2016 Election

Quote: beachbumbabs

The issue for Liberals isn't religious freedom; it's the Separation of Church and State, and following the Rule of Law as a public official charged with enforcing it. The whole point is that religion is completely irrelevant to the problem, and the only one making it an issue is the person breaking the law and using it as her excuse. Hatred, bigotry, and intolerance are no less socially unacceptable for the fervency of her belief that she's right in her actions..

There is not, in fact, a lot of "Christian-hate" among liberals and gays. The generalization is inaccurate; the sentiment is reactionary to specific tactics because of "Christians" (what a misnomer among those I'm talking about - Christ would repudiate them) forcing their value-set on other Americans, who are Constitutionally protected from their religious bias and should not have to continually fight off these impositions. If "Christians" lived their lives by their own values and left the rest of us alone to do the same, with all of us sharing a secular government structure (as the Founders designed it), this would be a much better country.

Religious people (or anyone for that matter) who don't believe in what they are doing should be able to protest based on their beliefs, and then suffer the consequences. In this case, the law does not allow discrimination or to allow your personal beliefs to get in the way of your job. You are not hired to be a judge of character - you are hired to perform the duties of your job.

Christians in particular are sometimes caught between a rock and a hard place, mostly because of misunderstanding of the biblical text and how you are supposed to behave. Jesus (if you believe in such things) welcomed sinners and led by example as an incitement to change. Yet He told colleagues when they were wrong and would not have done something He didn't believe in.

Personally, I support first amendment free speech rights. If a customer comes up to you and says that s/he wants a service you don't believe in performing (like giving out morning-after pills, or making same-sex marriage cakes, or making toy copies of the Q'aran, or a vegetarian working at the butcher's counter), I don't mind getting an earful on how something, in their opinion, is not right. The customer now faces the moral choice of moving ahead with that service in asking someone to do something they don't believe in. Some customers will go elsewhere.

Why should I have to listen to them? I have the right to get meat/stop my pregnancy/procure a cake/order inciteful toys? Because despite the laws allowing you to do that, it is still a free country. People are not autonomons without opinion. Laws get changed and created based on what is right and what is wrong (and sometimes public opinion and protest too). Just because a law is in place doesn't make it right.

People should be able to take the criticism, wrong or right. On the other hand, refusal to perform that service is a completely different thing. The corporate overlords or proprietor of course can react to any customer complaints and fire at will, not because of the statements made, but by the loss of sales.

Quote: beachbumbabs

There is not, in fact, a lot of "Christian-hate" among liberals and gays.

Talk about living in denial. I would suggest just looking at some of the posts here. Several members have total contempt for religion.

Quote:

The generalization is inaccurate; the sentiment is reactionary to specific tactics because of "Christians" (what a misnomer among those I'm talking about - Christ would repudiate them) forcing their value-set on other Americans, who are Constitutionally protected from their religious bias and should not have to continually fight off these impositions. If "Christians" lived their lives by their own values and left the rest of us alone to do the same, with all of us sharing a secular government structure (as the Founders designed it), this would be a much better country.

People today do not understand what the Founders intended by the First Amendment. They think that it means the government is not allowed to mention anything remotely religious, ever. This is not the case. The Establishment Clause was to prevent a USA version of the Church of England where the government ran the church. It was not to prevent a Christian symbol on government property say a cemetery where 90%+ of the dead were some form of Christian faith.

Bias against Christians is common these days. There are those who think a Christian group should not even be allowed to use facilities at a school after-hours like other groups are. Students have been told they are not allowed to privately read a Bible during recess. Christian college groups are told they must accept non-christians as members to get campus recognition.

Not, in fact, a lot of "Christian-hate" among liberals and gays? You must be joking!

Quote: AZDuffman

Talk about living in denial. I would suggest just looking at some of the posts here. Several members have total contempt for religion.
Not, in fact, a lot of "Christian-hate" among liberals and gays? You must be joking!

I can not speak for others, just myself.
I don't hate Christians. I view them as deluded , crazy and a bit insane.
I view religious people the same as I view people that belong to the flat earth society.
Religious people live in a make believe world. The Earth is not flat and there is no god.
I am fine with Christians as long as they don't push that fantasy make believe BS on me.

