President Trump Thread...

[Irving Cowboy]

Jesus Christ, dude. I don't even know where to start.

I would say "then don't", but I am actually interested in what you have to say.

 

[Cotton]

I would say "then don't", but I am actually interested in what you have to say.

I don't have the energy right now. Maybe later.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I am mostly conservative. Neither party aligns with all my beliefs right down the line but since the late 70's I've considered myself a conservative Republican. I idolized Reagan. My biggest disagreement with the conservatives always has been my stance on abortion. I do not think the government has any right to push their belief on a woman who is faced with that choice. They are the ones who have to live with that choice. Same with same-sex marriage, although I'm not all about the whole Pride movement and all that shit. I do think Republicans are really showing their ass sometimes with the accusations of grooming, etc. I've always believed that if you think someone can be "groomed" into homosexuality then you are also saying that you are susceptible to being talked into it. Then again, I'm not claiming to be an expert on the matter, it's just my informed opinion from an in-law who is a lesbian. I think those two subjects really contradict a conservative's smaller-government/stay-out-of-your-life creed. Same with religion. This shit in Louisiana? GTFO of here with that crapola. A friend of mine told me that he heard a good one... want to give these kids some guiding principles? Put up a picture of Trump in every classroom with the caption, "Don't be like this guy."

Gun control - I don't own guns myself, but I have nothing against someone who does, although is there any reason to have an assault rifle? That's all I'm going to say about that.

I also diverge a bit on drug use... I thing marijuana should be legalized at a federal level, although it should be regulated like alcohol in that no one should be driving under the influence of it. Nor should anyone be doing anything high risk while high. The main reason why the Navy went to a zero-tolerance policy is because after the flight deck crash back in the 80's where half of the arresting gear crew was stoned.

I am for everyone paying their fair share of taxes, no one should be making millions and paying less than $1,000 in income tax, whether it's because of a loophole or he/she is outright cheating on their taxes.

I am for a strong national defense, although I'm kind of biased on that as I am now an LLC (Low-Life Contractor). That said, both sides do a horrible job of taking care of our active-duty troops, from deployment lengths to base-housing since they went PPV years ago.

Back to the whole RINO thing... some of you may say I'm a RINO because I don't back the lunatic who is leading the party. And you're right, RINO's have been around for a while, however the definition has changed drastically. I agree, Mitt Romney is a classic example. But now it's anyone who doesn't toe the Trump line. Liz Cheney voted with Trump 95% of the time, but the second she started speaking out about Trump, RINO it is. Not sure what Kinzinger's voting record was back then but same thing... You people do realize that if someone had told Trump back in say, 2012 that he would stand a better chance winning the election as a Democrat he would have STAYED a Democrat, right? Fucking guy just goes where the wind blows him. He represents very little of what say, Reagan, or Bush, or even Ford for that matter represented.

And lastly, I'm for the government giving a hand up to people in need, (not a hand out). Get them back on their feet and let them go on to be productive members of society. But don't knock a person who is getting assistance from the government when you yourself sought government protection in the form of declaring bankruptcy several times because contrary to what you say, you are a shitty, shady businessman from the word go.

Well.. You almost got out of the first paragraph without the TDS kicking in. Progress?

But I don't see where Trump is so different from a Reagan or Bush, other than personality and being "uncouth", which you seem to be obsessed with. Where exactly are his policies so different?

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I've always believed that if you think someone can be "groomed" into homosexuality then you are also saying that you are susceptible to being talked into it. Then again, I'm not claiming to be an expert on the matter, it's just my informed opinion from an in-law who is a lesbian.

So I don't want to delve into all your topics at once. And maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying here but if you really don't think grooming is a thing than I think you are very misinformed. Now maybe you're just trying to say a person can't be talked into becoming a lesbian or gay. My aunt is a lesbian, she wasn't groomed, she just has her preference, I think she is a kind and caring person and I love her. That has nothing to do with grooming.

If you take a 6 year old child and read them a book about anal and other sexual practices that absolutely is grooming. Your logic is just poor, not every lesbian or gay person was groomed to be the way they are. But that doesn't mean that grooming doesn't exist and isn't horrific. No different than a 40 year old preacher grooming a 12 year old child to be his wife when she gets old enough. Children are extremely susceptible to being talked into things and it has a life long impact on them.

I copy your view with adults, live and let live. But children are very different and they do need protected to some extent. They aren't developed and capable and they are very impressionable. It's why many kids who were raped as a child end up repeating the same behavior as an adult. You fuck up the kids and they become fucked up for life. Hell my abortion stance follows the same theory. Sure I'm all for a woman's choice with her body. But when her choice with her body impacts a baby who is 20 weeks old in her stomach, I stop saying she has a choice. Let's be reasonable about it, you have a choice but say after 8 weeks, you've already made your choice.

 

[Sheik]

I’m a bit late to the party, but in regards to that Philly Trump rally photo that you all were fussing about, it’s not really the flex anti Trump fags think it is.

Biden held a “rally”, or a small get together recently in Philly and it looked like it was held in a basketball gym. It was pathetic. Looked like 250 people max.

 

[NoDak]

Gun control - I don't own guns myself, but I have nothing against someone who does, although is there any reason to have an assault rifle? That's all I'm going to say about that.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

Well?

Lemme guess, you proudly fly your "COME AND TAKE IT" flag in your front yard to show what a patriot you are.

 

[Cotton]

Well?

Lemme guess, you proudly fly your "COME AND TAKE IT" flag in your front yard to show what a patriot you are.

Dude, there is no fucking thing as an assault rifle.

 

[NoDak]

Well?

