• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Have even just one Pro-Trump Friend? (1 Viewer)

No You Have even just one Pro-Trump Friend?

  • Yes

    Votes: 109 85.2%

  • No

    Votes: 19 14.8%
  • Total voters
    128
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moderate Right said:
My point is anyone can cherry pick stuff and have it criticized by the other side. But, the arrogant don't believe that. You guys are the ones who claimed these five cities to be liberal Utopias that people want to live in. I proved you wrong. I'm not going to pick five cities because you will prove me wrong too. That's the point. Care to admit that your five cities aren't so great after all? Or, does the arrogance continue?
Click to expand...

ohfercryingoutloud.
Aren't so great after all? Is falling short of Utopia enough to tell you those cities aren't any better than any others? That list was compiled by USA Today, not a terribly leftist publication, and the list of countries was compiled by Business Insider.
The best paces in the world to live are in liberal-dominated areas. That's according to every source. And you want to say that they're not good because they're not perfect.
Okay. I'm done. Have the last word and make it good.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Interesting about Devos. She came onto the scene in the midst of a broken educational system that's progressively graduating more virtually illiterate students than ever before. Can she turn it around? Who knows, but she was highly successful in her Charter School initiative in Illinois. Yes, it is kind of odd that your friend, being a teacher, isn't attacking Devos. Perhaps your friend is smarter than the average teacher and realized that the teacher's union has undermined our education system for years? I don't know, of course, since I don't know your friend, but, from the little you've said, she sounds like a teacher who has more integrity than some we see today.


Hang on to that one as a friend.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any credible information that Devos's charter school initiative in Illinois was in any way successful. Her endeavors throughout the midwest were not notable. Perhaps you have different info?
 
Moderate Right said:
I'm assuming you are talking about murder. And yes, women shouldn't be allowed to murder anyone just solely because they are women. Murder should be illegal for both sexes, not just one. Men should not and do not tell women what to do with their bodies but, as I said, women should be told that murder is illegal. Women should not have more rights than men do. If men can't commit murder then women should not be allowed to commit murder either.
Click to expand...

You need to look up the definition of murder. You make yourself look very foolish with your continued mistaken use of the term. Scoring points with the home team?
 
JMR said:
I haven't seen any credible information that Devos's charter school initiative in Illinois was in any way successful.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it depends on what you measure against. If you measure student performance against State averages, then they don't look incredibly successful. If you measure student performance against the schools those students would otherwise have attended, however, then they start to look pretty good.
 
post said:
By all means, edit your facts into this grossly misleading Wikipedia article so as to set us all straight on the real story of the awful, awful, awful, CCC!
It is not my intent to single you out, but I have had it up to here with the linkless and otherwise unsupported effing BS flooding posts I read on this forum.

Please educate us as to the efforts undertaken by POTUS Hoover and Secretary (liquidate everything) Mellen during the 20 months between October, 1929
and this.: THE DJIA peaked @ 391 points in late September, 1929....I'll let you verify that fact.
Click to expand...

Sorry if the people who actually lived in those times that I talked to don't agree with the lovely story you presented. The fact that a lot of the work done benefitted the rich and powerful who distributed the funds in comparison to helping improve the infrastructure was what I was told by the people of that era. While you believe there was no corruption in our government or those programs and the use of those funds everyone I talked to said there was. These were people that had no reason to lie to a young school kid who first learned about and was curious about the many programs of the time. All agree it was the war that brought the end of to the depression not the new deal. Even history is being rewritten today to reflect the facts not the pretty story.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Soooo...when has anyone ever won a trade war - "winning" being defined as making more profit than was lost during the trade war?
Click to expand...
We are not quite yet into a trade war and I doubt we will get there. It's in the sabre rattling phase. However my point which you chose not to directly respond to is valid. America has taken it up the backside in regards to trade for far too long just for the sake of sticking trade deals in front of the TV cameras for political gain.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
post said:
By, your own logic, the voters of Massachusetts are not only the best educated in the U.S., but also most discerning in avoiding a state majority vote
for the soon to be exposed Nixon in Nov, 1972.

Trump connected with the least educated (least informed?) voters in the country, mocking them with his, "I could shoot someone on Fifth Ave.," and "I love the poorly
educated," or similar wording.

Hillary Clinton was the most qualified and investigated candidate ever to win a major political party POTUS nomination.

Any female voter who voted against her will likely go to their grave experiencing one black male and a succession of white male POTUSes.
IOW, it was obvious to any seven year old that this was the best and likely the only opportunity for any voter to see a (extremely qualified) woman sworn in as
POTUS.

What evidence supported grievances of substance do you actually have to present against her, against her suitability or wholesomeness or whatever criteria you can present that is not baseless, hyper-partisan, or sexist nonsense. You are so accustomed to smelling your own breath, so to speak, you do
not grasp that what you believe are your conclusions about Hillary Clinton are driven by the best BS a handful of the wealthiest conservative, white male oligarchs'
money could buy, invested in that propaganda campaign purposed to degrade and diminish opinion of her for 24 years.

She weathered the challenge (abuse) of not only "new reich" candidate Trump, after he degraded and dismantled 14 republicans, but also the candidacy
of "independent," Bernie Sanders, running on a free college tuition plank and other impossible but attractive proposals and propositions polling well
to young, progressive encounter groups.

VOTERS WERE FOOLED INTO STAYING HOME OR VOTING FOR TRUMP, FOOLED OUT OF VOTING FOR THE ONLY QUALIIFIED CANDIDATE IN THE RACE.
Any precocious seven year old could discern that voting for Trump was a fool's errand.

Hillary did not EFF the four women Trump presented as debate props.

This was Hillary Clinton before the real extreme right money was invested in the task of persuading more reasonable people than you that she was "bad"
enough to leave the U.S. electorate with no other choice than to vote for a white male fool who was videotaped bragging, "when you are a star, they'll let
you do anything," and "you have to punish the women," and "why have nuclear weapons if you are not going to use them?"
Click to expand...
That post is more rant then argument. It would take me three pages to respond to all of it. Instead, I will only point out that you are a prime example of not only why Hillary lost, but why the democrats lost in 2010 and 2014. Your party has become shamefully elitist and has completely lost touch with working class Americans. And many of those so called less educated Americans likely have a higher income the you do. Looking ahead to 2018 and 2020, as even some in your own party are starting to warn, Trump hating is not going to win elections for you. It wil only excite the slobbering extreme left to spittle on their shoes. Have a nice day.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
ObamacareFail said:
We are not quite yet into a trade war and I doubt we will get there. It's in the sabre rattling phase. However my point which you chose not to directly respond to is valid. America has taken it up the backside in regards to trade for far too long just for the sake of sticking trade deals in front of the TV cameras for political gain.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

AGAIN - when has anyone ever won a trade war - "winning" being defined as making more profit than was lost during the trade war?

Just answer the question.
 
Cardinal said:
My experience leads me to disagree.
Click to expand...

What is the general tendency of mankind when they set themselves up to look down on and otherize other demographics? Does it make their analysis better? or worse?
 
Grand Mal said:
ohfercryingoutloud.
Aren't so great after all? Is falling short of Utopia enough to tell you those cities aren't any better than any others? That list was compiled by USA Today, not a terribly leftist publication, and the list of countries was compiled by Business Insider.
The best paces in the world to live are in liberal-dominated areas. That's according to every source. And you want to say that they're not good because they're not perfect.
Okay. I'm done. Have the last word and make it good.
Click to expand...

Most large cities are liberal and most large cities are rat holes. So, a list of large cities people would supposedly want to live in can only include liberal cities. Doesn't change the fact that all large cities are rat holes infested with unemployment, poverty, and homelessness.
 
JMR said:
You need to look up the definition of murder. You make yourself look very foolish with your continued mistaken use of the term. Scoring points with the home team?
Click to expand...

Murder is when you purposely take the life of something living.
 
JMR said:
Murder is the unlawful killing of a living human being. It's a powerful word, but does have a specific meaning, and you use it incorrectly.
Click to expand...

No I don't. Murder is killing a human being. A fetus is a living human being. Just because it has not been born yet does not mean it is not a living human being. You can murder it and be charged with murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
 
Glen Contrarian said:
AGAIN - when has anyone ever won a trade war - "winning" being defined as making more profit than was lost during the trade war?

