued' by politics does not mean he knows what he is doing. I'm intrigued by people who can draw, but im not good at it



He's always been invested and informed of what's going on. He's also a business man. He can lead this nation. The American people believe so. He won the election through a sophisticated and challenging electoral college.


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9FPbgeQFvY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *One Youtuber Commented/Summed Up This Video*
> 
> 1) Trump’s private jet flew a seriously ill jewish boy from California to New York for medical treatment.
> 
> 2) The time that Donald Trump saved Ed McMahon’s house by purchasing it and allowing Ed to continue living in it.
> 
> 3) Trump has donated his money to several health organizations including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, Alliance for Lupus Research, Autism Speaks, Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America, and many more.
> 
> 4) Donald Trump called on the family at its home after their son, Ryan White, died of AIDS at age 18.
> 
> 5) He saved an ice skating rink in Central Park by taking over the over – budget project, and finishing the rink by Christmas time for free. He was two months ahead of schedule, and $750,000 under budget. He also operated the ice skating rink for a year, and donated all profits to charity.
> 
> 6) Donald Trump and Mel Farr teamed up to help young Detroit artists Appear at Carnegie Hall.
> 
> 7) Donald Trump kept the Harlem Hoops program alive after learning the man who ran it was killed during the September 11th attacks.
> 
> 8) How Trump Fought Antisemitism and Racism in Palm Beach Two Decades Ago
> 
> 9) Barbara Res, at 33 years old became the first women to ever be put in charge of supervising the construction of a skyscraper, when Donald Trump hired her in 1980.
> 
> 
> 10) Donald Trump’s flagpole got fined $1250 per day, but sued the city citing the 1st amendment. Eventually they cut a deal ($100,000) that benefited Iraq War Veterans, the American flag and/or the local VA hospital.
> 
> 11) After Jennifer Hudson’s mother, brother, and nephew were murdered, Trump sheltered her and her family at the Trump International Hotel & Tower free of charge.
> 
> 12) Trump offered a $10,000 reward to the Buffalo bus driver who stopped a young woman from leaping off a bridge to her death in 2013.
> 
> 13) Donald Trump was on ground zero after the September 11th attacks. He sent over 200 of  his own people to look for survivors in the wreckage.
> 
> 14) Donald J. Trump and his siblings gave a $1 million gift to the hospital that treated their parents.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> Mass murder isn't propaganda. It's mass murder.  That's actually happening.
> 
> What will solve the problem then? Clearly, things weren't working under the Barack Administration.


>YouTube comment

Lol...

Anywhore ur clearly ignoring his narcissistic behavior like his scapegoating and unwillingness to accept criticism and tantrums when ppl make fun of him on twitter. Not to mention he scammed ppl and has bragged about sexual assault, makes fun of mentally disabled reporters and shows no remorse for most of his actions. No he is obviously not humble and u are delusional.


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> >YouTube comment
> 
> Lol...
> 
> Anywhore ur clearly ignoring his narcissistic behavior like his scapegoating and unwillingness to accept criticism and tantrums when ppl make fun of him on twitter. Not to mention he scammed ppl and has bragged about sexual assault, makes fun of mentally disabled reporters and shows no remorse for most of his actions. No he is obviously not humble and u are delusional.



Youtube comment that summed up a well-research video.

He didn't make fun of a mentally disabled reporter.
He didn't scam people.
He apologized for the Hollywood access tape. His wife thought it was sincere. So did many women across the nation... even the globe. >3


----------



## forestyne

Raskell said:


> He's always been invested and informed of what's going on. He's also a business man. He can lead this nation. The American people believe so. He won the election through a sophisticated and challenging electoral college.



I feel sorry for you. I thought I was delusional, but the facts are against you and that's a big delusion if I ever saw one.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> challenging electoral college.



well it certainly is a challenge to gerrymander a region enough to tilt in your favor, but not so much that it becomes blindingly obvious


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> .
> He apologized for the Hollywood access tape. His wife thought it was sincere. So did many women across the nation... even the globe. >3


That's why women across the nation and the globe marched in protest in response to his misogyny.


----------



## Koden

Raskell said:


> Youtube comment that summed up a well-research video.
> 
> He didn't make fun of a mentally disabled reporter.
> He didn't scam people.
> He apologized for the Hollywood access tape. His wife thought it was sincere. So did many women across the nation... even the globe. >3



how can you deny that he made fun of a handicapped reporter when it is clear in the video?.. you know sometimes its ok to accept the fact that the people you support wont always be in the right, thats fine.


----------



## tumut

And hunty ur in de nile


----------



## forestyne

Raskell said:


> Youtube comment that summed up a well-research video.
> 
> He didn't make fun of a mentally disabled reporter.
> He didn't scam people.
> He apologized for the Hollywood access tape. His wife thought it was sincere. So did many women across the nation... even the globe. >3



1. He did.

2. He did (and still is.)

3. I doubt many women did accept it like you claim.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Dixx said:


> Anywhore ur clearly ignoring his narcissistic behavior like his scapegoating and unwillingness to accept criticism and tantrums when ppl make fun of him on twitter. Not to mention he scammed ppl and has bragged about sexual assault, makes fun of mentally disabled reporters and shows no remorse for most of his actions. No he is obviously not humble and u are delusional.



add perpetuating rape culture to the list


----------



## toadsworthy

Trump staunchly ignores all the criticism and literally takes no credit for his actions....
he mocked a disabled reporter, by doing an unflattering impression of them. Its on camera, its on tape. You can try to deny it all you want, but its in plain sight. And just because you staunchly don't take it as rude, you can't deny the horde of people who do see it as petty, uncalled for, and not right.

Also fact, he is on video saying the quote about grabbing women inappropriately. Never really apologized it, in fact his first response wasn't "I should not have said that, it was uncalled for, I am sorry" instead it was... "well you know its locker room talk"! While may be true, thats not what you say as someone running to be the model citizen and leader of these United States

He has used appeal to emotion and down right wrong imagery to rile up supporters. His comments about termination being "ripping out a baby days before its born" could not be any further from the truth, but he of course said it to inspire pro-life people around an idea that ISNT EVEN TRUE. If he is willing to fudge the truth on one thing or be wildly uneducated about this topic, what else is he going to make wildly uneducated viewpoints on?

Like these are three skeezy/ shady more recent examples. And these are my opinions, based on things you are more than welcome to go watch him say verbatim. You can get into Trump University or Trump steaks too. I don't doubt he may be able to help the debt or do something from a business man perspective (or at least he should, its all he has done for his life). But at what cultural cost is it going to be?


----------



## LinkToTheWorld

Koden said:


> how can you deny that he made fun of a handicapped reporter when it is clear in the video?.. you know sometimes its ok to accept the fact that the people you support wont always be in the right, thats fine.



This is very true. You can like/support somebody and still accept that actually they might have made poor decisions/comments or whatever. 
And if he wasn't making fun of a disability I have no idea what else he could have been doing...
Apart from anything else, it's not what you'd expect from a president. And it's the one thing that's really made me despise him. I live with somebody who makes those actions on a daily basis. I work with children who make those actions on a daily basis. And he was taking the p**s out of them. Isn't any other way to take it...I can't see what else he could have been doing. 
But then it's subjective. If you haven't been impacted by something like that you might not understand why it's so offensive. It takes an awful lot to offend me usually but something like that will do it


----------



## Koden

LinkToTheWorld said:


> This is very true. You can like/support somebody and still accept that actually they might have made poor decisions/comments or whatever.
> And if he wasn't making fun of a disability I have no idea what else he could have been doing...
> Apart from anything else, it's not what you'd expect from a president. And it's the one thing that's really made me despise him. I live with somebody who makes those actions on a daily basis. I work with children who make those actions on a daily basis. And he was taking the p**s out of them. Isn't any other way to take it...I can't see what else he could have been doing.
> But then it's subjective. If you haven't been impacted by something like that you might not understand why it's so offensive. It takes an awful lot to offend me usually but something like that will do it



I agree with you, sometimes it is hard to explain why something hurts so much to someone who may not ever understand.


----------



## _Dentata

>"Started by nintendofan85, 01-*24*-2017 05:39 PM"

He's only been in the white house for four days..


----------



## Cory

LambdaDelta said:


> well it certainly is a challenge to gerrymander a region enough to tilt in your favor, but not so much that it becomes blindingly obvious



I don't think you know how gerrymandering works

- - - Post Merge - - -



LambdaDelta said:


> add perpetuating rape culture to the list



This doesn't make any sense
Is it because a white man was elected?
If it is Ill lol

- - - Post Merge - - -

His Supreme Court justice pick was great
Neil gorsuch is respected by all and is qualified 
Great successor for Scalia


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Cory said:


> I don't think you know how gerrymandering works



I think she actually got it right. In class, we were going over gerrymandering and why politicians do that.


----------



## LambdaDelta

toadsworthy said:


> "well you know its locker room talk"! While may be true



see though, this is exactly what I mean by perpetuating rape culture

it's a normalization of vile **** which shouldn't even be normalized


----------



## Cory

LambdaDelta said:


> see though, this is exactly what I mean by perpetuating rape culture
> 
> it's a normalization of vile **** which shouldn't even be normalized



i guess were not allowed to make jokes in non rape culture then


----------



## LambdaDelta

Cory said:


> i guess were not allowed to make jokes in non rape culture then



sexual assault is not a joke


----------



## Cory

LambdaDelta said:


> sexual assault is not a joke



yes you can make jokes about it


----------



## Tensu

Cory said:


> yes you can make jokes about it



you shouldn't though, jokes belittling others really aren't funny


----------



## LambdaDelta

Cory said:


> yes you can make jokes about it



being able to make a joke about a thing and said thing being appropriate to joke about are not mutually exclusive


----------



## seliph

Cory said:


> yes you can make jokes about it



Sure you can but it makes you a vile piece of ****


----------



## Cory

LambdaDelta said:


> being able to make a joke about a thing and said thing being appropriate to joke about are not mutually exclusive



fair
but that was supposed to be in private 
guys make jokes like that all the time
i dont see a problem with it

- - - Post Merge - - -



gyro said:


> Sure you can but it makes you a vile piece of ****



to each their own


----------



## Tensu

Cory said:


> fair
> but that was supposed to be in private
> guys make jokes like that all the time
> i dont see a problem with it



well then you should be careful who you say things around. You never know who on this site could be offended by such a joke.


----------



## Cory

Tensu said:


> well then you should be careful who you say things around. You never know who on this site could be offended by such a joke.



well aware
this aint my first rodeo


----------



## Tensu

Cory said:


> well aware
> this aint my first rodeo



lol ok just be sensitive around certain people


----------



## seliph

Just because something is "what people do all the time" doesn't mean it's alright.

If joking about sexually harassing women is "something guys do all the time" that isn't a good thing to brush off, that's something that needs to stop. It's revolting.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Cory said:


> fair
> but that was supposed to be in private
> guys make jokes like that all the time
> i dont see a problem with it



please go educate yourself then


----------



## moonford

Cory said:


> yes you can make jokes about it



Just because you can make jokes about it does not mean it is okay, it makes you a horrible person.
If you make jokes like that you should be ashamed of yourself because you aren't talking about one or two people who have been affected by it, you're talking about every single person who has experienced sexual assault. Mocking and joking about them is disgusting and you would dread experiencing it so why mock/joke about someone who has? It doesn't match up to me.

^ This is what I think of people who joke about sexual assault, I don't know if you do it yourself Cory but if you do, that's really sad to hear.

Gross.


----------



## Cory

LambdaDelta said:


> please go educate yourself then



these are opinions
not facts or sources


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Rape jokes are not funny. They're despicable.

Also, I am hear to announce that Mnuchin, Sessions, Tillerson, and Price have been confirmed, but the Republicans did it through a very sneaky way.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Cory said:


> these are opinions
> not facts or sources



thanks for letting me know you didn't actually bother to read anything


----------



## moonford

Cory said:


> fair
> but that was supposed to be in private
> guys make jokes like that all the time
> i dont see a problem with it





I'm a male and I have never spoken about a Woman or anybody like he has, it makes me sick.
I didn't know guys talked about grabbing women's private parts because their rich and can do anything. I've never heard any of my male friends/ acquaintances say harsh words like that in my life so hearing this is weird. 

"It was supposed to be private" Why does that matter?


----------



## Cory

Whiteflamingo said:


> I'm a male and I have never spoken about a Woman or anybody like he has, it makes me sick.
> I didn't know guys talked about grabbing women's private parts because their rich and can do anything. I've never heard any of my male friends/ acquaintances say harsh words like that in my life so hearing this is weird.
> 
> "It was supposed to be private" Why does that matter?



You obviously would say different things if you're talking to an acquaintance compared to america


----------



## LambdaDelta

what the hell does that even mean


----------



## moonford

LambdaDelta said:


> what the hell does that even mean



I have no idea how to respond to that either to be honest, could you be clearer Cory?
I don't understand.


----------



## Hopeless Opus

Chatte_Dentata said:


> >"Started by nintendofan85, 01-*24*-2017 05:39 PM"
> 
> He's only been in the white house for four days..



and he's already breaking up our nation so gg lol


----------



## toadsworthy

Cory said:


> You obviously would say different things if you're talking to an acquaintance compared to america



why do you feel the need to justify what he said? yeah, you talk differently in front of people rather than public, but its what you do when you get caught. and rather than apologize or say I shouldn't have said that, he instead just blew it off and said its locker room talk.... so instead he is saying its ok to say what you want and not really apologize for it


----------



## LambdaDelta

Hopeless Opus said:


> and he's already breaking up our nation so gg lol



he breaks nations so fast like you wouldn't believe

he breaks nations bigly

so big it'll make your head spin


----------



## moonford

toadsworthy said:


> why do you feel the need to justify what he said? yeah, you talk differently in front of people rather than public, but its what you do when you caught. and rather than apologize or say I shouldn't have said that, he instead just blew it off and said its locker room talk.... so instead he is saying its ok to say what you want and not really apologize for it



Ah, that's what he meant, it makes sense now. I really need sleep.

What he said was vile, its just as simple as that. It doesn't matter where, when or why he said it, its disrespectful and normalizes sexual assault on men and women.


----------



## Hash slinging slasher

I really want to say something regarding the immigrants but i don't want banned off of this forum


----------



## moonford

Hash slinging slasher said:


> I really want to say something regarding the immigrants but i don't want banned off of this forum



Its probably something awful, so its probably best not to.

(If you think you'll get banned it indicates you're going to be nasty somehow)


----------



## animalcrisscross

LambdaDelta said:


> see though, this is exactly what I mean by perpetuating rape culture
> 
> it's a normalization of vile **** which shouldn't even be normalized



go to a third world nation and learn what a rape culture is.

to be fair, Trump said "they'll *let you *do anything" anyway. i.e. give consent.


----------



## Haskell

Hollywood access tape was disrespectful and locker room talk.

Trump sincerely apologized for the Hollywood access tape.

It did not advocate sexual assault, rape, et cetera.


----------



## N e s s

Cory said:


> fair
> but that was supposed to be in private
> guys make jokes like that all the time
> i dont see a problem with it



I'm a guy and I've never said anything jokingly about rape.


----------



## Haskell

Whiteflamingo said:


> Its probably something awful, so its probably best not to.
> 
> (If you think you'll get banned it indicates you're going to be nasty somehow)



I hate how some (some) of the actual racists hate Trump.
I'm not calling you racist, hash slinging slasher.
To be fair though, you can't choose who supports you.

And it would be unfair to say that only the "bad" people support Trump. There are most surely "bad" people that support Hillary, Bernie, et cetera.


----------



## Hopeless Opus

i mean it did but


----------



## Haskell

N e s s said:


> I'm a guy and I've never said anything jokingly about rape.



He didn't joke about rape. He joked about sex. 

It didn't dismantle his campaign. So apparently a lot of people agree with me.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Hopeless Opus said:


> i mean it did but



How so?


----------



## Hopeless Opus

Raskell said:


> He didn't joke about rape. He joked about sex.
> 
> It didn't dismantle his campaign. So apparently a lot of people agree with me.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> How so?



telling someone 'lol i can just grab women's private parts all i want because i'm rich and they love it' sounds rapey to me.


----------



## animalcrisscross

Hash slinging slasher said:


> I really want to say something regarding the immigrants but i don't want banned off of this forum



same omg. you first. i'll follow if you're still here.


----------



## Haskell

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html?_r=0 

Here is the transcript. Not sure if it is allowed on here directly since it is offensive and explicit.

He's talking about disrespectfully trying to get laid with someone who is married and being denied and not giving up. No where does he talk about rape.

I understand why you must think so. But please understand that old men, especially Trump are explicit. The time era that they grew up was different than this time.

He isn't an advocate for rape or sexual assault. He was disrespectful, explicit, and offensive. 'Locker room talk' - disrespectful, explicit, offensive.


----------



## N e s s

Raskell said:


> He didn't joke about rape. He joked about sex.
> 
> It didn't dismantle his campaign. So apparently a lot of people agree with me



That was directed at Cory, not Trump. Trump did joke about sex not rape, Cory was talking about it being alright for guys to be making sexual jokes about women.


----------



## Haskell

animalcrisscross said:


> same omg. you first. i'll follow if you're still here.