Lemme guess, you proudly fly your "COME AND TAKE IT" flag in your front yard to show what a patriot you are.

You are ex-military, right? Remember when I said the other day, "You're smarter than that."? I'm starting to think I spoke too hastily...

Please, tell us about your 'assault rifles'.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

You are ex-military, right? Remember when I said the other day, "You're smarter than that."? I'm starting to think I spoke too hastily...

Please, tell us about your 'assault rifles'.

1. You already know that I am. Don’t play dumb.

2. I don’t have any guns, but I don’t vetch over someone else who does. I do however question the need for someone to have a fully automatic weapon, as their purpose is pretty much to kill other humans.

Read closely, Randy. I said QUESTION, not anything more.

And don’t give me that “slippery slope” bullshit.

 

[NoDak]

1. You already know that I am. Don’t play dumb.

2. I don’t have any guns, but I don’t vetch over someone else who does. I do however question the need for someone to have a fully automatic weapon, as their purpose is pretty much to kill other humans.

Read closely, Randy. I said QUESTION, not anything more.

And don’t give me that “slippery slope” bullshit.

You obviously don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Assault weapons. ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Now, think back on your military time. And ask yourself, what actually is an assault weapon? Then ask yourself, who in the fuck actually has those in the general public.

Stop spreading the fucking bullshit LIES, Irv.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

Do you consider an AK-47 an assault weapon? I do. If it’s only purpose is to kill several to scores of people, then I consider it an assault weapon.

 

[NoDak]

Do you consider an AK-47 an assault weapon? I do. If it’s only purpose is to kill several to scores of people, then I consider it an assault weapon.

The AK's the public can have can not be fully automatic without a federal tax stamp. And by definition since they are not capable of firing fully automatic, they are NOT an assault weapon. So no, I do not claim that they are an assault weapon.

 

[Cotton]

Do you consider an AK-47 an assault weapon? I do. If it’s only purpose is to kill several to scores of people, then I consider it an assault weapon.

God damn, Irv. Stop regurgitating shit you see on the TV.

 

[roughneck266]

Do you consider an AK-47 an assault weapon? I do. If it’s only purpose is to kill several to scores of people, then I consider it an assault weapon.

I use an AK47 quite often to kill pigs. Its not different than using a 308 other than it's less powerful and less accurate. I use it because we often have to kill quite a few at one time, and it saves time with a larger magazine capacity. I often use an AR15 as well. The AK47 can use ammunition that is fairly cheap by comparison with 308 rounds, and the AR15 is easi;y changed to different types and calibers of ammunition in situations where I may need longer range etc.
Neither of these have any idea that they are ASSAULT RIFLES. They are both semi automatic. I have had fully automatic in both platforms as well. I was a gun manufacturer and built all my full autos. Completely legally I might add. I didn't use the full autos for hunting normally, simply because it was a waist of ammunition.

 

[roughneck266]

Do you consider an AK-47 an assault weapon? I do. If it’s only purpose is to kill several to scores of people, then I consider it an assault weapon.

And your wrong. They are no different than any other semi auto rifle.

 

[Smitty]

An AR-15 is not much more than a semi automatic handgun with a long barrel.

They are designed to kill “several scores of things”? No, not anymore than handguns or shotguns or the weapons the assholes had at Columbine during the height of the last AR ban which proves completely ineffective.

 

[Plan9Misfit]

Gun control - I don't own guns myself, but I have nothing against someone who does, although is there any reason to have an assault rifle? That's all I'm going to say about that.

I am for everyone paying their fair share of taxes, no one should be making millions and paying less than $1,000 in income tax, whether it's because of a loophole or he/she is outright cheating on their taxes.

I know that I’m late to the party on this, but people don’t own “assault rifles”. That’s a ginned up term which doesn’t actually mean anything. And, when the context is properly used, it is exclusively reserved for fully automatic weapons, which are illegal (for the most part) to own, as they are classified as military style weapons. Judge Thomas literally further clarified that earlier today in the “assault weapons” case that SCOTUS denied. To illustrate: Judge Thomas specifically stated that the AR-15 is NOT an “assault weapon”, as it is not only in common use for lawful purposes, but it is the most common rifle among legal gun owners, and has NEVER been used by the military, so it cannot be classified as an “assault weapon”.

And, as far as taxes, can you quantify what “fair share” means? Because what’s “fair” to you may not be “fair” to me, and vice versa. In my opinion, a “fair” federal income tax rate is 0%, and all income tax percentages should be determined exclusively at the state level.

 

[Smitty]

I know that I’m late to the party on this, but people don’t own “assault rifles”. That’s a ginned up term which doesn’t actually mean anything. And, when the context is properly used, it is exclusively reserved for fully automatic weapons, which are illegal (for the most part) to own, as they are classified as military style weapons. Judge Thomas literally further clarified that earlier today in the “assault weapons” case that SCOTUS denied. To illustrate: Judge Thomas specifically stated that the AR-15 is NOT an “assault weapon”, as it is not only in common use for lawful purposes, but it is the most common rifle among legal gun owners, and has NEVER been used by the military, so it cannot be classified as an “assault weapon”.

And, as far as taxes, can you quantify what “fair share” means? Because what’s “fair” to you may not be “fair” to me, and vice versa. In my opinion, a “fair” federal income tax rate is 0%, and all income tax percentages should be determined exclusively at the state level.

Do you have a link on that denial? Would like to read.

edit: Never mind, found it.

 

[Plan9Misfit]

Do you have a link on that denial? Would like to read.

edit: Never mind, found it.

Judge Thomas did an outstanding job writing that opinion.