Just answer the question.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant question as there has only been one that i am aware of that was initiated by the US and that was during the Smoot Hawley Era. And it was a case of steep tariffs for the sake of protectionism, not an attempt to equalize the playing field. Trump has not enacted increased tariffs yet, he is bargaining. We'll see how it turns out.
 
cpwill said:
My understanding is that it depends on what you measure against. If you measure student performance against State averages, then they don't look incredibly successful. If you measure student performance against the schools those students would otherwise have attended, however, then they start to look pretty good.
Click to expand...

I am aware of a few issues that impact the so called success of charter schools.

#1 It takes some doing to get into one. Parents have to be motivated to fill out applications, also be able to understand and follow the process. This tends to skew the admitted students toward the top of the pool.

#2 Charter schools often refuse children with special needs, claiming they are not equipped to handle those needs, and also are free to dismiss any behavior problems or other inconvenient students. These more difficult students are left in the pool of the public schools.

#3 Charter schools are for profit. Their success relies on their test scores. It has been reported in more than one case that inordinate amount of class time is dedicated to test taking so that the profit taking can continue.

So, imo, comparing charter school results to the results of schools the students would have otherwise attended is not a valid indicator of any success.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Irrelevant question as there has only been one that i am aware of that was initiated by the US and that was during the Smoot Hawley Era. And it was a case of steep tariffs for the sake of protectionism, not an attempt to equalize the playing field. Trump has not enacted increased tariffs yet, he is bargaining. We'll see how it turns out.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Reuters because their current article describes enacted steel and aluminum tariffs boosting prices on
raw materials. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...daches-for-sp-500-manufacturers-idUSKBN1HX3EB
 
ObamacareFail said:
Irrelevant question as there has only been one that i am aware of that was initiated by the US and that was during the Smoot Hawley Era. And it was a case of steep tariffs for the sake of protectionism, not an attempt to equalize the playing field. Trump has not enacted increased tariffs yet, he is bargaining. We'll see how it turns out.
Click to expand...

"Trade wars are easy to win." All I want from you is some kind of proof that that's happened before. You're SO sure Trump's right, so there oughta be some kind of proof, right? Right. So where's the proof?

And btw, concerning the quote you're using from Churchill, he was referring to the kind of socialism that was found in the USSR, and NOT the kind of socialism that he was living under at the time in England...for even then, England was in some ways even more socialist - as in democratic socialism (which is MUCH different from what the Soviets claimed was socialism) - than America is today...and America is - like all other first-world democracies - already socialized to a significant degree.
 
post said:
Tell that to Reuters because their current article describes enacted steel and aluminum tariffs boosting prices on
raw materials. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...daches-for-sp-500-manufacturers-idUSKBN1HX3EB
Click to expand...

Your article gives very little real information. I googled and found the following:

"Those metals tariffs went into effect on March 23 although Trump gave several countries — including Australia, Canada, Mexico and the 28 nations in the European Union — temporary waivers."

White House says tariffs will go into effect without trade policy changes by China | TheHill

It looks like the only nation as of yet facing enacted tariffs is China. That's hardly an international trade war.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
"Trade wars are easy to win." All I want from you is some kind of proof that that's happened before. You're SO sure Trump's right, so there oughta be some kind of proof, right? Right. So where's the proof?
Click to expand...

I am not concerned with what you want in the way of proof. My point does not depend on what occurred in the Smoot Hawley era which was the only real trade war that the US was involved in that was initiated by the US. And it was based on greed and protectionism. Trump is only pushing to even the playing field in regards to trade. America should not be required to take it up the butt just for the sake of going along to get along. If some nation imposes tariffs on us that are considerably higher then what we impose on them, that should be addressed. I suspect that China and for that matter, Europe will get the message that "getting over on the US" is no longer a sure thing.

And btw, concerning the quote you're using from Churchill, he was referring to the kind of socialism that was found in the USSR, and NOT the kind of socialism that he was living under at the time in England...for even then, England was in some ways even more socialist - as in democratic socialism (which is MUCH different from what the Soviets claimed was socialism) - than America is today...and America is - like all other first-world democracies - already socialized to a significant degree.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I do not accept that you speak for Winston Churchill. Unless you can find credible evidence otherwise, I'll assume that Chuchill was talking about socialism in general.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I am not concerned with what you want in the way of proof. My point does not depend on what occurred in the Smoot Hawley era which was the only real trade war that the US was involved in that was initiated by the US. And it was based on greed and protectionism. Trump is only pushing to even the playing field in regards to trade. America should not be required to take it up the butt just for the sake of going along to get along. If some nation imposes tariffs on us that are considerably higher then what we impose on them, that should be addressed. I suspect that China and for that matter, Europe will get the message that "getting over on the US" is no longer a sure thing.



With all due respect, I do not accept that you speak for Winston Churchill. Unless you can find credible evidence otherwise, I'll assume that Chuchill was talking about socialism in general.
Click to expand...

You're not "concerned" with proof because you know there is none. You can't find any...and that's why you're dodging the question. Nothing new.

And concerning Churchill:

Not Aneurin Bevan, who was Winston Churchill's "one man opposition"
during the wartime government.

In 1943, on March 21st Winston Churchill broadcast his Plan for Post-
war Britain,"echoing his own previous goals of 1908 and 1924, and drawing,
as he had done in 1908, on the ideas of William Beveridge: it was a report
by Beveridge that now served as a blueprint for the new scheme."

"In his broadcast Churchill spoke of the need to establish a National
Health Service on 'broad and solid foundations', to provide national
compulsory insurance 'from cradle to grave', and to ensure far wider
educational opportunities and 'fair competition' so extended that Britain
would draw its leaders from every type of school and wearing every kind of
tie'. Quoted from Martin Gilbert's "Churchill: A Life". Page 742.

In a subsequent broadcast on June 13th, 1945, Churchill stressed the
constructive aspects and aims of Conservatism, and elaborated on the
Coalition Government's Four-Year Plan prepared by Beveridge and made
public two years earlier, for social insurance, industrial injuries
insurance, and a National Health Service 'to be shaped by Parliament and
made to play a dynamic part in the life and security of every family and
home'. Martin Gilbert, "Churchill: A Life." page 847

National health service - check!
Four-Year Plan - check!
The Plan included Social Insurance - check!
The Plan included Industrial Injuries Insurance - check!
And the NHS insurance would be from "cradle to grave" - check!

Last I recall, among American conservatives (as they define "conservatism"), all those are hallmarks of - gasp! - SOCIALISM!!!! That's what y'all called Obamacare...never mind that Obamacare was nowhere near as "socialist" as the National Health Service that Churchill proposed!

So either Churchill was a liar of Trumpian proportions...OR his definition of "socialism" is wildly different from your own. Hint: it's the latter. It would be good if you did yourself a favor and learned that democratic socialism is just as different from Soviet-style "socialism" as small-d democracy and small-r republicanism are from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
 
cpwill said:
What is the general tendency of mankind when they set themselves up to look down on and otherize other demographics? Does it make their analysis better? or worse?
Click to expand...

Have you been listening to any of the trump supporters on this board?
 
At the present count in this poll, there are 15 people without a pro-Trump friend.

I'm sorta jealous of them.
 
Amelia said:
At the present count in this poll, there are 15 people without a pro-Trump friend.

I'm sorta jealous of them.
Click to expand...

The other day I said "never support a Democrat" (as in, politician) they came out of the woodwork calling me a "partisan hack". How many of those 15 do you think called me that? lol
Roughly 20% of my friends are liberal.

Sounds like you agree with picking friends based purely on political afilliation, too.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
The other day I said "never support a Democrat" (as in, politician) they came out of the woodwork calling me a "partisan hack". How many of those 15 do you think called me that? lol
Roughly 20% of my friends are liberal.

Sounds like you agree with picking friends based purely on political afilliation, too.
Click to expand...

That's what it sounds like?

If that's what I agree with, then how did I end up so many Trump supporters for friends?

I'm not dropping my friends just because they have bad judgement.


I'm just a little jealous of people who don't have that to put up with the nonsense I hear from those particular friends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom