"31% of White Evangelicals Say They’ll Support Trump No Matter What He Does"

[Shad]

The farce is comparing the two.

Wrong. Evanglicals numbers are what? How many are white? Now do the math. How many Dems are there? Do the math. People are shocked about a minority poll but ignore the larger one. Try again

There is a big difference between permanent distrust due to irreparably damaged credibility and reputation and unwavering trust despite consistently poor performance and behavior.

The graph didn't say unconditional nor unwavering support. Try again.

So permanent distrust even if he did everything you want as policy? Notice you biased framing yet?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your twisted and thats immoral.

Please elaborate.

Or is this just some kind of “I know you are, but what am I” thing?

I said i DO NOT condone those things.

But, if i had to choose between two leaders, one was those listed sins, but they wer capatalists and the other was not those listed sins, but was a communist, i would pick the capatalist.

Why? Because the communist would unintentionally destroy the whole country. And thats not just what i would not want, its what everyone would not want.

Fruit is the better choice.

This is some really strange “logic.”

You're telling me that only a communist would intentionally destroy the whole country. Not a thief, or a liar, or a rapist – they would have only good intentions?? Sorry, but that sounds absurd.

 

[Prometheus85]

Could say the same thing about liberals and their TDS.

Could say the same thing about liberals and their TDS.

it’s the people that defend Trump — not the people who criticize him — who are suffering from the syndrome.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Feminists in Australia hold to the American line that "rape is about power."

Generally speaking, it is. For the most part, rapists are motivated by the rapist's feelings and needs to dominate and control those less powerful than themselves.

And women can dress as they like, go where they like and consort with
whom they like.

Yep, that's right, in an ideal world, for sure.
Don't you think that would be nice?

Recently Melbourne has had three high profile murders of young women
walking through parks or leaving hotels late at night.

Most rapes are actually committed by people the victim already knows, apparently.

I was raped while wearing sweat pants and a giant sweatshirt, in my friend's home, by her brother. I wasn't walking around parks or leaving hotels late at night. I thought I was in a safe place. This is reality. I was sexually harrassed in an office workplace, by my boss, who apparently thought it was okay to cram his hand down my pants or shirt whenever he felt like it. I should have been in a safe space, but I wasn't. This is reality.

Essentially these three lives were lost due to feminist ideology. What did
the feminists do? They protested about the male patriarchy. Feminism
isn't about being feminine, it's about Power.

Nope. Those three lives were lost due to the murderers who took them.
Victim blaming is gross.

Feminism isn't about being feminine. You've got that right. It's about equality.

Rape: power, anger, and sexuality. - PubMed - NCBI
https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/resources/publications/en/guidelines_chap2.pdf

 

[SkepticThinker]

And I wonder when the first white person used the term "black" in a derogatory way?
Probably they didn't think it would escalate, in some countries, to slavery and segregation.
The ethos of the 1960's was that you don't judge a person by their skin color. Well, it's
back again - judging people by their skin.
When I hear the term "black" or "white" I know there's a problem with looking at the heart
of a person. "Anti-racism" is often pure racism.

They used to refer to them in much worse terms than "black." Some still do, unfortunately.

What do you mean by "anti-racism is often pure racism??"

 

[Father Heathen]

I read it quite alot.

Theres a BIG difference between "sharing" from ones own volition within a community and government TAKING by force there money and distributing it as they see fit.

BIG difference.

I hope you stay off public roads and out of public schools, libraries, and parks. I also hope you don't support the military or law enforcement.

All tax funded; i.e. "communism".

Oh, and Israel, who receives ~$3 billion in aid a year from The U.S. They also have universal healthcare.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I read it quite alot.

Theres a BIG difference between "sharing" from ones own volition within a community and government TAKING by force there money and distributing it as they see fit.

BIG difference.

Sure, but read up on the kickbutt Jewish welfare laws. Government at least helps everyone and doesn't discriminate against people or put profit before people.

 

[Shad]

it’s the people that defend Trump — not the people who criticize him — who are suffering from the syndrome.

