5 minutes

[st0wandgrow]

Game. Set. Match.

The duplicity of some members here is staggering.

Indeed.

I've noticed that liberals are much more willing to hold their elected leaders accountable for stuff like this...possibly to our detriment. Conservatives fall in line behind their candidate no matter the shit they pull. This last election is case in point. Liberals split on Hillary (myself included) and did not rally behind her because a lot of us felt that she was too flawed. Conservatives don't do that. They all supported Trump despite his many misgivings.

I really feel that conservatives are motivated by hate more than anything else, so it makes it easy for them to support their candidate. If they feel like they can stick it to those evil libs, they would support Satan himself for office...even if it that means voting against their own best interests.

 

[schuylaar]

This really is priceless; watching you defend this crook for the next...well however long he makes it.

Should he disconnect himself from the Trump foundation too? Oh, that's right he tried, but couldn't because it is under investigation for fraud by New York's attorney general.

We need it now that Perry needs a job..and the swamp drain could continues with alligators riveted into it.

 

[schuylaar]

Indeed.

I've noticed that liberals are much more willing to hold their elected leaders accountable for stuff like this...possibly to our detriment. Conservatives fall in line behind their candidate no matter the shit they pull. This last election is case in point. Liberals split on Hillary (myself included) and did not rally behind her because a lot of us felt that she was too flawed. Conservatives don't do that. They all supported Trump despite his many misgivings.

I really feel that conservatives are motivated by hate more than anything else, so it makes it easy for them to support their candidate. If they feel like they can stick it to those evil libs, they would support Satan himself for office...even if it that means voting against their own best interests.

GOP establishment was against it for a long time though.

 

[schuylaar]

His terms in office are about America, not his bottom line.

You can't possibly be this stupid..

 

[st0wandgrow]

GOP establishment was against it for a long time though.

Some of the establishment politicians were. Like Romney...and then he set his morality aside in favor of a cabinet position. lol

I'm referring to conservative voters though. Donald Trump must have been a tough pill to swallow for some of the religious right, but swallow they did.

Do you know any conservatives that didn't vote for Trump? I don't.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Other things that relate to "5 minutes"

5 minutes is the average time it takes a stranger to realize that @NLXSK1 is full of shit.

 

[schuylaar]

Some of the establishment politicians were. Like Romney...and then he set his morality aside in favor of a cabinet position. lol

I'm referring to conservative voters though. Donald Trump must have been a tough pill to swallow for some of the religious right, but swallow they did.

Do you know any conservatives that didn't vote for Trump? I don't.

Maybe and maybe not..not everyone voted, this had to have been worst turnout in history.

 

[NLXSK1]

If his term in office was really about America, wouldn’t it make sense to put his business in a blind trust?
Oh, and you mean Rick Perry; the guy who could not name what the Department of Energy was even called when asked about it.
“The former Texas governor Rick Perry, who could not remember the name of the Department of Energy when listing those he would scrap as president, has emerged as a leading candidate to lead it under Donald Trump, a transition official said on Sunday.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/11/rick-perry-donald-trump-energy-department

Yeah, that was a jest... I knew who he was and why he lost his presidential bid....

Putting someone in charge of a department he hates... Now that is a great idea!! I bet there will be some changes there!

If Trump's children were not already an integral part of his business I could agree with you. However, nobody has explained fundamentally how a blind trust would work without 3 of his kids losing their jobs due to someone else being elected to office.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Indeed.

I've noticed that liberals are much more willing to hold their elected leaders accountable for stuff like this...possibly to our detriment. Conservatives fall in line behind their candidate no matter the shit they pull. This last election is case in point. Liberals split on Hillary (myself included) and did not rally behind her because a lot of us felt that she was too flawed. Conservatives don't do that. They all supported Trump despite his many misgivings.

I really feel that conservatives are motivated by hate more than anything else, so it makes it easy for them to support their candidate. If they feel like they can stick it to those evil libs, they would support Satan himself for office...even if it that means voting against their own best interests.

I think it has to do with religion. If you buy that shit, you will buy anything.

 

[NLXSK1]

You can't possibly be this stupid..

President Trump has already stated that he is giving back his salary less $1.00 for technical reasons. So he saved us over 1.5 million right there...

If he was greedy and in it for the money, why wouldnt he take the presidential salary?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

President Trump has already stated that he is giving back his salary less $1.00 for technical reasons. So he saved us over 1.5 million right there...

If he was greedy and in it for the money, why wouldnt he take the presidential salary?

Wow you are dumb. First off, he will make a lot more than that while fooling the stupid ones like you. Second, the founding fathers rejected a no-salary President because it ensured that only rich men would be able to serve.

If he was not in it for the money he would release his taxes. Why do you buy the excuse that his audit precludes it? The IRS won't even confirm he is under audit and have said that there is no need to keep them confidential.

Answer my question about the SCOTUS appointment. Do you believe that the founding fathers intended to give Congress the power to eliminate the SCOTUS through inaction?

 

[Bear420]

Since compensation is set by statute, Trump can't actually refuse to take it - just like George Washington, who reportedly tried to refuse a salary but got paid anyway, at $25,000 per year.

