Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 263

Thread: Trump supporters want respect

  1. #91 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    La Pine, Oregon
    Posts
    5,218
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,137 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 215 Times in 201 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Yes, those cross-cutting cleavages (friends, family, work colleagues) help us be more accepting of the other side because you already liked those people. Today, the "sorting" means we live in areas of people like ourselves and associate with people like us. More homogeneous groups means you know fewer of those on the other side and allows you to dislike and stereotype them.

    Did your friends who were voting against Hillary also vote primarily Republican in past years? If so, it was also identification with those groups and antagonism against Hillary made it easier to support Trump. Posters on this forum are probably more tolerant of those who voted for Trump/Hillary if they are family or long-time friends. They can overlook their vote but when it comes to anonymous Trump/Hillary supporters on this forum they can be rude and nasty with ignorant, bigoted stereotypes. Even though I showed them form numerous sources that Trump voters had higher educational and income levels than their claims, they still find it convenient to believe their exaggerated images. I know people who feel the same way about Hillary voters, homosexuals, blacks, etc.
    IMO, Trump won based on two issues, Hillary's support for abortions, and pure ignorance. Underlying this was the voters lack of initiative to do their own research on alternative candidates thus limiting the field to two major players. Then, if one was to consider the Electoral College (which is supposed to be a free body), and the control that elitists had over that body, the winner was predetermined.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10...ican-democrat/
    "2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"

  2. #92 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    IMO, Trump won based on two issues, Hillary's support for abortions, and pure ignorance. Underlying this was the voters lack of initiative to do their own research on alternative candidates thus limiting the field to two major players. Then, if one was to consider the Electoral College (which is supposed to be a free body), and the control that elitists had over that body, the winner was predetermined.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10...ican-democrat/
    I completely disagree about any elite control over the Electoral College. In almost every state all the electors voted for the candidate winning a plurality of popular votes in their state. The electors in every state are either free to vote however they choose or their state pledges them to support the popular vote winner of their state. Since anti-abortion voters are loyal Republicans I don't think that was any more an issue in 2016 than any other year. Voters know any 3rd party/independent candidates have no chance of winning.

    "The Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, lost five of her pledged electors while the Republican Party nominee and then president-elect, Donald Trump, lost two. Three of the faithless electors voted for Colin Powell while John Kasich, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Faith Spotted Eagle each received one vote."

  3. #93 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,510
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,555 Times in 17,085 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    IMO, Trump won based on two issues, Hillary's support for abortions, and pure ignorance. Underlying this was the voters lack of initiative to do their own research on alternative candidates thus limiting the field to two major players. Then, if one was to consider the Electoral College (which is supposed to be a free body), and the control that elitists had over that body, the winner was predetermined.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10...ican-democrat/
    Not suport for abortion, but support for a woman to choose. We have had 2 parties for long before we were born. This is not new.

  4. #94 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    La Pine, Oregon
    Posts
    5,218
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,137 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 215 Times in 201 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I completely disagree about any elite control over the Electoral College. In almost every state all the electors voted for the candidate winning a plurality of popular votes in their state. The electors in every state are either free to vote however they choose or their state pledges them to support the popular vote winner of their state. Since anti-abortion voters are loyal Republicans I don't think that was any more an issue in 2016 than any other year. Voters know any 3rd party/independent candidates have no chance of winning.

    "The Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, lost five of her pledged electors while the Republican Party nominee and then president-elect, Donald Trump, lost two. Three of the faithless electors voted for Colin Powell while John Kasich, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Faith Spotted Eagle each received one vote."
    And then reality hits. The "electors" are selected, not voted for, by the elites of their particular party. These come from the top donors, or other representatives of the upper class of the party. So, they do not represent the party as a whole, just the few. I believe that the number of States that require the elector to follow the majority vote is 23. Other States have some varying rule. However,m the original intent was that the electors would be free to vote as they saw fit. As is true with most of the Constitutional ideals this had=s been corrupted.

