Trump - The NEW, New Thread

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

http://www.salon.com/2017/07/26/lana...ump-spell-hex/

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

Actually it is worst then even Sharia law in America sneaking up on us. Here is how the Mosque in Callfornia tries to rationalize its hatred of Jews (we meant to say "destroy them, not to annihilate them" as per the explanation the Mosque sent to Breitbart news.
Mosque Defends Imam: He Meant ‘Destroy’ Jews, Not ‘Annihilate’ Them 4294 19

A bunch of grammatical errors, a reference to a racist news publication, and a link that doesn't work. Only from the mind of Belzberg, folks.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

Link is fixed
http://www.breitbart.com/california/...ot-annihilate/

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

Hi Bob. The tide may finally have turned. When a prominent Republican like Graham speaks out so explicitly against Trump you can bet there's a lot more going on behind the scenes.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/27/linds...-sessions.html

Nope, sorry lads. That won't hurt Trump's base ...especially if the economy keeps improving. But I do appreciate Charles Krauthammer's opinion.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

Wow, brave you. Eager to sacrifice the freedoms of American women, communities of color and LGBTQ people for what you acknowledge is a tiny chance that Trump will buck the trend and stop being influenced by religious extremists and racists, at least when it comes to international relations.

And you're basically acknowledging that Americans voted against their own interests when they elected Trump. You're now arguing that Trump's election was in the world's interests, not the American people's.

In the list of atrocities committed around the world dismissing a bunch of transsexuals from serving is really low on my list. I hope Trump starts dismissing women serving overseas in pointless neverending conflicts next. Then men. Let national defence mean exactly that.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

What about when their aims are to impinge on the freedoms of others? You have more reverence for the law than you do for freedom itself? Yeah, you're a real libertarian.

A couple of men in Bountiful, BC were convicted of polygamy a few days ago. In general, personally I think competent adults marrying groups of other competent adults should be legal. That doesn't mean they should just ignore the law. Using your logic, a pro-life person might say that the freedom of the "unborn baby" is more important than the freedom of the woman to abort and therefore kidnapping her and forcing her to birth is "more free". Your super-genius judgement doesn't entitle you to ignore laws. It does allow you to try and change them.

Before someone starts posting about these guys using polygamy as a smokescreen for marrying underage girls and basically brainwashing them, I am speaking more generally about group marriages with competent adults able to consent, not be coerced, etc.


To clarify (from an earlier ruling): http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...court-1.856480

" ... Likewise, Canada's polyamorists — people with multiple partners outside a religious context — said they were relieved because Bauman said the law shouldn't apply to them unless they decide to formalize their unions.

"The formality of marriage is really not a big issue in the polyamorous community," said John Ince, the spokesman for the Canadian Polyamoury Advocacy Association.

But George MacIntosh, the lawyer appointed by the court to argue against the law, said the decision unfairly criminalizes the actions of consenting adults and he may appeal the decision.

"Three consenting adults who are causing no harm ought not to be committing a crime. The judge found that people in that circumstance are committing a crime if there was some celebration of the marriage, and we don't think that the section says that," said MacIntosh. ..."

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

The Donald hires only quality people - not.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-l...d-steve-bannon

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

This is the most ironic thing I've ever read on this board. Trump, and the Republican Party as a whole, are notoriously bad at working with the other. It's truly the party of straight, white males.

Do you know the gender, sexual preferences, and ethnicity of all the people in that picture? Who is the bigot?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

Do you know the gender, sexual preferences, and ethnicity of all the people in that picture? Who is the bigot?

That one is too easy. The bigot is Ben Daswani.

[Fred Harvey]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

That one is too easy. The bigot is Ben Daswani.

The picture is worth a thousand words! Well in this case...perhaps a million words.....?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

A couple of men in Bountiful, BC were convicted of polygamy a few days ago. In general, personally I think competent adults marrying groups of other competent adults should be legal. That doesn't mean they should just ignore the law. Using your logic, a pro-life person might say that the freedom of the "unborn baby" is more important than the freedom of the woman to abort and therefore kidnapping her and forcing her to birth is "more free". Your super-genius judgement doesn't entitle you to ignore laws. It does allow you to try and change them.

