Author Topic: Trump Voters.... why?  (Read 297963 times)

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7352
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #500 on: September 15, 2016, 12:40:22 PM »
ETA: In support of my point that Trump is hardly doing "outreach" toward the black population, but rather just expecting people to kiss his butt...

You said he has been to more than one black church. You are correct, it looks as though he has been to exactly TWO. The first one was on September 3.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-detroit-african-american-church-227712

Yep, he hasn't done a whole lot when it comes to directly talking to the black community. In his speeches, though, he's touched upon the economic and violence issues that many black communities face. This is a big step in the right direction, and I don't see it as 'expecting people to kiss his butt'. I doubt undecided voters share your opinion.

And here is him mocking and putting down ("talking down to", in your words) the black pastor for daring to ask him to stay on task.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-goes-after-flint-pastor-who-shut-him-down_us_57da94b7e4b0071a6e0574a4?section=politics

Agreed, I think I've said that 3 times today?

Re the governor of Louisiana saying that he was glad Trump came to Louisiana, and calling out Obama and Clinton for not showing up in the first week, I will wait for the sources you said you'd find, because I do not remember reading about any of those things. Though it is possible that after the fact the governor said Trump's visit brought visibility, it is also true that at the time he asked him not to come. Are you actually arguing that it was a good thing Trump ignored that?

Yes, I argue that Trump visiting without telling the Governor was an overall good thing. That being said, I disagree with his campaign in not communicating with the state. Here's the quote from the Governor's department:

Quote
Donald Trump hasn’t called the governor to inform him of his visit. We welcome him to LA but not for a photo-op. Instead we hope he’ll consider volunteering or making a sizable donation to the LA Flood Relief Fund to help the victims of the storm.

Well, Trump donated at least $100,000 + supplies to the community, volunteered some of his time, and toured the area giving speeches. Most of this was no-press or 'photo-op'.

I never claimed that Governor Edwards called Obama out for not visiting soon enough. I think that's irrelevant even if it is true. You won't hear me hate on President Obama for not coming right away. I'm mainly amazed that people are hating Trump so much for this. Again, is the main criticism that having such a high profile politician disrupt rescue by diverting resources? Sure, it's a very logical argument, but is there any proof that is what happened?

Well, three things:

The "kissing his butt" comment is in reference to the fact that he felt the need to publicly belittle the pastor yesterday for asking him to stick on topic. He's not really "reaching out" much if he has such a hard time not insulting the people he's trying to reach out to.

I believe that there has not been any evidence yet that Trump has donated the $100,000 he promised to flood relief. His campaign claimed he would, but there is no evidence of it. Note that the governor suggested that he donate to the LA Flood Relief Fund, but he has not done that. Apparently, instead, the pastor of Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, which is a local anti-LGBT group, has said he gave it to them. At the very least, if indeed he did give the money to them,  it's worth wondering whether this was a politically motivated act that he did not give it to the local relief fund, but instead a right-wing conservative church... eh?

Finally, if "most of this was no-press or 'photo-op'", as you say, can you provide the source that tells you exactly how much time he devoted to this? And if there was no photo-op, note that there are still photos. As well as video of him helping. For exactly 49 seconds. Just long enough for some people to get pictures of him doing it.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 12:56:27 PM by Kris »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4931
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #501 on: September 15, 2016, 12:54:23 PM »
ETA: In support of my point that Trump is hardly doing "outreach" toward the black population, but rather just expecting people to kiss his butt...

You said he has been to more than one black church. You are correct, it looks as though he has been to exactly TWO. The first one was on September 3.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-detroit-african-american-church-227712

Yep, he hasn't done a whole lot when it comes to directly talking to the black community. In his speeches, though, he's touched upon the economic and violence issues that many black communities face. This is a big step in the right direction, and I don't see it as 'expecting people to kiss his butt'. I doubt undecided voters share your opinion.

And here is him mocking and putting down ("talking down to", in your words) the black pastor for daring to ask him to stay on task.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-goes-after-flint-pastor-who-shut-him-down_us_57da94b7e4b0071a6e0574a4?section=politics

Agreed, I think I've said that 3 times today?

Re the governor of Louisiana saying that he was glad Trump came to Louisiana, and calling out Obama and Clinton for not showing up in the first week, I will wait for the sources you said you'd find, because I do not remember reading about any of those things. Though it is possible that after the fact the governor said Trump's visit brought visibility, it is also true that at the time he asked him not to come. Are you actually arguing that it was a good thing Trump ignored that?

Yes, I argue that Trump visiting without telling the Governor was an overall good thing. That being said, I disagree with his campaign in not communicating with the state. Here's the quote from the Governor's department:

Quote
Donald Trump hasn’t called the governor to inform him of his visit. We welcome him to LA but not for a photo-op. Instead we hope he’ll consider volunteering or making a sizable donation to the LA Flood Relief Fund to help the victims of the storm.

Well, Trump donated at least $100,000 + supplies to the community, volunteered some of his time, and toured the area giving speeches. Most of this was no-press or 'photo-op'.

I never claimed that Governor Edwards called Obama out for not visiting soon enough. I think that's irrelevant even if it is true. You won't hear me hate on President Obama for not coming right away. I'm mainly amazed that people are hating Trump so much for this. Again, is the main criticism that having such a high profile politician disrupt rescue by diverting resources? Sure, it's a very logical argument, but is there any proof that is what happened?
I'd actually like some proof that he did this, because he has been caught multiple times in a lie. 

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #502 on: September 15, 2016, 01:18:21 PM »
--- Apparently, instead, the pastor of Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, which is a local anti-LGBT group, has said he gave it to them. At the very least, if indeed he did give the money to them,  it's worth wondering ---

Sorry, I'm curious what exactly makes Greenwell Springs "a local anti-LGBT group" and why is that your only definition of them given?...

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8897
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #503 on: September 15, 2016, 01:28:04 PM »
I see there is now a doctor's statement that Trump is in good physical health (although a complete lack of detail).

Can we also have a doctor's statement that Trump is in good mental health?

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #504 on: September 15, 2016, 01:32:55 PM »
I see there is now a doctor's statement that Trump is in good physical health (although a complete lack of detail).

Can we also have a doctor's statement that Trump is in good mental health?
Clinton - Physically unhealthy
Trump - Mentally unhealthy
Johnson - Climbed Mt. Everest

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #505 on: September 15, 2016, 01:34:21 PM »

Johnson - Climbed Mt. Everest

Yea, while at the tether of a guided group.  I'm not impressed

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7352
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #506 on: September 15, 2016, 01:34:58 PM »
--- Apparently, instead, the pastor of Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, which is a local anti-LGBT group, has said he gave it to them. At the very least, if indeed he did give the money to them,  it's worth wondering ---

Sorry, I'm curious what exactly makes Greenwell Springs "a local anti-LGBT group" and why is that your only definition of them given?...

Among other things, because Tony Perkins, who is president of the Family Research Council (FRC), an anti-gay lobbying group, is the pastor of that church.

cliffhanger

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 178
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #507 on: September 15, 2016, 01:36:12 PM »
I believe that there has not been any evidence yet that Trump has donated the $100,000 he promised to flood relief. His campaign claimed he would, but there is no evidence of it. Note that the governor suggested that he donate to the LA Flood Relief Fund, but he has not done that. Apparently, instead, the pastor of Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, which is a local anti-LGBT group, has said he gave it to them. At the very least, if indeed he did give the money to them,  it's worth wondering whether this was a politically motivated act that he did not give it to the local relief fund, but instead a right-wing conservative church... eh?

Finally, if "most of this was no-press or 'photo-op'", as you say, can you provide the source that tells you exactly how much time he devoted to this? And if there was no photo-op, note that there are still photos. As well as video of him helping. For exactly 49 seconds. Just long enough for some people to get pictures of him doing it.

There's a lot here that's new to me, so I'll bite.

As far as I can tell, he spent over three hours on the ground. The most detail I can get out of any article is here (sorry it's a mess of all different stuff): http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-08-19/the-latest-conway-says-trump-apology-was-all-donald-trump. More succinct here, but with political commentary: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/18/politics/trump-pence-headed-to-baton-rouge/.

So yes, it looks like he spent more time touring the damage than putting on an apron and pouring soup into a bowl. I'll take back what I said about spending much of his time there volunteering. I'm reading a lot of support from the communities he visited. Many people there are deeply thankful that he came and brought more attention to the flood.