    As to the third party issue, back in the 80's I remember Limbaugh pushing the idea that a third party was a wasted vote. As long as the people accept this kind of foolishness (one that the Founding Fathers warned against e.g. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp ) then it will be true, and we will only have those selected by the wealthy as candidates regardless of their qualifications, or lack thereof, as we saw in the last election. Not decent people with the country as their major concern.
    "2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"

  5. #95 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    La Pine, Oregon
    Posts
    5,218
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,137 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 215 Times in 201 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Not suport for abortion, but support for a woman to choose. We have had 2 parties for long before we were born. This is not new.
    It is not about the right of the woman to "choose". She had that right before engaging in an act that would create the child. After the child has been created that right to "choose" goes away. Then it becomes "to kill or not to kill". And the argument that it is not about support for abortion is a lie. It is all about support for abortion.
    "2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"

  6. #96 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    And then reality hits. The "electors" are selected, not voted for, by the elites of their particular party. These come from the top donors, or other representatives of the upper class of the party. So, they do not represent the party as a whole, just the few. I believe that the number of States that require the elector to follow the majority vote is 23. Other States have some varying rule. However,m the original intent was that the electors would be free to vote as they saw fit. As is true with most of the Constitutional ideals this had=s been corrupted.
    How they are selected varies by state. In some they actually vote for the electors. But you missed the point. Regardless of how they were chosen, the electoral votes of every state went to the candidate winning a plurality (majority not required) of popular votes of that state. So, the electors all "chose" to vote for the winning candidate in their state.

    Whether they represent the party as a whole is irrelevant since they voted for the popular vote winner. Being a top donor or upper class means nothing when those electors simply cast their vote for their party's nominee who won their state.

    Since only 23 states bind their electors, that means the electors in the other states are free to vote as they see fit. But the Constitution did not (and still does not) have any reference to the people voting for president. If we stuck to original intent with no popular vote and the legislatures chose the electors, you don't think those would be upper class and top donors?

  7. #97 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,252
    Thanks
    13,539
    Thanked 12,184 Times in 7,628 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    And then reality hits. The "electors" are selected, not voted for, by the elites of their particular party. These come from the top donors, or other representatives of the upper class of the party. So, they do not represent the party as a whole, just the few. I believe that the number of States that require the elector to follow the majority vote is 23. Other States have some varying rule. However,m the original intent was that the electors would be free to vote as they saw fit. As is true with most of the Constitutional ideals this had=s been corrupted.

    As to the third party issue, back in the 80's I remember Limbaugh pushing the idea that a third party was a wasted vote. As long as the people accept this kind of foolishness (one that the Founding Fathers warned against e.g. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp ) then it will be true, and we will only have those selected by the wealthy as candidates regardless of their qualifications, or lack thereof, as we saw in the last election. Not decent people with the country as their major concern.
    Sorry, Trapper, but I have to respectfully disagree.

    This last election there were people supporting third party candidates on the left...and there were people who refused to vote because they were miffed about Sanders not being the candidate.

    ANYONE WHO DID NOT ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON IN THE LAST ELECTION...

    ...helped get Donald Trump elected.

    Donald Trump, in significant part, was elected because of the people who refused to enthusiastically support Hillary Clinton.

    Anyone who does the equivalent during the next election is equally culpable in what happens.

  8. #98 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Not suport for abortion, but support for a woman to choose. We have had 2 parties for long before we were born. This is not new.
    A woman cannot choose unless the law makes abortion legal. "Choice" is a decision by the individual, allowing abortion is a legal issue.

  9. #99 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,252
    Thanks
    13,539
    Thanked 12,184 Times in 7,628 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    A woman cannot choose unless the law makes abortion legal. "Choice" is a decision by the individual, allowing abortion is a legal issue.
    The "support" was for the right of a woman to CHOOSE.

    If she chooses to abort a pregnancy occurring in her own body...she should be able to make that choice without the government interfering.

    If she chooses to continue with the pregnancy...she should be able to make THAT choice without the government interfering.

    Wake up.

    The "support" was exactly what Nordberg said.

  10. #100 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    La Pine, Oregon
    Posts
    5,218
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,137 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 215 Times in 201 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    How they are selected varies by state. In some they actually vote for the electors. But you missed the point. Regardless of how they were chosen, the electoral votes of every state went to the candidate winning a plurality (majority not required) of popular votes of that state. So, the electors all "chose" to vote for the winning candidate in their state.
    I know of no State where the electors are elected. Then again, even if that were true the choices would be extremely slim, and the common person would not be one "elected".