If you think that your opinion is substantiated, then go for it. Otherwise, stop talking about 'doing it'.

Don't be scared of your opinion. If you think it's substantiated and "right", then you wouldn't be thinking about posting and talking about thinking about posting.


----------



## seliph

Whiteflamingo said:


> "It was supposed to be private" Why does that matter?



*stabs you in a dark alley* It's alright it's in private bro



animalcrisscross said:


> go to a third world nation and learn what a rape culture is.



Just because something is a worse problem somewhere else doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Clearly you don't actually care about those countries either if you're only going to use them as a "gotcha".


----------



## Haskell

N e s s said:


> That was directed at Cory, not Trump. Trump did joke about sex not rape, Cory was talking about it being alright for guys to be making sexual jokes about women.



It is alright. As long as there are standards, ethical standards.

If it's a private conversation that doesn't advocate rape or sexual assault, then do it.

People are lecherous beings. You can only prevent to a certain extent.


----------



## Hopeless Opus

Trump: And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the ///. You can do anything.

definitely not rapey at all!! just him justifying that you can do whatever you want to a woman if you're rich and famous!!!11!


----------



## Haskell

gyro said:


> *stabs you in a dark alley* It's alright it's in private bro
> 
> 
> 
> Just because something is a worse problem somewhere else doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Clearly you don't actually care about those countries either if you're only going to use them as a "gotcha".



I have to agree with g y r o. 

Just because something is worse, doesn't mean it's aright.

Also with Whiteflamingo. Just because it's private, doesn't make it alright.

I know he joked about sex. He didn't advocate for rape or sexual assault.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Hopeless Opus said:


> Trump: And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
> 
> Bush: Whatever you want.
> 
> Trump: Grab ’em by the ///. You can do anything.
> 
> definitely not rapey at all!! just him justifying that you can do whatever you want to a woman if you're rich and famous!!!11!




That's more of Trump's ego talking. 

He's talking about how women always fall for him (most of the time) because he's a star.

He was on a high horse and that comment was disrespectful. But like I said, people are lecherous. As long as it isn't advocating for sexual assault and is in private, then do it. There should be ethical standards but only to an extent, because people are lecherous. You, we, can only prevent so much.


----------



## N e s s

Raskell said:


> It is alright. As long as there are standards, ethical standards.
> 
> If it's a private conversation that doesn't advocate rape or sexual assault, then do it.
> 
> People are lecherous beings. You can only prevent to a certain extent.



Dude, even if there are standards that doesn't make it a good thing to say man. I'm sure that 70% or so of guys who tell a sex joke won't go and rape a women. Even if its a joke, its perverted thing to be saying. By saying "its just guys being guys" you're excusing the fact that they said something disgusting in the first place.

- - - Post Merge - - -

And yeah, you're right. You can't prevent everything, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't call someone out on their BS.


----------



## Haskell

N e s s said:


> Dude, even if there are standards that doesn't make it a good thing to say man. I'm sure that 70% or so of guys who tell a sex joke won't go and rape a women. Even if its a joke, its perverted thing to be saying. By saying "its just guys being guys" you're excusing the fact that they said something disgusting in the first place.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> And yeah, you're right. You can't prevent everything, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't call someone out on their BS.



I understand what you're saying and I think you communicated better of what I was trying to say.

Trump made a sex joke. It was wrong. It was offensive. But it didn't advocate for sexual assault.


----------



## LambdaDelta

animalcrisscross said:


> go to a third world nation and learn what a rape culture is.
> 
> to be fair, Trump said "they'll *let you *do anything" anyway. i.e. give consent.



because developed countries surely don't have these sort of societal issues either

also, there was nothing about consent in what he said. that was purely framed as an excuse and nothing more


----------



## Haskell

Ok. We all know each other's opinions. Let's move on? 

Let's talk about this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWlm1sPAXOQ


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> People are lecherous beings. You can only prevent to a certain extent.



there's a clear difference between being sexually attracted to a person(s) and degrading them


----------



## Haskell

That was the wrong video. Sorry! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F855i1Tzx_g

What do you think about this? ^


----------



## animalcrisscross

gyro said:


> Just because something is a worse problem somewhere else doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Clearly you don't actually care about those countries either if you're only going to use them as a "gotcha".



America doesn't have a rape culture. there is rape here. rape is bad. we punish rapists. that's not a rape culture. there's nothing that can stop all rape. joking about rape does not make you more likely to rape. that's just absurd. joking about killing my neighbor won't make me more likely to kill him.

i care more about the women in those countries than the people here who think that mansplaining, manspreading, catcalling, locker room talk, and dad jokes perpetuate rape culture and misogyny. women aren't victims here.


----------



## Hopeless Opus

Raskell said:


> He was on a high horse and that comment was disrespectful. But like I said, people are lecherous. As long as it isn't advocating for sexual assault and is in private, then do it. There should be ethical standards but only to an extent, because people are lecherous. You, we can only prevent so much.



well in that case, i would not be surprised if trump cheated on melania before. i know he wasn't president at the time, but someone who is looked at as a prestigious person shouldn't even talk about stuff like that in public where he could get exposed, but really he shouldn't have been talking about it at all. you're right, there is only so much we can prevent. but this mentality that it's ok to promote it/express it behind closed doors is why there is so much rape and even justification for rapists today. that's like saying, don't abuse your wife in public, do that at home because it's fine at home. oh, don't rape that girl in the alleyway while she's drunk, do it at home instead where no one will ever find out because that's so unethical. it's NOT fine at home or anywhere else ever, actually. 

"oh he couldn't control himself, it was his desire" "maybe if she hadn't worn that, she wouldn't have made them want to rape her" "she had every right to rape him because she had the desire to". instead of promoting the idea that it's okay to talk about sexually assaulting people behind closed doors we should instead be teaching people that it's wrong to do or that it's wrong to desire to do it behind closed doors.


----------



## animalcrisscross

LambdaDelta said:


> because developed countries surely don't have these sort of societal issues either
> 
> also, there was nothing about consent in what he said. that was purely framed as an excuse and nothing more



not nearly on the same scale. not even close.

"they'll let you do anything" = consent.


----------



## Haskell

animalcrisscross said:


> not nearly on the same scale. not even close.
> 
> "they'll let you do anything" = consent.



I didn't know rape was consent. 

I don't think you're being communicative enough. You aren't getting your point across well.


----------



## Hopeless Opus

animalcrisscross said:


> there is rape here. rape is bad. we punish rapists. that's not a rape culture.



uh lol not all rapists are punished, most are let off with the excuse of 'mental illness' or they get a sob story like "omg he was so young and he had such a good life ahead of him... he was the basketball star, now this will ruin his life".


----------



## LambdaDelta

animalcrisscross said:


> not nearly on the same scale. not even close.
> 
> "they'll let you do anything" = consent.



wow, I didn't know that just saying other people will let me do stuff meant that I can do it. because surely they don't need to speak for themselves

"rape culture doesn't exist in america" - words from a cishet male probably


----------



## Haskell

Hopeless Opus said:


> uh lol not all rapists are punished, most are let off with the excuse of 'mental illness' or they get a sob story like "omg he was so young and he had such a good life ahead of him... he was the basketball star, now this will ruin his life".



I understand both of these points.

What he's saying, trying to say is that rape is more common in third-world countries.

There are rich people, athletes, et cetera that do get away with rape in this great nation of ours and it's wrong. Doesn't matter if a girl or a boy gets raped. If you rape anyone, you should be severely punished.


----------



## seliph

LambdaDelta said:


> also, there was nothing about consent in what he said. that was purely framed as an excuse and nothing more



To add to this, rapists, those who defend them, and general creeps have a really skewed view of what consent means in the first place (claiming wearing revealing clothing is asking for it, claiming being completely wasted is consenting) so like hell I'll take Trump's word on anything to do with consent.



animalcrisscross said:


> America doesn't have a rape culture. there is rape here. rape is bad. we punish rapists.



You punish hackers and people with marijuana more than you punish rapists. Especially if said rapist is a white guy in school.

Edit: And how can I forget _all_ the athletes who got no punishment at all because they're big stars who make big money, and so the media pressures their victim(s) into backing down? Looking at you, Patrick Kane.



animalcrisscross said:


> joking about rape does not make you more likely to rape.



No one said otherwise.



animalcrisscross said:


> i care more about the women in those countries than the people here who think that mansplaining, manspreading, catcalling, locker room talk, and dad jokes perpetuate rape culture and misogyny. women aren't victims here.



Again, just because something is less of a problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. I don't see the big problem with say manspreading (I think it's stupid and makes people _look_ stupid if they're taking it too far) but catcalling and locker room talk are misogynistic without a doubt. You're treating women like they're objects.


----------



## Haskell

gyro said:


> To add to this, rapists, those who defend them, and general creeps have a really skewed view of what consent means in the first place (claiming wearing revealing clothing is asking for it, claiming being completely wasted is consenting) so like hell I'll take Trump's word on anything to do with consent.
> 
> 
> 
> You punish hackers and people with marijuana more than you punish rapists. Especially if said rapist is a white guy in school.
> 
> 
> 
> No one said otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, just because something is less of a problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. I don't see the big problem with say manspreading (I think it's stupid and makes people _look_ stupid if they're taking it too far) but catcalling and locker room talk are misogynistic without a doubt. You're treating women like they're objects.



I agree with most of what g y r o said. Except for that 'white' part. I don't agree with that. Also the first paragraph/reply was kind of confusing on what point you were trying to get across.


----------



## LambdaDelta

and yeah, joking about rape of course doesn't mean you're more likely to be a rapist

but it does normalize rape as a joke and empowers those that would commit sexual assault


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> empowers those that would commit sexual assault



To a certain extent, yes.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> I agree with most of what g y r o said. Except for that 'white' part. I don't agree with that. Also the first paragraph/reply was kind of confusing on what point you were trying to get across.



Random question but why do you space my name out?

Also white rapists definitely get less punishment. They always get the sob stories Opus mentioned meanwhile a black guy gets "animal" "thug" etc. slapped by his name, which I guess he should in the case of being a rapist, but so should everyone else who has done the same thing.


----------



## Haskell

gyro said:


> Random question but why do you space my name out?
> 
> Also white rapists definitely get less punishment. They always get the sob stories Opus mentioned meanwhile a black guy gets "animal" "thug" etc. slapped by his name, which I guess he should in the case of being a rapist, but so should everyone else who has done the same thing.



I thought it was spaced out. My apologies. 

I can understand what you're saying. I don't think I 100% agree with it. Mainly b/c it's embracing the stigma, "white people suck" among many people.


----------



## Hopeless Opus

gyro said:


> Random question but why do you space my name out?
> 
> Also white rapists definitely get less punishment. They always get the sob stories Opus mentioned meanwhile a black guy gets "animal" "thug" etc. slapped by his name, which I guess he should in the case of being a rapist, but so should everyone else who has done the same thing.



this is very true, rape is the same crime for everyone and it's a sick, disgusting crime and everyone should be punished the same no matter what the situation/circumstances were of their 'mental health' and white rapists should not be getting less punishment than rapists of color JUST because of their colors. they all committed the same crime and therefore they all deserve years and years of jail for it, no one should be treated special because they're privileged and white


----------



## Haskell

Hopeless Opus said:


> this is very true, rape is the same crime for everyone and it's a sick, disgusting crime and everyone should be punished the same no matter what the situation/circumstances were of their 'mental health' and white rapists should not be getting less punishment than rapists of color JUST because of their colors. they all committed the same crime and therefore they all deserve years and years of jail for it, no one should be treated special because they're privileged and white



In most cases, white people aren't privileged because their white. I'm not saying there aren't incidents. 

But more of the time those incidents are because they're rich, not white.


----------



## forestyne

gyro said:


> Random question but why do you space my name out?
> 
> Also white rapists definitely get less punishment. They always get the sob stories Opus mentioned meanwhile a black guy gets "animal" "thug" etc. slapped by his name, which I guess he should in the case of being a rapist, but so should everyone else who has done the same thing.



I thought you had your username spaced out at one point, maybe I was wrong.

It's not fair that black people are treated differently than whites. If they do the exact same thing, they should get the same level of justice. It's not the 1950's, people.

Brock Turner (white male, bright student, athlete) = six months in jail, only serves three months
Brian Banks (black male, bright student, athlete) = five years in jail, did not even commit the crime


----------



## animalcrisscross

Hopeless Opus said:


> uh lol not all rapists are punished, most are let off with the excuse of 'mental illness' or they get a sob story like "omg he was so young and he had such a good life ahead of him... he was the basketball star, now this will ruin his life".



yeah. sometimes criminals don't get convicted. it's not just in rape cases. some rapists in other countries don't even have to stand trial. the justice system will never be perfect. doesn't mean we have a rape culture. i'd like to see your proof that "most are let off with the excuse of 'mental illness' or . . . a sob story"



LambdaDelta said:


> wow, I didn't know that just saying other people will let me do stuff meant that I can do it. because surely they don't need to speak for themselves
> 
> "rape culture doesn't exist in america" - words from a cishet male probably



he never actually did anything though. he made an assumption. it's probably wrong. you can't just assume he'd grab everyone by the ***** even if they didn't let him. as far as we know, every ***** he's grabbed has been grabbed with consent. 

i'm going to assume cishet means rational. just wondering, in your opinion, is there anywhere in the world where rape culture doesn't exist?


----------



## Haskell

forestyne said:


> I thought you had your username spaced out at one point, maybe I was wrong.
> 
> It's not fair that black people are treated differently than whites. If they do the exact same thing, they should get the same level of justice. It's not the 1950's, people.
> 
> Brock Turner (white male, bright student, athlete) = six months in jail, only serves three months
> Brian Banks (black male, bright student, athlete) = five years in jail, did not even commit the crime



It's b/c Brock Turner was rich. Didn't his father also have ties to the "justice" system?


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> I thought it was spaced out. My apologies.
> 
> I can understand what you're saying. I don't think I 100% agree with it. Mainly b/c it's embracing the stigma, "white people suck" among many people.



There isn't a "white people suck" stigma though. "White people suck" does not affect anything on a large scale. You won't lose your job, be less likely to be hired, be automatically criminalized/racially profiled by the police, you aren't widely considered less attractive because of your skin tone, and first and foremost, people don't think you're less of a human or that you deserve to be dead because of the "white people suck" thing. All it's doing is combating the privileges that white people have and what we're discussing is an example of that. _That's_ why people say "**** white people" and so on, and honestly no matter what it still won't create any stigma around being white 'cause you guys have the advantage.



forestyne said:


> I thought you had your username spaced out at one point, maybe I was wrong.



I never have, I've never even liked spaced out names.
What's with yall D:



animalcrisscross said:


> i'm going to assume cishet means rational


LMAO


----------



## forestyne

Raskell said:


> It's b/c Brock Turner was rich. Didn't his father also have ties to the "justice" system?



I believe he did, yes. Doesn't make it any more right. That's not the only criminal injustice.  

"There is the case of Corey Batey, a black former Vanderbilt University student, also an outstanding sportsman, who in April was convicted — much like Turner — of raping an unconscious, fellow classmate when he was 19 years old in 2013. He received a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 15-25 years, a far cry from Turner's three months." Source.

Not even _close_ to each other.

N̶o̶b̶o̶d̶y̶'̶s̶ ̶t̶a̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶g̶u̶i̶n̶e̶a̶ ̶p̶i̶g̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶'̶r̶a̶p̶e̶d̶'̶ ̶ ̶3̶5̶0̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶g̶u̶i̶n̶e̶a̶ ̶p̶i̶g̶s̶.̶ ̶H̶i̶s̶t̶o̶r̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶s̶e̶x̶ ̶c̶r̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶d̶o̶u̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶a̶r̶d̶s̶.̶


----------



## animalcrisscross

i can't keep up with all of this. i got a town that needs mayoring. i'll respond later.

the only rape culture in America is in our prison system.


----------



## LambdaDelta

animalcrisscross said:


> i'm going to assume cishet means rational.



wow, this explains a whole lot



animalcrisscross said:


> just wondering, in your opinion, is there anywhere in the world where rape culture doesn't exist?



given how well developed areas still have it, I'm inclined to guess no

does that mean that we shouldn't challenge it? also no


----------



## Haskell

Any violent protestor should be arrested and charged.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Raskell said:


> Any violent protestor should be arrested and charged.



I agree to this. Freedom of Speech does not mean right to vandalize property or assault people when things don't go their way.


----------



## Haskell

Apple2012 said:


> I agree to this. Freedom of Speech does not mean right to vandalize property or assault people when things don't go their way.



Referencing what happened tonight.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Raskell said:


> Referencing what happened tonight.



What happened?


----------



## Haskell

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news...rkeley-yiannopoulos-speech-canceled/97379316/


----------



## Kirbystarship

Cory said:


> His Supreme Court justice pick was great
> Neil gorsuch is respected by all and is qualified
> Great successor for Scalia


I disagree, as someone who is a social Liberal I am concerned about his stance on Euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Also he might try and overturn a case letting gay marriage in all the states and trying to limit what bathrooms transgender people should use.


----------



## Haskell

Kirbystarship said:


> I disagree, as someone who is a social Liberal I am concerned about his stance on Euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Also he might try and overturn a case letting gay marriage in all the states and trying to limit what bathrooms transgender people should use.



