Donald Trump for President Thread

[MartyMcFly]

Libertarians are socially liberal...you do not appear to be socially liberal at all.

There's a difference between progressive and liberal.

Liberals used to base their views on the enlightenment. Progressives aren't classical liberals but rather social Marxists. They just stole the name.

 

[Ruairi77]

Being a libertarian I think the market would provide alternatives and it's probably best not to try and rub the noses of people who disagree with you since that doesn't exactly lead to a tolerant society.

yea but in order for libertarianism to work you'd need a society where everyone is tolerant. Society would fall apart when everyone starts doing what ever they want in the name of their religion.
Either way, how can you, as a libertarian, defend Trump? What about Johnson. Bill Well is a respectable enough fella.

 

[dandydan]

Absolute madman lol

 

[Hellerad]

Political arguments on public forums have to be one of the circles of hell.

 

[joey_macmo]

It's got nothing to do with feeling safe. They want segregated areas because black militants which is what they are want segregation.

They believe in the policies of the Black Panthers who wanted the same not Martin Luther King who wanted everyone to be viewed as equal and the same.

Any evidence to back your claims?

You're talking in absolutes again @Adversus/@Cypher

 

[MartyMcFly]

yea but in order for libertarianism to work you'd need a society where everyone is tolerant. Society would fall apart when everyone starts doing what ever they want in the name of their religion.
Either way, how can you, as a libertarian, defend Trump? What about Johnson. Bill Well is a respectable enough fella.

Trump is the only one who has a chance of beating Hillary. Elections aren't about who you like but who you hate most which is why the campaigns are always so negative and the ones who don't run negative campaigns lose.

As for you think being a libertarian means being able to do what you want. Only up to the point where it doesn't directly effect anyone else.

"You can can swing your fist but only up to the point of my nose."

 

[ilikecheese]

It's got nothing to do with feeling safe. They want segregated areas because black militants which is what they are want segregation.

They believe in the policies of the Black Panthers who wanted the same not Martin Luther King who wanted everyone to be viewed as equal and the same.

Wanting a safe space for non whites is pretty much discrimination which ever way you word it.

Why do the both of you automatically jump to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong on that campus?

 

[MartyMcFly]

Why do the both of you automatically jump to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong on that campus?

I haven't. I know what's going wrong on these campuses and have told you what the problem is.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Yeah...I definitely think religion is both messy and very nonsensical. Clearly there are folks that are passionate about it...people have been killing in the name of their God for thousands of years. I simply don't get it, and I doubt that I ever will.

For me race is a non negotiable. People are born into whatever race they are. I think it's dangerous to limit any one of any race on where they can and can't go, and should be against the law in this country. The Civil Rights Movement fought tooth and nail to make the progress it has, and the work still isn't done.

I think most would also say that sexuality isn't a choice these days, which has been a radical change in my lifetime. A radically good change. There was a time in my life where purely out of ignorance I wasn't comfortable with gay people. Thankfully I've lived and learned, and now just accept people as they are.

Religion is different I guess. It is a choice, but one of this country's founding principles is freedom of religion. I would hope that religions could (and frankly have) moved with the times. Yeah, they tend to be a bit slower to accept progress and change, but to remain relevant, views evolve.

There are blurred lines. I don't think it shows hypocrisy of liberals though that not everything is black and white. I'm not sure why @dandydan feels liberals are hypocrites. I think most liberals are fighting the fight for good and progress. We look to the future with an eye on making positive changes. For me conservatives look longingly to the past and fear a future that is different than today because for some reason they don't get why progress is good.

I hope I never understand that way of thinking.

I solved it. I am no longer conflicted and entirely on your side. An explanation.

Discrimination based on religious preferences may be prohibited in the Constitution, but the Constitution applies to the State, not the individual - the State cannot discriminate based on Religious Preference legally - but I'm not a strict Constitutionalist anyway, so that's all moot. But this is preamble.

Race, Sexual Orientation, Sex, Gender, and any number of other things are physical and biological attributes. They are genetics. Religion, even the most ardent of the faithful would have to admit, must be a choice. If it weren't a choice then it wouldn't be faith, would it? Even if it's indoctrinated in it is still a memetic. Genetics cannot be discriminated against. There is nothing that can done about genetics, and even if there were, why? It's wholly illogical to discriminate based on genetics. Whereas memetics? Different. We should be allowed to choose to do business with someone with a completely different value set or not. I don't have an issue with someone saying 'no liberals' in their bar.

This becomes interesting when you continue to follow the threads into why various groups believe whether Religion should be held to the same standard as race or orientation. Because we can agree that those groups tend to be conservative, yes?

All of the above begins with a simple premise - the individual has greater value than a tribe. Every individual matters. The social conservative movement, while worshiping the great Industrial Individualists, shows it's true colors in that it expects the individual to conform to the tribe. This is the breakdown where compromise must occur - the seesaw balance between group identity and individual identity. I identify as <insert name here>. I do not identify, unless prompted, as American, liberal, white, straight, or any other group. I wonder if that is also true, in general, for the people that believe religious beliefs should be allowed to discriminate based on genetics.

 

[ilikecheese]

Trump is the only one who has a chance of beating Hillary. Elections aren't about who you like but who you hate most which is why the campaigns are always so negative and the ones who don't run negative campaigns lose.

As for you think being a libertarian means being able to do what you want. Only up to the point where it doesn't directly effect anyone else.

"You can can swing your fist but only up to the point of my nose."

You clearly are alt right and not Libertarian if you want Trump appointing the next Justices.

I think you are having an identity crisis.

 

[TheFinnFan]

Trump made few crackers at the roast. Very entertaining. Both candidates had pretty awkward moments innit too tbf.

 

[dandydan]

Why do the both of you automatically jump to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong on that campus?

Because there isn't.

 

[LinekersLegs]

i'm with Trump here, Clinton wins its rigged

Simple as that.

A vast conspiracy theory covering many states and people (including lots of Republicans) is simple?

Perhaps it is just simply that a lot more people dislike Teump than dislike Clinton?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html
Current fav +35 unfav -61 net -26
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html
Current fav +43 unfav -53 net -10

 

[MartyMcFly]

You clearly are alt right and not Libertarian if you want Trump appointing the next Justices.

I think you are having an identity crisis.

I think it's just a sign none of us fit neatly in to labels and we shouldn't.

It's amazing that two completely different issues often find overlap between the people who believe in them.

Your views on abortion should not be an indicator on your views on the economy but they often are.

All that shows is that people place themselves into tribes and frankly I think that's the problem.

 

[SerenityNigh]

I solved it. I am no longer conflicted and entirely on your side. An explanation.

Discrimination based on religious preferences may be prohibited in the Constitution, but the Constitution applies to the State, not the individual - the State cannot discriminate based on Religious Preference legally - but I'm not a strict Constitutionalist anyway, so that's all moot. But this is preamble.

Race, Sexual Orientation, Sex, Gender, and any number of other things are physical and biological attributes. They are genetics. Religion, even the most ardent of the faithful would have to admit, must be a choice. If it weren't a choice then it wouldn't be faith, would it? Even if it's indoctrinated in it is still a memetic. Genetics cannot be discriminated against. There is nothing that can done about genetics, and even if there were, why? It's wholly illogical to discriminate based on genetics. Whereas memetics? Different. We should be allowed to choose to do business with someone with a completely different value set or not. I don't have an issue with someone saying 'no liberals' in their bar.

This becomes interesting when you continue to follow the threads into why various groups believe whether Religion should be held to the same standard as race or orientation. Because we can agree that those groups tend to be conservative, yes?

All of the above begins with a simple premise - the individual has greater value than a tribe. Every individual matters. The social conservative movement, while worshiping the great Industrial Individualists, shows it's true colors in that it expects the individual to conform to the tribe. This is the breakdown where compromise must occur - the seesaw balance between group identity and individual identity. I identify as <insert name here>. I do not identify, unless prompted, as American, liberal, white, straight, or any other group. I wonder if that is also true, in general, for the people that believe religious beliefs should be allowed to discriminate based on genetics.

Stating the obvious, but this is the single doctrine upon which the American identity and American politics are based. That's why the pro-choice and gun-control lobby protect their interests so vehemently (often opposed, and unable to see the perspective of the other side, which often is remarkably similar to their own). But doctrine is also a cultural good, and not accepted by all cultures, much less all Western cultures. To say that many Eastern cultures reject the idea of individual identity/protection is a false premise; many simply cannot begin from a cultural starting place to reach that statement.

So while I agree with you regarding American culture/politics, it is a cultural construct and probably not a rule, as you seem to be applying it here.