You are correct, Trump donated to the baptist church and not the relief fund. I'm not even going attempt the anti-LBGT claim. If these funds are going to directly assist victims in the area, does it even matter? Politically motivated or not, 100k of Trump's own money went to help flood victims.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-confirms-donald-trump-gave-100-thousand-dollar-donation-louisiana-flood-relief-168509/.
Quote
Perkins said: "All funds that are marked for disaster relief are being placed in an account separate from GSBC's general fund and will be used only for expenses related to GSBC's disaster related efforts and restoration. For example, these funds may be used to purchase relief-related supplies, material and services. The funds will not be used for normal church expenses, nor will the funds be used for cash grants to individuals. Any funds not used in this initial relief phase will be used for subsequent efforts to support and/or directly restore and rebuild homes and church facilities impacted by the flood."

cliffhanger

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 178
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #508 on: September 15, 2016, 01:39:27 PM »
The "kissing his butt" comment is in reference to the fact that he felt the need to publicly belittle the pastor yesterday for asking him to stick on topic. He's not really "reaching out" much if he has such a hard time not insulting the people he's trying to reach out to.

Fair enough. Didn't mean to misrepresent you saying that concerning something different.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7352
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #509 on: September 15, 2016, 01:41:41 PM »
"If these funds are going to directly assist victims in the area, does it even matter?"

Perhaps not. If we actually know that they are going to assist victims in the area. Which, because this is a church, not a relief organization, we probably never will.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #510 on: September 15, 2016, 01:42:46 PM »
--- Apparently, instead, the pastor of Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, which is a local anti-LGBT group, has said he gave it to them. At the very least, if indeed he did give the money to them,  it's worth wondering ---

Sorry, I'm curious what exactly makes Greenwell Springs "a local anti-LGBT group" and why is that your only definition of them given?...

Among other things, because Tony Perkins, who is president of the Family Research Council (FRC), an anti-gay lobbying group, is the pastor of that church.

So the collective entity of that church is substantially different (IE "a anti-LGBT Group" instead of "a church") because of its temporary leader...  interesting view...

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7352
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #511 on: September 15, 2016, 01:47:10 PM »
--- Apparently, instead, the pastor of Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, which is a local anti-LGBT group, has said he gave it to them. At the very least, if indeed he did give the money to them,  it's worth wondering ---

Sorry, I'm curious what exactly makes Greenwell Springs "a local anti-LGBT group" and why is that your only definition of them given?...

Among other things, because Tony Perkins, who is president of the Family Research Council (FRC), an anti-gay lobbying group, is the pastor of that church.

So the collective entity of that church is substantially different (IE "a anti-LGBT Group" instead of "a church") because of its temporary leader...  interesting view...

Do you imagine him easily getting a job as the pastor of a unitarian universalist church?

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #512 on: September 15, 2016, 01:49:24 PM »
--- Apparently, instead, the pastor of Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, which is a local anti-LGBT group, has said he gave it to them. At the very least, if indeed he did give the money to them,  it's worth wondering ---

Sorry, I'm curious what exactly makes Greenwell Springs "a local anti-LGBT group" and why is that your only definition of them given?...

Among other things, because Tony Perkins, who is president of the Family Research Council (FRC), an anti-gay lobbying group, is the pastor of that church.

So the collective entity of that church is substantially different (IE "a anti-LGBT Group" instead of "a church") because of its temporary leader...  interesting view...

Do you imagine him easily getting a job as the pastor of a unitarian universalist church?

You're still focused on him.  My point was referencing the church and your assertion that the entity as a whole changed simply because of the temporary leader that is running the place.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7352
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #513 on: September 15, 2016, 01:58:52 PM »
--- Apparently, instead, the pastor of Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, which is a local anti-LGBT group, has said he gave it to them. At the very least, if indeed he did give the money to them,  it's worth wondering ---

Sorry, I'm curious what exactly makes Greenwell Springs "a local anti-LGBT group" and why is that your only definition of them given?...

Among other things, because Tony Perkins, who is president of the Family Research Council (FRC), an anti-gay lobbying group, is the pastor of that church.

So the collective entity of that church is substantially different (IE "a anti-LGBT Group" instead of "a church") because of its temporary leader...  interesting view...

Do you imagine him easily getting a job as the pastor of a unitarian universalist church?