I am apart of the LGBTQ community and I disagree with the 'bathroom bill'. Not the idea of it, though. I disagree with it because it does not limit and regulate enough. Anyone could identify as any gender. This gives perverts and pedophiles a prime use of their disgusting thoughts.

He will not overturn the supreme court's ruling on gay marriage. Obama's Protections For L.G.B.T.Q. Workers Will Remain Under Trump. He has no intention on overturning the supreme court's decision. I think that he, the nominated SCOTUS pick, Neil Gorsuch understands there are more pressing matters. As Apple2012 said, 





> "It would be suicide for republican's to try to overturn the court's decision."



I personally believe in assisted suicide. If someone wants to end the misery in their life, let them. As long as they have been through "proper psychological screening". I put proper psychological screening in quotes because that in itself needs a lot of work.​


----------



## Alolan_Apples

I agree that same-sex marriage should be legal everywhere because if you ban it, it doesn't just ban weddings. It forces divorce on gay couples. There is a due process clause for that. But for bathrooms, they should mandate gender restrictions of bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers everywhere no matter what (in order to keep cisgendered men out of womens' restrooms and cisgendered women out of mens' restrooms), but the issue where bathrooms should be separated by gender identity or biological sex should be left up to the business or institution (or whatever commercial service it is). No government should police any bathrooms. I would say North Carolina's bathroom law is unconstitutional, but so is California's law banning gender restrictions in single-occupancy restrooms and Obama's executive order on restrooms (or whatever it is).


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> Anyone could identify as any gender.



lmao, that's not how gender identity works



Raskell said:


> This gives perverts and pedophiles a prime use of their disgusting thoughts.



if they're actually insistent on committing any sort of crimes like this, I'm positive that gendered bathroom restrictions are gonna be close to the last thing to stop them


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> This gives perverts and pedophiles a prime use of their disgusting thoughts.



Perverts already attack people in bathrooms. Letting trans people feel safe and comfortable is not going to elevate this. If you want to tackle perverts and pedos going in restrooms, tackle the perverts and pedos going in restrooms. Not the trans people who just want to comfortably take a piss.

Also, newsflash: Trans people are _already_ using public restrooms that match their gender, whether the law protects them or not. So this claim that "Oh well some creep is gonna claim to be transgender just to perv on the childrens!" is redundant.


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> lmao, that's not how gender identity works
> 
> 
> 
> if they're actually insistent on committing any sort of crimes like this, I'm positive that gendered bathroom restrictions are gonna be close to the last thing to stop them



I know that's not how it works but what makes a pervert or a pedophile stop identifying themselves as male or female? 

The 'bathroom bill' will escalate sexual assaults without the proper regulations.

- - - Post Merge - - -



gyro said:


> Perverts already attack people in bathrooms. Letting trans people feel safe and comfortable is not going to elevate this. If you want to tackle perverts and pedos going in restrooms, tackle the perverts and pedos going in restrooms. Not the trans people who just want to comfortably take a piss.
> 
> Also, newsflash: Trans people are _already_ using public restrooms that match their gender, whether the law protects them or not. So this claim that "Oh well some creep is gonna claim to be transgender just to perv on the childrens!" is redundant.



Ok. Explain that to the incidents that occurred with a creep claiming to be transgender to fit their unethical needs.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> Ok. Explain that to the incidents that occurred with a creep claiming to be transgender to fit their unethical needs.



For one, show me the incidents.

Secondly, that still doesn't mean trans people should be made to feel unsafe. Again, if creeps are a problem, deal with the creeps. Don't throw innocent trans people in there.

Give perverts and pedos worse punishment. Put security outside of the restrooms. Don't punish actual trans people for things they didn't do.

It's interesting how the people who are quick to say "not all cops" and "not all white people" wanna shove all trans people under the bus for, again, something they didn't even do or something very few of them did.


----------



## Haskell

gyro said:


> For one, show me the incidents.



I don't give evidence. I get yelled at.

I give evidence. I get yelled at.

I ask for evidence. I get yelled at.

Go find evidence yourself.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> I don't give evidence. I get yelled at.
> 
> I give evidence. I get yelled at.
> 
> I ask for evidence. I get yelled at.
> 
> Go find evidence yourself.



No one has ever yelled at you. People have disagreed with you and got annoyed with you sure but no one's ever yelled.

Also you're the one who is _always_ asking for evidence, meanwhile you never give any. Then when people give you five links to look at you refuse to look into them because they're "fake news" or "liberal propaganda" or what have you. That's why when you ask for evidence people are like, "Is it even worth it?"


----------



## Haskell

gyro said:


> No one has ever yelled at you. People have disagreed with you and got annoyed with you sure but no one's ever yelled.
> 
> Also you're the one who is _always_ asking for evidence, meanwhile you never give any. Then when people give you five links to look at you refuse to look into them because they're "fake news" or "liberal propaganda" or what have you. That's why when you ask for evidence people are like, "Is it even worth it?"



Clearly you don't pay attention to my posts. Cya! Goodnight! ^_^


----------



## toadsworthy

Raskell said:


> Clearly you don't pay attention to my posts. Cya! Goodnight! ^_^



sassy passive aggressive post is sassy and passive aggressive


----------



## Koden

toadsworthy said:


> sassy passive aggressive post is sassy and passive aggressive



and we're the salty ones lol


----------



## toadsworthy

Politics is for chumps, Science is for the intelligent!


----------



## seliph

Was gonna add "or say you have to leave" to my post but then I went "Wait, I haven't seen him use that one, have I?"

But lo and behold.


----------



## Red Cat

Raskell said:


> I just realized something.
> 
> Does *anyone* actually care what *anyone* has to say about *politics* on the *internet*?
> 
> It's a waste of time to be discussing with someone *your opinions *when in reality,* they're worthless*. Our *opinions are worthless*.





Raskell said:


> Depends on the way you look at it. But in all reality, when do people change their opinions from a few messages between strangers?





Raskell said:


> Very well said, Vel. I disagree with you on many fronts of your post (and your others) but, nicely worded.
> 
> *
> I hope you all do not take these threads too seriously and research and form your own opinions.*
> 
> I will be taking an appearance on these threads less as I believe (you don't have to), "it's not worth it".



Maybe it's time to start following your own advice and just stop posting on this thread. You should know most of the people here are anti-Trump, so why do you act all surprised when you come under fire for being pro-Trump? And if you hate the criticism so much, then why are you posting on a forum where the community is overwhelmingly anti-Trump? Certainly, you can find a place where there are a lot of pro-Trump people since as you claim most of America supports Trump and Trump had a record turnout at his inauguration, so those millions and millions of people have to be out there somewhere, right? I mean, why would you be hanging out with a bunch of liberal losers on this site when Trump country is so big and yuge and awesome and everyone else loves him? Why do you care so much what we think? As you see it, we're just a tiny minority living among a population that overwhelmingly approves of Trump. So go hang out with your friends because they're literally everywhere. You can easily avoid the extremely tiny portion of the world that disapproves of Trump, right?

Or maybe deep down, despite all of your denial, you know that's not true. You know that Trump's rallies look like nursing homes with all the old people there and you know most people there are angry and not fun to hang out with. You know that most of America and the rest of the world hates Trump, so you can't escape us no matter where you try to run and hide. You know that most cool and fun people don't like Trump. So you desperately try to get our attention and respect, because you know only being with people who think like you would suck. You think we're awesome people except for the "liberal media brainwashing" part, except what you don't get is that the liberal media brainwashing is part of what makes this site a fun and happy community. Isn't ACC more conservative? Maybe you can go there for a few days thinking it will be better, and then come crawling back to us when it really isn't.

So if you don't give a **** about us or what we think, then just leave and stop wasting your time with us. Otherwise, if you really want to be around us, then stop regurgitating the same talking points about media bias over and over again. You're not going to win any respect in this community by doing that.


----------



## Haskell

Red Cat said:


> Maybe it's time to start following your own advice and just stop posting on this thread. You should know most of the people here are anti-Trump, so why do you act all surprised when you come under fire for being pro-Trump? And if you hate the criticism so much, then why are you posting on a forum where the community is overwhelmingly anti-Trump? Certainly, you can find a place where there are a lot of pro-Trump people since as you claim most of America supports Trump and Trump had a record turnout at his inauguration, so those millions and millions of people have to be out there somewhere, right? I mean, why would you be hanging out with a bunch of liberal losers on this site when Trump country is so big and yuge and awesome and everyone else loves him? Why do you care so much what we think? As you see it, we're just a tiny minority living among a population that overwhelmingly approves of Trump. So go hang out with your friends because they're literally everywhere. You can easily avoid the extremely tiny portion of the world that disapproves of Trump, right?
> 
> Or maybe deep down, despite all of your denial, you know that's not true. You know that Trump's rallies look like nursing homes with all the old people there and you know most people there are angry and not fun to hang out with. You know that most of America and the rest of the world hates Trump, so you can't escape us no matter where you try to run and hide. You know that most cool and fun people don't like Trump. So you desperately try to get our attention and respect, because you know only being with people who think like you would suck. You think we're awesome people except for the "liberal media brainwashing" part, except what you don't get is that the liberal media brainwashing is part of what makes this site a fun and happy community. Isn't ACC more conservative? Maybe you can go there for a few days thinking it will be better, and then come crawling back to us when it really isn't.
> 
> So if you don't give a **** about us or what we think, then just leave and stop wasting your time with us. Otherwise, if you really want to be around us, then stop regurgitating the same talking points about media bias over and over again. You're not going to win any respect in this community by doing that.



Ok! Thanks! Your opinion means a lot! ^_^​


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Trump written even another executive order, a religious liberty one. It sounds like that Christian bakers, flourists, and coordinators don't have to attend same-sex weddings without legal troubles.

What's up with these executive orders? Congress writes the laws, not the president.

EDIT: Source is here

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5892a812e4b0af07cb6b8672


----------



## LambdaDelta

you're assuming Trump has any sort of grasp of what his position entails

I'm 1000% positive "president" to him means "supreme almighty christened ruler of the world"


----------



## _Dentata

Raskell said:


> Failed policies. It hasn't been working... ISIS has grown, tripled their territory since Barack took office! :-(
> 
> So now you're calling me a xenophobe? Cool. Call me that. .3. You don't know one thing about me. *I happen to have several Muslim friends that have no problem for me supporting Trump. Most of them support Trump too.* I also have to had stuck up for an actual xenophobic comment. Trump is doing what no one else has the guts to do, thankfully. It's tough, but it has to be done.



Wha... are they open about it?


----------



## Waluigi

Chatte_Dentata said:


> Wha... are they open about it?



No, because they probably don't exist.


----------



## seliph

Waluigi said:


> No, because they probably don't exist.



They are alternative friends


----------



## Soda Fox

Raskell said:


> Last time I checked you had no relevant importance to what I do or what I am. So, stop trying to control what I do, think, say, type, think, speak. Thanks. xoxo



I hope you keep posting. This thread should be for fun (considering this is a gaming forum) and I appreciate seeing different view points even if it's unpopular here.


----------



## visibleghost

Apple2012 said:


> Trump written even another executive order, a religious liberty one. It sounds like that Christian bakers, flourists, and coordinators don't have to attend same-sex weddings without legal troubles.
> 
> What's up with these executive orders? Congress writes the laws, not the president.
> 
> EDIT: Source is here
> 
> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5892a812e4b0af07cb6b8672



when will he die

idk that much about things but arent most ppl in congress conservative..? so it would be kinda likely that they would like this?? idktho but, like, if it would be signed lgbt ppl would be more discriminated. if people dont want to have lgbt employees then dont employ Anyone. discrimination like that should never be supported by the law.

also i have a question abt this paragraph:



> The religious freedom draft states that protected organizations would include “closely held for-profit corporations.” Individuals and organizations would not “forfeit their religious freedom *when providing social services, education, or healthcare;* earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments,” it says.


(bolded added by me)
does this mean that teachers would be allowed to not teach things that go against their religions? would doctors be able to refuse certain people healthcare because of their religion? i dont know if i understood it correctly but, like... it sounds to me like he wants people to be allowed to discriminate people at any time anywhere ...


----------



## Haskell

Chatte_Dentata said:


> Wha... are they open about it?



Only to people that won't assume they won't exist.

A family that I went to NASA with. 

Two people at my school.

- - - Post Merge - - -



gyro said:


> They are alternative friends



Alternative facts is the other side the media does not report on.

She could have worded it better, but. What's worse is Hillary calling 2/4 of America deplorable.

- - - Post Merge - - -



LambdaDelta said:


> you're assuming Trump has any sort of grasp of what his position entails
> 
> I'm 1000% positive "president" to him means "supreme almighty christened ruler of the world"



I'm 10000000000000% positive "president" to him means taking care of America. xoxo

- - - Post Merge - - -



Apple2012 said:


> Trump written even another executive order, a religious liberty one. It sounds like that Christian bakers, flourists, and coordinators don't have to attend same-sex weddings without legal troubles.
> 
> What's up with these executive orders? Congress writes the laws, not the president.
> 
> EDIT: Source is here
> 
> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5892a812e4b0af07cb6b8672



He's exercising his presidential rights.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Koden said:


> and we're the salty ones lol



When did I call you salty, "friend?"

- - - Post Merge - - -



Soda Fox said:


> I hope you keep posting. This thread should be for fun (considering this is a gaming forum) and I appreciate seeing different view points even if it's unpopular here.



I appreciate that. Trust me though on this. My opinion is not unpopular. It's popular. In the world, on TBT. 

Many patriotic Trump supports dare to speak about their support because they are deemed deplorable by people that are reacting out of emotion, ignorance, et cetera.


----------



## moonford

Raskell said:


> When did I call you salty, "friend?"





> Salty Edgelord 2.0


 - Raskell to Koden.
On the "give your opinion of the the user above you" thread.


----------



## Waluigi

So now he wants to repeal the Johnson Amendment? There's a reason churches and charities shouldn't be allowed to intervene in politics. Whatever though, can't get much worse than it already is.


----------



## Haskell

Whiteflamingo said:


> - Raskell to Koden.
> On the "give your opinion of the the user above you" thread.



Forgot about that.

That's because of... different reasons that didn't originate from this thread.


----------



## moonford

Raskell said:


> Forgot about that.
> 
> That's because of... different reasons that didn't originate from this thread.



But you still said it, so I pointed it out and its kinda insensitive.


----------



## Haskell

Whiteflamingo said:


> But you still said it, so I pointed it out and its kinda insensitive.



How is it insensitive?

If that is insensitive, then the way a lot of people treat me should be considered insensitive if that is the case.


----------



## moonford

Raskell said:


> How is it insensitive?
> 
> If that is insensitive, then the way a lot of people treat me should be considered insensitive if that is the case.



I don't really feel like talking right now, so um....whatever floats your boat?


----------



## Waluigi

Whiteflamingo said:


> I don't really feel like talking right now, so um....whatever floats your boat?



I'd like to point out he edited the message, saying it's not insensitive because it's true.

No need to be a dick rask.


----------



## Haskell

Waluigi said:


> I'd like to point out he edited the message, saying it's not insensitive because it's true.
> 
> No need to be a dick dude.



I edited the message. It was prior saying that if people were "insensitive" to me, I wouldn't consider it to be insensitive because what they're saying is probably true. In real-life circumstances, that is.

Twisting things much? No need to twist things, lig.


----------



## moonford

Waluigi said:


> I'd like to point out he edited the message, saying it's not insensitive because it's true.
> 
> No need to be a dick rask.



I know he did and it just proved what I suspected, so I'm done now. 

Thanks for saving my time Rask. c;


----------



## Haskell

Whiteflamingo said:


> I know he did and it just proved what I suspected, so I'm done now.
> 
> Thanks for saving my time Rask. c;



What were you trying to prove? That I'm secretly "insensitive"? lol

Read the above message.

Didn't know I *couldn't* edit my posts.


----------



## moonford

Raskell said:


> What were you trying to prove? That I'm secretly "insensitive"? lol
> 
> Read the above message.
> 
> Didn't know I *couldn't* edit my posts.



No, something else, I already know that you're insensitive so why would I need something to be proven when it already has?


----------



## visibleghost

dloods chill u are going to get the thread locked. pls keep on topic . talk about us politicians who are salty edgelords instead


----------



## Cory

Whiteflamingo said:


> I have no idea how to respond to that either to be honest, could you be clearer Cory?
> I don't understand.



i had a point with it but i forgot it

- - - Post Merge - - -



LambdaDelta said:


> he breaks nations so fast like you wouldn't believe
> 
> he breaks nations bigly
> 
> so big it'll make your head spin



he actually says "big league"
i might be wrong tho


----------



## Red Cat

Raskell said:


> I appreciate that. Trust me though on this. My opinion is not unpopular. It's popular. In the world, on TBT.
> 
> Many patriotic Trump supports dare to speak about their support because they are deemed deplorable by people that are reacting out of emotion, ignorance, et cetera.



Your opinion is not popular on TBT. Look at the top of the page. See that? Ok, now which number is bigger? 27 or 92? The 92 is the number of people who disapprove of Trump. I know math isn't your strong suit (like when you use 10000000000000%), but try to take some time to solve this complicated math problem.