Donald Trump nailed it. Kim Davis needs to find another job due to her fantasy religious beliefs
Go Donald.
I looked into Ms Davis religion.
They are into speaking in tongues.
WTF
Speaking in tongues, what a deluded bunch Christians.
Speaking in tongues? These people are insane and crazy.

Does anybody here speak in tongues???????????????
batshi* crazy :-)

Quote: rxwine

So, are you for religious freedom for the stewardess and Kim Davis? I think the founders were concerned with persecution, but I have no idea if they imagined all these nits to be picked by people claiming religious freedom. I can't do this, I can't do that? Blah. Blah Blah! Maybe it was that sort of thing that led to the more serious persecution of religions. People just got fed up and started running religious nuts out of the villages and towns.

Such "religious nuts," as you label them, already have "religious freedom" under the Constitution and bundles of laws. In cases where various rights and practices intersect or conflict with one another, sensible parties and intelligent authorities have come together to work out practicable accommodations. The unwillingness or, more accurately, virulent antagonism that is often screamed with vengeance, serves only to destroy the little social fabric we have left at the expense of narrow personal agendas.

Quote: terapined

I don't hate Christians. I view them as deluded , crazy and a bit insane.

So, if someone feels the same way about gays would you be cool with that or would you scream "HOMOPHOBE" from the hilltops?

Quote: AZDuffman

So, if someone feels the same way about gays would you be cool with that or would you scream "HOMOPHOBE" from the hilltops?

The difference is that gays are real, god and religion isn't.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

The difference is that gays are real, god and religion isn't.

Really? Funny, I just walked by 3 or more churches on my daily exercise walk.

Quote: AZDuffman

Really? Funny, I just walked by 3 or more churches on my daily exercise walk.

Yep, and their purpose is to defraud you.

I can create three houses to worship Martians. Doesn't make them real.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Yep, and their purpose is to defraud you.

I can create three houses to worship Martians. Doesn't make them real.

Doesn't prove they do not exist, either. Do you have a point here? You made mine, so thanks there.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

The difference is that gays are real, god and religion isn't.

Gays are real? You must not have ever frequented the gay bars and clubs. I can assure you must are quite "phoney". Lol.

Quote: kewlj

Gays are real? You must not have ever frequented the gay bars and clubs. I can assure you must are quite "phoney". Lol.

Haha quite funny.

It is stunning to me that at least some republicans are still trying to fight the gay marriage fight. Not only has the fight been lost, but it is just a bad fight at this point in time and has been for a while.

The numbers clearly show this is a real bad losing battle. A majority of people, still fairly close, but a majority, support gay marriage. That doesn't mean they all are in love with the idea, but they understand the constitution (which is the law of this land, not the bible) mandates it. The really stunning numbers are in that the younger generation, including younger republicans, support gay marriage by close to 3-1 margins. That means every single day as older voters who oppose gay marriage die off and are replaced by younger voters the margin grows more and more. It' a done deal and a losing political issue for republicans. repubs have some issues that can be winning issues for them, why on earth would they allow a small majority to push them into a really bad fight that they cannot win.

The smart operatives in the repub party who are focused on winning a general election where actually glad to have this issue resolved and taken off the table, or so they thought. It is stunning that some hillbilly renegade clerk, is placing this devastating issue for the republicans back on the table front and center and it's likely to continue next week as this woman has no intent of following the judges orders. She is there to make a scene and name for herself now.

Judge Bunning is not the bad guy here. He is personally not a supporter of gay marriage. He had and will have again, no choice in the matter. He can not allow a person to thumb at the law, him and his authority.

Quote: kewlj

Gays are real? You must not have ever frequented the gay bars and clubs. I can assure you must are quite "phoney". Lol.

So you are saying they are about like straits then?

Quote: kewlj

It is stunning to me that at least some republicans are still trying to fight the gay marriage fight. Not only has the fight been lost, but it is just a bad fight at this point in time and has been for a while.

You are aware that the woman at the center of all of this is a Democrat, right?

Quote: AZDuffman

So, I'll bite, then how do you get them to work? No carrot and no stick?

Good questions. I think it's a false assumption that the incentive to work has to come in the form of monetary/material reward or fear of going hungry. This assumes that people are intrinsically lazy. I think that this assumption is perpetuated by our current society because we are immersed in a system where this is the only way to survive, so it's hard for us to imagine a society where the only reward or incentive to labor is seeing the fruit of that labor realized by improving conditions for friends, families, neighbors, society as a whole. But I believe this to be a more powerful "stick and carrot" than a mere wad of cash. There's a good book by Anarchist and anthropologist David Graeber that explains ancient monetary/debt systems and social relations called "Debt: The First 5000 Years" that's worth checking out.

In present conditions, the person to job ratio isn't 1:1 (and never will be as Capitalists require surplus labor), so even if all the unemployed wanted to work (which a majority do), there simply aren't enough positions available. I think calling the poor/unemployed lazy (not implying that you did) is a convenient cop out to rationalize away a major societal problem and pit the lower classes against each other rather than coming to grips with how to fix it.

Quote: AZDuffman

What is the "wrong thing?" Capitalism has lifted billions of people from poverty and improved their lives to levels unimaginable even 300 years ago.

Yeah that was vague on my part. Obviously morality is open to debate and I'm probably not going to win you over, but I'll try.

The 'Capitalism has lifted billions from poverty' line is false and imposes a Western moral system on those in other parts of the world who don't or didn't subscribe to that system. It has improved conditions for some but at the cost of worsening conditions for the great majority. Billions still live in poverty. The US/NATO has backed countless genocidal dictatorships for the purposes of keeping entire regions of the world unstable to install puppets who are willing to play ball with our corporate interests. It happens over and over again and it's happening right now. There's a good read about this called "Killing Hope" by William Blum that documents CIA interventions post WW II. Peasant farmers in China may not have been living great lives by our standards, but they still had a level autonomy that is non existent in the Nike shoe-gluing factory working 16 hour days under hazardous conditions. So in some sense you're right. I don't think 300 years ago anyone could have imagined this to be their great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson's future.

Capitalist production has been great at producing lots of material needs and wants of society and innovating new technology, for sure. I don't think any Marxist would argue otherwise. But most of the fancy new toys are reserved for the ruling class and imperial societies while leaving the rest of the world out. There also comes a point when it actually prevents innovation. You need look no further than the oil industry buying up patents for electric cars 40 years ago to squash their development because oil is too profitable of a commodity to stop pumping out of the ground. This happens when Capitalism enters a monopoly phase which crushes free competition. There are many, many more examples of this.

Anyway, that's just a short list. I could babble on forever. Also someone said I was complaining. I don't think I'm complaining, I'm just explaining my world view because I like debating. This is a complaint: WAAAAAAAAAAA Capitalism is bad!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAA listen to me!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! Happy?

Quote: AZDuffman

You are aware that the woman at the center of all of this is a Democrat, right?

Yes, I am. But it is the republicans embracing her, particularly the religious right wing fringe presidential candidates that are doing the damage for republicans.

The fact that this person is a democrat is irrelevant. The issue really is something that BBBabs has been talking of, separation of church and state. The republicans, or at least the religious wing of the party seem to want combine church and state, when separation of church and state is the single principal this country was founded on.

Quote: AZDuffman

You are aware that the woman at the center of all of this is a Democrat, right?

Oh absolutely.
Its so so rich, Republican Presidential candidates get behind a Democrat that hates gays.

Does not matter if you are a Christian Dem or Christian Repub.
If you let a religious make believe fantasy prevent you from doing your job, get a new job.
Trump is crystal clear on this. Kim Davis needs to get a new job due to her Christian fantasy make believe beliefs.
Go Trump :-)

Quote: SteveButte

Good questions. I think it's a false assumption that the incentive to work has to come in the form of monetary/material reward or fear of going hungry. This assumes that people are intrinsically lazy.

Actually, people are intrinsically lazy. Adam Smith bring this up in "The Wealth of Nations" where people will invent things to make work easier. Think about it, are not many if not most great inventions to save labor? Have you ever "invented" something around the house or shop to make life easier on yourself by reducing work?