Before someone starts posting about these guys using polygamy as a smokescreen for marrying underage girls and basically brainwashing them, I am speaking more generally about group marriages with competent adults able to consent, not be coerced, etc.


To clarify (from an earlier ruling): http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...court-1.856480

" ... Likewise, Canada's polyamorists — people with multiple partners outside a religious context — said they were relieved because Bauman said the law shouldn't apply to them unless they decide to formalize their unions.

"The formality of marriage is really not a big issue in the polyamorous community," said John Ince, the spokesman for the Canadian Polyamoury Advocacy Association.

But George MacIntosh, the lawyer appointed by the court to argue against the law, said the decision unfairly criminalizes the actions of consenting adults and he may appeal the decision.

"Three consenting adults who are causing no harm ought not to be committing a crime. The judge found that people in that circumstance are committing a crime if there was some celebration of the marriage, and we don't think that the section says that," said MacIntosh. ..."

I think there would be few objections to polygamy if they were marrying 45 year olds as one comedienne suggested. Though I imagine that in the event of a group divorce things could get dicey in a situation where the wife is entitled to half the assets in the case of multiple wives.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

That one is too easy. The bigot is Ben Daswani.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfqAkUXKT5Y

Edit: please add some screeching at the end. I'm too lazy to look it up.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

Do you know the gender, sexual preferences, and ethnicity of all the people in that picture? Who is the bigot?

You're no more clever than Belzberg or Drkulec. You're arguing against points I've never attempted to make. I never said I knew the "gender, sexual preferences, and ethnicity of all the people in the picture." Revisit what I said:

"Trump, and the Republican Party as a whole, are notoriously bad at working with the other. It's truly the party of straight, white males."

All I said was that Trump, and the Republican Party as a whole, are bad at working with people other than straight, white males. This is a demonstrable fact. Both in their voting block and in the makeup of the party--both at the state and federal level--the party is vastly underrepresented by women, people of color, and people from queer communities, especially when compared to the Democratic Party.

Then I posted a picture that exemplifies that. I did nothing more. I never said I knew anything about every individual in the picture. Get a clue. Be a big boy. Respond to the shit in bold. You said you like people who can work with others; then why do you support Trump, when the Republican Party, and Trump in particular, have trouble working with those different from themselves?

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfqAkUXKT5Y

Edit: please add some screeching at the end. I'm too lazy to look it up.

You conservatives need to get together and decide whether I'm white or not. According to you, I apparently am, but according to the Whissell I'm an "immigrant" with a "home country" other than Canada because I'm an Indian.

Make up your collective Trump-loving mind.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

You're no more clever than Belzberg or Drkulec. You're arguing against points I've never attempted to make. I never said I knew the "gender, sexual preferences, and ethnicity of all the people in the picture." Revisit what I said:

"Trump, and the Republican Party as a whole, are notoriously bad at working with the other. It's truly the party of straight, white males."

All I said was that Trump, and the Republican Party as a whole, are bad at working with people other than straight, white males. This is a demonstrable fact. Both in their voting block and in the makeup of the party--both at the state and federal level--the party is vastly underrepresented by women, people of color, and people from queer communities, especially when compared to the Democratic Party.

Then I posted a picture that exemplifies that. I did nothing more. I never said I knew anything about every individual in the picture. Get a clue. Be a big boy. Respond to the shit in bold. You said you like people who can work with others; then why do you support Trump, when the Republican Party, and Trump in particular, have trouble working with those different from themselves?

I apologize. I thought the reason you posted the picture was to show that Republicans are all straight, white, males. If not, then I am unclear on the point of the picture. Is it to show Trump is popular, or that people applaud him or ...?

Trump seems to get along with Putin. Putin has nukes. I care more about whether two guys with nukes get along than if Trump gets along with Meryl Streep, Rosie O'Donnell or Alex Baldwin. That's why I referenced Clinton talking about Putin when I said "getting along with folks". I guess that was me not being clear.

To clarify, here is the link and my comment referencing it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqAM1rTY6jA

I prefer people who can work with other folks. I am no fan of Putin but if the US can have military bases around the world, why can't other countries?