That said, Trump could opt to donate his salary to charity or return it to the Treasury: he wouldn't be the first President to do so. When John F. Kennedy was President, he donated his salary to charity, a practice he continued from his days serving in Congress. Herbert Hoover, a self-made millionaire, donated his salary to charity, too. And in 2013, Barack Obama, who famously announced that he had just finished paying off his student loans a few years before he took office, agreed to return 5% of his salary to the Treasury after the government shutdown affected the pay of federal workers.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Since compensation is set by statute, Trump can't actually refuse to take it - just like George Washington, who reportedly tried to refuse a salary but got paid anyway, at $25,000 per year.

That said, Trump could opt to donate his salary to charity or return it to the Treasury: he wouldn't be the first President to do so. When John F. Kennedy was President, he donated his salary to charity, a practice he continued from his days serving in Congress. Herbert Hoover, a self-made millionaire, donated his salary to charity, too. And in 2013, Barack Obama, who famously announced that he had just finished paying off his student loans a few years before he took office, agreed to return 5% of his salary to the Treasury after the government shutdown affected the pay of federal workers.

Too bad they had to close the TRUMP! Foundation for self-dealing.

 

[Rob Roy]

Listening to a point about X and then saying "but Y is also true" does nothing to discount the fact about X.
Trump said, with his mouth, that women having abortions should be punished.
How do you feel about that? Pretty despicable if you ask me.

The whole abortion issue can sometimes drift off point and seems to me to fail to ask the right questions.

If a woman "owns her body" (she should) then it seems she has the right to use it as she pleases.

If a woman makes a "tacit agreement" to create another human life by engaging in sex, does she then have a responsibility to care for ANOTHER being growing inside her ?

At which point does the other being gain the right not to be extinguished (if at all) then becomes the question.

 

[HAF2]

The whole abortion issue can sometimes drift off point and seems to me to fail to ask the right questions.

If a woman "owns her body" (she should) then it seems she has the right to use it as she pleases.

If a woman makes a "tacit agreement" to create another human life by engaging in sex, does she then have a responsibility to care for ANOTHER being growing inside her ?

At which point does the other being gain the right not to be extinguished (if at all) then becomes the question.

It's not my business what a woman chooses to do in their particular situations; I imagine its a terrible time for them without government intervention.
If people took as much interest in child abuse cases with living grown children as they do with abortion the world would be a better place, imo

 

[Rob Roy]

It's not my business what a woman and doctors choose to do in their particular situations; I imagine its a terrible time for them without government intervention.
If people took as much interest in child abuse cases with living grown children as they do with abortion the world would be a better place, imo

I agree, it's not my business what people decide to do with their OWN bodies.

The question then becomes, does an abortion abide with the statement above or does it conflict with it ? When does the body / right of another being (the unborn) come into play in this situation becomes the question. I'm not sure I have that answer.

 

[HAF2]

I agree, it's not my business what people decide to do with their OWN bodies.

The question then becomes, does an abortion abide with the statement above or does it conflict with it ? When does the body / right of another being (the unborn) come into play in this situation becomes the question. I'm not sure I have that answer.

If you really cared so much about other people's children, how involved are you in child abuse and assault cases? As soon as people start paying as much attention to that as they do to women who want to have abortions the point will hold more water.
As it stands it just seems like assholes that want to take away the rights of a woman. Doctors do not preform late term abortions unless there's a medical emergency, To my knowledge.
I think it's none of our fucking business if a woman believes abortion is the right option for her, and we should stay out of it.

 

[Rob Roy]

If you really cared so much about other people's children, how involved are you in child abuse and assault cases? As soon as people start paying as much attention to that as they do to women who want to have abortions the point will hold more water.
As it stands it just seems like assholes that want to take away the rights of a woman. Doctors do not preform late term abortions unless there's a medical emergency, To my knowledge.
I think it's none of our fucking business if a woman believes abortion is the right option for her, and we should stay out of it.

Again the question becomes at which point does a being acquire the right to not be harmed ?

What a person does to their OWN body is their right. What a person does to another persons body is a different matter.

I think we agree that beings incapable of defending themselves, and certainly children, shouldn't be abused...which brings the matter of the first question above back into play.

 

[HAF2]

Again the question becomes at which point does a being acquire the right to not be harmed ?

What a person does to their OWN body is their right. What a person does to another persons body is a different matter.

I think we agree that beings incapable of defending themselves, and certainly children, shouldn't be abused...which brings the matter of the first question above back into play.

I am not a medical doctor so I can't speak intelligently about when a fetus becomes a person. There is a point where they can not be preformed and that point is decided by a medical professional. Done. Not my business.

 

[Rob Roy]

I am not a medical doctor so I can't speak intelligently about when a fetus becomes a person. There is a point where they can not be preformed and that point is decided by a medical professional. Done. Not my business.

I don't know either, but I'd say like many things it has a range rather than an exact chronological time for every being.

Given your response, I'm curious what you think. if a woman HAS an abortion past the time when the fetus has the ability to feel pain etc. was it wrong to do the abortion ?