Quote:

In present conditions, the person to job ratio isn't 1:1 (and never will be as Capitalists require surplus labor), so even if all the unemployed wanted to work (which a majority do), there simply aren't enough positions available. I think calling the poor/unemployed lazy (not implying that you did) is a convenient cop out to rationalize away a major societal problem and pit the lower classes against each other rather than coming to grips with how to fix it.

It will never be 1:1 but that is a good thing. Imagine if we did not have enough labor to fill demand. Basic required goods would be in shortage. The economy would soon break down.

Quote:

It has improved conditions for some but at the cost of worsening conditions for the great majority. Billions still live in poverty.

Peasant farmers in China may not have been living great lives by our standards, but they still had a level autonomy that is non existent in the Nike shoe-gluing factory working 16 hour days under hazardous conditions.

On whole is has improved and by a great deal. 50 years ago, both Koreas lived fairy equal lives. Look at today. Yes, the peasant farmer has some advantages vs. factory work. Yet tens of millions of them leave the countryside to line up to make Nike shoes. In the USA there is a small, niche movement to small-scale "urban" farming, but this is only possible because of the fantastic wealth all around that lets this niche farmer sell high-priced "local" or specialty goods. In a poor system nobody can pay extra for say free-range duck eggs.

Quote:

You need look no further than the oil industry buying up patents for electric cars 40 years ago to squash their development because oil is too profitable of a commodity to stop pumping out of the ground. This happens when Capitalism enters a monopoly phase which crushes free competition. There are many, many more examples of this.

I don't buy that the oil companies did this, seems more urban legend. Like them squashing the 100 mpg carburetor. For a better example, see the Uber thread at DT.

Quote:

Anyway, that's just a short list. I could babble on forever. Also someone said I was complaining. I don't think I'm complaining, I'm just explaining my world view because I like debating.

I don't see you complaining. And we need a new issue to debate as there are too many folks here who want to keep discussing gay marriage over, over, and over. Breath of fresh air.

Quote: kewlj

It is stunning to me that at least some republicans are still trying to fight the gay marriage fight. Not only has the fight been lost, but it is just a bad fight at this point in time and has been for a while.

Gay marriage was settled for some 13 billion years. Why did you keep fighting? If it had not gone your way, would you have ceased being gay?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I wish everyone would just shut up about it. But crying works. I expect those against it to keep on crying forever.

My ammosexuality has been settled ever since 1791, but people still try to take it away from me. And hell, even though I'm "winning", I still cry for more. I expect to continue to cry until I can tote a 30mm around town without getting hassled, and can legally mount some LAU-61's to my boat. I assume the gays and the anti-gays will cry for about as long.

Quote: terapined

Trump is crystal clear on this. Kim Davis needs to get a new job due to her Christian fantasy make believe beliefs.
Go Trump :-)

Trump is right on many issues. :)

YOU, though, are only pulling for Trump because you think he 'dooms' the republican party, to the benefit of your democratic party.

I, on the other hand find myself agreeing more and more with some Trumps positions/ideas. And THIS concerns me a bit. LOL.

Quote: AZDuffman

The USSR paid people, but there were no goods for them to enjoy. So people quit working, they just showed up. It collapsed.

In the average USSR factory in the 80's,
at any given time 50% of the workers
were legally drunk. 25% of the ones
that weren't had hangovers. A situation
for some real productivity. You couldn't
be fired if you just showed up and
pretended to work. It was the People's
Paradise.

Quote: Face

Gay marriage was settled for some 13 billion years. Why did you keep fighting?

I expect to continue to cry until I can tote a 30mm around town without getting hassled, and can legally mount some LAU-61's to my boat. I assume the gays and the anti-gays will cry for about as long.

You know it's funny....The anti-gay people and the pro gun people are usually the same people. And their positions come from supposedly strong religious beliefs.

YOU want to "tote your 30mm around town" and "mount LUA-61's to your boat". So here's my question? for what purpose? hunting? Because I am pretty sure the bible addresses killing people and I don't remember any exceptions. :/ Funny how you can pick and choose what in the bible you want to quote and live by. :/

Hunting != Killing people

Quote: kewlj

Trump is right on many issues. :)

YOU, though, are only pulling for Trump because you think he 'dooms' the republican party, to the benefit of your democratic party.

I, on the other hand find myself agreeing more and more with some Trumps positions/ideas. And THIS concerns me a bit. LOL.

Honestly, it's easy to express anger or frustration about a lot of things that are either wrong, not working as intended, or could be improved, and get people to agree with you. It's easy to call people names if you don't agree with who they are, what they have done, or what policy they represent, and get people to laugh and nod their heads. It's easy to make blanket statements that get applause for the nightly news sound bite. Trump excels at all of these things.

What isn't easy is proposing workable solutions. Or paying for them. Or working with the people who need to be involved in implementation. And Trump has demonstrated no skills, abilities, or intentions in these areas. None. I would say he's demonstrated his INability to do them to a remarkable degree; I don't see him working with a Cabinet, a Congress, or the rest of the world on anything.

At best, I think Trump is exposing a lot of hypocrisy in traditional politics, and that could improve the level of veracity and responsibility in at least some campaigns. But that's about all he has to offer; he's not in any way capable of being a public servant who's responsive to the needs of others. And I require that from any President of any party.

Quote: terapined

Its so so rich, Republican Presidential candidates get behind a Democrat that hates gays.

That is quite an unwarranted jump. There is really no indication of what she hates or what she does not hate. Such vitriol based on nothing but one's "feelings" does not do anything to bolster one's arguments.

Quote: kewlj

You know it's funny....The anti-gay people and the pro gun people are usually the same people. And their positions come from supposedly strong religious beliefs.

Guns from religious beliefs? Never seen that.

Quote:

YOU want to "tote your 30mm around town" and "mount LUA-61's to your boat". So here's my question? for what purpose? hunting? Because I am pretty sure the bible addresses killing people and I don't remember any exceptions. :/ Funny how you can pick and choose what in the bible you want to quote and live by. :/

What difference does it make? Why should someone have to justify why they want a gun?

Quote: AZDuffman

In a poor system nobody can pay extra for say free-range duck eggs.

Not sure about that.

Quote: beachbumbabs

What isn't easy is proposing workable solutions. Or paying for them. Or working with the people who need to be involved in implementation. And Trump has demonstrated no skills, abilities, or intentions in these areas. None.
.

So in all those buildings and golf courses and
whatever else he did, he worked with no people
on the implementation and developed no
skills on how to get things done. He brokered no
deals, and has no abilities in any of these areas.

What are you talking about.

Quote: kewlj

Trump is right on many issues. :)

YOU, though, are only pulling for Trump because you think he 'dooms' the republican party, to the benefit of your democratic party.

I, on the other hand find myself agreeing more and more with some Trumps positions/ideas. And THIS concerns me a bit. LOL.

I agree with Trump on many issues as well! This is why I think it's funny when the righties claim I'm afraid of him. Um.... If a Republican is going to win in 2016, I'd certainly want a Trump over another Bush or a Scott Walker!!

Trump wants to raise taxes on Wall Street people who game the tax system. Great!

Trump says he's excellent on women's issues (without ever actually specifying what that means...). Great!

Trump says he will fix the VA system. Great!

His main issue is obviously immigration, which I've said again and again is something I don't have strong feelings about either way as the effect on my life is so negligible it's not even worth thinking about. So I don't really care what he says or who he offends in that department. But I do believe that he is doing major harm to himself/the Republicans come general election time. Righties like to pretend that the Hispanic vote isn't important, or that they have a chance of winning them over from the Democrats, but that's just wishful nonsense.

I still maintain that Trump has no chance of winning the general election. Could he win the nomination? Possibly. A few weeks ago I would have said "hell no!"

Quote: EvenBob

So in all those buildings and golf courses and
whatever else he did, he worked with no people
on the implementation and developed no
skills on how to get things done. He brokered no
deals, and has no abilities in any of these areas.

What are you talking about.

When I read the quote my thought was that what she said is exactly what we said about Obama when he was running.

Quote: kewlj

I am pretty sure the bible addresses killing people and I don't remember any exceptions.

Actually, killing is often justified in the Old Testament. Murder is what is forbidden.

Perhaps Face just wants to trick out his vessel to do his part in maintaining "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

Quote: kewlj

You know it's funny....The anti-gay people and the pro gun people are usually the same people. And their positions come from supposedly strong religious beliefs.

