Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Texas73

Texas73 422

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I get the arguments.  I've made them.  He understands the rationale.  His bottom line is that abortion is wrong and he can't abide it.  

I find it highly unlikely that everyone bitching me out on this has no friends or family members with whom they fundamentally disagree on a key issue.  Whatever.  The real world is complicated -- some of you might consider joining up at some point.

All of my family and former high school classmates in east Texas, Van Zandt county, vote R because of abortion and welfare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 48.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2695

  • 4th&Five

    1699

  • jimmyjazz

    1286

  • atomheartbevo

    1219

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

GHOSTUSER
GHOSTUSER

I fucking love this President. My 2 faves during my lifetime are Trump and Nixon. They share a lot of similarities and were besieged by the same groups of assholes. No I’m not trolling. Y’all, the lef

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0
Brisketexan
Brisketexan

This.....is magnificent. The "younger generation" is going to have to work double-time to fund YOUR Social Security, which YOUR generation of elected officials raided the fuck out of.  And which,

Posted Images

bolverk

bolverk 30323

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Yuk said:

The abortion issue is largely virtue signaling.  If you had an anti-abortion, centrist Democrat on the ballot against a pro-choice Republican, you know they'd still vote Republican.  It's almost as if being a Republican is more about cultural identity than specific policy.  Who would've guessed?

I'd even go so far as Republicanism (whatever that might mean) is their true religion. How else can you explain someone supporting policies that are the polar opposite of what their Savior, who they purport to believe in and follow, has instructed them to do? They're really Christians in name only.

Edit: Of course, they're not even disciplined enough to keep even retain their supposedly "conservative" political principles if the Party silently shifts its stance on policies. Maybe they really are just a cult.

Of course, this raises another question: what's the difference between a religion and a cult?

Edited by bolverk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14806

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

This board re abortion:

"Single issue voters are not actually single issue voters.  They are pretending they are single issue voters in order to vote for other things.  You switch that single issue to the other party, and they wouldn't switch votes"

and

"Politicians pretend they care about this single issue because they know they will get all the single issue voters who will absolutely vote for whoever favors this single issue."

This is the correct answer.  The vast majority of GOP evangelicals would not vote for a pro-life Democrat.  They say it's the one issue, but it's not.  That's why the Democratic Party won't compromise on the issue.  There is nothing at all to be gained.  They're not going to pick up any "single issue" pro lifers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14806

Posted
Posted

If you want to watch the pro lifers heads spin, do this:

1.  Point out that abortions under both Clinton and Obama went down dramatically to the point they were cut in half.  (In the case of Clinton, they were actually trending up under Reagan/Bush.)  Ask why they don't support the efforts of Clinton and Obama to reduce the number of abortions.

2.  Ask them to be specific about the legal punishments if abortion is outlawed.  What is the penalty for the woman?  The doctor?  The birth father?  The parents who paid for it?  You'd be surprised how little thought they'd put to this angle despite obsessing about the issue for 30 years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3509

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I'd even go so far as Republicanism is their true religion. How else can you explain someone supporting policies that are the polar opposite of what their Savior, who they purport to believe in and follow, has instructed them to do? They're really Christians in name only.

That would be "white" Jesus not "A-rab" Jesus.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11186

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

If you want to watch the pro lifers heads spin, do this:

1.  Point out that abortions under both Clinton and Obama went down dramatically to the point they were cut in half.  (In the case of Clinton, they were actually trending up under Reagan/Bush.)  Ask why they don't support the efforts of Clinton and Obama to reduce the number of abortions.

2.  Ask them to be specific about the legal punishments if abortion is outlawed.  What is the penalty for the woman?  The doctor?  The birth father?  The parents who paid for it?  You'd be surprised how little thought they'd put to this angle despite obsessing about the issue for 30 years.

 

Oh, please, like they will actually listen to your points and questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mo Horn

Mo Horn 8937

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 

 

1 hour ago, shnsajax said:

 


Any mention of the coast guard from yesterday?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

FFS.  He's now said more about some stupid hoax, than about pipe bombs being sent to two ex-presidents, George Soros, and news organizations.

It just amazes me how anybody can defend this racist SOB. Not one comment about the white guy who stockpiled weapons and had a hit list of politicians (he even used part of pocahontas in his writings in reference to Warren) and non-Fox news people. But he has to tweet and condemn Smollett. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

More Trumpfuckery.  Trump threatens interns ----- INTERNS ------ with financial ruin if they don't sign NDA:


https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-white-house-is-forcing-interns-to-sign-ndas-and-threatening-them-with-financial-ruin



It never ends.

And yet another giant shit on the Constitution.    The First Amendment is a piece of toilet paper to these fucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29579

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

A couple things: first, both things can be and are true, depending on the voter.  As to your first statement, I don't think that many of those voters are pretending.  They don't realize what they're doing.  If you switched that issue to the other party, they'd be confused AF, and they'd have a hard time figuring out what to do.  The typical angry/scared GOP voter....what would they do if their choice was a platform of "pro-choice, anti-immigrant, pro-cop and draconian criminal laws, love tax cuts, oppose single payer healthcare because socialism" vs. "pro-life, pro humane immigration policy, pro strong legal protections against police and criminal law abuses, pro social spending, pro single payer healthcare?"  Seriously, there'd be a lot of brainlock.