Hardly. All I see people doing is repeating what the media says and make assertions. I ask for evidence and they provide nothing that is called evidence. They just assert more.

 

[Prometheus85]

Hardly. All I see people doing is repeating what the media says and make assertions. I ask for evidence and they provide nothing that is called evidence. They just assert more.

Lol your projecting

 

[Shad]

Lol your projecting

Hardly. Try again. Maybe look up what the word unconditional means and explain it to others. Which party is anti-2a again? What were you babbling about the Constitution? Which had candidate telling people that the police would seize their firearms? Yawn

 

[Prometheus85]

Hardly. Try again. Maybe look up what the word unconditional means and explain it to others. Which party is anti-2a again? What were you babbling about the Constitution? Which had candidate telling people that the police would seize their firearms? Yawn

What are u talking about? And what does any of what you said have to do with the topic on hand? And what was I babbling about in regards to the constitution? I think you have me confused with someone else.

In any case. Do you have any evidence Democrats in Congress or running for president who are calling to scrap the Second Amendment? Also the trump administration is strangely becoming anti-gun.

During the past 3 years of Trump's presidency he has not once acted to protect the Second Amendment. Instead he backdoored a ban on bumpstocks by signing a memorandum directing the attorney general to "dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.” This led to the Department of Justice and ATF to issue a new federal gun regulation officially banning bump stocks. Trump also supports red flag laws stating, "I like taking guns away early. Take the guns first, go through due process second." He even supported a red flag law in Virginia only to see it defeated in the state's Congress. Most recently he took a stance on suppressors stating, "I don't like them [suppressors] at all. Just a few days later during an interview with Piers Morgan Trump went on to say, " I'd like to think about it. I mean nobody's talking about silencers very much. I did talk about the bump stock and we had it banned and we're looking at that. I'm going to seriously look at it. I don't love the idea of it."

 

[Shad]

What are u talking about? And what does any of what you said have to do with the topic on hand? And what was I babbling about in regards to the constitution? I think you have me confused with someone else.

No you just used claimed "projection" without reading what I was posting.

In any case. Do you have any evidence Democrats in Congress or running for president who are calling to scrap the Second Amendment? Also the trump administration is strangely becoming anti-gun.

Gun control is made in small steps to the point the 2a will be gone due to regulations and laws not removal of the amendment itself. Look at Beto's views for example.

During the past 3 years of Trump's presidency he has not once acted to protect the Second Amendment. Instead he backdoored a ban on bumpstocks by signing a memorandum directing the attorney general to "dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.”

I never said Trump was pro-2a. Dems are just more obvious than the GOP as the GOP uses the 2a to get elected then does the opposite.

This led to the Department of Justice and ATF to issue a new federal gun regulation officially banning bump stocks.

That is an accessory not a gun.

Trump also supports red flag laws stating, "I like taking guns away early. Take the guns first, go through due process second." He even supported a red flag law in Virginia only to see it defeated in the state's Congress.

Trump isn't pro-2a.

Most recently he took a stance on suppressors stating, "I don't like them [suppressors] at all. Just a few days later during an interview with Piers Morgan Trump went on to say, " I'd like to think about it. I mean nobody's talking about silencers very much. I did talk about the bump stock and we had it banned and we're looking at that. I'm going to seriously look at it. I don't love the idea of it."

Standard babble from someone that has no idea what they are talking about. He thinks suppressors are silencers. He watched too many movies.

 

[Prometheus85]

No you just used claimed "projection" without reading what I was posting.



Gun control is made in small steps to the point the 2a will be gone due to regulations and laws not removal of the amendment itself. Look at Beto's views for example.



I never said Trump was pro-2a. Dems are just more obvious than the GOP as the GOP uses the 2a to get elected then does the opposite.



That is an accessory not a gun.



Trump isn't pro-2a.



Standard babble from someone that has no idea what they are talking about. He thinks suppressors are silencers. He watched too many movies.