You're still focused on him.  My point was referencing the church and your assertion that the entity as a whole changed simply because of the temporary leader that is running the place.

Well, the preacher before him seems pretty damn similar, so at what point would you say the pastors that a church choose reflect who the congregation is?

https://mic.com/articles/22654/10-most-wildly-anti-gay-preachers-in-america#.AaCstPj4K

See #4.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4931
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #514 on: September 15, 2016, 01:59:03 PM »
--- Apparently, instead, the pastor of Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, which is a local anti-LGBT group, has said he gave it to them. At the very least, if indeed he did give the money to them,  it's worth wondering ---

Sorry, I'm curious what exactly makes Greenwell Springs "a local anti-LGBT group" and why is that your only definition of them given?...

Among other things, because Tony Perkins, who is president of the Family Research Council (FRC), an anti-gay lobbying group, is the pastor of that church.

So the collective entity of that church is substantially different (IE "a anti-LGBT Group" instead of "a church") because of its temporary leader...  interesting view...

Do you imagine him easily getting a job as the pastor of a unitarian universalist church?

You're still focused on him.  My point was referencing the church and your assertion that the entity as a whole changed simply because of the temporary leader that is running the place.
Any group that would hire someone like that, accepts that behavior so yes, you lay down with dogs and you wake up with fleas. 

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #515 on: September 15, 2016, 02:13:17 PM »
Can you guys present specific statement of hate that he (or the church) has spoken?  I can't find any first-hand sources that aren't emotional based ranting drivel...

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7352
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #516 on: September 15, 2016, 02:16:12 PM »
Can you guys present specific statement of hate that he (or the church) has spoken?  I can't find any first-hand sources that aren't emotional based ranting drivel...

https://www.glaad.org/cap/tony-perkins

And in case you meant Dennis Terry and not Tony Perkins, you might think this blog is "emotion based ranting drivel" (I'm not even going to comment on that), but it will provide you with video footage so you can see the Rev. Terry himself in action speaking about the scourge that is teh gays:

http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2012/03/pastor-dennis-terry-prays-over-rick.html

« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 02:29:19 PM by Kris »

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #517 on: September 15, 2016, 02:32:13 PM »
The reality is, homosexuals have entered the Scouts in the past for predatory purposes.”
 – FRC vice president Rob Schwarzwalder, on radio’s “The Janet Mefferd Show,” Feb. 1, 2013.

“[H]omosexual activists vehemently reject the evidence which suggests that homosexual men … are … relative to their numbers, more likely to engage in such actions [childhood sexual abuse] than are heterosexual men.”
 – Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at FRC, on why the Boy Scouts should not allow LGBT Scouts or leaders, FRC blog, February 1, 2013.

“The videos are titled 'It Gets Better.' They are aimed at persuading kids that although they'll face struggles and perhaps bullying for 'coming out' as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. …It's disgusting. And it's part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle."
— Tony Perkins, FRC fundraising letter, August 2011

"Those who understand the homosexual community—the activists—they're very aggressive, they're—everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They're intolerant, they're hateful, vile, they're spiteful. .... To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation."
— Tony Perkins, Speaking to the Oak Initiative Summit, April 2011

 "We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men."
— Peter Sprigg, "Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views." 2011.

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”

— FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

“[W]elcoming open homosexuality in the military would clearly damage the readiness and effectiveness of the force – in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military.”
 — Peter Sprigg, “Homosexual Assault in the Military," 2010

"A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."
 -- Timothy Dailey, FRC publication, "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," 2002

“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
 — Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999

“[Homosexuality] … embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion.”
 — Steven Schwalm, FRC senior writer and analyst, in “Desecrating Corpus Christi,” 1999

"One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order."
—1999 FRC publication, "Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia," Robert Knight and Frank York

Background

The Family Research Council (FRC) emerged from a 1980 White House conference on families. James Dobson, founder of the religious right powerhouse Focus on the Family, met and prayed with a group of eight Christian leaders at a Washington hotel, leading ultimately to the creation of the FRC in 1983 under the initial direction of Gerald Regnier (formerly of the Department of Health and Human Services). The group became a division of Focus on the Family in 1988 under Gary Bauer, a religious right leader who would use his post as a launching pad for a failed 2000 run for the presidency. Bauer had been the undersecretary of education and a domestic policy advisor to President Reagan.

