Thread: Who here is willingly voting for Trump knowing hes a dictator?

Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 165
  1. #61  



    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    137
    Thanks given
    212
    Thanks received
    322
    Rep Power
    3238
    Quote Originally Posted by Hank View Post
    People say Trump is a racist so they're voting for Biden, but Biden is JUST as racist.


    Where Biden and Trump stand on issues is far more important to base your vote on than making assumptions on which one of them is going to be less shit or who is more likely to try and be a dictator or who is more likely to get another accusation under their belt or blah blah blah
    I guess irony posting does not work, so I'll give you a wall instead.

    Trump is absolutely more racist than Biden. I don't know how anyone could make a statement like that. Come on, Hank. I know you are more rational than that.

    Is Biden problematic in that regard? Yeah, for sure. Don't get me wrong, Biden is not the ideal candidate for almost any of these issues; Bernie was by far the best the either side has had, IMO. But just because they are both bad does not mean they are both equally bad. The whole "both sides" shit is such a joke that it hurts — Trump and Biden are in totally different leagues when it comes to things like racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, ableism, and transphobia.

    On the subject of transphobia:

    It's a topic that is super important to me personally considering that some of the people I care about the most in the world are trans, like my mom, for example. And this is one area where there is a clear absolute black and white, night and day difference between the two candidates.

    Like I mentioned before, Trump has consistently nominated conservative justices to the supreme court. For people like me, this is something super scary. A prime example are the rulings on [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. In these cases, we can already see the potential for damage that Trump has. Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump's appointments to the court, was one of the dissenters in both cases.

    These two rulings are super important to me. Finally, after almost 60 years after the civil rights act was introduced, they ruled that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected in the context of being wrongfully fired. Prior to this, there was no nationwide protections for people being fired simply for existing as a transgender or gay person.

    Again, we already had one of Trump's appointments vote against this inclusion. Now, with RBG being, like, you know, dead, it's even more worrying considering how split of a decision this already was. Unfortunately, there is still no federal-level, nationwide protections against being evicted for being transgender, which is another reason why the supreme court is so scary.

    Adding to that horrifying fact, as I mentioned earlier, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Can you imagine being evicted from your home, having nowhere else to turn, and then being rejected from a shelter as well? How absolutely genuinely fucking horrible is that? It's just so obviously, blatantly immoral.

    Topping that off, homelessness is super closely connected to things like your health. And, as I said earlier, adding insult to injury, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Again, can you imagine being evicted, going homeless, being rejected from a shelter, and then being unable to get proper care?

    As an added bonus example of Trump's constant attack against transgender rights, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Not that I particularly care for bootlickers in the first place, but hey.

    On racism and religious bigotry:

    An early incident was [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. And yes, that is what I am going to call it, considering it was a blanket ban on entry from many countries with seemingly no clear common traits other than being majority Muslim.

    As an example, Iran was one of the banned countries. At the time, Iran itself had very little domestic terrorism and very few have ever attempted anything in the US. Zero people from those seven nations listed had ever killed someone in a terrorist attack on US soil since 1975. How could we justify banning Yemeni nationals when only one Yemeni has ever been convicted of even attempting a terrorist attack in the US during that time period?

    Adding to that, it was just blatantly illegal initially as well, considering the fact that they attempted to turn around greencard holders from those countries at the airport.

    I don't really have the motivation to go through and list every damn issue he has had with regards to race, but you can get an idea from his "very fine people on both sides" meme from the Charlottesville white nationalist incident.
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Spoiler for aaaa:




    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. Thankful user:


  3. #62  
    SiteTrec Hosting

    Project's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,574
    Thanks given
    1,028
    Thanks received
    802
    Rep Power
    1258
    Everything you're (Andrew lol) imaging will happen will never happen. Put back on your tinfoil hat, take a step outside, turn off CNN. In order for all of this to happen it'd require all of the congress, the house, senators etc to fall in order under Trump, and then you'll have to get the military to happily fall in line as well. Our government is designed the way it is to prevent dictatorship. I can't stop myself from laughing at the time you've invested in camping this thread all day to defend your opinion that literally no one cares about. Go get a job at CNN you goof.

    for the record, anyone in government is corrupt, this includes Trump, Biden, Congress, EVERYONE. You're throwing pebbles at a stone wall here.
    DDOS PROTECTED WEB & VPS AT AN AFFORDABLE COST
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. Thankful user:


  5. #63  
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,937
    Thanks given
    1,004
    Thanks received
    665
    Rep Power
    793
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    I guess irony posting does not work, so I'll give you a wall instead.

    Trump is absolutely more racist than Biden. I don't know how anyone could make a statement like that. Come on, Hank. I know you are more rational than that.

    Is Biden problematic in that regard? Yeah, for sure. Don't get me wrong, Biden is not the ideal candidate for almost any of these issues; Bernie was by far the best the either side has had, IMO. But just because they are both bad does not mean they are both equally bad. The whole "both sides" shit is such a joke that it hurts — Trump and Biden are in totally different leagues when it comes to things like racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, ableism, and transphobia.

