The Political Discussion Thread

[The Flyattractor]

You and I both know that trump would have no clue.

Nah. More like We all know you are pushing an False Narrative because you are a Socialist Progressive that supports a Marxist Tyrannical Style of Restrictive Government and you will do anything to bring about this destricutive order on a world scale.

Aka You are a bad person at heart.

Hence your avatar pic pick..

[aretood2]

I read the article many times, I do not see the term "Anti-choice". I see anti Abortion, several times. Also, I fail to see how "Anti-lifer" would describe anyone.

The red area is the important part. You change the definition of abortion to anything that prevents a birth (which is not all that hard in a legal sense) and away you go.


The stuff about St Louise is them as the democratic "stronghold" kicking back.

That's a stretch, and a pretty weak argument. Beyond that I have doubts on your article and its source article considering the other claims that just aren't supported at all by the text of the bill.

Related to the posts around here about loyalty to Trump, I ran across this op-ed piece this am.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...thout-fox.html

“For many conservatives, they support Mr. Trump because he’s their de facto leader in a cultural war. Liberals mock Christianity and demean Christian morals. Conservatives respect our police and military, while liberals romanticize street thugs. Conservatives’ tax dollars help pay for public schools and colleges that indoctrinate liberal values.”

That's what the left doesn't understand. While social issues aren't on my front burner, they are front and center for a lot of people.

So republicans have to, by force, look up to Trump out of all other individuals for political leadership? I get it that he is the leader of the party, but no where is it written that the rank and file has to defend the leader of the party in order to remain "loyal" to the party. Basically your argument is that right wing Christians are kissing the rear end of the most unchristian republican to ever hold office in the hopes that he would defend Christianity??? Well, considering just how theologically uneducated right wing Evangalicals can be....I guess it makes sense.

But that still doesn't explain betraying Bush Jr....

[Gatefan1976]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40522488

[jelgate]

Trump has ethics?

[Gatefan1976]

nope.

[Annoyed]

So republicans have to, by force, look up to Trump out of all other individuals for political leadership? I get it that he is the leader of the party, but no where is it written that the rank and file has to defend the leader of the party in order to remain "loyal" to the party. Basically your argument is that right wing Christians are kissing the rear end of the most unchristian republican to ever hold office in the hopes that he would defend Christianity??? Well, considering just how theologically uneducated right wing Evangalicals can be....I guess it makes sense.

But that still doesn't explain betraying Bush Jr....

Who else, R, D or other was putting out the same message Trump was? That message resonated with a lot of people.

[Gatefan1976]

Who else, R, D or other was putting out the same message Trump was? That message resonated with a lot of people.

Appealing to peoples base instincts always does.

[jelgate]

Appealing to peoples base instincts always does.

McCarthyism

[aretood2]

Who else, R, D or other was putting out the same message Trump was? That message resonated with a lot of people.

Cruz, and to an extent Rubio and Bush. Ben Carson did some of that too. Kasich, but I guess he and some of the others were a bit too like Reagan in his message. But Cruz pretty much said the same message as Trump minus the crude white anger...hard to include crude white anger when you aren't entirely white. Rubio made too much sense for republicans these days and Bush was too moderate for you. Kasich was too much like republicans of the 80's and Carson...well people fell asleep every time he spoke. And the only actual businessman running was actually a woman, so nope. So yeah, I can see why Trump was the only one

[Gatefan1976]

Yeah, but can you imagine that face for your president?

[jelgate]

Yeah, but can you imagine that face for your president?

I would be afraid everytime Carson had a knife. I quite liked Rubio to be honest

[Gatefan1976]

Him or Kasich I found the least offensive. Rubio is smarter, but more "conservative", Kasich would have been more willing to be bipartisan.

[jelgate]

To be honest, I never felt I got a clear idea what Kasich's platform was going to be

[mad_gater]

I would be afraid everytime Carson had a knife. I quite liked Rubio to be honest

afraid every time Dr. Carson held a knife? fancy yourself an expert neurosurgeon do you?

[Coco Pops]

I don't get it. Why are the Republicans this way?

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/...movement-know/

And further down the page they are wanting to change the civil rights act.