Donald Trump

[John Cuthber]

I don't think uniformed or misinformed explains it. Any adult with average intelligence and a general concept of government knows that building a wall and demanding Mexico to pay is silly. Trump supports are just angery and enjoy the slander.

I'm not sure they do recognise that the "Wall" is silly; they believe what Fox News tells them.

It's true that if they used their "average intelligence" they could work out that it's absurd. But they are not taught to think (anything but if the GOP can arrange it.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gop%20critical%20thinking

 

And I really don't think they understand economics well enough to realise that, even though he is rude about Mexicans, he's not on their side.

If they really understood, they wouldn't vote Republican

Edited March 13, 2016 by John Cuthber

[waitforufo]

We beat them into the ground and shot them in the holes once, burned their houses and barns, took their horses and cattle for compensation for our efforts, and freed all their slaves. We can do it again. If that's where they're taking this.

You are talking about Democrats here correct? The Democratic party is the party of slavery, sedition, civil war, jim crow, voting suppression, and opposition to civil rights. Now they simultaneously oppress minority citizens though welfare while making them a consistent voting block through welfare. True economic slavery. 22 trillion dollars (in today's dollars) spent on the war on poverty and the great society and what do we have to show for it? The poverty rate in this country hasn't dropped since since 1964. Surely this proves that creating government dependence doesn't reduce poverty, but the Democrats not only want to continue welfare spending but increase spending on it. The only true justification can be to secure a voting block made from these dependents.

 

Every place I have ever worked incentivized employees by paying paying more for more productivity. It always worked for me, and my pay is very good. Welfare reduces payouts to those that work. We all know where that has ended up. Democrats just won't admit it.

 

 

if were talking about physically slapping Republicans, even you don't think it would be out of character for one of them to pull out a gun and kill me for it. That's your conclusion, based on what you know about conservatives. And I think you're right, many conservatives would find a way to justify an outcome like that.

Why is it that Democrats are always willing to result to violence on there fellow citizens to achieve there goals? Just look to the history I mention above.

 

Slapping is not only an assault, it is an intentional insult.

 

" Only civil war will end this nonsense "

I either misinterpreted the above, or I misquoted you, Rangerx.

Which is it ?

 

And no, Phi, none of the conservatives I know ( I am Canadian ) would pull a gun on me if I were to slap them in the head,. I was talking about Texans

Of the American conservatives that I've gotten to know on this forum, I don't think I'd worry about Tar at all, and I think I'd have to slap Waitforufo quite a few times before he'd retaliate ( and probably not with a gun ); he seems to be a pretty easy going guy. Neither hates the 'opposition'.

Of the American liberals I've gotten to know, Overtone is the only one I'd worry about.

He likes his guns and he hates the 'opposition'.

But he'll no doubt claim I don't know him at all...

 

Why would anyone worry about Tar (however much he seems to be a verbose conservative)? But Waitforufo would happy slap you with the least provocation, whilst Overtone just lives up to his name; I know which name I’d be more wary of.

My my such talk of violence. Assault and insult a person and you are inviting an ass kicking and deserve one. I'm unlikely to take even that path because I would likely not turn out well for me. I may however have you arrested. I can assure you that no guns or knives would be involved. Why all the intense emotion and talk of violence? Can't we all just get along? Can't we all just vote our differences and live with the outcome? I do.

 

Yes, Sanders is center left, not even fully left. Much of Europe is farther left. Even in Canada, we have Ontario experimenting with guaranteed minimum income. He only sounds radical to Americans who have been lied to by the corporaticracy marketing department they call the media.

 

Warren

 

 

This shows where the 2016 election candidates are in the generally accepted definitions of left and right,

 

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

 

This one is a hoot. What party is always trying to change behavior through legislation and regulation? Is that not authoritative?

[Phi for All]

You are talking about Democrats here correct? The Democratic party is the party of slavery, sedition, civil war, jim crow, voting suppression, and opposition to civil rights. Now they simultaneously oppress minority citizens though welfare while making them a consistent voting block through welfare. True economic slavery. 22 trillion dollars (in today's dollars) spent on the war on poverty and the great society and what do we have to show for it? The poverty rate in this country hasn't dropped since since 1964. Surely this proves that creating government dependence doesn't reduce poverty, but the Democrats not only want to continue welfare spending but increase spending on it. The only true justification can be to secure a voting block made from these dependents.

 

Every place I have ever worked incentivized employees by paying paying more for more productivity. It always worked for me, and my pay is very good. Welfare reduces payouts to those that work. We all know where that has ended up. Democrats just won't admit it.

 

 

Why is it that Democrats are always willing to result to violence on there fellow citizens to achieve there goals? Just look to the history I mention above.

 

Slapping is not only an assault, it is an intentional insult.

 

 

My my such talk of violence. Assault and insult a person and you are inviting an ass kicking and deserve one. I'm unlikely to take even that path because I would likely not turn out well for me. I may however have you arrested. I can assure you that no guns or knives would be involved. Why all the intense emotion and talk of violence? Can't we all just get along? Can't we all just vote our differences and live with the outcome? I do.

 

This one is a hoot. What party is always trying to change behavior through legislation and regulation? Is that not authoritative?

 

Always amazing how you think the Dems haven't changed since the Civil War, like the name is the important thing, that once named a Democrat you're a part of everything the party has ever done. You crack me up.

 

Equally amazing is how far off the mark you always are when it comes to your interpretations of what others say. You misrepresent anyone who isn't like you, and force them into the nice box you made for them LOOOOOONG ago. You are a really good representation of what liberals think is wrong with your party.

 

You're going to be voting for Trump, despite the fact that we can tell he makes your skin crawl. I think that says it all.

[waitforufo]

 

Always amazing how you think the Dems haven't changed since the Civil War, like the name is the important thing, that once named a Democrat you're a part of everything the party has ever done. You crack me up.

 

Equally amazing is how far off the mark you always are when it comes to your interpretations of what others say. You misrepresent anyone who isn't like you, and force them into the nice box you made for them LOOOOOONG ago. You are a really good representation of what liberals think is wrong with your party.

 

You're going to be voting for Trump, despite the fact that we can tell he makes your skin crawl. I think that says it all.

Overtone was making references to slavery. Part of my response was to overtone. Jim crow was in place in my lifetime by Democrats like George Wallace. Unions, mostly democrats, made every attempt to keep minorities out of there unions into the 70's. I'm only in my mid fifties so that is not ancient history. If I were a democrat I would hide from my history too.

 

Trump is not my preferred candidate. I simply think many aspects of his campaign are working brilliantly for him. He is not yet been nominated but if he is I will likely vote for him over Hillary or Sanders. Hillary is a serial liar and a criminal. Sanders is a socialist who will lead us to serfdom. Trump will likely simply let his cabinet and VP run the show and parade around like a leader. Much better than the other two.

[Phi for All]

Overtone was making references to slavery. Part of my response was to overtone. Jim crow was in place in my lifetime by Democrats like George Wallace. Unions, mostly democrats, made every attempt to keep minorities out of there unions into the 70's. I'm only in my mid fifties so that is not ancient history. If I were a democrat I would hide from my history too.

Guess what? You get to hide too, since Nixon took all the bad things associated with the Dems back then, and made them all Republican. It's your history now, and you've done a great job in beefing up all the bad.

 

Sanders is a socialist who will lead us to serfdom.

Such a nice sound byte you've found to dismiss a whole movement. It encapsulates all the ignorance and lack of critical thinking I've come to associate with emotionally-driven pseudo-sociopaths who don't think humans deserve more than just the right to work when they choose to live in such close quarters. You obviously like our socialist/serfdom police and fire departments, probably use the healthcare we've got (since you get disease when you put so many people together in societal environments). You drive the serfdom/socialist roads, use goods that come in via serfdom/socialist ports, and enjoy government incentives to grow your economic base, all in exchange for taxes that you think are unfair because they sometimes help people who aren't like you.

 

I think Trump represents you pretty well.

[John Cuthber]

Unions, mostly democrats, made every attempt to keep minorities out of there unions into the 70's.

 

Trump is not my preferred candidate. I simply think many aspects of his campaign are working brilliantly for him. He is not yet been nominated but if he is I will likely vote for him over Hillary or Sanders. Hillary is a serial liar and a criminal. Sanders is a socialist who will lead us to serfdom. Trump will likely simply let his cabinet and VP run the show and parade around like a leader. Much better than the other two.

They did once- but that was a sign of the times.

http://www.shmoop.com/history-labor-unions/race.html

They don't now. It's a bit like you pretending that the Democrats have not changed since the civil war

 

You berate Hilary for being a liar and a crook, yet you seem to overlook the fact that Trump is also a liar and a crook.

 

That's enough hypocrisy to write yo off as unworthy of discussion.

If you won't vote for her because she's crooked (so it's claimed- there's no actual evidence though is here) then you shouldn't vote for Trump should you?

 

And Sanders is still not a socialist- no matter how many times you say it.

[Phi for All]

And Sanders is still not a socialist- no matter how many times you say it.

 

I started a thread on Socialism here.

[Willie71]

You are talking about Democrats here correct? The Democratic party is the party of slavery, sedition, civil war, jim crow, voting suppression, and opposition to civil rights. Now they simultaneously oppress minority citizens though welfare while making them a consistent voting block through welfare. True economic slavery. 22 trillion dollars (in today's dollars) spent on the war on poverty and the great society and what do we have to show for it? The poverty rate in this country hasn't dropped since since 1964. Surely this proves that creating government dependence doesn't reduce poverty, but the Democrats not only want to continue welfare spending but increase spending on it. The only true justification can be to secure a voting block made from these dependents.

 

Every place I have ever worked incentivized employees by paying paying more for more productivity. It always worked for me, and my pay is very good. Welfare reduces payouts to those that work. We all know where that has ended up. Democrats just won't admit it.

 

 

 

Why is it that Democrats are always willing to result to violence on there fellow citizens to achieve there goals? Just look to the history I mention above.

 

Slapping is not only an assault, it is an intentional insult.

 

 

 

 

My my such talk of violence. Assault and insult a person and you are inviting an ass kicking and deserve one. I'm unlikely to take even that path because I would likely not turn out well for me. I may however have you arrested. I can assure you that no guns or knives would be involved. Why all the intense emotion and talk of violence? Can't we all just get along? Can't we all just vote our differences and live with the outcome? I do.

 

 

 

 

This one is a hoot. What party is always trying to change behavior through legislation and regulation? Is that not authoritative?

 

Yes, Sanders and Clinton are left of the republicans on economic policies, such as regulating products for safety. The Republicans are authoritarians for expecting everyone to follow their ridiculous religious moral standards. Gays can't marry, restricting LGBT rights, wanting Christian prayer in school, expecting private businesses to honour Christian traditions around holidays, and much more. They spin it as the freedom to be a religious bigot, while restricting everyone else's rights. Anti immigration, anti Muslim rhetoric restricts freedom as well.

[Phi for All]

Yes, Sanders and Clinton are left of the republicans on economic policies, such as regulating products for safety.

It had to take a LOT of spin to convince conservatives that a company's profits were more important than making safe products. You'd think that consumer goods NOT hurting people would be in that emotional, fear-wracked wheelhouse they're so proud of.

 

More Republican insanity. It's OK to make children sick as long as the profit is good.

[Willie71]

It had to take a LOT of spin to convince conservatives that a company's profits were more important than making safe products. You'd think that consumer goods NOT hurting people would be in that emotional, fear-wracked wheelhouse they're so proud of.

 

More Republican insanity. It's OK to make children sick as long as the profit is good.

 

The free market is a republican faith based ideology. Supposedly the consumers would choose not to buy unsafe products forcing the market to correct itself. They don't consider the effects of monopolies, corporate welfare, and limited power of individuals to claim damages. They believe in the idea, but pretend reality doesn't differ from that idealism. Edited March 14, 2016 by Willie71

[overtone]

Electing Bernie would be as big a success for the progressive movement as electing Trump would be for the far right.

That's true in the negative sense, in that Trump is no more rightwing than Sanders is leftwing - neither one is an ideological extremist, both are running as pragmatic responders to need.

 

 

You are talking about Democrats here correct?

Nope. The KKK faction is all Republican now.

 

 

What party is always trying to change behavior through legislation and regulation?

The Republican Party, of course. Why do you ask?

 

 

Jim crow was in place in my lifetime by Democrats like George Wallace. Unions, mostly democrats, made every attempt to keep minorities out of there unions into the 70's. I'm only in my mid fifties so that is not ancient history.

And so you remember the changeover by 1980, so that the KKK faction has been Republican for your entire adult life. Trump is running in 2016, not 1966. Is there some reason you can recall George Wallace but not Richard Nixon, trade union racism but not Ronald Reagan's? Seems like more recent decades should be as easy to recall as more distant ones.

 

Or do you start all recent history in 2009, as so many rightwingers do.

 

 

Trump will likely simply let his cabinet and VP run the show and parade around like a leader. Much better than the other two.

When the VP is by turns toady and evil, and the cabinet packed with corporate predators starts shoveling the wealth into the appropriate bags, and the generals of the various armed forces are getting together to talk things over;

 

when Trump sets out to build his Wall and finds the Endangered Species Act and the EPA force an expensive delay he can do nothing about legally - so he discards the law, under some Homeland Security pretext, and fires the entire body of EPA execs the way W&Co fired the inconveniently diligent DAs - will one of you Republicans finally and at long last accept personal responsibility for the consequences of your political immaturity and dereliction of citizenship?

Edited March 14, 2016 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

Essentially, Waitforufo seems to be making his decision about voting, not on today's candidates, but on some weird historical mish-mash of Jim Crow and the 1970's version f trade unionism that leads him to think that Obama is the racist, rather than Trump.

Should he be allowed to vote,, or is he too deluded for that?

[iNow]

Of course, he should be allowed to vote. Disagree with him in serval ways I may, but if that right isn't protected for all then it's ultimately protected for none.

 

In much the same way that I disagree with voter suppression activities that happen among blacks and the poor, I do not wish for my or his voting access be dictated based on the whims of whomever may currently be in power.

 

This is a "who watches the watchers" style of argument that I'm making. The right to vote is based on citizenship, not ideology or (unfortunately) connectedness of arguments to reality.

[Ten oz]

Overtone was making references to slavery. Part of my response was to overtone. Jim crow was in place in my lifetime by Democrats like George Wallace. Unions, mostly democrats, made every attempt to keep minorities out of there unions into the 70's. I'm only in my mid fifties so that is not ancient history. If I were a democrat I would hide from my history too.

The Democratic party rejected that wing of the party. Today bigots supports Republicans. What is what today can't just be ignored. You are connecting the KKK with democrats as a way to point out how bad democrats are while totally ignoring who the KKK is inline TODAY.

 

Washington (CNN)David Duke, the anti-Semitic former Ku Klux Klan leader, praised Republican front-runner Donald Trump for his immigration policy proposals and said Trump is "the best of the lot."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/25/politics/david-duke-donald-trump-immigration/

[dimreepr]

Overtone was making references to slavery. Part of my response was to overtone. Jim crow was in place in my lifetime by Democrats like George Wallace. Unions, mostly democrats, made every attempt to keep minorities out of there unions into the 70's. I'm only in my mid fifties so that is not ancient history. If I were a democrat I would hide from my history too.

 

Trump is not my preferred candidate. I simply think many aspects of his campaign are working brilliantly for him. He is not yet been nominated but if he is I will likely vote for him over Hillary or Sanders. Hillary is a serial liar and a criminal. Sanders is a socialist who will lead us to serfdom. Trump will likely simply let his cabinet and VP run the show and parade around like a leader. Much better than the other two.

I'll let you guess which pertains to which.

[waitforufo]

Perhaps you have seen signs like this one. A rather famous example from Los Angeles.

 

 

Baptists in particular seem to love putting signs like these on their churches. I asked a baptist friend of mine why. He said it was a reminder. When you see one you're supposed to remember two things. Jesus saves, and that your name isn't Jesus. Words to live by.

 

You seem to be confusing religion and politics. We have a separation of church and state in my country. How about yours? I have no problem with people giving money to the church to help the poor. I give money to church run shelters for homeless people for example. The government takes. There is a difference. Most churches also think that the poor are deserving of the generosity of others, but not entitled. There is a difference there too.

 

I guess those considering Hillary will now have to reconsider.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12192975/The-KKK-leader-who-says-he-backs-Hillary-Clinton.html

Edited March 14, 2016 by waitforufo

[Phi for All]

The government takes. There is a difference.

 

Part of the problem is this attitude. You never invested yourself as a citizen of the USA, never adopted the stance that you're one of the People the Constitution talks about representing. To you, and many with this attitude, the "revenuers" can't do anything right, the government only takes and never gives (or never gives to those who deserve it most), and anything they do is with your personal ruination in mind. You see the gov as a merciless king, or a brutal dictator.

 

And all the time, you ignore the fact that it's People with your attitude that have reduced the effectiveness of government. You're like the driver who complains about traffic, when all can see that it's you that's causing it.

[waitforufo]

 

Part of the problem is this attitude. You never invested yourself as a citizen of the USA, never adopted the stance that you're one of the People the Constitution talks about representing. To you, and many with this attitude, the "revenuers" can't do anything right, the government only takes and never gives (or never gives to those who deserve it most), and anything they do is with your personal ruination in mind. You see the gov as a merciless king, or a brutal dictator.

 

And all the time, you ignore the fact that it's People with your attitude that have reduced the effectiveness of government. You're like the driver who complains about traffic, when all can see that it's you that's causing it.

Not true. I pay my taxes. I vote for school levies. I like my streets paved, garbage collected, water pressure, and to be able to flush my toilet. I like law and order. I like my country well defended. I'm happy to pay for those things. The government however has an unquenchable thrust for money. The government has a never ending list of people they insist are entitled to the earnings of people who work. The only thing to stop their taking is citizens who say enough. I think we are well past enough. In many things, like military spending, I believe you do too.

 

22 trillion dollars (in today's dollars) spent on great society and war on poverty programs with nothing to show for it. The poverty rate hasn't changed in any meaningful way since 1964. But then again, why work when you are entitled?

Edited March 14, 2016 by waitforufo

[Phi for All]

22 trillion dollars (in today's dollars) spent on great society and war on poverty programs with nothing to show for it. The poverty rate hasn't changed in any meaningful way since 1964. But then again, why work when you are entitled?

 

You'll never understand (for some weird reason) that if you don't think these social programs work, it's because people like you choose to elect those who make them weak. Like W Bush coming up with No Child blah blah, and then severely under-funding it. Step on the poor people's necks, then loudly berate them for not getting up. This image doesn't penetrate your mindset.

 

I've worked for some really dumb people. I've seen a lot of startups make mistakes the way you're making them. The stupidest was a high-tech startup with a hot product, so hot they didn't think their salespeople needed training in the technical aspects of it. After the first week, I begged them to bring in some experts (I found them for free from the local utility) to train us for better product knowledge. They said they wanted us out selling, not in a conference room "learning". You remind me of those guys. They could have had something really great, but they cheaped out and shot themselves in the foot.

 

I don't suppose the argument about how great the 50s and 60s were, with the super-tax on the super-rich helping to round out prosperity for so many more, made a dent in your biases? Civil rights, women's rights, everything progressed then. We didn't have the stupidity gridlock we have now.

 

Trump's tax plan is going to add another 35 trillion dollars to our debt over 10 years, more than 3X what W Bush did. He is going to inflame the Middle East with his style of war, with all that religious hatred mixed in. He's going to continue to grow the War on Terror brand, the way he's grown the Trump brand. Terrorism will reach it's height under someone like Trump.

[waitforufo]

 

You'll never understand (for some weird reason) that if you don't think these social programs work, it's because people like you choose to elect those who make them weak. Like W Bush coming up with No Child blah blah, and then severely under-funding it. Step on the poor people's necks, then loudly berate them for not getting up. This image doesn't penetrate your mindset.

 

I've worked for some really dumb people. I've seen a lot of startups make mistakes the way you're making them. The stupidest was a high-tech startup with a hot product, so hot they didn't think their salespeople needed training in the technical aspects of it. After the first week, I begged them to bring in some experts (I found them for free from the local utility) to train us for better product knowledge. They said they wanted us out selling, not in a conference room "learning". You remind me of those guys. They could have had something really great, but they cheaped out and shot themselves in the foot.

 

I don't suppose the argument about how great the 50s and 60s were, with the super-tax on the super-rich helping to round out prosperity for so many more, made a dent in your biases? Civil rights, women's rights, everything progressed then. We didn't have the stupidity gridlock we have now.

 

Trump's tax plan is going to add another 35 trillion dollars to our debt over 10 years, more than 3X what W Bush did. He is going to inflame the Middle East with his style of war, with all that religious hatred mixed in. He's going to continue to grow the War on Terror brand, the way he's grown the Trump brand. Terrorism will reach it's height under someone like Trump.

The only group stepping on poor people's necks is the government. They have an entire incentive system to keep the poor in poverty. It's called welfare. It's called entitlements. The tax payers pay plenty to keep the poor down for the benefit of government. The government has buildings full of the department of this and that designed for no other purpose but to keep that boot on the neck of the poor. Good intentions are not a justification for this abuse. It needs to stop.

 

Civil Rights and Women's rights (Suffrage) are Republican ideas.

 

Why don't I ever hear you complaining about Obama's contribution to the national debt? You have no idea what Trump will do. Neither do I. I'm just not fear mongering. Turn off your TV and calm down.

[zapatos]

Turn off your TV and calm down.

 

Ignoring the problem won't help with Trump any more than it helps with gun violence or climate change.

[iNow]

Why don't I ever hear you complaining about Obama's contribution to the national debt?

Probably because, while debt has increased during his time in office, the deficit which drives that debt has come down significantly, about 2/3rds from his GOP predecessor.

 

In short, the problem hasn't been erased, but is at least finally trending in the correct direction.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/

At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious; that we would crush jobs and explode deficits," Obama said. "Instead, weve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade, our deficits cut by two-thirds, a stock market that has doubled, and health care inflation at its lowest rate in fifty years."

[Phi for All]

Why don't I ever hear you complaining about Obama's contribution to the national debt?

 

Probably because Obama spent less than any president since Eisenhower.

You have no idea what Trump will do. Neither do I.

 

I was quoting Trump's own figures, not guessing. I was going by a report I can't find now. Here's one by a very conservative source that says Trump's tax plan will add $24.5 trillion:

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000560-an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan.pdf

The Tax Policy Center estimates the proposal would reduce federal revenue by $9.5 trillion over its first decade and an additional $15.0 trillion over the subsequent 10 years, before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. 1

 

Unless you think Trump is lying about his plan, I don't see how you can say we have no idea what he's going to do.

 

We're already low on revenue because of you tax protesters. We don't have enough to fund what should be funded. How on Earth is Trump's plan going to work? The only goal I see for such a stupid plan is that he wants to impoverish us so eventually Americans will be the work force willing to work for the least amount of money.

[overtone]

Baptists in particular seem to love putting signs like these on their churches. I asked a baptist friend of mine why. He said it was a reminder. When you see one you're supposed to remember two things. Jesus saves, and that your name isn't Jesus. Words to live by.

I used to work with a guy like that - he had his name tattooed on his arm. Apparently as a reminder. We were going to get his address put there too, but I quit that job before we had the chance.

 

From my childhood: "A Methodist is a Baptist who can read." I used to think Presbyterian was 'rithmetic, but Reagan was Presbyterian.

 

The Pentacostals speak in tongues, which is a kind of negative literacy, then you get to zero (Baptist), reading (Methodist), writing too (Presbyterian), and arithmetic (Episcopalian).

In people: Palin; Gohmert; W; Reagan; Bush. In your Republican politicians it's very important to get all the way up the chain to arithmetic - otherwise you get these idiotic tax cuts for their rich pals.

 

I have a basic sympathy for the notion that Trump isn't going to do anything that he says now - as some guy on TV put it, once he's elected White House policy will be whatever is going through his mind when he's talking. But that doesn't make him harmless - one problem with bullies and narcissists is that they are too easily cowed, too easily impressed by a louder voice, a bigger fist, greater and better earned confidence, or simply a serious threat that taps their innate cowardice. He's going to be too easy to manipulate, because even though very intelligent he has no foundation of character.

 

So while the big worry seems to be that he will embarrass the US and demean the office of the Presidency, which he will of course, that office survived W&Cheney and Jeff Gannon; the bigger worry is what someone who knows how to push his buttons can get him to do with the US military.

 

And the biggest worry is what his supporters will be up to. He's surrounded by bad news in the way of buddies - the greater evil is one with the more evil friends.

 

 

 

Civil Rights and Women's rights (Suffrage) are Republican ideas.

They should be. They haven't been since 1964.

Edited March 15, 2016 by overtone

[dimreepr]

Perhaps you have seen signs like this one. A rather famous example from Los Angeles.

 

 

Baptists in particular seem to love putting signs like these on their churches. I asked a baptist friend of mine why. He said it was a reminder. When you see one you're supposed to remember two things. Jesus saves, and that your name isn't Jesus. Words to live by.

 

You seem to be confusing religion and politics. We have a separation of church and state in my country. How about yours?

 

 

I’m starting to think Phi’s right because I always thought you deliberately missed the point.

 

 

I have no problem with people giving money to the church to help the poor. I give money to church run shelters for homeless people for example. The government takes. There is a difference. Most churches also think that the poor are deserving of the generosity of others, but not entitled. There is a difference there too.

 

 

 

I’m sure that assuages your guilt or maybe it’s a chance to sneer at the people you so obviously look down upon.

It’s so childish to think you’re immune from such a fate; perhaps if you’d tasted the bitter pill of such poverty and hopelessness you’d be happier to pay a reasonable tax; perhaps you’d even stop blaming starving people for wanting food.