This poll is anonymous by the way. Other than you or the couple of other people who have posted in support of Trump, I have no idea who the other 20 something Trump supporters are. So don't use the "we're scared" excuse. Even if I knew your real identity, I live too far away from you to do anything anyway. Since you know so many Trump supporters on this site, why don't you get them to take 5 seconds and vote on this poll to show the overwhelming support TBT has for Trump? I'll tell you what: if you get a majority of voters on this poll to support Trump, then I'll become a Trump supporter.


----------



## seliph

Red Cat said:


> This poll is anonymous by the way.



That is actually an alternative fact 0:')

Also on topic, I've actually (thought I've) seen more Trump support than not so I'm happily surprised by the turnout of this poll tbh


----------



## Red Cat

gyro said:


> That is actually an alternative fact 0:')
> 
> Also on topic, I've actually (thought I've) seen more Trump support than not so I'm happily surprised by the turnout of this poll tbh



Maybe staff can see who voted for what, but not regular members as far as I know. But even if regular users can get that info somehow even though the poll was set not to reveal that info, the poll is still semi-anonymous as we can't get the real-life identities of members unless they tell us enough information to identify them.


----------



## moonford

Red Cat said:


> Maybe staff can see who voted for what, but not regular members as far as I know. But even if regular users can get that info somehow even though the poll was set not to reveal that info, the poll is still semi-anonymous as we can't get the real-life identities of members unless they tell us enough information to identify them.



Wait never mind....


----------



## seliph

Red Cat said:


> Maybe staff can see who voted for what, but not regular members as far as I know. But even if regular users can get that info somehow even though the poll was set not to reveal that info, the poll is still semi-anonymous as we can't get the real-life identities of members unless they tell us enough information to identify them.



Click the number of people who voted (not the percentage) and see the light.

I see what you mean though yeah. Shame I can't make note to avoid those 27 anywhere else but this site.


----------



## Haskell

Red Cat said:


> Your opinion is not popular on TBT. Look at the top of the page. See that? Ok, now which number is bigger? 27 or 92? The 92 is the number of people who disapprove of Trump. I know math isn't your strong suit (like when you use 10000000000000%), but try to take some time to solve this complicated math problem.
> 
> This poll is anonymous by the way. Other than you or the couple of other people who have posted in support of Trump, I have no idea who the other 20 something Trump supporters are. So don't use the "we're scared" excuse. Even if I knew your real identity, I live too far away from you to do anything anyway. Since you know so many Trump supporters on this site, why don't you get them to take 5 seconds and vote on this poll to show the overwhelming support TBT has for Trump? I'll tell you what: if you get a majority of voters on this poll to support Trump, then I'll become a Trump supporter.



Okay, King Of Useless Info. 

How do we know that someone did not mess with these polls? Unless it's public... 

A lot of people on TBT don't care about politics.

- - - Post Merge - - -



gyro said:


> Also on topic, I've actually (thought I've) seen more Trump support than not so I'm happily surprised by the turnout of this poll tbh



He did get elected.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> He did get elected.



I'm talking about on TBT. Thankfully ost of you guys who like him on here can't even vote.

Edit: Also as I said, the poll is public.


----------



## Soda Fox

As I said before, I still this Trump is doing a fine job. He's fulfilling his promises, and quickly, which is a shock to be sure. But it's a welcome shock to me. And honestly I think most of what he's done is reasonable. I think clickbait headlines generate more revenue so more journalists go that route, and that a lot of people just read the headline and form a premature opinion. 

It's fine to disagree. But I think if more people on both sides took the time to read and understand things from a different point of view, we'd have a lot less drama than we are right now. This applies to both Trump supporters and non-Trump supporters at least in the thread.


----------



## Stalfos

Raskell said:


> How do we know that someone did not mess with these polls? Unless it's public...



It is public. You can see who voted for what. Although, I can see how some people don't wan't to show their support for Trump so maybe the numbers would be different if the poll was anonymous.


----------



## Haskell

Stalfos said:


> It is public. You can see who voted for what. Although, I can see how some people don't wan't to show their support for Trump so maybe the numbers would be different if the poll was anonymous.



It's hard to poll appropriately on here.

If it's public, people might not want to vote.

If it's private, people can rig it. 

Ugh!


----------



## Red Cat

Raskell said:


> It's hard to poll appropriately on here.
> 
> If it's public, people might not want to vote.
> 
> If it's private, people can rig it.
> 
> Ugh!



Well isn't that the issue with real elections? Since people's votes are private, then how do we know Trump won legitimately? So if you're really in favor of eliminating voter fraud and rigging, then maybe everyone should have to publicly reveal their choice.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> It's hard to poll appropriately on here.
> 
> If it's public, people might not want to vote.
> 
> If it's private, people can rig it.
> 
> Ugh!



The only people who can rig it are mods and I highly doubt they'd mess with a political thread.


----------



## Haskell

gyro said:


> The only people who can rig it are mods and I highly doubt they'd mess with a political thread.



It's been rigged before. Polls. Just ask Tom and Oblivia.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Red Cat said:


> Well isn't that the issue with real elections? Since people's votes are private, then how do we know Trump won legitimately? So if you're really in favor of eliminating voter fraud and rigging, then maybe everyone should have to publicly reveal their choice.



Wow.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> It's been rigged before. Polls. Just ask Tom and Oblivia.



Yeah, a thread about pineapple on pizza, not a serious political thread.


----------



## Waluigi

The polls were not rigged. Most people here think that Trump is doing an awful job, and that shows in the poll. If the common opinion is against trump on TBT, why is it so suprising that people who do like him are outnumbered?


----------



## Red Cat

Waluigi said:


> The polls were not rigged. Most people here think that Trump is doing an awful job, and that shows in the poll. If the common opinion is against trump on TBT, why is it so suprising that people who do like him are outnumbered?



Because delusional people like Raskell think there's some "silent majority" that supports Trump. If this silent majority actually exists, then they must be really, really silent because we don't hear a peep from them and have no idea who the hell they are. They're like ghosts and it's our fault for not seeing and hearing them like Raskell does. I guess Raskell counts every voice in his head as a Trump supporter and we're all stupid and brainwashed because we're not hearing the voices in his head supporting Trump.


----------



## Waluigi

Red Cat said:


> Because delusional people like Raskell think there's some "silent majority" that supports Trump. If this silent majority actually exists, then they must be really, really silent because we don't hear a peep from them and have no idea who the hell they are. They're like ghosts and it's our fault for not seeing and hearing them like Raskell does. I guess Raskell counts every voice in his head as a Trump supporter and we're all stupid and brainwashed because we're not hearing the voices in his head supporting Trump.



Trump voters are nowhere near silent. Like his haters, they are very vocal, especially on places like r/thedonald (don't go there by the way, it is literally a land of sociopaths and insane men). Problem is on TBT, this is a very liberal place. Who knows who they were? Nobody, unless they admit.


----------



## visibleghost

Raskell said:


> It's hard to poll appropriately on here.
> 
> If it's public, people might not want to vote.
> 
> If it's private, people can rig it.
> 
> Ugh!



lmao rigged polls... ok. 

why cant u just accept that most people (who have voted) on tbt disapprove of trump's ****


----------



## Haskell

visibleghost said:


> lmao rigged polls... ok.
> 
> why cant u just accept that most people (who have voted) on tbt disapprove of trump's ****



I didn't state the polls were. I said that it is a possibility.

- - - Post Merge - - -



gyro said:


> Yeah, a thread about pineapple on pizza, not a serious political thread.



Ah, yes... 

My political poll was rigged. xoxo

- - - Post Merge - - -



Red Cat said:


> we don't hear a peep from them



You did on election night.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Red Cat said:


> not seeing and hearing them like Raskell does. I guess Raskell counts every voice in his head as a Trump supporter and we're all stupid and brainwashed because we're not hearing the voices in his head supporting Trump.



And people call me insensitive. Wouldn't this be considered insensitive, intolerant, and offensive in the_ bad words for liberals_ book?

- - - Post Merge - - -



Waluigi said:


> r/thedonald



I went to go sign up. "Raskell" was taken. Hmmm...


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> Ah, yes...
> 
> My political poll was rigged. xoxo



Which one?

Also the xoxo thing doesn't really work well in your favour kiddoo.



Raskell said:


> And people call me insensitive. Wouldn't this be considered insensitive, intolerant, and offensive in the_ bad words for liberals_ book?



Did you know not everyone you disagree with is a liberal let alone a far-left one


----------



## Stalfos

gyro said:


> Which one?



Least disliked politician. It actually was rigged *in favor* of Trump.


----------



## Haskell

gyro said:


> Which one?
> 
> Also the xoxo thing doesn't really work well in your favour kiddoo.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know not everyone you disagree with is a liberal let alone a far-left one



I didn't know I couldn't use "xoxo".

Did you know that I know that not everyone that disagrees with Trump is a liberal? Did you know that not everyone who supports Trump is an *actual *fascist? Did you know that *actual* fascists support all kinds of people?

- - - Post Merge - - -



Stalfos said:


> Least disliked politician. It actually was rigged *in favor* of Trump.



Blame Russia. Blame everyone but Clinton (and the left) for loosing.
I like how no one is talking about the DNC chairman not giving Senator Sanders a fair chance.
The left needs to own their loss.


----------



## seliph

Stalfos said:


> Least disliked politician. It actually was rigged *in favor* of Trump.



Oh yeah didn't they make it super high as a joke 'cause the thread went to hell anyways?



Raskell said:


> I didn't know I couldn't use "xoxo".
> 
> Did you know that I know that not everyone that disagrees with Trump is a liberal? Did you know that not everyone who supports Trump is an *actual *fascist? Did you know that *actual* fascists support all kinds of people?



Sure what's your point?
Also thanks for not even answering the question but thankfully Stalfos is here to save the day.



Raskell said:


> Blame Russia. Blame everyone but Clinton (and the left) for loosing.
> I like how no one is talking about the DNC chairman not giving Senator Sanders a fair chance.
> The left needs to own their loss.



We're talking about your thread not actual real life polls omg what


----------



## Haskell

gyro said:


> We're talking about your thread not actual real life polls omg what



I was replying to Stalfos. omg what.


----------



## _Dentata

Raskell said:


> Only to people that won't assume they won't exist.
> 
> A family that I went to NASA with.
> 
> Two people at my school.


Wait, what


----------



## Haskell

gyro said:


> Also thanks for not even answering the question but thankfully Stalfos is here to save the day.



I didn't know that I had to answer you question. My questions answered your question in itself.

 We have a critical thinker, guys. Wait. I'm not being inclusive! 

We have a critical thinker, people.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Chatte_Dentata said:


> Wait, what



NASA... the space exploration center in Texas.


----------



## Stalfos

Raskell said:


> Blame Russia. Blame everyone but Clinton (and the left) for loosing.
> I like how no one is talking about the DNC chairman not giving Senator Sanders a fair chance.
> The left needs to own their loss.



Whoa Nellie! A lot of people here dislike Hillary and feel Bernie was cheated. We've had that discussion. I don't really understand how that was directed at me for letting gyro know about your poll.


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> I was replying to Stalfos. omg what.



You replied to Stalfos' reply to my question about your thread.

I'm always torn between wondering if you're someone's alt trolling us all or if you just have trouble reading sometimes



Raskell said:


> I didn't know that I had to answer you question. My questions answered your question in itself.
> 
> We have a critical thinker, guys. Wait. I'm not being inclusive!
> 
> We have a critical thinker, people.



What the **** lmao


----------



## Waluigi

I can't take anyone that thinks the donald is a good place seriously. Go over to them though, they would love to have you. (Or hate, because they really hate gays over there)


----------



## Haskell

Waluigi said:


> I can't take anyone that thinks the donald is a good place seriously. Go over to them though, they would love to have you. (Or hate, because they really hate gays over there)



What's your point?

That you don't like the Donald.
That Trump supporters allegedly hate gays?
That I'm delusional?

Ok.

- - - Post Merge - - -



gyro said:


> someone's alt trolling us all or if you just have trouble reading sometimes



Be torn. It doesn't matter.

I couldn't care less.


----------



## Bunnilla

Raskell said:


> Be torn. It doesn't matter.
> 
> I couldn't care less.



Isn't that being rood to gyro so technicallyyyy you could get a warning/infrac?

To answer the point, no I do not approve of the job that the "president" right here is doing. I don't like him he is a very grumpy old man lol


----------



## Haskell

Bunnilla said:


> Isn't that being rood to gyro so technicallyyyy you could get a warning/infrac?



In the _liberal book of bad words_, it is.


----------



## seliph

Bunnilla said:


> Isn't that being rood to gyro so technicallyyyy you could get a warning/infrac?



Meh not really.


----------



## Soda Fox

Waluigi said:


> I can't take anyone that thinks the donald is a good place seriously. Go over to them though, they would love to have you. (Or hate, because they really hate gays over there)



I love The Donald. Saying something like this is no different than people on The Donald saying they can't take people who watch CNN seriously. Try not to stereotype people just because of their choice of news outlets or you'll be just as bad.


----------



## Haskell

Photos & Videos of people being burned alive, dead babies washing up on shores, et cetera... in the Middle East = No Protests.


Ban & Extreme Vetting of people committing those terrible acts... in the Middle East = Protests.
Protesters state "it's a serious matter and we need to take it seriously."

Makes no sense.


----------



## seliph

Soda Fox said:


> I love The Donald. Saying something like this is no different than people on The Donald saying they can't take people who watch CNN seriously. Try not to stereotype people just because of their choice of news outlets or you'll be just as bad.



People who "love The Donald" = standing behind a man who has shown that he's a-okay with sexism, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and censorship because they're either privileged enough that _none_ of that effects them (or they can blissfully ignore it) or because they're too ignorant to realize that it does

People who watch CNN = ??? are watching a news network ???


----------



## Waluigi

Soda Fox said:


> I love The Donald. Saying something like this is no different than people on The Donald saying they can't take people who watch CNN seriously. Try not to stereotype people just because of their choice of news outlets or you'll be just as bad.



I'm saying this because i have not once seen a nice person there. Not saying there arent, but a majority of them are deluded and almost sociopathic


----------



## DarkDesertFox

gyro said:


> People who "love The Donald" = standing behind a man who has shown that he's a-okay with sexism, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and censorship because they're either privileged enough that _none_ of that effects them (or they can blissfully ignore it) or because they're too ignorant to realize that it does
> 
> People who watch CNN = ??? are watching a news network ???



Comments like this are the reason I don't post in these threads anymore. No respect at all.


----------



## seliph

DarkDesertFox said:


> Comments like this are the reason I don't post in these threads anymore. No respect at all.



What was the point in making this post if you're claiming that you aren't going to post? To each his own I guess~


----------



## DarkDesertFox

gyro said:


> What was the point in making this post if you're claiming that you aren't going to post? To each his own I guess~



My point is people are wondering why some of the Trump supporters here aren't posting. I'm saying because of the lack of respect and belittling of their opinions. I know a lot of people are against Trump here, but that doesn't mean the people for him aren't allowed to have an opinion. Giving his supporters false labels isn't cool either.


----------



## Leen

As a tax payer in the U.S., pretty enraged that we now will likely have to pay for this ridiculous wall that's going to literally do nothing.


----------



## seliph

DarkDesertFox said:


> My point is people are wondering why some of the Trump supporters here aren't posting. I'm saying because of the lack of respect and belittling of their opinions. I know a lot of people are against Trump here, but that doesn't mean the people for him aren't allowed to have an opinion. Giving his supporters false labels isn't cool either.



Tbh I'd say I've seen at least just as much Trump support as Trump hate if not more, so I think if anyone's being silent it's the people opposed to him. Especially seeing how the disapproval option in the poll is dominating by so much which I didn't expect.

But who knows I may be wrong ?\_(ツ)_/?


----------



## Haskell

Leen said:


> As a tax payer in the U.S., pretty enraged that we now will likely have to pay for this ridiculous wall that's going to literally do nothing.



That's how we felt with Obamacare.

Walls have been proven to be effective, by the way. Mexico built a wall. Guatemala built a wall.


----------



## Leen

gyro said:


> Tbh I'd say I've seen at least just as much Trump support as Trump hate if not more, so I think if anyone's being silent it's the people opposed to him. Especially seeing how the disapproval option in the poll is dominating by so much which I didn't expect.
> 
> But who knows I may be wrong ?\_(ツ)_/?




Maybe the opposition is being heard louder now because a good majority of Trump supporters are now feeling the horrible guilt of what this moron is doing to our country and its citizens.


----------



## Haskell

Leen said:


> Maybe the opposition is being heard louder now because a good majority of Trump supporters are now feeling the horrible guilt of what this moron is doing to our country and its citizens.



This comment itself is a major stretch.


----------



## Leen

Raskell said:


> That's how we felt with Obamacare.
> 
> Walls have been proven to be effective, by the way. Mexico built a wall. Guatemala built a wall.



"Obamacare", or the Affordable Care Act, was actually tweaked by the Republicans to their liking. So actually, "Obamacare" isn't all Obama's. Just FYI.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Raskell said:


> This comment itself is a major stretch.




You're a major stretch.


----------



## visibleghost

Soda Fox said:


> I love The Donald. Saying something like this is no different than people on The Donald saying they can't take people who watch CNN seriously. Try not to stereotype people just because of their choice of news outlets or you'll be just as bad.



r/thedonald is the most annoying subreddit lmao. why do u love it?? i'm genuinely interested because to me it is just a big circlejerk that gets offended at everything and bans people for no reason.


----------



## Haskell

Leen said:


> "Obamacare", or the Affordable Care Act, was actually tweaked by the Republicans to their liking. So actually, "Obamacare" isn't all Obama's. Just FYI.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> You're a major stretch.



Speculation much?

That's also how we felt with planned parenthood. An advocate for killing babies. 



So mature.. "You're a major stretch."


----------



## seliph

Raskell said:


> This comment itself is a major stretch.



https://twitter.com/trump_regrets?lang=en

There's some strong language in some of the tweets, I'll remove the link if it counts as censor bypassing


----------



## Leen

Raskell said:


> Speculation much?
> 
> That's also how we felt with planned parenthood. An advocate for killing babies.
> 
> So mature.. "You're a major stretch."



Pot calling the kettle black... Not even going to try and talk sense into how false your statement about Planned Parenthood is. You're not worth it.


----------



## Ghost Soda

DarkDesertFox said:


> My point is people are wondering why some of the Trump supporters here aren't posting. I'm saying because of the lack of respect and belittling of their opinions. I know a lot of people are against Trump here, but that doesn't mean the people for him aren't allowed to have an opinion. Giving his supporters false labels isn't cool either.



wow, it's almost as if crapping on someone's rights as a human being and supporting a man that does the same, excuses comments like "grab her by the (mya mya)" and acts like an all around bigot makes people angry at you.


----------



## Bunnilla

Raskell said:


> That's how we felt with Obamacare.
> 
> Walls have been proven to be effective, by the way. Mexico built a wall. Guatemala built a wall.



And Mexico can just build a tunnel under the wall :^)
People always find a way around things.
Always


----------



## visibleghost

DarkDesertFox said:


> My point is people are wondering why some of the Trump supporters here aren't posting. I'm saying because of the lack of respect and belittling of their opinions. I know a lot of people are against Trump here, but that doesn't mean the people for him aren't allowed to have an opinion. Giving his supporters false labels isn't cool either.



people are allowed to have their own opinions lmao
but if someone supports donald trump they are supporting a person who wants to make life much more difficult for women, lgbt people, people of color and muslims. he is sexist, racist, islamophobic and homophobic. i don't care if you like him because of his hair or whatever, you are still choosing to support a person who discriminates minorities.
you can't compare people not liking others' opinions to actual discrimination. people are upset with trump supporters because they support someone who actively discriminates people, like, a lot. people who support trump also support his discrimination, even if they claim to not be racist/homopobic/sexist/anti islam/whatever else. if you accept or support discrimination or people who discriminate others then you are a part of it. 
like, of course people are going to be upset when someone pretty much says "hey i think it is ok to treat u and people like u like crap :')"

donald trump supporters know what he stands for. i'm Really Sad that people who support racism, sexism, homophobia and islamophobia don't want to write their opinions on this forum because they're afraid people will be negative to them.... almost as sad as i am that there are people who hate, kill and discriminate minorities for just existing......


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> Ban & Extreme Vetting of people committing those terrible acts... in the Middle East = Protests.
> Protesters state "it's a serious matter and we need to take it seriously."
> 
> Makes no sense.


You're literally saying we let terrorists in the country and just banned them from coming. Ummmmm???? Where the **** is sharia law? Why am I not beheaded yet? You're acting as if the government doesn't do background checks on refugees that are allowed into the country. 

Guns killed 301,797 people in the U.S. from 2005 to 2015 and terrorists killed 94 people. I don't understand how right wingers think they're pro-life when their pro-war and pro-gun policies are the exact opposite of that. They don't seem to care about people killed by police officers either, or those who die of illness due to a lack of sufficient health care


----------



## moonford

Hmmm....I don't think I've flat out said what I think about him yet, here we go!

*I do not approve.* < This is underlined and in bold so you know that I'm super cereal. 

I think he is already making a mess with the temporary immigration ban which will affect many people, specifically those who need to see their family and friends, this whole wall "thing" (never heard about it...oh wait....) is ridiculous, he knows that the US is in debt so why would he do something like this so early and recklessly? He says he's "for the people" yet he's taking his peoples money to pay for something that won't  work at all and will make other countries fall out with him and the US.
I'm glad the Federals didn't pass the permanent ban. (although I'm pretty sure they couldn't, correct me if I'm wrong.)

He made a threat/warning to the Mexican President recently by phone I believe, stating he would send American troops to Mexico to fight gangs, wow. He's going to start a gosh damn war if he thinks he can say things like this to world leaders, stupid and childish. This is your President? Yikes.
He also yelled at the Australian PM, good for you Donald making friends so early.

Don't get me started on the Frederick Douglass/ Black History Month comments.


----------



## visibleghost

gyro said:


> https://twitter.com/trump_regrets?lang=en
> 
> There's some strong language in some of the tweets, I'll remove the link if it counts as censor bypassing



i'm crying this is the best twitter account... i dont understand how they didnt see how bad he was before the election


----------



## seliph

Whiteflamingo said:


> Don't get me started on the Frederick Douglass/ Black History Month comments.



Oh my _god_ I forgot about those yikes



visibleghost said:


> i'm crying this is the best twitter account... i dont understand how they didnt see how bad he was before the election



Idk I'm guessing they saw how much he hated Obama and went "Wow... this talking tangerine is gonna Fix Everything" and never paid attention to anything else he said


----------



## Soda Fox

visibleghost said:


> r/thedonald is the most annoying subreddit lmao. why do u love it?? i'm genuinely interested because to me it is just a big circlejerk that gets offended at everything and bans people for no reason.



I like getting my information from a variety of sources. That's why I read both The_Donald and r/politics, and watch both CNN and FOX news. 

The _Donald is a circlejerk to be sure, but at least it doesn't pretend that it's not, unlike r/politics.


----------



## moonford

Oh! The Arnold Schwarzenegger feud too, oh my god.


----------



## ams

Raskell said:


> Photos & Videos of people being burned alive, dead babies washing up on shores, et cetera... in the Middle East = No Protests.
> 
> 
> Ban & Extreme Vetting of people committing those terrible acts... in the Middle East = Protests.
> Protesters state "it's a serious matter and we need to take it seriously."
> 
> Makes no sense.



I have 3 classmates and a family member affected by the ban. I can verify that none of them have burned anyone alive or thrown babies into the sea. How can you simultaneously think that generalizing about Trump supporters is wrong while you make such gross generalizations about people from other parts of the world? A Trump supporter recently mirdered 6 people in my country. Should we start a ban on people from countries with conservative governments?


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> It's hard to poll appropriately on here.
> 
> If it's public, people might not want to vote.
> 
> If it's private, people can rig it.
> 
> Ugh!



the fact that you're paranoid over an internet poll for a semi-closed community forum being rigged (especially in cases where they are, such as the flat earthers thread being laughably obvious) is sure saying a lot about you

have you ever thought about getting less drunk on fear-based propaganda?



Raskell said:


> Did you know that not everyone who supports Trump is an *actual *fascist? Did you know that *actual* fascists support all kinds of people?



yeah, but if you're constantly supporting fascist ****, then good chances are that you're a fascist

that, or your "alternative fact" choice is "idiot that doesn't understand how fascists have historically and repeatedly wormed their way into power"


----------



## DarkDesertFox

visibleghost said:


> people are allowed to have their own opinions lmao
> but if someone supports donald trump they are supporting a person who wants to make life much more difficult for women, lgbt people, people of color and muslims. he is sexist, racist, islamophobic and homophobic. i don't care if you like him because of his hair or whatever, you are still choosing to support a person who discriminates minorities.
> you can't compare people not liking others' opinions to actual discrimination. people are upset with trump supporters because they support someone who actively discriminates people, like, a lot. people who support trump also support his discrimination, even if they claim to not be racist/homopobic/sexist/anti islam/whatever else. if you accept or support discrimination or people who discriminate others then you are a part of it.
> like, of course people are going to be upset when someone pretty much says "hey i think it is ok to treat u and people like u like crap :')"
> 
> donald trump supporters know what he stands for. i'm Really Sad that people who support racism, sexism, homophobia and islamophobia don't want to write their opinions on this forum because they're afraid people will be negative to them.... almost as sad as i am that there are people who hate, kill and discriminate minorities for just existing......



So you're pretty much saying every Christian that voted for him isn't a real Christian. Jesus taught us to treat others the way you would want to be treated. I have tried to follow that way of living my whole life and now I'm being persecuted of all these labels because I voted for a man I know will help this country. You can label me what you want, but I know who I am. God knows it too. This is the last thing I'm going to say here because I've seen enough of this. Enjoy your hate thread.


----------



## visibleghost

DarkDesertFox said:


> So you're pretty much saying every Christian that voted for him isn't a real Christian. Jesus taught us to treat others the way you would want to be treated. I have tried to follow that way of living my whole life and now I'm being persecuted of all these labels because I voted for a man I know will help this country. You can label me what you want, but I know who I am. God knows it too. This is the last thing I'm going to say here because I've seen enough of this. Enjoy your hate thread.



yes, every person should have known that who they voted for. i didn't say anything about true christians, that's your own opinion. but if a real christian is someone who treats others like they want to be treated themselves it seems like a lot of christians want to be stripped of their rights and safety.
you might not consider yourself a racist, homophobe, sexist etc. but you still made the choice to vote for someone who very clearly has stated that he is those things and that he wants to change things to make things worse for minorities. i don't see how anyone who wants everyone to have equal rights, to feel safe and happy, and to not be discriminated would ever vote for trump. 
enjoy your hate president.


----------



## LambdaDelta

>support someone constantly spouting hateful rhetoric
>get mad when people hate you back as a result

I can't even


----------



## seliph

DarkDesertFox said:


> Jesus taught us to treat others the way you would want to be treated.



So you guys really like walls huh


----------



## Alolan_Apples

I actually agree with Raskell on many things, but he's sounding very aggressive when voicing his opinions. I mean, he argues hard, which complicates political threads. The truth is, I'm not a Trump supporter, but during the election, there was nobody else I could support. Even if I don't like Trump, I'm always gonna go for the Republicans since I agree with many of their policies. And as much as I kept saying that liberals are more immature and hostile than conservatives when it comes to politics in general, you guys seem to be rather chill than rude.


----------



## Red Cat

DarkDesertFox said:


> My point is people are wondering why some of the Trump supporters here aren't posting. I'm saying because of the lack of respect and belittling of their opinions. I know a lot of people are against Trump here, but that doesn't mean the people for him aren't allowed to have an opinion. Giving his supporters false labels isn't cool either.



You sound so pathetic when you support a man who campaigned on bullying women, African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, and people with disabilities and then cry about being belittled and not respected. We're just giving you a taste of your own medicine. If you're in favor of Trump shutting out immigrants from Muslim majority countries, then stop complaining about people on a liberal forum trying to shut down conservatives here. If you feel like **** here, that's great. Now you know how if feels like for many women and minorities living in a country with Trump as president.

Trump is the whiner in chief and supporters emulate that behavior. Trump is the president and he still whines about every little thing on a daily basis whether it's the media, his crowd sizes, The Celebrity Apprentice ratings, etc. If he is going to be so great and is going to do so much good stuff, then why does he keep whining? Trump knows that the used car salesman act is going to eventually wear off so he is desperately trying to scapegoat anyone and everyone before his presidency turns out to be a lemon. I used to think that liberals were overly sensitive, but it turns out the conservatives are the ones who really feel insecure about everything. They crave people's attention and adulation and any little piece of criticism just drives them up the wall. Even though conservatives have their president and constantly proclaim how great he is, those thousands of protesters in the street every day scare the **** out of them and are a reminder that Trump country is the minority and shrinking as Baby Boomers die off and millennials become eligible to vote. They know it's gonna be lonely growing up when there's more caramel and chocolate while nationalist vanilla will be viewed as a very disgusting flavor in the future because of Trump.


----------



## N e s s

Lol he actually got into an argument with Arnold shwarzenegger

Tbh I would take Arnold over trump, and Arnold is republican too

- - - Post Merge - - -



DarkDesertFox said:


> So you're pretty much saying every Christian that voted for him isn't a real Christian. Jesus taught us to treat others the way you would want to be treated. I have tried to follow that way of living my whole life and now I'm being persecuted of all these labels because I voted for a man I know will help this country. You can label me what you want, but I know who I am. God knows it too. This is the last thing I'm going to say here because I've seen enough of this. Enjoy your hate thread.


That's funny because Donald trump committed the sin of adultery with his first 2 wives


----------



## Alolan_Apples

N e s s said:


> Lol he actually got into an argument with Arnold shwarzenegger
> 
> Tbh I would take Arnold over trump, and Arnold is republican too



Despite seeing Shwarzenegger as president in some movies, it's not possible in reality for him to be president. He's born in Austria, not America. They only limit presidency to those born on American soil to at least one American parent.


----------



## N e s s

Apple2012 said:


> Despite seeing Shwarzenegger as president in some movies, it's not possible in reality for him to be president. He's born in Austria, not America. They only limit presidency to those born on American soil to at least one American parent.



Lol it's cool, I know he can't be president I'm just imagining it


----------



## LambdaDelta

Apple2012 said:


> Despite seeing Shwarzenegger as president in some movies, it's not possible in reality for him to be president. He's born in Austria, not America. They only limit presidency to those born on American soil to at least one American parent.



time for Trump to go buy Austria


----------



## seliph

Apple2012 said:


> And as much as I kept saying that liberals are more immature and hostile than conservatives when it comes to politics in general, you guys seem to be rather chill than rude.



I'm chill most of the time but apparently my posts come off as angry or something to some people... dunno how to fix that but it's mostly whatever



Apple2012 said:


> Despite seeing Shwarzenegger as president in some movies, it's not possible in reality for him to be president. He's born in Austria, not America. They only limit presidency to those born on American soil to at least one American parent.



They let a celebrity with 0 experience become president already, I'm sure they can bend another rule right? Right?


----------



## Alex518

not in the slightest


----------



## issitohbi

Not only does he have no clue what he's doing, but he's trying to appoint people who are proven to have no idea what _they_ are doing. And he pushed through DAPL after Obama put a stop to it, effectively taking Native land for Big Oil. Treaty land. Something that's impeachable. (And morally wrong, obv)

I think he's trash.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

My pet apples really hate Trump. They hated his immigration ban, the "alternative facts" thing, and his plans to build a wall. Yes, they care a lot about what people do. And it appears that Trump got a 0% approval rating and 100% disapproval rating among all of my apples.


----------



## Haskell

Apple2012 said:


> My pet apples really hate Trump. They hated his immigration ban, the "alternative facts" thing, and his plans to build a wall. Yes, they care a lot about what people do. And it appears that Trump got a 0% approval rating and 100% disapproval rating among all of my apples.



Hate him all you want. He's president. Not much you can do.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> Hate him all you want. He's president. Not much you can do.



he might be president, we're not beholden to kiss his ass by any means


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> he might be president, we're not beholden to kiss his ass by any means



I'm not asking you to do anything. Twisting things?


----------



## LambdaDelta

Apple2012 said:


> My pet apples really hate Trump. They hated his immigration ban, the "alternative facts" thing, and his plans to build a wall. Yes, they care a lot about what people do. And it appears that Trump got a 0% approval rating and 100% disapproval rating among all of my apples.



I'm constantly torn between "you need 2 more apples at top for 12 top and bottom" and "it's perfectly aligned with avatar, so 10 is fine"

- - - Post Merge - - -



Raskell said:


> I'm not asking you to do anything. Twisting things?



You're basically saying nobody can oppose things he does or will do, which spoilers: yes they can

effectiveness of the opposition is another matter, but there's nothing saying people just have to take **** as it comes


----------



## Soda Fox

LambdaDelta said:


> You're basically saying nobody can oppose things he does or will do, which spoilers: yes they can
> 
> effectiveness of the opposition is another matter, but there's nothing saying people just have to take **** as it comes



Right but there's also throwing a tantrum that the president won't care about and actively oppose vs understanding where he's coming from, respecting that, and appealing your point of view in a reasonable way.

*Edit : Peaceful protesting is fine.  But when property is being destroyed, roads are being obstructed without sufficient notice - I get that people want to protest where they're going to be seen, but the average Joe should be able to avoid that and get where he needs to go - it really only hurts the protesters.  Average Joe doesn't care about what the protester has to say - and usually won't be thinking "thank god I was late to work today so people I don't disagree with can yell at me".


----------



## LambdaDelta

Soda Fox said:


> Right but there's also throwing a tantrum that the president won't care about and actively oppose vs understanding where he's coming from, respecting that, and appealing your point of view in a reasonable way.



he's coming from narcissistic hatred, I understand that completely. and no, that does not deserve any level of respect

and lmao "appealing in a reasonable way".... so like slide a couple trillion dollars under his desk? pray tell how you "appeal" to someone that clearly refuses to listen in the first place


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> he's coming from narcissistic hatred



You cannot just throw out derogatory terms just because. Face it, you've been "logiced."


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> You cannot just throw out derogatory terms just because. Face it, you've been "logiced."



that's not even a word. ****post harder


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> that's not even a word. ****post harder



That's why it's in quotations. Please stop acting immature. I'd like to have a discussion... not a derogatory slang contest.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> That's why it's in quotations. Please stop acting immature. I'd like to have a discussion... not a derogatory slang contest.



narcissism isn't derogatory slang


----------



## Soda Fox

LambdaDelta said:


> he's coming from narcissistic hatred, I understand that completely. and no, that does not deserve any level of respect
> 
> and lmao "appealing in a reasonable way".... so like slide a couple trillion dollars under his desk? pray tell how you "appeal" to someone that clearly refuses to listen in the first place



I don't think that's true at all.  I see a lot of attacks against him based on something like "he's sexist, he's homophobic, he's ectphobic" whatever.  If you come to the table with "I think this is a bad idea because x, and then support x with your own research, people on both sides are much more open.

Seeing people as, what they are (again IMO), imperfect people who just want a little understanding, you can have a much larger effect.

Take the recent airport protest for example.  Instead of protesting in a place that doesn't effect "normal" people/the Average Joe (I've seen both of sides to this;  One says they need to be seen and another says they are only making normal people inconvenienced and so it doesn't matter) the message will be a lot more powerful.  If you want me to clarify more I'd be happy to do so.  But the Average Joe looks out for him/herself.  Anyone who throws a wrench in that, even if it's "morally superior", is only hurting themselves, because the Average Joe can and should effect the election results, since as much as we'd like to think we're special, most if not all of us are the "average joe" looking out for their own interests.


----------



## Red Cat

Soda Fox said:


> Right but there's also throwing a tantrum that the president won't care about and actively oppose vs understanding where he's coming from, respecting that, and appealing your point of view in a reasonable way.
> 
> *Edit : Peaceful protesting is fine.  But when property is being destroyed, roads are being obstructed without sufficient notice - I get that people want to protest where they're going to be seen, but the average Joe should be able to avoid that and get where he needs to go - it really only hurts the protesters.  Average Joe doesn't care about what the protester has to say - and usually won't be thinking "thank god I was late to work today so people I don't disagree with can yell at me".



Not to mention it's stupid when protesters cause disruption in major cities where about 90% of the population already hates Trump.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Red Cat said:


> Not to mention it's stupid when protesters cause disruption in major cities where about 90% of the population already hates Trump.



Another thing they were doing wrong was that they were saying stuff like "Not my president" in their protests. It's okay to hate Trump. It's fine, because not only everyone has the right to have an opinion, but also Trump is a bully. Even if he does a good job (which many would say he wouldn't), he's still a bully. But to reject his presidency like saying "not my president" or censoring history to keep him out of the legacy, that is blatant immaturity. They can hate Trump, but they need to accept the fact that he is president and the fact that people voted him in. And like what some people say, they should not block highways, assault people, or vandalize property. All of that is against the law, and such aggressive behavior increases stress, which is bad for the heart.

Not once have I said that Obama isn't my president. Not once have I got into a fight with someone for simply liking Obama (in fact, I got along with a couple of people who were fans of him). Not once have I threatened to leave because Obama got elected. But the anti-Trump people are doing the opposite. And they're acting childish about it. They just couldn't accept his presidency. They rioted and protested. They threatened electors to not vote for him. Some government officials boycotted his presidency, saying that he wasn't legit. And more recently, some people think the presidential legacy was forever tainted. There's even petitions to not have Trump appear in Disney's Hall of Presidents. Like I said, it's okay to hate him, but you need to respect the office and the legacy no matter who gets the spot. And whether or not you want to censor history, you can't change history. That's what these anti-Trump people are failing to understand.


----------



## Red Cat

Apple2012 said:


> Another thing they were doing wrong was that they were saying stuff like "Not my president" in their protests. It's okay to hate Trump. It's fine, because not only everyone has the right to have an opinion, but also Trump is a bully. Even if he does a good job (which many would say he wouldn't), he's still a bully. But to reject his presidency like saying "not my president" or censoring history to keep him out of the legacy, that is blatant immaturity. They can hate Trump, but they need to accept the fact that he is president and the fact that people voted him in. And like what some people say, they should not block highways, assault people, or vandalize property. All of that is against the law, and such aggressive behavior increases stress, which is bad for the heart.
> 
> Not once have I said that Obama isn't my president. Not once have I got into a fight with someone for simply liking Obama (in fact, I got along with a couple of people who were fans of him). Not once have I threatened to leave because Obama got elected. But the anti-Trump people are doing the opposite. And they're acting childish about it. They just couldn't accept his presidency. They rioted and protested. They threatened electors to not vote for him. Some government officials boycotted his presidency, saying that he wasn't legit. And more recently, some people think the presidential legacy was forever tainted. There's even petitions to not have Trump appear in Disney's Hall of Presidents. Like I said, it's okay to hate him, but you need to respect the office and the legacy no matter who gets the spot. And whether or not you want to censor history, you can't change history. That's what these anti-Trump people are failing to understand.



Yeah, there's no changing the fact that Trump is the 45th president. People are going to have to work with that reality. We don't know how his presidency will turn out only 2 weeks in, so it's hard to speculate on what his legacy will be. I think most Americans would agree that he hasn't gotten off to a very good start. If Trump keeps going down the rabbit hole, then people will have to decide how he will be remembered. We won't be able to erase him or scrub him from the history books, but it's possible that he won't be honored like other presidents with portraits, statues, monuments, a library, etc. if he comes to represent a dark period in American history. There's nothing stopping Trump from coming to his senses and acting like a normal president, but I'd say it's a coin flip at this point and if it lands on tails, then Trump will be remembered as a massive mistake in American history and won't get much more than pages written about him in history textbooks.


----------



## Haskell

He's keeping his campaign promises, folks!

Prepare for 8 years, not just 4!

#Trump2020


----------



## nintendofan85

Red Cat said:


> Yeah, there's no changing the fact that Trump is the 45th president. People are going to have to work with that reality. We don't know how his presidency will turn out only 2 weeks in, so it's hard to speculate on what his legacy will be. I think most Americans would agree that he hasn't gotten off to a very good start. If Trump keeps going down the rabbit hole, then people will have to decide how he will be remembered. We won't be able to erase him or scrub him from the history books, but it's possible that he won't be honored like other presidents with portraits, statues, monuments, a library, etc. if he comes to represent a dark period in American history. There's nothing stopping Trump from coming to his senses and acting like a normal president, but I'd say it's a coin flip at this point and if it lands on tails, then Trump will be remembered as a massive mistake in American history and won't get much more than pages written about him in history textbooks.



My friends IRL are trying to make it seem like Bernie Sanders is the president, but he's not.


----------



## Haskell

nintendofan85 said:


> My friends IRL are trying to make it seem like Bernie Sanders is the president, but he's not.



That's outrageous... if they're being serious.

Now... playing around, I can understand.


----------



## nintendofan85

Raskell said:


> That's outrageous... if they're being serious.
> 
> Now... playing around, I can understand.



Nope, they're serious.


----------



## toadsworthy

Raskell said:


> He's keeping his campaign promises, folks!
> 
> Prepare for 8 years, not just 4!
> 
> #Trump2020



with the amount of resistance he's getting, I can't imagine there will be any joking around for 2020


----------



## Haskell

toadsworthy said:


> with the amount of resistance he's getting, I can't imagine there will be any joking around for 2020



"Fact-checkers", "analysts", "pollsters" have been proven wrong before.

The silent majority has spoke. I think if he does as he promised to do and keeps his aggression down, he will have a 2nd term.


----------



## Kirbystarship

Raskell said:


> "Fact-checkers", "analysts", "pollsters" have been proven wrong before.
> 
> The silent majority has spoke. I think if he does as he promised to do and keeps his aggression down, he will have a 2nd term.



Unless someone like Bernie runs. I think if it was Donald Trump VS Bernie Trump would likely lose.


----------



## Haskell

Kirbystarship said:


> Unless someone like Bernie runs. I think if it was Donald Trump VS Bernie Trump would likely lose.



Bernie wouldn't do so well. 

I believe he's older than Trump or around the same age. Age is always a factor.

No republican would vote for him basically. He has socialist aspects.

The democratic party screwed him over. What makes you think they won't again?

It's unlikely for a person that ran once, run a second time and win. Mitt Romney. Rick Perry. Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Soda Fox

toadsworthy said:


> with the amount of resistance he's getting, I can't imagine there will be any joking around for 2020



If we've learned anything from the past at least 4 presidencies that I actually lived through, it's really unlikely people will care enough to turn up and change things in 2020.  It happened with Obama, when I was actually paying attention to politics, and it also happened with W. Bush, who is regarded as one of the worst presidents of all time.

It's going to take A LOT of effort to get Trump out after 4 years, and I really don't think it's going to happen.  People are inherently lazy.


----------



## Kirbystarship

Raskell said:


> Bernie wouldn't do so well.
> 
> I believe he's older than Trump or around the same age. Age is always a factor.
> 
> No republican would vote for him basically. He has socialist aspects.
> 
> The democratic party screwed him over. What makes you think they won't again?
> 
> It's unlikely for a person that ran once, run a second time and win. Mitt Romney. Rick Perry. Hillary Clinton.



He has strong support from young voters. More young voters will be able to vote in 2020


----------



## HopeForHyrule

If I was all about polluting our streams, drilling in our national parks, picking fights with this country's allies, and refusing to let people back into the country who were already here LEGALLY because of where they were born, then sure. I'd have to say he's doing a great job.

But I have yet to get that lobotomy, so I'm afraid I'm still on the other side of that wall he's so keen on.


----------



## Haskell

Soda Fox said:


> If we've learned anything from the past at least 4 presidencies that I actually lived through, it's really unlikely people will care enough to turn up and change things in 2020.  It happened with Obama, when I was actually paying attention to politics, and it also happened with W. Bush, who is regarded as one of the worst presidents of all time.
> 
> It's going to take A LOT of effort to get Trump out after 4 years, and I really don't think it's going to happen.  People are inherently lazy.



What Bush are you talking about? The "alleged" Jr.? He's not a Jr. b/c his middle name is different.

Isn't it unlikely for someone of the any party to get elected if their party just held the White House? We see a pattern of... democrat, republican, democrat, republican for the most part with some exceptions.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Kirbystarship said:


> He has strong support from young voters. More young voters will be able to vote in 2020



That is true. Although I know many "young voters" who support third parties and are conservative.

Young, new votes will only do so much.

- - - Post Merge - - -



HopeForHyrule said:


> If I was all about polluting our streams, drilling in our national parks, picking fights with this country's allies, and refusing to let people back into the country who were already here LEGALLY because of where they were born, then sure. I'd have to say he's doing a great job.
> 
> But I have yet to get that lobotomy, so I'm afraid I'm still on the other side of that wall he's so keen on.



A lot of what you posted is a stretch of what he's actually doing. That's like saying "Gay marriage is legalized so now they're going to make pastors openly marry LGBTQ..." That did happen, but... that's a whole different story. A better example would be... "most of America is pro-choice so we're going to have dead fetuses being sold everywhere." Those weren't the best examples.

I just feel like your information is stretched out and you don't have all the facts. 

We've spent billions on environmental causes. 2 to 3 times the amount we do on immigration. Surely more so than we do on education and our veterans. 

He's not picking fights with the countries allies'. He's setting priorities straight, in my opinion.

The Visa thing is a bit of a stretch but to defend him... didn't the Boston Marathon bombers had visas?


----------



## Soda Fox

Raskell said:


> What Bush are you talking about? The "alleged" Jr.? He's not a Jr. b/c his middle name is different.
> 
> Isn't it unlikely for someone of the any party to get elected if their party just held the White House? We see a pattern of... democrat, republican, democrat, republican for the most part with some exceptions.



I did say W. Bush.  So yes, the "junior".  And I agree.  The past few decades has been a back and forth between the 2 major parties.  Honestly I think it's great.  I'd much rather have a(n awkward) dance that brings differing viewpoints into focus than one viewpoint plowing through and dismissing all others.


----------



## Haskell

Soda Fox said:


> I did say W. Bush.  So yes, the "junior".  And I agree.  The past few decades has been a back and forth between the 2 major parties.  Honestly I think it's great.  I'd much rather have a(n awkward) dance that brings differing viewpoints into focus than one viewpoint plowing through and dismissing all others.



I feel like on how disruptive and crazy this election has been the back and forth between the two major parties will change. I think republicans will hold the White House for at least three terms. That would be extraordinary.


----------



## Kirbystarship

Raskell said:


> I feel like on how disruptive and crazy this election has been the back and forth between the two major parties will change. I think republicans will hold the White House for at least three terms. That would be extraordinary.



Why 3 terms? I think americans might go back to the dem party if they don't like Trump's 8 years.


----------



## Soda Fox

Raskell said:


> I feel like on how disruptive and crazy this election has been the back and forth between the two major parties will change. I think republicans will hold the White House for at least three terms. That would be extraordinary.



Again, I agree.  As left as I lean (WOW SURPRISE TO ANYONE WHO THINKS I'M CONSERVATIVE) I think the left has gone a bit too far in what they want to push.  I hope there is a slight bit more right in the future than usual, and then back to the usual left/right dance that has worked for us for centuries.


----------



## Haskell

Kirbystarship said:


> Why 3 terms? I think americans might go back to the dem party if they don't like Trump's 8 years.



Trump will have two terms. If he keeps up his promises.

Kellyanne Conway & Paul Ryan are getting more respect each day. I wouldn't mind having either run. Ryan can be worked with. Conway is a genius.

Trump will do wonders, positive wonders with our economy. That's what a good chunk of people voted this election on... was for the economy.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Soda Fox said:


> Again, I agree.  As left as I lean (WOW SURPRISE TO ANYONE WHO THINKS I'M CONSERVATIVE) I think the left has gone a bit too far in what they want to push.  I hope there is a slight bit more right in the future than usual, and then back to the usual left/right dance that has worked for us for centuries.



I thought you were conservative.

The leading leaders of the left has gone to not care about anyone else's opinions... in my unsubstantiated opinion.  They are only looking to push their agenda. 

Edit : Well, I guess I do have some evidence. 



Spoiler: So Called Evidence



They're playing children games in Washington by boycotting hearing committees, protesting violently, throwing a tantrum all because they do not control anything anymore because their policies have failed America.



Trump is willing to work with different ideas. Just as he introduced a different idea to many... he's allowing people to introduce a different idea to him. Although Trump does not believe in some of the evidence for global warming and believes in the some evidence against global warming, the one he appointed for EPA says he believes in global warming.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

Soda Fox said:


> If we've learned anything from the past at least 4 presidencies that I actually lived through, it's really unlikely people will care enough to turn up and change things in 2020.  It happened with Obama, when I was actually paying attention to politics, and it also happened with W. Bush, who is regarded as one of the worst presidents of all time.
> 
> It's going to take A LOT of effort to get Trump out after 4 years, and I really don't think it's going to happen.  People are inherently lazy.



Keep in mind that if he does win the next election, it wouldn't be possible for the Republicans to win the 2024 election. The thing here is that if one party in power stays for eight years, people would be voting for the other party to take over the house, senate, and presidency. For the Democrats, it's an easy win. But for the Republicans, they could barely win depending on the issues and who's running. For the past two times, when a Republican president replaced a Democratic president, they lost the popular vote on the first election. Problem is, older generations are aging or dying off, newer generations are becoming more emotionally fragile and immature, Republicans are supporting some set-in-stone concepts we had for a while (like 20 to 240 years) that are now hated by many people, Democrats are supporting a larger and more powerful federal government (as well as more socialist), and there are many demographic changes (like whites becoming a minority and religion fading away from society). With all these things coming to effect, Republicans will have an even harder time winning. Sure they can start agreeing to legalizing same-sex marriage and allowing more immigrants, but there's a lot of other issues they are still against that will prevent them from winning (which may implode in the future, which will probably give them another chance to win).


----------



## Haskell

Apple2012 said:


> Keep in mind that if he does win the next election, it wouldn't be possible for the Republicans to win the 2024 election. The thing here is that if one party in power stays for eight years, people would be voting for the other party to take over the house, senate, and presidency. For the Democrats, it's an easy win. But for the Republicans, they could barely win depending on the issues and who's running. For the past two times, when a Republican president replaced a Democratic president, they lost the popular vote on the first election. Problem is, older generations are aging or dying off, newer generations are becoming more emotionally fragile and immature, Republicans are supporting some set-in-stone concepts we had for a while (like 20 to 240 years) that are now hated by many people, Democrats are supporting a larger and more powerful federal government (as well as more socialist), and there are many demographic changes (like whites becoming a minority and religion fading away from society). With all these things coming to effect, Republicans will have an even harder time winning. Sure they can start agreeing to legalizing same-sex marriage and allowing more immigrants, but there's a lot of other issues they are still against that will prevent them from winning (which may implode in the future, which will probably give them another chance to win).



This is why I am thankful Trump got elected. He can show these new generations how (hopefully if he tones down his aggression) republican values and policies work for America.


----------



## Red Cat

It's hard to predict whether Trump will get re-elected when he hasn't even been president for a month. While the last 3 presidents have all served 2 terms, there are some major differences for Trump:

1. Trump didn't win by much in his election. For example, Obama won by 7% and won over 350 electoral votes in his first election, so even though he didn't do as well in 2012, he had enough of a "cushion" to get re-elected. Trump lost the popular vote and won several key states by small margins. If he loses any significant support over 4 years, he'll lose re-election.

2. Trump has a low approval rating even for the "honeymoon period" where presidents are usually popular now matter what party they are. Usually, fewer people approve of a president as his term goes on and he fails to deliver on promises. Like I said above, Trump can't afford to lose support if he wants to get re-elected.

3. Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate. Trump will almost certainly go up against a better candidate with less baggage next time.

4. That's assuming there is a next time because Trump is 70 and could face health issues over the next few years. Being president really ages a person. Look at the before and after pictures of Obama. Trump is starting at 70, not 46.

Also going back further in history, 3 out of 4 presidents before Bill Clinton (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush) lost their re-election bids. So while incumbent presidents are on a 3 "game" winning streak, they're still only 4-3 over the last 7, so it's not like they're unbeatable.


----------



## forestyne

If we're still alive following the impending nuclear war, I don't think he will get much support. Has he said he's going to run in 2020? Cause Kanye's still running in 2020. As well as this, impeachment is in the cards at the moment.


EDIT: Here's the link. I love hyperlinking thinks.


----------



## Haskell

forestyne said:


> If we're still alive following the impending nuclear war, I don't think he will get much support. Has he said he's going to run in 2020? Cause Kanye's still running in 2020. As well as this, impeachment is in the cards at the moment.



Impeachment is a possibility for any past, current, and future president.

Kanye endorsed Trump.

"impending nuclear war" ok...

Trump will run in 2020 if he can. His ego stalks him.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Red Cat said:


> It's hard to predict whether Trump will get re-elected when he hasn't even been president for a month. While the last 3 presidents have all served 2 terms, there are some major differences for Trump:
> 
> 1. Trump didn't win by much in his election. For example, Obama won by 7% and won over 350 electoral votes in his first election, so even though he didn't do as well in 2012, he had enough of a "cushion" to get re-elected. Trump lost the popular vote and won several key states by small margins. If he loses any significant support over 4 years, he'll lose re-election.
> 
> 2. Trump has a low approval rating even for the "honeymoon period" where presidents are usually popular now matter what party they are. Usually, fewer people approve of a president as his term goes on and he fails to deliver on promises. Like I said above, Trump can't afford to lose support if he wants to get re-elected.
> 
> 3. Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate. Trump will almost certainly go up against a better candidate with less baggage next time.
> 
> 4. That's assuming there is a next time because Trump is 70 and could face health issues over the next few years. Being president really ages a person. Look at the before and after pictures of Obama. Trump is starting at 70, not 46.
> 
> Also going back further in history, 3 out of 4 presidents before Bill Clinton (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush) lost their re-election bids. So while incumbent presidents are on a 3 "game" winning streak, they're still only 4-3 over the last 7, so it's not like they're unbeatable.



Well said. I highly respect this post! ^_^


----------



## forestyne

Raskell said:


> Impeachment is a possibility for any past, current, and future president.
> 
> Kanye endorsed Trump.
> 
> "impending nuclear war" ok...
> 
> Trump will run in 2020 if he can. His ego stalks him.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> Well said. I highly respect this post! ^_^



Unless he's said he's going to, you can't say he will lmao. And what I meant was if Trump can win, so could Kanye. I never said anything about one being better than the other. Doesn't matter if he endorsed him or not. Doesn't change a thing.

The tensions between USA and the East are extremely high at the moment, there's no denying it. And American Presidents have been known to be trigger-fingered.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> The silent majority has spoke.



the silent majority must be really silent then, for still not speaking all that much more

- - - Post Merge - - -



Soda Fox said:


> Again, I agree.  As left as I lean (WOW SURPRISE TO ANYONE WHO THINKS I'M CONSERVATIVE) I think the left has gone a bit too far in what they want to push.  I hope there is a slight bit more right in the future than usual, and then back to the usual left/right dance that has worked for us for centuries.



this is actually hilarious, since to me the democratic party is only more "left" when compared to the major opposition

otherwise they're basically just a center-right party


----------



## Corrie

forestyne said:


> Unless he's said he's going to, you can't say he will lmao. And what I meant was if Trump can win, so could Kanye. I never said anything about one being better than the other. Doesn't matter if he endorsed him or not. Doesn't change a thing.
> 
> The tensions between USA and the East are extremely high at the moment, there's no denying it. And American Presidents have been known to be trigger-fingered.



The tension is why I fear a pointless war over trump saying something stupid like he usually does. We need him impeached before he does real damage.

- - - Post Merge - - -



LambdaDelta said:


> the silent majority must be really silent then, for still not speaking all that much more.



This is what's really confusing. So if he won, that means a lot of people voted him in right? So why do I see and hear nothing but hate for the guy? Even his own party members are ditching him. 

It doesn't make much sense which is why I'm still a firm believer in the fact that the election was rigged. I'm betting my bottom dollar on Russia helping him since him and putin are buttbuddies but we don't know for sure of course. It just makes a whole lot more sense.


----------



## LambdaDelta

I'd argue he's already done plenty of "real" damage

the difference is in how much it escalates


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> I'd argue he's already done plenty of "real" damage
> 
> the difference is in how much it escalates





LambdaDelta said:


> the silent majority must be really silent then, for still not speaking all that much more
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> this is actually hilarious, since to me the democratic party is only more "left" when compared to the major opposition
> 
> otherwise they're basically just a center-right party





Corrie said:


> The tension is why I fear a pointless war over trump saying something stupid like he usually does. We need him impeached before he does real damage.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> This is what's really confusing. So if he won, that means a lot of people voted him in right? So why do I see and hear nothing but hate for the guy? Even his own party members are ditching him.
> 
> It doesn't make much sense which is why I'm still a firm believer in the fact that the election was rigged. I'm betting my bottom dollar on Russia helping him since him and putin are buttbuddies but we don't know for sure of course. It just makes a whole lot more sense.




The silent majority is called the silent majority for a reason. They spoke on election night.
To call the party you identify with to be centered is self-centered.
Trump has not done anything damaging to the extent of impeachment. He's not allowing America to be stepped on anymore. 
Russia didn't help him. .-. I like how no one is talking about the DNC rigging Senator Sanders.
Trump has business experience. He'll do wonders with the economy.
Trump has shown acts of compassion and benevolence. 
Trump is introducing a different idea of "America First" not "America Is The World Police". That is why many are outraged. He's changing America (for the better good).


----------



## visibleghost

Raskell said:


> The silent majority is called the silent majority for a reason. They spoke on election night.
> To call the party you identify with to be centered is self-centered.
> Trump has not done anything damaging to the extent of impeachment. He's not allowing America to be stepped on anymore.
> Russia didn't help him. .-. I like how no one is talking about the DNC rigging Senator Sanders.
> Trump has business experience. He'll do wonders with the economy.
> Trump has shown acts of compassion and benevolence.
> Trump is introducing a different idea of "America First" not "America Is The World Police". That is why many are outraged. He's changing America (for the better good).



the majority didnt vote for trump though


----------



## Red Cat

Raskell said:


> Trump is introducing a different idea of "America First" not "America Is The World Police". That is why many are outraged. He's changing America (for the better good).


Trump recently tweeted about sending troops to Mexico, which would basically be the definition of "America Is The World Police". He has criticized a lot of countries and foreign leaders about stuff that really isn't his business. He seems to think that because he's the president of the United States, he's now King of the World.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> The silent majority is called the silent majority for a reason. They spoke on election night.



except there wasn't a majority, since he lost the popular vote

he won the election, but you cannot claim a "majority" that literally does not exist



Raskell said:


> To call the party you identify with to be centered is self-centered.



lmao this assumption



Raskell said:


> Trump has business experience. He'll do wonders with the economy.



yeah, just like W. Bush did

oh, wait



Raskell said:


> Trump is introducing a different idea of "America First" not "America Is The World Police". That is why many are outraged. He's changing America (for the better good).



how many times do people need to tell you that "America First" is white nationalist pro-nazi rhetoric before you get it through your head?


----------



## Stalfos

Meh. I was going to much off topic with this. RIP


----------



## Stalfos

LambdaDelta said:


> how many times do people need to tell you that "America First" is white nationalist pro-nazi rhetoric before you get it through your head?


It really bothers me when people don't see that **** for what it is. We've actually got some big problems with right-wing extremism/nazis/terrorists here in Sweden. They've even got their own political party with a 17% support and some real ambitions to take power.
So never take that **** lightly.


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> To call the party you identify with to be centered is self-centered.
> Russia didn't help him. .-. I like how no one is talking about the DNC rigging Senator Sanders.
> Trump has business experience. He'll do wonders with the economy.
> Trump is introducing a different idea of "America First" not "America Is The World Police". That is why many are outraged. He's changing America (for the better good).


-Except Democrats these days are center-left, save for Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, and a handful of others. There's now two parties that love war when Democrats used to fight against intervention. There's two parties that love corporations though Democrats just slightly less so. now there's two parties that go against the needs of workers, Democrats used to fight for their needs but since they're sucking Wall Street, Pharmaceutical, and Exxon Mobil dick they aren't anymore. They're a centrist party, sadly. 
-Exactly why I hate the corporate controlled modern Democratic establishment since they fight against progressives harder then fight against Republicans.
-Yeah and he'll use his business experience to advance the economy for the upper classes, he's already gotten rid of the Consumer Protection Bureau so now banks can screw over everyday Americans and get even richer. Wonders. 
-Yeah America should be first and we should stop interventions, but he's already sent Americans out of their own country and is allowing Native land to be sold and used for drilling. Not to mention he killed 2 American citizens in his first military raid. America first lol ok. Also this rhetoric fuels xenophobia.


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> -Except Democrats these days are center-left, save for Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, and a handful of others. There's now two parties that love war when Democrats used to fight against intervention. There's two parties that love corporations though Democrats just slightly less so. now there's two parties that go against the needs of workers, Democrats used to fight for their needs but since they're sucking Wall Street, Pharmaceutical, and Exxon Mobil dick they aren't anymore. They're a centrist party, sadly.
> -Exactly why I hate the corporate controlled modern Democratic establishment since they fight against progressives harder then fight against Republicans.
> -Yeah and he'll use his business experience to advance the economy for the upper classes, he's already gotten rid of the Consumer Protection Bureau so now banks can screw over everyday Americans and get even richer. Wonders.
> -Yeah America should be first and we should stop interventions, but he's already sent Americans out of their own country and is allowing Native land to be sold and used for drilling. Not to mention he killed 2 American citizens in his first military raid. America first lol ok. Also this rhetoric fuels xenophobia.



What is xenophobia? .-. 

That term is overly used.

2 American citizens... source?

Speculation over Trump screwing over regular American citizens. In January more jobs were added than expected. Evidence proves otherwise. Ford announced they're staying as well as other companies. He's saved taxpayers money by just one meeting with the company building a new POTUS vehicle and plane. 

Trump is intelligent.


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> What is xenophobia? .-.
> 
> That term is overly used.
> 
> 2 American citizens... source?
> 
> Speculation over Trump screwing over regular American citizens. In January more jobs were added than expected. Evidence proves otherwise. Ford announced they're staying as well as other companies. He's saved taxpayers money by just one meeting with the company building a new POTUS vehicle and plane.
> 
> Trump is intelligent.


1. Look it up. Relevant not overused.
2. Pg. 25 of this thread. Great to see you're resorting to the whole "SOURCE???!" thing again to defend your pathetic arguments.
3. He has screwed over American citizens by getting rid of the Consumer Protection Bureau (Dodd Frank Act), it's not even speculation. Don't dance around facts. 
4. He's not.


----------



## Alolan_Apples

A federal judge has halted Trump's immigration ban. Although Trump did this for security reasons, I agree that his immigration ban is too extreme.

Also, what does the "bad apple trump" tag mean?


----------



## Haskell

um. America First isn't white nationalist pro-Nazi rhetoric. That comment is outrageous and despicable.

What are we supposed to do? Kiss everyone's feet? No.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Apple2012 said:


> A federal judge has halted Trump's immigration ban. Although Trump did this for security reasons, I agree that his immigration ban is too extreme.
> 
> Also, what does the "bad apple trump" tag mean?



It mean's "bad apple trump".

The immigration ban is not too extreme. It's logical. Blocking for a time period from seven countries where terrorism is high and supported there. Obama's chief-executive officer had similar ideas as Trump.

But y'know it's only extreme because a white man is doing it...


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> um. America First isn't white nationalist pro-Nazi rhetoric. That comment is outrageous and despicable.



please actually do historical research for once in your life


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> please actually do historical research for once in your life



I could say the same for you.

What's wrong with putting the country you're in first? lol... 

Our trade deals are garbage, our trade deficit is high, everyone expects our help... America First! 

But y'know apparently I'm endorsing white nationalism and being pro-Nazi by saying that according to Lambda Delta.


----------



## Nooblord

I hope you don't think people who say "America first" are pro Nazi. Wouldn't it make more sense that people who use that term are using it at face-value. As in we should focus on improving our country in all aspects, rather than spend time, energy, and resources elsewhere?


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> The immigration ban is not too extreme. It's logical. Blocking for a time period from seven countries where terrorism is high and supported there. Obama's chief-executive officer had similar ideas as Trump.
> 
> But y'know it's only extreme because a white man is doing it...


It's discriminating against Muslims since the ban doesn't include Christians. Now ISIS is using this to say the west is officially at war with Islam as part of their campaign to expand their extremist agenda and call it the "blessed ban". Middle Eastern US allies are critical of the ban, hurting US military alliances.

The people who suffer most from the ban are the civilians and those in the Middle East who are the victims of these terror groups and have their lives destroyed by them. It's not hurting terrorists, it's hurting the victims.


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> It's discriminating against Muslims since the ban doesn't include Christians. Now ISIS is using this to say the west is officially at war with Islam as part of their campaign to expand their extremist agenda and call it the "blessed ban". Middle Eastern US allies are critical of the ban, hurting US military alliances.
> 
> The people who suffer most from the ban are the civilians and those in the Middle East who are the victims of these terror groups and have their lives destroyed by them. It's not hurting terrorists, it's hurting the victims.



Who said the ban doesn't include "Christians"?

Then why do 13% "refugees" say they support ISIS?

The countries in the Middle East are doing jack crap. Who cares if they don't like us? If it really is a problem for them... why does Kuwait have billions sitting in their government? Why don't countries in the Middle East start collaborating together to defeat ISIS? 

And no... we're not at war with Islam. We're at war with Islamic Extremists. Like it or not, bud.


----------



## Soda Fox

Apple2012 said:


> Keep in mind that if he does win the next election, it wouldn't be possible for the Republicans to win the 2024 election. The thing here is that if one party in power stays for eight years, people would be voting for the other party to take over the house, senate, and presidency. For the Democrats, it's an easy win. But for the Republicans, they could barely win depending on the issues and who's running. For the past two times, when a Republican president replaced a Democratic president, they lost the popular vote on the first election. Problem is, older generations are aging or dying off, newer generations are becoming more emotionally fragile and immature, Republicans are supporting some set-in-stone concepts we had for a while (like 20 to 240 years) that are now hated by many people, Democrats are supporting a larger and more powerful federal government (as well as more socialist), and there are many demographic changes (like whites becoming a minority and religion fading away from society). With all these things coming to effect, Republicans will have an even harder time winning. Sure they can start agreeing to legalizing same-sex marriage and allowing more immigrants, but there's a lot of other issues they are still against that will prevent them from winning (which may implode in the future, which will probably give them another chance to win).



I think it's a little too early to make that call.  I agree it's more likely that the Republican's won't win a third term, but there is a lot of craziness out there right now, and to a former Democrat like myself, the DNC will need to learn from their mistakes this election and make a lot of changes to earn my trust back.


----------



## Haskell

Trump is keeping his campaign promises. 

What he's doing isn't hurting him with the people that voted for him it is how he is handling some things he does.

Some of the things he has done or said could have better been not done or unsaid. (Twitter) (Too Aggressive On Foreign Calls <- aggression is needed but I feel like he's too aggressive)


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> Who said the ban doesn't include Christians?


Donald Trump. 



Raskell said:


> Then why do 13% "refugees" say they support ISIS?


probably because of the Assad hatred fanaticism, and the fact that ISIS is battling Assad. They obviously aren't terrorists if they aren't terrorizing anyone. If we can allow Neo-Nazis and the KKK in our country we can allow in the tiny margin of civilians who support ISIS.


----------



## Nooblord

It's not a ban, it's a delay. Muslim's can still come to this country, they just have to go through a more rigorous screening process. If it was a Muslim ban don't you think the country with the highest Muslim population, Indonesia, be first on that list?
What would be a more efficient way to prevent refugees with extremist views from entering the country?
I suggest you don't seek advice from countries that have been going through a "migrant crisis".


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> Donald Trump.
> 
> 
> probably because of the Assad hatred fanaticism, and the fact that ISIS is battling Assad. They obviously aren't terrorists if they aren't terrorizing anyone. If we can allow Neo-Nazis and the KKK in our country we can allow a the tiny margin of civilians who support ISIS.



The thing is "neo-nazis" doesn't exist. The thing is the "KKK" is not active. You mention the KKK but why not BLM? They're almost just as bad... terrorizing police officers, breaking cars, beating up innocent civilians. 

The thing is... ISIS is active.

Why not prevent what we can?

I'm sure you're misinform and misinterpreted what President Trump had said. Or you're being simple-minded. That's how it is a lot of the time.


----------



## tumut

Nooblord said:


> If it was a Muslim ban don't you think the country with the highest Muslim population, Indonesia, be first on that list?


Except is a ban, and yes it is temporary. It is a essentially is a muslim ban, considering it bans refugees from 7 muslim majority countries. And you're trying to act like it isn't targeting Muslims when it obviously is.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> I could say the same for you.
> 
> What's wrong with putting the country you're in first? lol...
> 
> Our trade deals are garbage, our trade deficit is high, everyone expects our help... America First!
> 
> But y'know apparently I'm endorsing white nationalism and being pro-Nazi by saying that according to Lambda Delta.



because Trump's administration totally isn't carrying on the white nationalist pro-nazi themes of it

despite the horrendously executed and piss-poorly mapped out muslim ban
despite the erasure of jews in the holocaust memorial day statement
despite threatening to remove federal aid after a protest against a literal nazi, while saying nothing in regards to the various acts of terrorism committed by whites against muslims and other minority groups
despite removing white supremist groups from the counter-extremist program
despite placing a literal ****ing nazi who's openly expressed his desire to literally destroy the government as the head of national security 
despite constantly calling anyone who opposes his vile actions an enemy of the state and mocking their credentials and roles in upholding the various branches of our government

don't start ****ing "takes one to know one" at me, when you clearly can't be assed to do research for a single ****ing thing that challenges your own narrow-minded perceptions


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> Except is a ban, and yes it is temporary. It is a essentially is a muslim ban, considering it bans refugees from 7 muslim majority countries. And you're trying to act like it isn't targeting Muslims when it obviously is.



How is it obviously targeting Muslims?

Somalia! It's own government can't even travel outside of it's capital. Why has this not been considered thoroughly? 

Iran! Iraq! Liyba! Yemen! Sudan! Syria!

All of those countries are exposed to so much terrorism that it is not safe to allow anyone that had a home or has a home there to come to the United States.

There is such a thing called a "safe zone"...


----------



## Nooblord

It's targeting extremist, and the extremist in those countries are predominately Muslim. I'm saying it's the most efficient way of screening extremist, it may not be the best way but no one is suggesting any other way to do it. They just want an influx of refugees because it's the "accepting" thing to do, and I guess they'll deal with the consequences as they come. Just like Germany, Sweden, etc.


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> because Trump's administration totally isn't carrying on the white nationalist pro-nazi themes of it
> 
> 
> despite the erasure of jews in the holocaust memorial day statement



Jews weren't the only ones affected. Millions of others. I thought liberals were all for being inclusive....

The rest of the statements are outrageous. You try running a country that is divided. Try running a world that is crumbling and of fear because of Islamic Extremists.

Don't get upset and start throwing out personal attacks when all we're doing is having a civil conversation. Or at least... were.

- - - Post Merge - - -

"Most terrorists are Muslim. Most Muslims aren't terrorists."


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> The thing is "neo-nazis" doesn't exist. The thing is the "KKK" is not active. You mention the KKK but why not BLM? They're almost just as bad... terrorizing police officers, breaking cars, beating up innocent civilians.
> 
> The thing is... ISIS is active.
> 
> Why not prevent what we can?
> 
> I'm sure you're misinform and misinterpreted what President Trump had said. Or you're being simple-minded. That's how it is a lot of the time.


T h e  b a n  d o e s  n o t  a f f e c t   C h r i s t i a n s  f r o m  t h e  s e v e n  c o u n t r i e s  i t   i s  c l e a r l y  s t a t e d  i n     t h e   e x e c u t i v e   o r d e r

Neo Nazis, white nationalists, and other hate groups exist in almost every state the Southern Poverty Law center has a map that tracks all of them. They don't terrorize people and get away with it because we have laws. 

Black lives matter is not terror group lmao there's been like two incidents of violence.

There's nothing to prevent because we don't let terrorists into our country we let in refugees.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> "Most terrorists are Muslim. Most Muslims aren't terrorists."



Trump is a prime example of home-grown terrorism masking itself as righteous, and if you're too dense to see that then you clearly have no idea what terrorism actually entails

hint: muslim ban means the terrorists already won


also, that is the most dumb as **** quote I've read


and when jews are the dominant majority, they definitely deserve a mention


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> T h e  b a n  d o e s  n o t  a f f e c t   C h r i s t i a n s  f r o m  t h e  s e v e n  c o u n t r i e s  i t   i s  c l e a r l y  s t a t e d  i n     t h e   e x e c u t i v e   o r d e r
> 
> Neo Nazis, white nationalists, and other hate groups exist in almost every state the Southern Poverty Law center has a map that tracks all of them. They don't terrorize people and get away with it because we have laws.
> 
> Black lives matter is not terror group lmao there's been like two incidents of violence.
> 
> There's nothing to prevent because we don't let terrorists into our country we let in refugees.



W h e n y o u t y p e l i k e t h i s i w i l l i g n o r e w h a t y o u s a i d

Two incidents? Explain the dozens of reports about the black community feeling like they've been pushed around, misjudged and hurt so much that they have to riot violently against their own city? 

Then how do you explain the Boston Marathon? Or the incidents in Europe with "refugees"? Or how just last year when we let in refugees we loose control of them; they go missing. Just last week Trump admitted 987 refugees I believe. How do you explain the 13% support of ISIS from Syrian refugees?

- - - Post Merge - - -



LambdaDelta said:


> Trump is a prime example of home-grown terrorism masking itself as righteous, and if you're too dense to see that then you clearly have no idea what terrorism actually entails
> 
> hint: muslim ban means the terrorists already won
> 
> 
> also, that is the most dumb as **** quote I've read
> 
> 
> and when jews are the dominant majority, they definitely deserve a mention



Same thing. Not being inclusive. A third of the amount that Jews were affected so were Gypsies, Christians, LGBTQ, et cetera. It's called "Holocaust Rememberance Day" not "Look At Only One Victim Day" 

The ban to increase security in America does not mean that ISLAMIC TERRORISTS have won. It means we have a leader willing to do what needs to be done. 

So what I say is just dumb and dense? You're still acting like a toddler throwing out personal insults because your Mother does not want to extend your bed time.


----------



## LambdaDelta

btw do you want to explain what's "outrageous" about anything else, or is this just another classic case of you dodging stuff with unrelated "counters", because you actually *can't* defend them


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> How do you explain the 13% support of ISIS from Syrian refugees?


I already did.


Raskell said:


> Then how do you explain the Boston Marathon?


Both attackers were US citizens not refugees. Same with San Bernadino.



Raskell said:


> Or the incidents in Europe with "refugees"? Or how just last year when we let in refugees we loose control of them.


A lot of the European countries weren't nearly as rigorous as the US when accepting refugees. I don't know what you mean by the second one when did we loose control


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> because Trump's administration totally isn't carrying on the white nationalist pro-nazi themes of it
> despite constantly calling anyone who opposes his vile actions an enemy of the state and mocking their credentials and roles in upholding the various branches of our government




The acting attorney general, Sally Yates was fired because she was being unprofessional. Obama would have done it if a republican attorney general from the previous president was telling a federal branch to not support Obamacare.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Dixx said:


> I already did.
> 
> Both attackers were US citizens not refugees. Same with San Bernadino.
> 
> 
> A lot of the European countries weren't nearly as rigorous as the US when accepting refugees. I don't know what you mean by the second one when did we loose control



When we accept refugees and we can't find em?

Everything is "American citizens"... no the Boston Marathon bombers were on visas.


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> Two incidents? Explain the dozens of reports about the black community feeling like they've been pushed around, misjudged and hurt so much that they have to riot violently against their own city?


You act as if it's in BLM's mission statement to riot and destroy cities


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> despite placing a literal ****ing nazi who's openly expressed his desire to literally destroy the government as the head of national security



His cabinet pick, his choice. The republicans supported his choice, so will I.

And again, speculation. How would you like it if we called any of your beloved presidents cabinet nominees "baby murders", "violent intolerant creatures"?

- - - Post Merge - - -



Dixx said:


> You act as if it's in BLM's mission statement to riot and destroy cities



It seems like it is.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> The acting attorney general, Sally Yates was fired because she was being unprofessional. Obama would have done it if a republican attorney general from the previous president was telling a federal branch to not support Obamacare.



no, he did it because his "authority" was challenged, everything else is just an excuse

and this is far from the only case of him undermining and mocking our institutions


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> btw do you want to explain what's "outrageous" about anything else, or is this just another classic case of you dodging stuff with unrelated "counters", because you actually *can't* defend them



I just responded to several of them. I'm not going to sit here and respond to each speculated unsubstantiated claim.

- - - Post Merge - - -



LambdaDelta said:


> no, he did it because his "authority" was challenged, everything else is just an excuse
> 
> and this is far from the only case of him undermining and mocking our institutions



Mocking our colleges? 

So what we're doing is "he said, she said"... great. Explain all of the times other POTUSES have fired cabinet positions in order to have a more successful government?

Sally Yates was unprofessional.

If he did stuff because his authority was challenged he would have the national guard at all of the ignorant and emotional protests.


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> no the Boston Marathon bombers were on visas.


They were both citizens at the time they did the bombing,

Bonus: They were born in Russia and lived in Kyrgyzstan


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> They were both citizens at the time they did the bombing,
> 
> Bonus: They were born in Russia and lived in Kyrgyzstan



So what you're saying is that extremists that consider them to be true Muslims never commit terrorism? Seems like you're defending Islamic terrorism...


----------



## Soda Fox

LambdaDelta said:


> this is actually hilarious, since to me the democratic party is only more "left" when compared to the major opposition
> 
> otherwise they're basically just a center-right party



Fair enough.  I suppose I should have been more clear in what I meant.  I think the country itself has gone a little too far left lately.  Actually, as a left leaner I really did like Bernie and he was further left than the DNC.  However I think there's a lot of hypocrisy when the Democratic party runs with a candidate who makes more money in a single speech than most in the US make in a year or heck even their lifetime.  Even if they ran with Bernie, he had a lot of conviction, I understand he is showing his own hypocrisy by purchasing a third home.  If he was purchasing homes for the less fortunate I'd feel great about it, but I don't think that's what he's doing.

If we're going left, let's do it in a better way.  Millionaires who want social and financial equality only earn my respect when they go out of their way to humble their own finances to help the less fortunate instead of pretending to care on the backs of those who are just trying to get by modestly already or don't hold the same views.  If we're going to go left we left leaners need to lead by example even if others don't immediately follow instead of telling other people they _must_ do something they don't want to do.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> His cabinet pick, his choice. The republicans supported his choice, so will I.
> 
> And again, speculation. How would you like it if we called any of your beloved presidents cabinet nominees "baby murders", "violent intolerant creatures"?



"x does thing and I am unable to think for myself, so I will willfully follow along. even over the cliff edge if so desired"

and I mean if they have historical evidence of this, then go nuts

Bannon has historical evidence of being a nazi wanting to destroy the government. he shouldn't have governmental work period, let alone as head of national security. saying he's a threat to the system is a gross understatement


----------



## Leen

I don't understand how Raskell is still arguing against cold hard facts?


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> So what you're saying is that extremists that consider them to be true Muslims never commit terrorism?


No idea what this even means. Who do u mean by "them".



Raskell said:


> Seems like you're defending Islamic terrorism...


Yeah. Terrorism is totes cool.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Leen said:


> I don't understand how Raskell is still arguing against cold hard facts?



they aren't alternative enough


----------



## Haskell

Leen said:


> I don't understand how Raskell is still arguing against cold hard facts?



I could say the same for Leen, Lamda Delta and many others here.

We're not arguing against facts. We're arguing against each other's opinions.

Stop trying to get likes.

- - - Post Merge - - -



LambdaDelta said:


> they aren't alternative enough



Alternative facts is the side the media does not usually report on.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Dixx said:


> No idea what this even means. Who do u mean by "them".
> 
> 
> Yeah. Terrorism is totes cool.



Re-read what I said and come back to be. I didn't improperly form that sentence.

You seem to be defending Islamic terrorism like we're targeting Muslims when we're targeting extremists.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> I just responded to several of them. I'm not going to sit here and respond to each speculated unsubstantiated claim.



"I actually have nothing to say, so I will dodge the subject while holding onto a false pretense of one-upsmanship"


----------



## Leen

Raskell said:


> I could say the same for Leen, Lamda Delta and many others here.
> 
> We're not arguing against facts. We're arguing against each other's opinions.
> 
> Stop trying to get likes.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> Alternative facts is the side the media does not usually report on.




Uhh not exactly, bud... A lot of people on here are trying to show you that a lot of what you're saying is going against legitimate facts, based on executive orders, things that literally were said by Trump himself, etc. 

And no, not trying to get likes. If anyone likes my posts it's cause they agree with me, like anyone else liking other people's posts. 

FYI: there is no such thing as an alternative fact. There is just a fact lol.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> Alternative facts is the side the media does not usually report on.



no, "alternative facts" is authoritarian power grabbing laid bare


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> You seem to be defending Islamic terrorism like we're targeting Muslims when we're targeting extremists.


I'm defending Muslims not terrorists, u cant seem to tell the difference huh.


----------



## Haskell

Dixx said:


> I'm defending Muslims not terrorists, u cant seem to tell the difference huh.



No you're advocating against Trump. Don't think you're being a hero.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Leen said:


> Uhh not exactly, bud... A lot of people on here are trying to show you that a lot of what you're saying is going against legitimate facts, based on executive orders, things that literally were said by Trump himself, etc.
> 
> And no, not trying to get likes. If anyone likes my posts it's cause they agree with me, like anyone else liking other people's posts.
> 
> FYI: there is no such thing as an alternative fact. There is just a fact lol.



It's your opinion, my opinion, et cetera. Stop trying to put me as an irrational illogical person.


----------



## LambdaDelta

also, not that I care a whole lot, but just out of curiosity, why do you keep taking the extra effort to add a space to my name?

- - - Post Merge - - -



Raskell said:


> Stop trying to put me as an irrational illogical person.



then stop acting the role


----------



## Haskell

LambdaDelta said:


> also, not that I care a whole lot, but just out of curiosity, why do you keep taking the extra effort to add a space to my name?
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> 
> 
> then stop acting the role



Just curious. Why do you care?

It's not a big deal. I thought your name was spaced.


----------



## LambdaDelta

Raskell said:


> Just curious. Why do you care?
> 
> It's not a big deal. I thought your name was spaced.



just feels odd seeing it like that is all


----------



## tumut

Raskell said:


> No you're advocating against Trump. Don't think you're being a hero.


1. I am in fact advocating against Trump. 
2.  I am the letting the voice of refugees be heard by arguing with a 15 year old Trump supporter on tbt.com
Explain to me again how I am not hero???


----------



## LambdaDelta

only people who pay fealty to power get regarded as heroes in history


----------



## Red Cat

Soda Fox said:


> Fair enough.  I suppose I should have been more clear in what I meant.  I think the country itself has gone a little too far left lately.  Actually, as a left leaner I really did like Bernie and he was further left than the DNC.  However I think there's a lot of hypocrisy when the Democratic party runs with a candidate who makes more money in a single speech than most in the US make in a year or heck even their lifetime.  Even if they ran with Bernie, he had a lot of conviction, I understand he is showing his own hypocrisy by purchasing a third home.  If he was purchasing homes for the less fortunate I'd feel great about it, but I don't think that's what he's doing.
> 
> If we're going left, let's do it in a better way.  Millionaires who want social and financial equality only earn my respect when they go out of their way to humble their own finances to help the less fortunate instead of pretending to care on the backs of those who are just trying to get by modestly already or don't hold the same views.  If we're going to go left we left leaners need to lead by example even if others don't immediately follow instead of telling other people they _must_ do something they don't want to do.



A major part of the problem is that there are too much pay, perks, and glorification for high ranking elected officials and government employees. As a result, scumbags are naturally attracted to the positions. Even people with good hearts are instantly corrupted when they get lavished with money, attention, ceremonies, parties, and spend every day working in fancy marble buildings. The president and Congress should have to work in an office building instead of the White House / Capitol to remind them that they're there to do a job and they're not royalty. They shouldn't get any taxpayer funded dinners, parties, ceremonies, or parades. They shouldn't make more money than a cop or firefighter and they should be required to forfeit all of their assets to the government when they get elected / appointed to show that they're in it for the people, not the money. If voters really want to be serious about "draining the swamp", they have to make changing all of that their number one priority when they vote. By that I mean, regardless of what party or what other issues a candidate supports, if they aren't committed to slashing the perks, the voters should automatically vote against them.


----------



## Jeremy

Everyone, please remember that each person has very different opinions and discussions like this one usually don't do anything to change them.  With that in mind, if you choose to discuss topics like this, you must be respectful of others even if you disagree with them, which is clearly explained in our rules.  Those who aren't able to respect others, as the rules say, will be faced with an infraction or suspension from the forum.  Since this thread has turned more into insults than productive discussion, I am closing it and we'll have to go through the last several pages of posts to see who broke our rules.  Keep what I've said in mind before posting in the next controversial political thread here.  This seems to be happening a lot lately.  Thank you.


----------