YOU want to "tote your 30mm around town" and "mount LUA-61's to your boat". So here's my question? for what purpose? hunting? Because I am pretty sure the bible addresses killing people and I don't remember any exceptions. :/ Funny how you can pick and choose what in the bible you want to quote and live by. :/

I must suspect your overall question was rhetorical and not actually addressed to me. If you see me quoting the Bible, it's only to combat a Bible thumper who's using the Bible as a weapon. I am blissfully free of the constraints of religion, have been my whole life, and intend to be so for the rest of it. That's not to say I'm not spiritual. I just don't assign fantasy to my spiritualness.

I personally want a 30mm for the same reason you're gay - it's just who I am. Maybe it was how I was raised, maybe some personal experiences, maybe I was just born that way. The "why" doesn't matter; I just know I'm happy being me, and me likes guns. Your "me" likes guys. Why would I care? I might think you're crazy for getting married, but that's just because I think marriage in and of itself is insane. The fact that you're a guy and you're married to a guy could not matter less to me. You happy? If so, good for you. I am happy that you are happy, and I mean that genuinely. I don't impose my opinion of insanity onto you. One man's trash and all that. It's none of my business.

Quote: Joeman

Perhaps Face just wants to trick out his vessel to do his part in maintaining "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

I can tell none of you are perch fisherman. They must all be too busy nodding in agreement with me to respond. Because, you see, if you ever get on a school, and then have 14 other boats try to cram into your one acre of water, and you DON'T wish for some militarized rocket launchers, then you are suffering from a severe deficiency of USA#1 and need to get you some 'Merica, stat!

;)

But seriously, I took an oath to uphold the constitution and to defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. You may look at acquiring an aircraft cannon and mounting it to my truck as ridiculous. But hey, I'm just doing my job =)

Quote: EvenBob

So in all those buildings and golf courses and
whatever else he did, he worked with no people
on the implementation and developed no
skills on how to get things done. He brokered no
deals, and has no abilities in any of these areas.

What are you talking about.

I'm talking about separation of powers, and the difference between being a businessman and being a public executive. Congress funds things, not the President. So it doesn't matter what he wants if he can't get Congress to agree to pay for it. In most cases, Congress must also approve of the creation of any new initiative as well as funding it, so there's another point of failure to navigate. Businessmen get loans from banks, funding from venture capitalists, revenue from shareholders; the Federal Government has none of those available to them. A President needs champions to carry the burden in all branches of government and a consensus to move forward from many, many people.

It's also very difficult to implement anything in the Government compared to any business structure. There are endless approvals needed, regulations to satisfy, and intergovernmental coordinations needed. It takes years just to define the requirements for any project, bid it out, and start creating it, let alone implementation and sustainment once it's green-lit. I do have some experience with this, from several years in DC HQ as a fed and after retirement as a government contractor and consultant for several more years. It's almost impossible to be innovative, autonomous, or expeditious in making anything happen.

All of that works in direct opposition to Trump's experience as a businessman, not to mention his personal style of defensive and derogatory statements. He tells people to do something and it's done or they're fired, throws money at it from his personal funds or his lines of credit/funding, declares bankruptcy if it fails, moves money between companies as needed, makes all the funding and budgetary decisions. None of that works in government. It's actually a hindrance because a businessman's expectation of process and corporate skills are so unusable they become frustrated and ineffective in office.

Quote: SanchoPanza

That is quite an unwarranted jump. There is really no indication of what she hates or what she does not hate. Such vitriol based on nothing but one's "feelings" does not do anything to bolster one's arguments.

Fox News Shepard Smith On Kim Davis: "Haters Are Gonna Hate"

Quote: beachbumbabs

I'm talking about separation of powers, and the difference between being a businessman and being a public executive. .

Trump has been dealing with these people
on almost a daily basis for decades. Why
do you think he gives politicians so much
money. He knows everybody and they know
him. He knows how it works, he knows how
to get things done. I can't figure out why
he wants the job, it's so far beneath his
abilities.

This is such a strange election. In 2008 Obama
had zero qualifications to run, and he was
praised lavishly. Trump is over qualified and
he's being lambasted for it. Up is down and
down is up.

Quote: EvenBob

This is such a strange election. In 2008 Obama
had zero qualifications to run, and he was
praised lavishly. Trump is over qualified and
he's being lambasted for it. Up is down and
down is up.

I don't get that part of the criticism, either.
I wonder how well he will work with others
(I have posted about it) BUT he absolutely
cannot be any worse at working with the
opposition than the President.

He has gotten politicians of both sides to
do many things...I have to believe some of
them were things they didn't want to do.

Quote: EvenBob

This is such a strange election. In 2008 Obama
had zero qualifications to run, and he was
praised lavishly. Trump is over qualified and
he's being lambasted for it. Up is down and
down is up.

Let's not forget you were one of the first ones to criticize him.

You've done a complete 360 these last couple weeks.

Quote: ams288

Let's not forget you were one of the first ones to criticize him.

You've done a complete 360 these last couple weeks.

Me and Charles Krauthammer. He said after
the debate that Trump was a 'clown' and would
be gone in a few weeks. This week he said
Trump has a 'good chance of being president'.
I heard him say it on live TV.

[I think the Trump backlash is already represented by the 2nd highest polling Repub. As a character, Carson is almost the polar opposite. Petty, semi-unhinged bombast is not part of his character.

It may very well be that he is much higher than he would be in the polls because he is un-Trump-like. So, Trump might actually have helped him in that way.

This pic was taken this week and it's an
amazing look at Hillary. Look at her face,
the cunning resentment is chilling. People
want to vote for this? WHY?

We got it the first 2 or 3, or 4 times you post a pic of Hillary, Evenbob.

I think at this point you're breaking rule 5

"Do not post the same message more than once."

Quote: rxwine

We got it the first 2 or 3, or 4 times you post a pic of Hillary, Evenbob.

They just keep getting worse and worse,
there's a pattern here. You don't see it?
There is something majorly wrong with
this woman..

Quote: rxwine

We got it the first 2 or 3, or 4 times you post a pic of Hillary, Evenbob.

I think at this point you're breaking rule 5

"Do not post the same message more than once."

Good one!!

That "violation" happens a lot in this thread!!

Quote: rxwine

We got it the first 2 or 3, or 4 times you post a pic of Hillary, Evenbob.

I think at this point you're breaking rule 5

"Do not post the same message more than once."

I never arranged to post pictures here, but if I had I'd be tempted to post the grumpy gibbon pic right about now. Well, except EB isn't running for POTUS. Or at least he hasn't declared as of yet ;-)

Two Out of Three Hispanics Oppose Immigration Increase.

This is from Gallup. The results matter not if the hispanic was born in the USA or not.

Moral of the story is you need not be in favor of illegal immigration to win.

Spin. The Gallup poll was released on August 10th. Brietbart's article was released on September 10. The general results: 40% at current level, 34% increased, 25% decreased. Long term trend show more and more favor an increase according to the source poll .

Quote: Gallup

Hispanics More in Favor of Increasing Rather Than Decreasing Immigration

Preferences for changes in immigration levels vary considerably by the respondents' race or ethnicity. Hispanics -- half of whom say they are immigrants themselves -- are most likely to say immigration levels should be increased (36%), while non-Hispanic whites offer the least amount of support for that proposition (21%). Blacks fall in between the two, at 30%. Despite these differences, the overall trend is similar for all three groups. Support for allowing increased immigration levels hit a low ebb for all races/ethnicities in the years immediately after 9/11, and climbed to new or nearly new highs in 2015.

Quote: EvenBob

There is something majorly wrong with this woman

Yeah, it's called aging. Apparently in your world women get prettier with age.

Quote: boymimbo

Yeah, it's called aging. Apparently in your world women get prettier with age.

In my world women get prettier all the time, it's me that becomes less attractive.
Maybe it's just me, again....

Quote: AZDuffman

Two Out of Three Hispanics Oppose Immigration Increase.

This is from Gallup. The results matter not if the hispanic was born in the USA or not.

Moral of the story is you need not be in favor of illegal immigration to win.

Yeah, but that's not going to help the guy who goes around telling US citizens to go back to Mexico.