 And second.....EXCEPT among those folks who really ARE single-issue voters.....they'd follow the abortion issue to wherever it ended up living.  It would be a fascinating social experiment.

But it came about because of a chicken-and-the-egg history -- with respect to these issues, the parties weren't always as entrenched in their positions as they are today.  And voters evolved along with them.  Some bailed on the party as it changed, others went along for the ride and became more strident in their beliefs.

Evangelical protestants as a whole didn't even oppose abortion until they lost the fight over segregation. in 1973 the Southern Baptist Press news bulletin supported Roe v. Wade:

Quote

WASHINGTON (BP) — The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision that overturned a Texas law which denied a woman the right of abortion except to save her life, has advanced the cause of religious liberty, human equality and justice.

Evangelicals rallied around abortion as the basis for their opposition to secularism once they realized they couldn't publicly argue that their support for segregation was what made them morally superior to secular liberals. Sure, they really truly believe for the most part today that they oppose abortion and have always opposed abortion and would have always opposed abortion and will always oppose abortion, but it's a shallow belief. That shallowness is why they never think beyond "abortion = bad" and "liberals = murderers" and consider the implications of actually outlawing abortion. Sure, a select few of them actually want to send doctors who provide abortions to jail, but most don't, and almost none want to send women who get abortions to jail.

If the GOP pulled a 100% u-turn on abortion tomorrow but otherwise remained the party of southern conservative whites, at least 80-85% of those southern conservative whites would stay with the GOP but suddenly be pro-choice and would shortly forget that they'd ever opposed abortion. Their current opposition to abortion is a result of their political identities, not the other way around.

Edited by wildcat09
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20913

Posted
Posted

Regarding the interns, have any other interns in White House history been required to sign non-disclosure agreements?  Is that even legal, for workers who work for the federal government to be bound by the same sort of NDA that would cover a private business?  I can see why, if you were a private business, you might not want a worker to go to a competitor with your trade secrets, but nobody is competing with the federal government/white house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Regarding the interns, have any other interns in White House history been required to sign non-disclosure agreements?  Is that even legal, for workers who work for the federal government to be bound by the same sort of NDA that would cover a private business?  I can see why, if you were a private business, you might not want a worker to go to a competitor with your trade secrets, but nobody is competing with the federal government/white house.

It's not legal-- it's a clear 1st Amendment violation.The federal government can't tell people who work for the government, i.e. us, that they can't tell us what's taking place in government (in general--obviously things like top secret intelligence or privileged things such as attorney client documents at DOJ are not subject to public disclosure). 

Personally, world's smallest violin for interns who are fine starting their career by assisting criminals in separating children from their parents and fear mongering fake emergencies about brown people, now possibly having to pay attorney's fees.  But the chilling of free speech is problematic.

Edited by lemonlime
Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Regarding the interns, have any other interns in White House history been required to sign non-disclosure agreements?  Is that even legal, for workers who work for the federal government to be bound by the same sort of NDA that would cover a private business?  I can see why, if you were a private business, you might not want a worker to go to a competitor with your trade secrets, but nobody is competing with the federal government/white house.

Nope.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/former-officials-slam-reported-white-house-non-disclosure-agreements.html

"Public employees can't be gagged by private agreements," said Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project,

 in a statement on Monday.

"These so-called NDAs are unconstitutional and unenforceable."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NWBuck

NWBuck 8629

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Evangelical protestants as a whole didn't even oppose abortion until they lost the fight over segregation. in 1973 the Southern Baptist Press news bulletin supported Roe v. Wade:

Evangelicals rallied around abortion as the basis for their opposition to secularism once they realized they couldn't publicly argue that their support for segregation was what made them morally superior to secular liberals. Sure, they really truly believe for the most part today that they oppose abortion and have always opposed abortion and would have always opposed abortion and will always oppose abortion, but it's a shallow belief. That shallowness is why they never think beyond "abortion = bad" and "liberals = murderers" and consider the implications of actually outlawing abortion. Sure, a select few of them actually want to send doctors who provide abortions to jail, but most don't, and almost none want to send women who get abortions to jail.

If the GOP pulled a 100% u-turn on abortion tomorrow but otherwise remained the party of southern conservative whites, at least 80-85% of those southern conservative whites would stay with the GOP but suddenly be pro-choice and would shortly forget that they'd ever opposed abortion. Their current opposition to abortion is a result of their political identities, not the other way around.

This is a phenomenal summary! Another factor was the "Religious Right" and "Moral Majority" wanting to support candidates who would guarantee religious liberty in the form of allowing them to remain tax exempt (churches, faith based colleges, etc.). Follow the money, as always.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Judge Roybeanbag

Judge Roybeanbag 11860

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, RPM said:

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think an NDA for a government worker would stand up in court. 

Like lemonlime said below you there are instances where they are valid.  A government employee working in defense for example, isn’t supposed to disclose contractors proprietary information to their competitors.  But in the White House instance I’d imagine it’s like every other Trump policy.   Bullshit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SameSame

SameSame 1752

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

100% because of this scumbag motherfucker's rhetoric.  Yet everyone on the right will defend him and probably defend the Coastie, placing blame for the whole thing on the media.

Let that have had been a list of Republican's and those deranged pukes would have ran that every hour for months on foxnews and then again at election time.  Deranged no good sorry sacks of shit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...