So know no evidence the any democrat in congress or running for president wants to scrap the 2nd amendment? Just more assumptions go figure

at least you acknowledge that trump and some republicans are just using the second amendment for votes. Congratulations!

 

[Shad]

So know no evidence the any democrat in congress or running for president wants to scrap the 2nd amendment? Just more assumptions go figure

I never said they were going to scrap it. I said they were going to bury it.

at least you acknowledge that trump and some republicans are just using the second amendment for votes. Congratulations!

The GOP is part of the rot.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Nope. Seems like you need to look up the word "unconditional" and read the graph again.

You're making an assumption that I was directly referring to the graph, whereas my comment was more general. Also, it was bipartisan in nature. There are folks on both sides of politics worried about their 'team' over issues, and I find it odious.

It you disagree with that, have at it. If you don't, then I'm struggling to see what your point is.

 

[Shad]

You're making an assumption that I was directly referring to the graph, whereas my comment was more general. Also, it was bipartisan in nature. There are folks on both sides of politics worried about their 'team' over issues, and I find it odious.

Point taken. I did assume that.

 

[PruePhillip]

They used to refer to them in much worse terms than "black." Some still do, unfortunately.

What do you mean by "anti-racism is often pure racism??"

"Anti-racism" to me is when I hear activists chanting/screaming the word "racism"
and in the next predictable breath speak of "white supremacy", "white privilege"
"whites." In other words, racial hatred more open and pronounced that anything
a modern white person is liable to say.
I saw a lot of back racism in the West Coast USA.

It's not just political, it's psychological. "Feminism" is profoundly anti-feminine and
deeply male-envious. Hitler said "The Jews want war" and "the Jews are overrunning
Europe." Who was he speaking of? Same when Stalin claimed there was a plot to
kill him - who was the real plotter?

 

[PruePhillip]

Generally speaking, it is. For the most part, rapists are motivated by the rapist's feelings and needs to dominate and control those less powerful than themselves.

So why pick on a 18-24 year old woman who can fight back? Why not just
attack an 80 year old man or woman?
I suspect this power sentiment is just another example of one group accusing
other groups of what itself wants - in this case it's feminist power.

 

[Shad]

So why pick on a 18-24 year old woman who can fight back? Why not just
attack an 80 year old man or woman?

Attraction is still a factor thus youth. However there are rapist that go after the old. Happened a few months ago around Vancouver.

Woman in general have issues fighting against men back given averages. Toss in there are different target groups. Many woman that are already vulnerable such as drug addicts and prostitutes. Their physical condition is compromised in the case of the addict compared to an average non-addict women of the same age. This goes to fitness thus ability to fight back or flee. Other women are targets due to location like residence or workplace in a poor area. Simple economic stats place the large majority in such a class restriction. Even working at night carries a risk

Also consider that in general a lot of people in an older age range transition to a different economic class thus has more mobility. An age range of 18-24 has a lot of people in a lower income bracket. Students for example. Once you remove the loan and parent how many could claim to be middle-class? By 24 a lot people are just getting into the workforce or entry level positions thus are transitioning fro one economic class to another. So those 25-31 move out of the inner or core of a city to the suburbs which has lower rates of crime and protection along with an different type of community surround an individual.

I suspect this power sentiment is just another example of one group accusing
other groups of what itself wants - in this case it's feminist power.

No actually it isn't. Testimony from rapists themselves decades ago demonstrated this. However it is not the basis for every case of rape as there are different types of rape. Some rapist are predators while some are opportunists. The former is far more about power and control than the latter. Also consider that sex while under the influence has become issues of criminal rape as consent isn't so clean cut nor are such acts seen as acceptable by every individual.

 

[Augustus]

No, that's not a problem. The US wouldn't recognise 'radical' if it hit them between the eyes.

Gotta stop dem red menace commies. Some of them even want the super-evil commie ruse of universal healthcare, a policy that originated in leftist Europe with the notorious radical socialist *checks notes* Prince-Duke Otto von Bismarck...