    The original intent of the electoral college was to eliminate the chances of larger States determining the results of the election. Hasn't worked.
    "2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"

  11. #101 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    La Pine, Oregon
    Posts
    5,218
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,137 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 215 Times in 201 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    The "support" was for the right of a woman to CHOOSE.

    If she chooses to abort a pregnancy occurring in her own body...she should be able to make that choice without the government interfering.

    If she chooses to continue with the pregnancy...she should be able to make THAT choice without the government interfering.

    Wake up.

    The "support" was exactly what Nordberg said.
    "Choosing" to destroy what one created by her own "choice" is a red herring, and a lie, that ignores the original choice. Maybe you are too dense to understand that unless a woman is extremely ignorant, or stupid, they know that there is a good chance a pregnancy will occur if she has sex. That is where the choice lies. Killing the unborn is not a "choice", it is an irresponsible action.
    "2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"

  12. #102 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    La Pine, Oregon
    Posts
    5,218
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,137 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 215 Times in 201 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Sorry, Trapper, but I have to respectfully disagree.

    This last election there were people supporting third party candidates on the left...and there were people who refused to vote because they were miffed about Sanders not being the candidate.

    ANYONE WHO DID NOT ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON IN THE LAST ELECTION...

    ...helped get Donald Trump elected.

    Donald Trump, in significant part, was elected because of the people who refused to enthusiastically support Hillary Clinton.

    Anyone who does the equivalent during the next election is equally culpable in what happens.
    So, holding your nose, and voting for what you believe is the "lesser of two evils" was the way one should go?

    And there were third party candidates (Darrell Castle, and Evan McMullin) who were not on the left, and are moral patriots who could not get the support given to the two most corrupt candidates we have seen in decades.
    "2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"

  13. #103 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,510
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,555 Times in 17,085 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    It is not about the right of the woman to "choose". She had that right before engaging in an act that would create the child. After the child has been created that right to "choose" goes away. Then it becomes "to kill or not to kill". And the argument that it is not about support for abortion is a lie. It is all about support for abortion.
    In your extremely humble and wrong opinion. A collection of cells is a blastoma, not a baby. The worst abortionist god, stops about 30 percent of them.

    I suppose if you are pro birth, then you will be happy to pay for the care of a kid a woman cannot afford. If it is a child of rape or incest, then if it makes it to birth, they can drop it off at your house. Then your decision that they should have it is honest. You share the results of your decision. if not, mind your own business.

  14. #104 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    The "support" was for the right of a woman to CHOOSE.

    If she chooses to abort a pregnancy occurring in her own body...she should be able to make that choice without the government interfering.

    If she chooses to continue with the pregnancy...she should be able to make THAT choice without the government interfering.

    Wake up.

    The "support" was exactly what Nordberg said.
    True, but government is "interfering" when it passes laws regulating abortion--methods, time periods, any other conditions. And, women often cannot choose after 6 months.

  15. #105 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    23,501
    Thanks
    3,062
    Thanked 9,759 Times in 7,263 Posts
    Groans
    49
    Groaned 1,060 Times in 1,005 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post

    ANYONE WHO DID NOT ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON IN THE LAST ELECTION...

    ...helped get Donald Trump elected.
    Agreed. Both Clintons turn my stomach, and I voted for Bubba both times and Pants Suit last time.

    The only opportunity to vote for somebody who's any good is in the Democratic Primary.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to NiftyNiblick For This Post:

    Frank Apisa (07-21-2018)

Similar Threads

  1. Trump supporters more tolerant than Clinton supporters
    By canceled.2021.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-21-2018, 08:57 PM
  2. Trump known in China as a Chump. Feeling that respect?
    By Amadeus in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-12-2017, 05:52 PM
  3. Replies: 72
    Last Post: 06-28-2017, 12:32 PM
  4. Few Americans think world leaders respect Trump
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 02-14-2017, 05:05 AM
  5. Respect for what Trump did!
    By Jarod in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-21-2016, 01:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •