rand Posted November 9, 2016 Report Share Posted November 9, 2016 omg cast your vote here so we can see who is voting for who. its coming down to the final hour... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsukiyomi Posted November 9, 2016 Report Share Posted November 9, 2016 (edited) #feelthebern #karma #undeservednomination #campaignmissteps The populist movement is real and the other candidate who leads it... Edited June 7, 2017 by Tsukiyomi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moodkiller Posted November 9, 2016 Report Share Posted November 9, 2016 5 hours ago, Etzimal said: Where is Etzimal? Where Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are... ... Who?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodak Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) The KKK endorsed bigot racist wins-surprise! It reads by 66.67% If Trump isn't Satan he's clearly exposed as the guy right next door. Edited November 21, 2016 by rodak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koby Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 23 minutes ago, rodak said: The KKK endorsed bigot racist wins-surprise! This comment is all kinds of wrong imo. Trump may be a bigot, but I haven't see anything outside of lies spread during the election debates that would indicate he was a racist. Trump was never called a racist until he decided to run for President so Hillary's team ran a bunch of negative ad campaigns to paint him as such. Even if the KKK 'endorses' him; it does not mean he endorses them. Just like anyone could endorse me, it doesn't mean I support their cause. What liberals seem to fail to comprehend is being against illegal immigration is not the same as being against immigrants nor is it a racism thing. They seem to fail to understand the 'illegal' part. Trump just wants immigrants to enter the country the legal way. The truth of the matter is; Hillary was the only real racist running. She's gone on record calling black people 'dogs that needed to be put to heel' and numerous other slang. She's gone on record laughing that she knew this sex offending child rapist was guilty but she got him off the hook, and she even blames the 12 year old girl for getting raped by saying 'she was asking for it'. Erm no. It's not a childs fault that a grown man decided to rape them. Trump won though because people were tired of the rigged system, and a lot of people were pissed at everything Hillary had done, including Bengazi and the Democratic Nomination where Sanders was robbed of the nomination. A vast amount of Sanders supporters deflected to Trumps side as a result. Sanders could have definitely won had he been the chosen nominee... but instead we were given Hillary and Trump; and of course Trump would Trump Hillary in just about every stance except Global Warming. He's an idiot, but he was the only option the US citizens were given to vote for. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YukinoAi Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, Koby said: Even if the KKK 'endorses' him; it does not mean he endorses them. And yet he has done exactly what a KKK supporter would do if elected by appointing known racist, Jeff Sessions, as Attorney General. He doesn't see actively discriminating against persons due to their skin color as an impediment to being a justice. Interesting no? His campaign to build a wall on the southern border (now a "fence") was also marketed in racist terms. Trump has no problem with institutionalizing racism and other forms of xenophobia. This race was between a corrupt politician and an un-american imbecile (both terrible choices) and the imbecile won courtesy of the electoral college system.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkGanta Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 3 hours ago, YukinoAi said: And yet he has done exactly what a KKK supporter would do if elected by appointing known racist, Jeff Sessions, as Attorney General. I've read articles on this guys supposed "racism". He was attacked for having conflicting viewpoints on political operations of organizations. Since these organizations happened to be primarily African-American based, he was labeled a racist. It's sad we can't have a disagreement with a person of a different race without resorting to calling people "racist", but that's the world we live in now. 3 hours ago, YukinoAi said: His campaign to build a wall on the southern border (now a "fence") was also marketed in racist terms. I'm assuming you are referring to the supposed statement of "Illegal immigrants are rapists". This was misconstrued by the media. If you actually listen to the whole speech (something no one these days seems to do), he is saying that "many of the people entering illegally are murderers, drug traffickers and rapists". Not that "all the illegals are rapists" as the media has falsely quoted. If this isn't what you were referring to then please feel free to specify your point with details. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YukinoAi Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) So you've tried to explain his stance on suppressing minorities, and the generalization of calling illegal immigrants rapists. Great. Now how do you explain the Jeff Sessions appointment? It shows that he does not view actively discriminating against persons due to their skin color as an impediment to being a justice. What *exactly* would it take for you to see this xenophobic president-elect as racist? Or can everything be explained away so as to ignore inconvenient truths? "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then..." If Donald Trump suppresses minorities, is endorsed by racists, and appoints racists to public offices, then... Edited November 21, 2016 by YukinoAi added last line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koby Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 12 minutes ago, YukinoAi said: suppresses minorities, is endorsed by racists, and appoints racists to public offices, then... Curious: Do you think Hillary is not racist? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YukinoAi Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 7 minutes ago, Koby said: Curious: Do you think Hillary is not racist? Do not care. Same for Trump. I'm not a fan of identity politics in general actually since labels are ultimately merely descriptive. Hilary is first and foremost a power monger and will do whatever it takes and say whatever to whoever to get power. You can more or less predict what her policies will be based upon that train of thought. Hilary attempts to work within the fabric of western society for power but Trump is a lunatic that transgresses against such principles (anti-media, suppressing the opposition, government sanction religious discrimination policies, rejection of America as an immigrant nation, overt patronage that rejects meritocracy, personal gain over good societal policies etc.). He is someone who about 4% of the US population, myself included, do not trust with nuclear weaponry. The fact that he did not win "the vote" but was elected anyway, and is behaving in accordance with what he would do if he actually was racist is just...I don't even... What has the US done... x.x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koby Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 21 minutes ago, YukinoAi said: Do not care. Same for Trump. I'm not a fan of identity politics in general actually since labels are ultimately merely descriptive. Hilary is first and foremost a power monger and will do whatever it takes and say whatever to whoever to get power. You can more or less predict what her policies will be based upon that train of thought. Hilary attempts to work within the fabric of western society for power but Trump is a lunatic that transgresses against such principles (anti-media, suppressing the opposition, government sanction religious discrimination policies, rejection of America as an immigrant nation, overt patronage that rejects meritocracy, personal gain over good societal policies etc.). He is someone who about 4% of the US population, myself included, do not trust with nuclear weaponry. The fact that he did not win "the vote" but was elected anyway, and is behaving in accordance with what he would do if he actually was racist is just...I don't even... What has the US done... x.x If you don't care that Hillary is a confirmed racist (on record multiple times in the last 30+ years) then why are whining about Trump being racist. It's hypocritical to cry about him, but say you don't care at all. If Hillary got elected, we'd already be in WW3 with Russia, because of her pissing contest she had with Putin where she ended up being a dumbass and leaked the US classified intel of what our steps are in case of a Nuclear attack. Either way, most of your post is utter bologna that you've obviously been brain-washed into believing from the media. Being anti-media is actually a good thing. Suppressing the opposition? That's Hillary's job; if you disagree with her you mysteriously wind up with an 'accidental death'. Name one government sanction religious discrimination policy that is bad. If you're referring to giving the church the right to deny marriage, that is the Church's right, the government shouldn't have the power to take away such a right in the first place. Trump has never rejected America as an immigrant nation. Again you're full of shit you've been fed by the biased liberal media. Being against illegal immigration does not equal being against immigration. Figure out the difference. 4% don't trust Trump with nuclear weapons? That's fine, I'm pretty positive that far more wouldn't trust Hillary with an email much less a nuclear weapon. The single thing you've mentioned that might actually be partially true is his election of Jeff Sessions, but seeing as I know nothing of the guy, I couldn't say without doing some homework. What has the US done? Made the best choice they could have with the options given to them. I don't like Trump either, but honestly, it's a very good damn thing that Hillary did not get elected. Anyone but Hillary would be a better option than Hillary. This election also proved to me why the electoral vote is a good thing. Just look at the map. Literally 5 cities out of the entire country gave Hillary the popular vote. We do not need a mere 5 cities completely dictating the election results. The electoral system ensured that all the states had a bit of a say in the next POTUS. I think roughly 85% of the map should have more power than just 5 extremely populated cities. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YukinoAi Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) That is odd. I commented and had the post on the thread but now it's completely gone, and you have edited two of your previous posts Koby. Must be some weird bug. Luckily I had a duplicate window still open and I can just copy-paste the info back. If you don't care then stop whining about Trump being racist. It's hypocritical to cry about him, but say you don't care at all. It's the fact that he is acting in accordance with what he would do if he was racist.THAT is what is important,not the LABEL. You asked about the label, specifically, so I answered that specifically. The point being that labels are not important, but rather what people do. And he is acting in accordance with his KKK endorsement so far. If Hillary got elected, we'd already be in WW3 with Russia, because of her pissing contest she had with Putin where she ended up being a dumbass and leaked the US classified intel of what our steps are in case of a Nuclear attack. Malicious? That's Trump.We could not know what things would be like with Hilary as president-elect courtesy of not being able to rewind time, so it is not possible to rightly claim "we'd already be in WW3 with Russia," especially since she has not shown any specific desire to start such a conflict. Either way, most of your post is utter bologna that you've obviously been brain-washed into believing from the media. If you would like to address any specific claims, I can respond to that, but over-generalizations are necessarily inaccurate and hence not worth responding to. Being anti-media is actually a good thing. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -1st Amendment Do I really need to explain why supporting freedom of the press and why not being jailed for printing "unpopular" ideas should be a core principle of contemporary civil society? Suppressing the opposition? That's Hillary's job. Shifting the issue to Hilary does not stop me from being very very relieved that this is one campaign promise that Trump (so far)has not tried to keep with regard to his political opponent: "I hate to say it, but if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your."Trump during second presidential debate What do you think about his threat to attempt to jail his political opponent? Should western governments institute policies of jailing the losing member in elections? Is that a good thing too? "What has the US done? Made the best choice they could have with the options given to them." The people did make the best choice.Between a corrupt politician and a lunatic,Hilary won the popular vote by 1.3M. And yet, courtesy of the electoral college system,Trump is now president-elect instead. #Okay that's it for the original response quoting the entire original post, now to address the edits: Name one government sanction religious discrimination policy that is bad. Wait, are you seriously against having a secular government? The moment the government starts taking sides in religious conflict, it necessarily oppresses those who hold contrary viewpoints, e.g. the minority. The point of having "rights" and "freedoms" is to prevent the majority, those in power, from enacting laws to oppress sections of their populace. The whole point is to prevent the government based religious discrimination in the first place. As far as marriage is concerned, I would prefer the government to not be involved in the personal affairs to individuals or to institute policies that infringe on the rights of specific people to or not to acknowledge specific unions as "valid." However, as long as it is involved, our legal system has a responsibility to its citizens to treat them equally before the law. That means not giving specific views of what constitutes a "marriage" preference over any other view if those views are religious since only non-religious views are valid to legislate in a secular society. Taking account "religious" views necessarily takes sides in a "religious" conflict, and hence the government should instead either agree to marry age-of-consent citizens that consent to getting married or stay away from it all together. My preference is as-stated. 1 hour ago, Koby said: Trump has never rejected America as an immigrant nation. Again you're full of shit you've been fed by the biased liberal media. Being against illegal immigration does not equal being against immigration. Figure out the difference. His stance to ban immigration by Muslims, and supporting splitting up families of immigrants by doing mass sweeps by law enforcement (the only way to enforce his proposed policy) both betray his xenophobia and his vision of America. The fact that minorities, which are more likely to have illegal immigrant family members, overwhelmingly voted against Trump means his stance on this issue was extraordinarily clear for them. Perhaps that is less obvious for some people who are not directly targeted by his xenophobic views. 2 hours ago, Koby said: The single thing you've mentioned that might actually be partially true is his election of Jeff Sessions, but seeing as I know nothing of the guy, I couldn't say without doing some homework. Let's say, hypothetically, that Jeff Sessions was an overt racist and that Trump really did appoint him to be Attorney General. Hypothetically, if Trump does not see actively discriminating against persons due to their skin color as an impediment to being a justice, as he would in making such an appointment, would you say that he would be acting consistent, inconsistent or tangential to the values of the KKK? I don't like Trump either, but honestly, it's a very good damn thing that Hillary did not get elected. Anyone but Hillary would be a better option than Hillary. The most important thing for a pluralistic society is simply to keep talking to each other. So personally one of the most worrying trends in American politics has been the increasing polarization of the political spectrum. That is, that political rivals are more likely to see each other as actively attempting to sabotage the nation, than someone to attempting to make the nation prosperous with that simply shares a different view about how to make that happen. To fix this, given the dynamics of American politics, the first step is to abolish the electoral college and implement instant run-off voting. This would allow people to freely join whatever political party they wanted to and vote accordingly while also not "thowing their vote away" as they do now. America would then naturally form into six political parties: Socialists, Greens, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Tea-Party. With the "radical" elements of each of the two current parties "purged," the major parties would be less likely to refer to each other as "Anyone but them" and would be more likely to form a coalition government of sorts on specific issues. It would be one step towards having a representative democracy actually represent it's citizens as opposed to being about preventing the opposition from gaining power. Koby, what do you think of this? Would you support abolishing the electoral college for this purpose? Do you think it would change the way people approach politics? 1 hour ago, Koby said: Just look at the map. Literally 5 cities out of the entire country gave Hillary the popular vote. We do not need a mere 5 cities completely dictating the election results. The electoral system ensured that all the states had a bit of a say in the next POTUS. I think roughly 85% of the map should have more power than just 5 extremely populated cities. In Reynold v. Sims (1964), which applied the Equal Protection Clause, ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters not farms or cities...." -wikipedia quoting Earl Warren To say that we do not need a mere 5 cities dictating election results is to say that the person who lives in the city has a vote inferior to one that lives in the countryside and so that their votes are not equal. The electoral college system does not assure that states have a say in the election cycle, but rather that trees do, exactly what Earl Warren said our legislators did NOT represent. If brought before his court, how do you think Earl Warren would have ruled on the electoral college system? As I explained the possible benefits of abolishing the electoral college above and that not doing so makes legislators represent trees not people, do you still hold that we should retain it? 7 hours ago, Koby said: Trump won though because people were tired of the rigged system, and a lot of people were pissed at everything Hillary had done, including Bengazi and the Democratic Nomination where Sanders was robbed of the nomination. A vast amount of Sanders supporters deflected to Trumps side as a result. Sanders could have definitely won had he been the chosen nominee... but instead we were given Hillary and Trump /agree Although I do have something to add. There were many reasons why Trump won the election, from third party voters, to flipping key states, to suppressing the vote via running a negative campaign. The biggest, I suspect, is that he was speaking populist terms to people in key states, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio promising them more jobs by implementing anti-free trade policies to bring back manufacturing jobs. The benefit of this explain, along with the rest, is that it also explains the incredible support the Sanders campaign had from seemingly out-of-nowhere. That, along with the quirk of an electoral college, is what defeated Hilary, despite him not winning the popular vote. Edited November 21, 2016 by YukinoAi Attempted to fix the formatting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koby Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 1 hour ago, YukinoAi said: 1) It's the fact that he is acting in accordance with what he would do if he was racist.THAT is what is important,not the LABEL. You asked about the label, specifically, so I answered that specifically. The point being that labels are not important, but rather what people do. And he is acting in accordance with his KKK endorsement so far. 2)Malicious? That's Trump.We could not know what things would be like with Hilary as president-elect courtesy of not being able to rewind time, so it is not possible to rightly claim "we'd already be in WW3 with Russia," especially since she has not shown any specific desire to start such a conflict. 3) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -1st Amendment 4) "I hate to say it, but if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your."Trump during second presidential debate What do you think about his threat to attempt to jail his political opponent? Should western governments institute policies of jailing the losing member in elections? Is that a good thing too? 5)"What has the US done? Made the best choice they could have with the options given to them." The people did make the best choice.Between a corrupt politician and a lunatic,Hilary won the popular vote by 1.3M. And yet, courtesy of the electoral college system,Trump is now president-elect instead. 6) ] Wait, are you seriously against having a secular government? The moment the government starts taking sides in religious conflict, it necessarily oppresses those who hold contrary viewpoints, e.g. the minority. The point of having "rights" and "freedoms" is to prevent the majority, those in power, from enacting laws to oppress sections of their populace. The whole point is to prevent the government based religious discrimination in the first place. As far as marriage is concerned, I would prefer the government to not be involved in the personal affairs to individuals or to institute policies that infringe on the rights of specific people to or not to acknowledge specific unions as "valid." However, as long as it is involved, our legal system has a responsibility to its citizens to treat them equally before the law. That means not giving specific views of what constitutes a "marriage" preference over any other view if those views are religious since only non-religious views are valid to legislate in a secular society. Taking account "religious" views necessarily takes sides in a "religious" conflict, and hence the government should instead either agree to marry age-of-consent citizens that consent to getting married or stay away from it all together. My preference is as-stated. 1) So far the only thing you've been able to say he's done was hire a guy who may be a racist. It's not like others, including Hillary hasn't done the same. Hell Obama hired Hillary knowing full well she's a racist. So according to your logic; Obama is racist because he hired Hillary. gg. 2) You need to go read up on stuff before trying to act like you know what has transpired. As you're clearly once again trying to step up to talk about a subject you've clearly not been paying any attention to. Russia had pretty much all but declared war if Hillary won because of her childish tantrum bickering she had a few weeks before the election took place with him. It's exactly why they declared they wanted peace after Trump was actually elected. 3) Exactly my point. The government should not be able dictate what churches can and cannot do. They should not be able to force churches to go against their belief and marry people despite it being against their religion. They have the right to deny marriage if they so choose, and the government stepping in and forcing them not to be able to have that right is against the 1st Amendment. You're clearly not comprehending anything you read and since you've had a good brainwashing by the liberal controlled media. 4) Exactly. This is a BIG reason why people likely opted to vote for him. Hillary needs to be in prison for the shit she has done. It has nothing to do with her losing the presidential election. In fact by US law, she should have been deemed ineligible to run. She was being investigated for three different cases of treason. She has consistently on multiple occasions leaked classified documents, she has consistently by her own actions or lack of actions been responsible for the deaths of dozens of Americans. She's got a long ass rap sheet, but her husband manages to buy his way out of it for her every time. 5. Thankfully the electorial system is there, because obviously those 5 cities who could have dictated the election are full of the biggest dumbasses on the planet. 6. Prime example of what I've been saying about your lack of comprehending what you read. Again, let me repeat what I said: " If you're referring to taking away the churchs the right to deny marriage, that is the Church's right, the government shouldn't have the power to take away such a right in the first place. " This means the government should not have the ability to control religion, and therefore the Church has the right to deny marriage if it's against the Church's religion. The Government should not have the ability to say fuck your religion we're gonna force you to do this anyways. So yeah, you're arguing with me trying to get me to say what I've already said, because you're not even comprehending the subject matter in which you're trying to take part in. So just stop wasting my time. Go back to your rioting and crying about how Trump is according to liberals... all the things Hillary has actually been proven to be; while denying the fact that everything they're crying about with Trump is exactly who and what Hillary has gone on record that she is. You're not going to be able to convince me a woman who should be behind bars had any right actually running for POTUS in the first place. Nor are you going to be able to convince me that Trump is against legal immigration, nor will you be able to convince me he is racist. Before running for POTUS, not once did anyone attempt to label him as such until the liberals used it to run the negative campaign they did. Not once did Hillary speak of her accomplishments (because she has none). As her entire campaign was hinged on running her opponents down with lies and propaganda rather than trying to build herself up. It's pointless to try and convince me otherwise, because unlike 51% of the voters, I actually have my eyes and ears open and listening. I paid attention to their actions, their words, and their gestures. Hillary has been in politics for years and I honestly cannot think of one decent thing she has done in all that time. Trump hasn't even entered the White House yet and things are already looking up. Russia and Isreal declared they wanted peace. The DOW came up to record highs. Bigoted Racist people like Al Sharpton (the biggest loudest upfront about it racist I know of) are trying to leave the country. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YukinoAi Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) Humm, my post was deleted again. I think what happens is that if I quote you, I post, or you do, and then you comment by editing your original post such that the quotes are then invalid references, then my post registers on my local client but then does not post to the server...or something like that. And I did not have it saved, so here we go again.... 1) So far the only thing you've been able to say he's done was hire a guy who may be a racist. It's not like others, including Hillary hasn't done the same. Hell Obama hired Hillary knowing full well she's a racist. So according to your logic; Obama is racist because he hired Hillary. gg. This misses the point I raised entirely. Trump is hiring someone who believes that justice is not infringed by discriminating against people for the color of their skin for Attorney General. From wikipedia: the Attorney General is "concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer." This isn't like hiring a cook or aid that just so happens to be racist. This is a position in which their view on justice and their ability to conduct affairs in an impartial manner beneficial to all citizens is key. If in that office, Jeff Sessions will no doubt decide on matters of justice using his bias that is fundamentally at odds with treating people equally, regardless of the color of their skin. This is akin to hiring a pedophile to be the principle in an elementary school. Hilary would not have nominated someone with such distinguished record of racism as Jeff Sessions, nor acted in accordance with the principles of the KKK in doing so. It is an error To equate the two on this point. 2) You need to go read up on stuff before trying to act like you know what has transpired. As you're clearly once again trying to step up to talk about a subject you've clearly not been paying any attention to. Russia had pretty much all but declared war if Hillary won because of her childish tantrum bickering she had a few weeks before the election took place with him. It's exactly why they declared they wanted peace after Trump was actually elected. 1) As my original claim states, we do not know how events would have transpired and cannot be justified in claiming we would be in WWIII right now if things had transpired differently. 2) So, since when is Russia's preference for who should be president more important than the will of the American people? 3) Exactly my point. The government should not be able dictate what churches can and cannot do. They should not be able to force churches to go against their belief and marry people despite it being against their religion. They have the right to deny marriage if they so choose, and the government stepping in and forcing them not to be able to have that right is against the 1st Amendment. [...] 6. Prime example of what I've been saying about your lack of comprehending what you read. Again, let me repeat what I said: " If you're referring to taking away the churchs the right to deny marriage, that is the Church's right, the government shouldn't have the power to take away such a right in the first place. This means the government should not have the ability to control religion, and therefore the Church has the right to deny marriage if it's against the Church's religion. The Government should not have the ability to say fuck your religion we're gonna force you to do this anyways. So yeah, you're arguing with me trying to get me to say what I've already said, because you're not even comprehending the subject matter in which you're trying to take part in. So just stop wasting my time. Okay, I still disagree because the right to marry is a legal right. As long as religion involves itself in matters of law that affect persons in that society the government should have the ability to control religion on that specific topic. The Government should have the ability to say fuck your religion we're gonna force you to do this anyways when a policy that promotes discriminatory policies towards the rest of the society cannot be found to have a secular purpose as a matter of law because we live in a secular society. Every decision that is binding upon citizens falls within the bounds of what the government controls, by definition. As long as marriage is a right that confers legal benefits, marriage is such a domain. And of course, legal rights that come into conflict with existing laws or principles should should take precedence if that law or conflicting right does not have any overriding secular purpose that is beneficial to civil society. The government should not deny that right to actual people, but as an institution. If individual people do not want to acknowledge marriage of specific persons on an individual level, they do not have to in accordance with their first personal amendment rights. People are free to be bigots if that is their prerogative. But, as long as our legal system confers special benefits to married persons, e.g. marriage is a "legal" concept, the government has a responsibility to its citizens to treat them equally and acknowledge the "marriage" of persons of the age of consent who wish to be "married." That is, the government should not be in the business of promoting bigotry. To discriminate because some of its citizens opposite acknowledging so for religious reasons is to take sides in an overtly religious dispute and is thus a violation of the separation of church and state. This thinking is in line with the decision our courts have made regarding LGBT marriages. Would you like some relevant quotes concerning this issue? Do you have any response that addresses this actual logic? Or are you just going to say "BS and religious rights take precedence anyway" without a coherent argument as to why you can't get "your" way about why "those" people should not allowed to marry the people they love but you should be? I have shown why the right to marry equally should take precedence over the right to discriminate due to religious reasons. Can you show why it should be the reverse? And you have not said so explicitly, do you want the government to not involve itself with marriage instead? "What do you think about his threat to attempt to jail his political opponent? Should western governments institute policies of jailing the losing member in elections? Is that a good thing too?" 4) Exactly. This is a BIG reason why people likely opted to vote for him. Hillary needs to be in prison for the shit she has done. It has nothing to do with her losing the presidential election. Think of this on a larger scale. Persons in positions of power should behave responsibility because they also represent the principles of that position. Power in western nations passes peacefully, without state-sponsored retribution for political opponents and without involvement from armed forces. As a candidate for a head of state of a western nation, it is extraordinarily undemocratic to say that he would use his executive authority on his opponent. Such a statement can only be interpreted as retribution, whether it is or not, in light of his position. The responsible thing to do is to punt and say that he would/will abide by the determination of an impartial investigator into the matter. By threatening an investigation instead, he shows he is unfit for office. 5. Thankfully the electoral system is there, because obviously those 5 cities who could have dictated the election are full of the biggest dumbasses on the planet. So then you disagree with myself and Chief Justice Earl Warren and are thankful that our representatives represent trees and not people via the undemocratic electoral college system. Interesting. ...all the things Hillary has actually been proven to be; while denying the fact that everything they're crying about with Trump is exactly who and what Hillary has gone on record that she is. Trump won via electoral college (violates popular sovereignty) Trump has threatened overt state-sponsored religious discrimination is his ban on "Muslims" and the related registry. (violates freedom of religion, violates equality before the law) Trump has threatened to infringe on the freedom of the press. (violates freedom of the press) Trump has threatened political retribution for his opponent. (violates peaceful transfer of power) Trump has to not concede the results of the election if he did not win. (violates peaceful transfer of power) Trump has shown unprecedented levels of corruption in refusing to wall of his personal assets during his tenure. (patronage violates meritocracy principles) Trump has nominated his family members for jobs in important offices. (patronage violates meritocracy principles) Trump was endorsed by the KKK, Hilary was not. He also nominated Jeff Sessions to Attorney General, a sensitive position, that Hilary would not have, and thus behaved in accordance with the principles of the KKK. (violates equality before the law) Our choices were between an incompetent politician, and a genuinely un-American, undemocratic xenophobic imbecile who cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons according to a sizable chunk of the electorate and our last president (see link). As the president elect, through technically legal means, one is bound to accept him as president-elect to the degree that he does not violate core level principles which will (hopefully) get him impeached before too long. But he has already started in shutting out the press, declined to contact long-standing allies first, facilitated political revenge, is instituting familial patronage in the white house.... Well...this is going to be a long four years, assuming the most powerful clown decides to let us live that long.... Giving nuclear arms to someone who has threatened to use them? Yeah. The lesser of two evils choice was obvious here. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/politics/donald-trump-nuclear-codes/ Edited November 21, 2016 by YukinoAi formatting (again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koby Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 As long as you're being hypocritical of your own standing, there is nothing to discuss. You seem to change your stance from sentence to sentence and you're still simply spouting shit the liberal controlled media has been spouting trying to make you belief; while not actually being true. You're side-stepping the facts and ignoring the truth. You say the government should not have the ability to control churches, yet you specifically state you want them to do so. You specifically state you want the government to deny Churches their 1st Amendment right. A pastor should have his right to deny doing a service he doesn't believe in. Rather than forcing him to go against his beliefs, the people seeking to get married should go find someone who will. The government has as you've even stated, no right to step in here. The first Amendment right here makes this useless to debate. Because it's actual law and therefore not up for debate. Good on Trump to not try to ignore the Amendments and Constitution like the Obama administration has done. Again; you're using the fact that Trump said Hillary should be in jail as some kind of political attack. This is stupid. The woman deserves to be in prison and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the election. It wasn't a threat; it was simply stating facts. So stop acting like it was some sort of threat to suppress opposition. It's simply telling the woman she by law had absolutely no business running for president as she was by the law, legally disqualified; yet because of who she is, the law didn't matter. Again, if you want to be a hypocritical mind-controlled biased liberal bigot; then stop wasting my time with these off the wall nonsensical replies. You keep trying to ignore everything actually going on in the world, and you keep misconstruing what is being said. Every reply you've made has been responded to with the exact same thing I initially stated. Because nothing has been changed from that regard. You're not going to get me to believe liberal propaganda because you're not going to convince me to ignore the actual facts and actions that have been done. The rest of your response was too much BS liberal propaganda that isn't true to respond to. Every post, you're just having me repeat what I originally said, because you don't grasp the concept of what is being said and I'm tired of repeating myself because you clearly don't get it. You've been brainwashed by liberal propaganda for so long you don't even seem to know which way is up and which way is down and therefore any discussion on politics with you is automatically moot. Please don't bother to respond. It'll just be another post where you ignore facts, toss more liberal propaganda, ignore what I said, side-step what has been said and ask more questions that don't make any sense, all while being hypocritical of your very own stance. We get it, in your eyes Hillary is perfect and Trump is totally bad bad bad. In your eyes, everything that Hillary has actually been is really just Trump. In your eyes every bad thing Hillary has done doesn't actually exist and in your eyes every bad thing she would have done is what Trump wants to do. We get it. In your eyes she can do no wrong and Trump can do no right. We get it, you want the government to dictate what people can and can't do while also not wanting the government to be able to. We get it. We get how biased, contradictory, and hypocritical everything you've said is. You shouldn't bash Trump for shit that hasn't actually happened while ignoring everything that Hillary has actually done. Again, as long as you're willing to do that; you're spouting off nonsense that's just wasting everybody's time like a typical rioting crybaby liberal out there blocking roads illegally and vandalizing because the crooked lady didn't win an election she paid to have rigged. Don't link me to Clinton News Network. Again, your sources are biased and you bought into their propaganda and lies hook line and sinker. Citing CNN is like citing 4chan as a source of info. This just further shows that you still don't get it. Go do your own research on actual facts and not just buy into what the biased liberal media on TV is selling; because it's pretty much all bullshit. I have no problem debating someone who is actually thinking rationally, but as long as you're going to play it like this, it's not even a debate. Propaganda fed by the liberal media is not factual. If you want to debate facts, then that's fine (but doesn't seem like that'll happen), but I'm not going to debate shit that isn't true or didn't happen while ignoring everything about the opposition. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reptoholic Posted November 22, 2016 Report Share Posted November 22, 2016 I have to laugh at some peoples stupidity, Yours in particular YukinoAi. If You were a student I would fail you for misleading a point with both your references and the way you use them. You can't twist words to fit you POV while disregarding all previous information, you have to do both research and fact checking. I can say that i saw a flying pink hippopotamus in a tutu and publish a story about it, that does not make it fact. You are using biased resources and are twisting words in order to fit your argument.. CNN & Wiki.... Really? Jeff Sessions? DO YOUR RESEARCH. Being accused of something is not the same as being it. Read all what Jeff has done in his lifetime career, not just one thing said that is taken and blown out of proportion. Jeff went after and prosecuted the HEAD of the KKK in Alabama. The "Racist' remarks he supposedly said were during the time he was prosecuting them. You have to look at the context of what is being said. The use of the term "Racist" is thrown around all the time to try to slander and create turmoil and doubt, especially in politics. This is why there is Vetting Hillary? Don't get me started on her. Breaking the Law and endangering the entirety of the United States.. Really, you are going to defend that ? Look at the people she surrounds herself with. Tearing our Country Apart, that is not being done by trump, it is being done by whiny people who have taken it in their own hands to cause chaos and turmoil. Illegals. My grandfather worked years to get papers in order to come into this country, he took the time an effort to come LEGALLY. Trump said he is going to go after all the Criminals first, what is so wrong with that? Go to your little Crying corner 'Safe Zone' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanis Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 So...who's ready to get their pussies grabbed by a Russian agent at the end of the month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkGanta Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/14/2017 at 8:17 AM, Tanis said: So...who's ready to get their pussies grabbed by a Russian agent at the end of the month? In Soviet Russia, pussies grab you! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now