    On the subject of transphobia:

    It's a topic that is super important to me personally considering that some of the people I care about the most in the world are trans, like my mom, for example. And this is one area where there is a clear absolute black and white, night and day difference between the two candidates.

    Like I mentioned before, Trump has consistently nominated conservative justices to the supreme court. For people like me, this is something super scary. A prime example are the rulings on [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. In these cases, we can already see the potential for damage that Trump has. Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump's appointments to the court, was one of the dissenters in both cases.

    These two rulings are super important to me. Finally, after almost 60 years after the civil rights act was introduced, they ruled that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected in the context of being wrongfully fired. Prior to this, there was no nationwide protections for people being fired simply for existing as a transgender or gay person.

    Again, we already had one of Trump's appointments vote against this inclusion. Now, with RBG being, like, you know, dead, it's even more worrying considering how split of a decision this already was. Unfortunately, there is still no federal-level, nationwide protections against being evicted for being transgender, which is another reason why the supreme court is so scary.

    Adding to that horrifying fact, as I mentioned earlier, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Can you imagine being evicted from your home, having nowhere else to turn, and then being rejected from a shelter as well? How absolutely genuinely fucking horrible is that? It's just so obviously, blatantly immoral.

    Topping that off, homelessness is super closely connected to things like your health. And, as I said earlier, adding insult to injury, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Again, can you imagine being evicted, going homeless, being rejected from a shelter, and then being unable to get proper care?

    As an added bonus example of Trump's constant attack against transgender rights, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Not that I particularly care for bootlickers in the first place, but hey.

    On racism and religious bigotry:

    An early incident was [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. And yes, that is what I am going to call it, considering it was a blanket ban on entry from many countries with seemingly no clear common traits other than being majority Muslim.

    As an example, Iran was one of the banned countries. At the time, Iran itself had very little domestic terrorism and very few have ever attempted anything in the US. Zero people from those seven nations listed had ever killed someone in a terrorist attack on US soil since 1975. How could we justify banning Yemeni nationals when only one Yemeni has ever been convicted of even attempting a terrorist attack in the US during that time period?

    Adding to that, it was just blatantly illegal initially as well, considering the fact that they attempted to turn around greencard holders from those countries at the airport.

    I don't really have the motivation to go through and list every damn issue he has had with regards to race, but you can get an idea from his "very fine people on both sides" meme from the Charlottesville white nationalist incident.
    If it were a 'Muslim ban' it would have included Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Pakistan at the very least, and possibly extended to parts of Russia. The ban was completely illogical and racially motivated, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a ban on Muslims. More a ban on Muslim countries that the US has poor relations with, since Pakistan and Saudi are exempt and are considered key US allies. Somewhat ironically when considering the composition of terror cells is often Saudi and Pakistani nationals but I guess the US considers that these countries working with them to stop terrorists in those countries has had more value than having poor relations with them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. Thankful users:


  7. #64  



    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    137
    Thanks given
    212
    Thanks received
    322
    Rep Power
    3238
    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Cape View Post
    If it were a 'Muslim ban' it would have included Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Pakistan at the very least, and possibly extended to parts of Russia. The ban was completely illogical and racially motivated, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a ban on Muslims. More a ban on Muslim countries that the US has poor relations with, since Pakistan and Saudi are exempt and are considered key US allies. Somewhat ironically when considering the composition of terror cells is often Saudi and Pakistani nationals but I guess the US considers that these countries working with them to stop terrorists in those countries has had more value than having poor relations with them.
    No, it wouldn't have included them. You're not informed on this issue, probably. The reason why it could only be those seven countries is because it was based on a prior sort of "maybe keep an eye on these countries" list from the previous administration. Those seven were chosen because there was already a very, very mild and weird precedent that he could use.

    Again, though, like I said, there is no real connection between those seven other than religion. As I mentioned, multiple of those countries had little-to-no domestic terrorism back home and ALL of those countries have basically no history of terrorism in the United States. There was no actual logical reason for it.
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Spoiler for aaaa:




    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #65  
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,937
    Thanks given
    1,004
    Thanks received
    665
    Rep Power
    793
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    No, it wouldn't have included them. You're not informed on this issue, probably. The reason why it could only be those seven countries is because it was based on a prior sort of "maybe keep an eye on these countries" list from the previous administration. Those seven were chosen because there was already a very, very mild and weird precedent that he could use.

    Again, though, like I said, there is no real connection between those seven other than religion. As I mentioned, multiple of those countries had little-to-no domestic terrorism back home and ALL of those countries have basically no history of terrorism in the United States. There was no actual logical reason for it.
    Firstly my degree is actually in law not software engineering so I consider myself quite informed, at least to the point that I know that most of those countries (excluding Iran) have a small number of Muslims comparatively to India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of others.

    Secondly you will probably find most of those countries are in the list because they have been involved in recent civil conflict. For example the Yemen and Syrian civil wars are still very active...

    Not defending Trump here. He is an idiot and this ban was stupid. But to call it a Muslim ban when it includes only a small number of the worlds Muslims isn't good faith.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #66  
    Server Reviewer


    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    99
    Thanks given
    57
    Thanks received
    69
    Rep Power
    135
    Best option was Bernie, but I'm siding with trump.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #67  
    flying at tree level

    Women's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,727
    Thanks given
    523
    Thanks received
    786
    Rep Power
    1324
    Quote Originally Posted by Kraken View Post
    Best option was Bernie, but I'm siding with trump.
    bruh wtf this is the worst plot twist ever

    welcome to the list
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. Thankful user:


  12. #68  
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,937
    Thanks given
    1,004
    Thanks received
    665
    Rep Power
    793
    Quote Originally Posted by Women View Post
    bruh wtf this is the worst plot twist ever

    welcome to the list
    Idk what 4d chess logic is going on in that man's head but how you can swing from Bernie to Trump is impressive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. Thankful users:


  14. #69  



    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    137
    Thanks given
    212
    Thanks received
    322
    Rep Power
    3238
    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Cape View Post
    Firstly my degree is actually in law not software engineering so I consider myself quite informed, at least to the point that I know that most of those countries (excluding Iran) have a small number of Muslims comparatively to India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of others.

    Secondly you will probably find most of those countries are in the list because they have been involved in recent civil conflict. For example the Yemen and Syrian civil wars are still very active...

    Not defending Trump here. He is an idiot and this ban was stupid. But to call it a Muslim ban when it includes only a small number of the worlds Muslims isn't good faith.
    Having a law degree does not necessarily mean you are aware of every little issue in a country you don't live in. Like I said, the list was chosen because of prior legal precedent. It would've been very difficult legally in the United States to impose such harsh restrictions without some sort of precedent. There was no easy way to add a country like Indonesia to the list.

    And, no, to quote Mike Pence: "I am very supportive of Donald Trump's call to temporarily suspend immigration from countries where terrorist influence and impact represents a threat to the United States".

    Again, key point: terrorist influence and impact, not "civil conflict". Iran, though, at the time, like I said earlier, had virtually no domestic terrorism, so it wasn't like there was a good case to be made for non-existent Iranian terrorists hopping on a plane and going to the United States. And as I had said before, there's not really a case to be made for banning them based on prior incidents within the United States considering <20 people from all seven of those countries combined have ever even been convicted of an attempt to commit terrorism in the United States since 1975 and 0 people have ever actually died at the hands of nationals from those countries in terrorist attacks within the United States.

    The reason why people refer to it as a Muslim ban is because the official reasoning is so obviously a meme and because there is very little other common traits between the countries. Some are at war, some are not. Some are very developed, some are not. So on and so on. The main thing that links all of those countries together is, as it has been said, religion.
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Spoiler for aaaa:




    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #70  
    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,937
    Thanks given
    1,004
    Thanks received
    665
    Rep Power
    793
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    Having a law degree does not necessarily mean you are aware of every little issue in a country you don't live in. Like I said, the list was chosen because of prior legal precedent. It would've been very difficult legally in the United States to impose such harsh restrictions without some sort of precedent.

    And, no, to quote Mike Pence: "I am very supportive of Donald Trump's call to temporarily suspend immigration from countries where terrorist influence and impact represents a threat to the United States".

    Again, key point: terrorist influence and impact, not "civil conflict". Iran, though, at the time, like I said earlier, had virtually no domestic terrorism, so it wasn't like there was a good case to be made for non-existent Iranian terrorists hopping on a plane and going to the United States. And as I had said before, there's not really a case to be made for banning them based on prior incidents within the United States considering <20 people from all seven of those countries combined have ever even been convicted of an attempt to commit terrorism in the United States since 1975 and 0 people have ever actually died at the hands of nationals from those countries in terrorist attacks within the United States.

    The reason why people refer to it as a Muslim ban is because the official reasoning is so obviously a meme and because there is very little other common traits between the countries. Some are at war, some are not. Some are very developed, some are not. So on and so on. The main thing that links all of those countries together is, as it has been said, religion.
    What legal precedent?

    You have already said it was illegal so I have no idea why the legality of the public policy is even up for discussion. There is no reason that Trump had to choose this particular listing of countries. You are confusing prior legal precedent with prior administrative policy. I mentioned my degree because you said I was 'probably uninformed'. This is not true and I am informed enough to know that the majority of the worlds Muslims are not included in the ban.

    There were seven countries listed and the only one that can be described as 'developed' is Iran. Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq and Syria are universally recognised as failed states. Libya even had an active slave market a few years ago because of the civil war.

    The reason for the ban has nothing to do with religion or terrorism. These countries were chosen to be watched by the Obama administration because they are failed states. Trump used them in his list because he is an idiot. I doubt he even knows where they are.

    But to say that it is a ban on Muslims when the largest Muslim countries are not even included is absurd.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)


User Tag List

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-10-2016, 06:44 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-12-2010, 12:11 AM
  3. Who would you vote for?
    By kilermage in forum Voting
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-03-2008, 10:23 PM
  4. looted---here is a sgi for u
    By .Zach in forum Showcase
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-14-2007, 10:08 PM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 01:09 AM
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •