Donald Trump (1 Viewer)

[isildurrrr1]

So your argument is that two airliners couldn't destroy 3 buildings? Never mind the resultant fires. Never mind not finding solid evidence of explosives. Never mind the hundreds of forensic engineers that pored over the site and found no evidence of controlled demolition. Drsoccerball read a conspiracy article, so it must be true!

Bush waited until 19 terrorists managed to plan an attack, carry it out and then decided to blow up a building right next to the attack site within a matter of hours. For some reason. It's settled.

Next matter: I think we should all start talking about how the government is intent on us recieving vaccinations proven to cause autism. What is their goal? Why are the majority of medical professionals silent about this?

jeb bush can't melt steel beams.

 

[Queenroot]

jeb bush can't melt steel beams.

but thermite can

 

[Red_of_Head]

but thermite can

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

"To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column. Presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day."

This amount of thermite is to heat steel to 700 degrees Celsius (about 2000 degrees below melting point).
This is also ignoring how the thermite was ignited and assumes that all of it was acting on the steel at once.

I really hope you guys are trolling.

 

[braintic]

Next matter: I think we should all start talking about how the government is intent on us recieving vaccinations proven to cause autism. What is their goal? Why are the majority of medical professionals silent about this?

Actually the vaccines have been proven NOT to cause autism. I think you are reading the same type of article you suggested Drsoccerball was reading.

Half a million children were tested in Denmark, and the study found that unvaccinated and vaccinated children were equally likely to acquire autism.

The original paper which suggested this connection was found to be fraudulent, the medical journal fully retracted the article, and the doctor who wrote the article was struck off the register after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct, particularly for manipulation of data.

Now, the only "proof" is individuals who were immunised and whose child happens to be autistic who claim this somehow proves the link.

 

[RenegadeMx]

Actually the vaccines have been proven NOT to cause autism. I think you are reading the same type of article you suggested Drsoccerball was reading.

Half a million children were tested in Denmark, and the study found that unvaccinated and vaccinated children were equally likely to acquire autism.

The original paper which suggested this connection was found to be fraudulent, the medical journal fully retracted the article, and the doctor who wrote the article was struck off the register after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct, particularly for manipulation of data.

Now, the only "proof" is individuals who were immunised and whose child happens to be autistic who claim this somehow proves the link.

>what is sarcasm

 

[braintic]

>what is sarcasm

How does one tell sarcasm in a toneless internet post that is devoid of the kind of language which tips one off to sarcasm?

 

[SylviaB]

How does one tell sarcasm in a toneless internet post that is devoid of the kind of language which tips one off to sarcasm?

 

[wannaspoon]

 

[Kolmias]

get back in your basement.

 

[Mosski]

It's actually pretty good in its own way

 

[OkDen]

Mister President Donald J. Trump, I am at your service. Sir!

 

[braintic]

Mister President Donald J. Trump, I am at your service. Sir!

I think he would prefer to get serviced by females.

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

okay I don't do this often because I really really hate conflict but I just feel like I gotta



Trump is racist. "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists…"

Trump is misogynistic. "If I were running ‘The View’, I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired."

Trump is egocentric. Narcissistic. "The beauty of me is that I’m very rich." "My IQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure; it's not your fault."

Trump is doing exactly what America doesn't need right now. In a time where international conflict is on the rise, he is simply adding to it. We need to be uniting - not being divided, which is exactly what he's doing. His tactics involve slander, and inducing fear. He supports discrimination, because it can further his personal agenda. We should be preaching love, and acceptance, or at least tolerance towards one another, but all he does is preach hate, and violence.

This thread right now, is exactly the perfect example for everything he stands for - why are people arguing, attacking each other? There was a disagreement in opinion, but rather than moving on or settling it quietly, it's turned into a heated fight. For what purpose? What reason is there for all this negativity? We shouldn't resort to throwing insults and hurtful comments because we disagree on something. To quote Martin Luther King Jr., "Violence brings only temporary victories; violence, by creating many more social problems than it solves, never brings permanent peace."

Only peace can bring about more peace, only acceptance and tolerance can end discrimination. Don't let this vicious cycle of violence go on, and don't just wait for it to end by itself. We are the ones who can end it. We must preach kindness. We must preach acceptance. We must preach peace.

I'm not pro-Trump or anything but I believe that someone like say Hillary, isn't really uniting either. Sure, if you are pro-homosexuality, pro-gender equality, pro-abortion, it's fine, but do you know how many people are against these issues and as a seeming 'minority' they're treated as inferior, stupid or 'uneducated'. This post is not to express my opinions on these issues, it's to bring up the fact that when everyone has opposing views, it's hard to 'unite'.

You mention acceptance and tolerance but what if certain religions and views aren't compatible with the tolerance of certain issues and opinions.
Contrary to popular belief, many religions condone 'tolerance' of these issues or integrating with others who are not of the same faith.
The Bible says, 'do not yoke with unbelievers'
In addition, the bible says 'Go unto all the world and preach the good news to ALL creation'
If tolerance means not 'preaching' to people who don't believe or care, christians can't complete this part of their faith.

Now, looking from a secular perspective, what determines the need for tolerance and to what point is tolerance necessary. Does tolerance mean to interact with people you disagree with too? And who sets these guidelines?

This is not an attack on KingofActing and is instead supposed to act as a general opinion (considering it's a forum) on when people say to 'integrate' and 'unite' and 'tolerate'.

This is not my opinion on these issues, I am simply expressing the view that I don't think all living in 'unity' and 'harmony' when everyone has different opinions, is possible. And this notion in itself is an opinion that many have contradictory views on. SO where does the standard lie?

DISCLAIMER: This has nothing to do with race and is only dependent on views, opinions and cultures.

 

[dan964]

Trump is doing exactly what America doesn't need right now. In a time where international conflict is on the rise, he is simply adding to it. We need to be uniting - not being divided, which is exactly what he's doing. His tactics involve slander, and inducing fear. He supports discrimination, because it can further his personal agenda.

A lot of people support him, not me personally, because while these things are hard for some to process, he often says things as they are, albeit
often exaggerated (but thats politics for you)
and he is the one who is able to provide change, which is what people are wanting.

We should be preaching love, and acceptance, or at least tolerance towards one another, but all he does is preach hate, and violence.

Love is of course a good thing and acceptence and tolerance as well. You find that however a lot of people are frustrated with the way that
seemingly innocent message is used to promote/normalise radical gender ideaologies and left-wing policies/progressivism.
We'll have to wait and see if "all he preaches" is hate and tolerance; but judging solely by his election campaign and how the media has portrayed him,
I'd have to agree with somewhat.

This thread right now, is exactly the perfect example for everything he stands for - why are people arguing, attacking each other? There was a disagreement in opinion, but rather than moving on or settling it quietly, it's turned into a heated fight. For what purpose?

I don't think it is simply something that Trump solely stands for, you have the same problem here in Australia.

What reason is there for all this negativity? We shouldn't resort to throwing insults and hurtful comments because we disagree on something.

Yep, and that is something that goes both ways. Often those on the left and the right can be as bad as each other. Labels are thrown around
too quickly, without actually trying to understand and love the person who disagrees, even if they are completely wrong in your mind.

To quote Martin Luther King Jr., "Violence brings only temporary victories; violence, by creating many more social problems than it solves, never brings permanent peace."

Only peace can bring about more peace, only acceptance and tolerance can end discrimination. Don't let this vicious cycle of violence go on, and don't just wait for it to end by itself. We are the ones who can end it. We must preach kindness. We must preach acceptance. We must preach peace.

Depends what you mean by tolerance. Unfortunately now a days tolerance has meant "do this or else". Let me give an example of inconsistency, so
people in USA, major companies and that, are able to consciously object to supporting Trump. or providing their services on a conscious ground to Trump supporters; and yet when a religious person who owns/operates a business, usually a Christian but not always; consciously objects to providing their services for a same-sex wedding ceremony, we complain and prosecute them; whose opinion is often held without violence as well.

So I think we definitely need "tolerance" and "acceptance" but the way that for the past 5 years these words have been used to push a controversial agenda on sexuality and especially on gender onto the people that is religiously, culturally diverse is not acceptable either.

I think it disgraceful and even sometimes counterproductive, maybe even hypocritical, for some of the young people in the US to be involved in the reckless behaviour seen reported in the news after the election, simply because Trump won.

I wouldn't vote for either in that election. Not even for Hillary.

Discrimination is a good thing to end, but often it is confused with distinction. For example, it is not discrimination in the wrong/evil (to be eliminated) way, to say that women should play in women's events and men should play in men's events. Or to say that men and women should use separate bathrooms.
It is actually loving especially towards the women, to separate those who are biologically women for a separate bathroom so that they can feel comfortable and safe.

Or take marriage, marriage definition makes not explicit discrimination against gays marrying but only discirminates in that is specificies the gender of the people that should marry. It is only when we assume that for people to marry they have to be sexually attracted, does orientation play a part. And yes it does indirectly discriminate against same-sex marriages which is a better term than gay marriage. And the main reason is conventionally, and in common sense, that to produce offspring, a man and a woman is required; and that has historically been the main reason behind marriage, not to mention the
different roles, a mother and a father play in a child's life is very important. But of course there is a matter of disagreement on this issue, which is fair enough, but people on both sides are just terrible on this issue.

 

[Kolmias]

Watch the Americans who voted for Trump be the ones that get screwed over the most by the new administration.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

 

[Son of Thatcher]

I'm more interested to see if he can forge a new winning coalition for the Republican Party. For the last ~ 25 years the GOP has been stuck in a rut when it comes to the Electoral College, struggling to make it past 270. In 2016, Trump managed to shatter the so-called blue wall and incorporate Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin into the Republican fold while bringing Minnesota and Maine well within reach. I'm curious to see if he can do it again and if this support will carry over to another Republican candidate when Trump departs.

 

[Kolmias]

I'm more interested to see if he can forge a new winning coalition for the Republican Party. For the last ~ 25 years the GOP has been stuck in a rut when it comes to the Electoral College, struggling to make it past 270. In 2016, Trump managed to shatter the so-called blue wall and incorporate Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin into the Republican fold while bringing Minnesota and Maine well within reach. I'm curious to see if he can do it again and if this support will carry over to another Republican candidate when Trump departs.

I see what you mean but I feel as if many Trump voters in Penn, Mich and Wis believed that they voted for Donald Trump instead of the Republican Party. Trump's appeal has a lot to do with his personality (many voters feel that he's honest) and his grand plans to "America great again". It has very little to do with him being a Republican.

I don't see that it's likely that the Republicans will hold these states come next election. I'm predicting that the Democratic Party will grow to be more populist then it has been in recent years and rejected the neoliberal status quo (the New Democrats) that has been entrenched in the party since Bill Clinton rose to power. Bernie Sanders will be 81 when 2020 comes around and it's extremely unlikely he'll mount another shot at the nomination. However, similar candidates (think the 35 year old mayor of the medium sized Indiana city of South Bend, Pete Buttigieg, who has risen from relative obscurity to nationwide prominence for his campaign for DNC Chair) will take the Sanderite torch and push a more progressive agenda inside the Democratic Party.

My prediction: 2020 will have a Democratic President elected, Dems will win control of both House and Senate.

 

[Son of Thatcher]

I see what you mean but I feel as if many Trump voters in Penn, Mich and Wis believed that they voted for Donald Trump instead of the Republican Party. Trump's appeal has a lot to do with his personality (many voters feel that he's honest) and his grand plans to "America great again". It has very little to do with him being a Republican.

I don't see that it's likely that the Republicans will hold these states come next election. I'm predicting that the Democratic Party will grow to be more populist then it has been in recent years and rejected the neoliberal status quo (the New Democrats) that has been entrenched in the party since Bill Clinton rose to power. Bernie Sanders will be 81 when 2020 comes around and it's extremely unlikely he'll mount another shot at the nomination. However, similar candidates (think the 35 year old mayor of the medium sized Indiana city of South Bend, Pete Buttigieg, who has risen from relative obscurity to nationwide prominence for his campaign for DNC Chair) will take the Sanderite torch and push a more progressive agenda inside the Democratic Party.

My prediction: 2020 will have a Democratic President elected, Dems will win control of both House and Senate.

That's what I want to see, whether the trend is long-term or merely a temporary aberration. My feeling though is that these type of people were drifting towards the Republicans anyway, Trump just accelerated the trend. We'll see in time.

4 - 8 years is a long time in politics so I think it's pointless to try and predict how 2020 will go. Despite the conventional wisdom that 'demography is destiny' and that the Democrats will be the main beneficiary of a changing and electorate, I think that they are actually the ones in trouble NOT the GOP. Although the Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections, they seem to struggle big-time in close elections due to the inefficient distribution of their vote. Just like when Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by a massive 3% in 1876 (that's more than what George W. Bush got when running for re-election in 2004), the Democratic vote is simply too concentrated. The only difference is instead of their vote being concentrated in the South, it is now similarly confined to urban centres. They're going to need to appeal to a more diverse selection of the electorate in more states if they want to win these type of races.

However, the difficulty for the Democrats is even more acute. If they move to the left and embrace populism again, they lose what has been the reliably-Republican (up until 2016) demographic of wealthier, more educated voters in the collar counties and suburbs. However, if they move to the right, then a lot of the more progressive voters will likely stay home while the economically-displaced will continue to trend red. It's truly a catch 22 for them.

The Democrats have no chance of winning the Senate in 2018. Zero. In fact, I'd be very surprised if Republicans didn't gain a healthy number of seats which will help insulate them from any potential backlash from Trump's Presidency. As for 2020, while the Republicans will be defending 22 seats, 18 of those are in safe red states while only 1 (Maine) was in a state Trump didn't win in 2016. As for the House, it's certainly possible provided the Democrats have a good showing in 2018. A pickup of 24 seats will give the Democrats a majority which would only mean snagging some districts with a Cook PVI of +3 Republican which is certainly possible.

In any event, I still think that the next elections are too far away to give any solid or accurate prediction. But, it's still fun to try!

 

[Son of Thatcher]

depending on whether he adheres to his rhetoric, trump will carry these states again in 2020.

Not to mention the incumbency advantage. The last President to be defeated running for re-election was George H.W Bush which was 25 years ago. Hell, even that was due to Ross Perot and not necessarily because of Bush's failings. Most Presidents are re-elected and I have no reason to believe that Trump will be any different barring a massive calamity of Hooveristic proportions.

 

[Kolmias]

Not to mention the incumbency advantage. The last President to be defeated running for re-election was George H.W Bush which was 25 years ago. Hell, even that was due to Ross Perot and not necessarily because of Bush's failings. Most Presidents are re-elected and I have no reason to believe that Trump will be any different barring a massive calamity of Hooveristic proportions.

It's Trump we're talking about here. The walking volcano himself. Of course he's going to bring about a massive disaster. Hell, he's already broken the law by deleting an official Presidential tweet as all Presidential communications must be archived by the Archivist of the United States.