Bauer raised the FRC’s profile, increased its effectiveness, and built a national network of “concerned citizens” during the Clinton Administration. But the FRC separated from Focus on the Family in 1992 over concerns that its very political work might threaten Focus’ tax-exempt status; Dobson and two other Focus officials joined the FRC’s newly independent board. As an independent nonprofit, the FRC continued its work in “pro-family” areas, working against abortion and stem cell research, fighting pornography and homosexuality, and promoting “the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.” That work would establish FRC as one of the most powerful of the far right’s advocacy groups.

Bauer brought in several anti-gay researchers who pumped out defamatory material about the LGBT community. Robert Knight, a longtime conservative writer and journalist and major anti-gay propagandist, served as the FRC’s director of cultural affairs from 1992 until 2002, when he went to Concerned Women for America (CWA). Knight later moved on to be a senior writer at Coral Ridge Ministries, now Truth in Action Ministries. He is currently a senior fellow at the right-wing American Civil Rights Union. During his years at the FRC, Knight penned anti-gay tracts that used the research of thoroughly discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, head of the Colorado-based hate group the Family Research Institute. Knight authored numerous anti-gay papers, and even used Cameron’s infamous “gay obituary” study in testimony he offered before Congress to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in 1994. In his prepared statement on that topic, he said, “A study of more than 6,400 obituaries in homosexual publications reveals that homosexuals typically have far shorter life spans than the general population.” Cameron’s study has been thoroughly discredited for several reasons, one of which is its deeply flawed methodology. When asked in 2004 about using Cameron’s work, Knight, by then with CWA, responded, “Yes, we have used his research. So what?”

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #518 on: September 15, 2016, 02:39:42 PM »
Thanks for posting.  Read through all of them on the first link (several repeated in Northwestie's post).  I guess we will agree to disagree.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7352
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #519 on: September 15, 2016, 02:49:35 PM »
Thanks for posting.  Read through all of them on the first link (several repeated in Northwestie's post).  I guess we will agree to disagree.

To be more precise, you choose to disagree with the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #520 on: September 15, 2016, 03:03:38 PM »
Thanks for posting.  Read through all of them on the first link (several repeated in Northwestie's post).  I guess we will agree to disagree.

To be more precise, you choose to disagree with the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Sure, in this instance.  Though in presenting their evidence, you generally submit your stance as the same. 



Anyways, back to Trump/Clinton bashing.  Please continue!

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #521 on: September 15, 2016, 03:10:06 PM »
Thanks for posting.  Read through all of them on the first link (several repeated in Northwestie's post).  I guess we will agree to disagree.

So just to be clear you 1) don't think this (and the other similar statements) is a lie, and 2) see nothing wrong with it:

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”

— FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010


If so, we are back in truthiness land.  Because I FEEL it is so.   So ironic that this hate is spewed by so-called "Christians".
« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 03:13:38 PM by Northwestie »

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #522 on: September 15, 2016, 03:41:31 PM »
Clinton - Physically unhealthy
Trump - Mentally unhealthy
Johnson - Climbed Mt. Everest

Yea, while at the tether of a guided group.  I'm not impressed
Ya you're right, Hillary and Trump are more impressive,
Johnson has only climbed the highest peak on every continent, ran a 2:48 marathon, a 33:45 10K, a 10:38 iron man, 20 other marathons, and ran the Leadville 100 mile run in under 30 hrs.
I'm sure Hillary and Trump could do way better. Trump could probably even do "waaay better, so great, you wouldn't even believe it."

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1933
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #523 on: September 15, 2016, 03:48:21 PM »
Clinton - Physically unhealthy
Trump - Mentally unhealthy
Johnson - Climbed Mt. Everest

Yea, while at the tether of a guided group.  I'm not impressed
Ya you're right, Hillary and Trump are more impressive,
Johnson has only climbed the highest peak on every continent, ran a 2:48 marathon, a 33:45 10K, a 10:38 iron man, 20 other marathons, and ran the Leadville 100 mile run in under 30 hrs.
I'm sure Hillary and Trump could do way better. Trump could probably even do "waaay better, so great, you wouldn't even believe it."

Why does physical health matter, so long as it's not life threatening, for the job of POTUS? It's very rare a president goes out and actually physically does anything of much value.

Judgement calls, ability to absorb and examine information, knowledge of the world and how various economic and political systems work, etc. are much more relevant IMO.

I'm not saying Johnson's climbing various peaks and other physical feats aren't impressive, I just don't see how they are relevant to the job he's applying for.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #524 on: September 15, 2016, 03:49:49 PM »
Clinton - Physically unhealthy
Trump - Mentally unhealthy
Johnson - Climbed Mt. Everest

Yea, while at the tether of a guided group.  I'm not impressed
Ya you're right, Hillary and Trump are more impressive,
Johnson has only climbed the highest peak on every continent, ran a 2:48 marathon, a 33:45 10K, a 10:38 iron man, 20 other marathons, and ran the Leadville 100 mile run in under 30 hrs.
I'm sure Hillary and Trump could do way better. Trump could probably even do "waaay better, so great, you wouldn't even believe it."

All very presidential acheivements (roll eyes) -- yet he doesn't know "what is Allepo?"

Shoot - I've climbed the highest summits on 5 continents (all non guided in contrast to mr. Johnson), my best marathon time is 2:38 (ok, a while ago) and I guarantee I can climb at a higher grade than him (11c currently).  So does this, somehow, make me presidential material - dog - I hope not.  Believe me - you want some one more qualified than me. 

Oh - maybe a former 1st lady, senator, and Secretary of State.  To start.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #525 on: September 15, 2016, 03:50:29 PM »
Are we REALLY going to have to go into this...?

Ok, whatever.

Firstly your quote cuts out a significant portion of what he said.  It also removes it completely from the context.

They claim that 99% or more of pedophiles are males.  They also claim that 30% of pedophile cases were against boys.  They claim that because of these two numbers, there is a higher instance of pedophilia activity among homosexuals than heterosexuals per capita.  They give references to several non-biased studies examining this data based on crime statistics.


Directly from their site:
Quote
As this is perhaps the most explosive claim about
homosexuals, a couple of clarifications are in order.
This does not mean that all homosexuals are
child molesters—no one has ever claimed that. It
does not even mean that most homosexuals are
child molesters—there is no evidence to support
that. But there is evidence that the relative rate
of child sexual abuse among homosexuals is far
higher than it is among heterosexuals.

They substantiate this claim with a few other studies with less breadth in measurement (measuring hundred of persons rather than thousands of cases).

I don't see how that is considered "hate". It may be incorrect or shortsighted, but being wrong is different from being hateful.


I disagree with you because I went all the way through to the original source and read the other side's position.  Pages 19 and 20 here: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #526 on: September 15, 2016, 03:57:32 PM »
Uh-huh.  Right.  So there is no intent here huh?  Who are you kidding.

Here is a direct quote  - try and explain away this one: 

The reality is, homosexuals have entered the Scouts in the past for predatory purposes.”
 – FRC vice president Rob Schwarzwalder, on radio’s “The Janet Mefferd Show,” Feb. 1, 2013

Oh, I know.  The FRC is performing a public service letting us know that we should not let the gays in scouting, because, well, you know............

It's not intended to be hateful, just misinformed. 

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #527 on: September 15, 2016, 04:06:08 PM »
Uh-huh.  Right.  So there is no intent here huh?  Who are you kidding.

Here is a direct quote  - try and explain away this one: 

The reality is, homosexuals have entered the Scouts in the past for predatory purposes.”
 – FRC vice president Rob Schwarzwalder, on radio’s “The Janet Mefferd Show,” Feb. 1, 2013

Oh, I know.  The FRC is performing a public service letting us know that we should not let the gays in scouting, because, well, you know............

It's not intended to be hateful, just misinformed.

You're redirecting. 

I'm not going to go through every quote and sentence.  I see a lot of stuff that has been taken out of context and labelled as 'hate speech' that doesn't seem to be so.  My main point, and curiosity, was that Kris identified the entirety of the church as "a local anti-LGBT group" rather than "a church" that was helping flood victims because of her frame of reference.  I already know that pursuing this discussion with either of you wont result in anything beneficial for anybody, and as such chose to close the subject.  You reopened, I proved your argument at least somewhat wrong, and you redirected.  Bring it up again if you like but it isn't going to do anybody any favors.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #528 on: September 15, 2016, 04:36:29 PM »
And you are dodging.   They have a very strong affiliation with hate speech against the LGBT community - well documented and are listed as a hate group by the SPLC.  They may be out there helping flood victims as well.   But I don't think their words against the gay community are in the spirit of Christianity, IMO - maybe there is some wing of Christianity that selectively applies the bible???

But their speech is definitely defined as "hate speech".   It is false, has intent, and is purposely malicious.  It's hard for me to understand how church folks can act so mean to fellow humans.   

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #529 on: September 15, 2016, 04:40:15 PM »
Clinton - Physically unhealthy
Trump - Mentally unhealthy
Johnson - Climbed Mt. Everest

Yea, while at the tether of a guided group.  I'm not impressed
Ya you're right, Hillary and Trump are more impressive,
Johnson has only climbed the highest peak on every continent, ran a 2:48 marathon, a 33:45 10K, a 10:38 iron man, 20 other marathons, and ran the Leadville 100 mile run in under 30 hrs.
I'm sure Hillary and Trump could do way better. Trump could probably even do "waaay better, so great, you wouldn't even believe it."

All very presidential acheivements (roll eyes) -- yet he doesn't know "what is Allepo?"

Shoot - I've climbed the highest summits on 5 continents (all non guided in contrast to mr. Johnson), my best marathon time is 2:38 (ok, a while ago) and I guarantee I can climb at a higher grade than him (11c currently).  So does this, somehow, make me presidential material - dog - I hope not.  Believe me - you want some one more qualified than me. 

Oh - maybe a former 1st lady, senator, and Secretary of State.  To start.
I'm just saying, there is no question that he is physically and mentally healthy, and also that it makes no sense to say "not impressed", especially while touting the health of Hillary. As far as qualifications go, a former governor that helped his state out significantly looks better than the many downs of Clinton.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3495
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #530 on: September 15, 2016, 04:44:14 PM »
Are we REALLY going to have to go into this...?

Ok, whatever.

Firstly your quote cuts out a significant portion of what he said.  It also removes it completely from the context.

They claim that 99% or more of pedophiles are males.  They also claim that 30% of pedophile cases were against boys.  They claim that because of these two numbers, there is a higher instance of pedophilia activity among homosexuals than heterosexuals per capita.  They give references to several non-biased studies examining this data based on crime statistics.


Directly from their site:
Quote
As this is perhaps the most explosive claim about
homosexuals, a couple of clarifications are in order.
This does not mean that all homosexuals are
child molesters—no one has ever claimed that. It
does not even mean that most homosexuals are
child molesters—there is no evidence to support
that. But there is evidence that the relative rate
of child sexual abuse among homosexuals is far
higher than it is among heterosexuals.

They substantiate this claim with a few other studies with less breadth in measurement (measuring hundred of persons rather than thousands of cases).

I don't see how that is considered "hate". It may be incorrect or shortsighted, but being wrong is different from being hateful.


I disagree with you because I went all the way through to the original source and read the other side's position.  Pages 19 and 20 here: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf.

The argument you cite on pages 19-20 makes some serious logical fallacies (taking some cherry picked numbers and then translating that to *all* child abuse is incorrect). The cited document, taken in it's entirety, is designed to paint homosexuals as amoral. They may put in some window dressing, "we don't mean all homosexuals are child abusers." but it would be incorrect to paint that piece of writing as simply incorrect or shortsighted. It strongly advocates for things like homosexual conversion therapy, which is so awful that it is being banned in a number of states.  Good Mr. Perkins may not represent every member of that congregation, but he is a significant figurehead.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #531 on: September 15, 2016, 05:42:05 PM »
And you are dodging.   They have a very strong affiliation with hate speech against the LGBT community - well documented and are listed as a hate group by the SPLC.  They may be out there helping flood victims as well.   But I don't think their words against the gay community are in the spirit of Christianity, IMO - maybe there is some wing of Christianity that selectively applies the bible???

But their speech is definitely defined as "hate speech".   It is false, has intent, and is purposely malicious.  It's hard for me to understand how church folks can act so mean to fellow humans.

I believe you are referencing the majority of American Christians!  :)  (Considering the financial position of the bible is significantly more mustachian than consumerist.  Plus the whole 'don't hate people bit', plus the 'you can't force your ideology on other people' aspect...)  Christianity in America is pretty darn screwed up.

Back to your main point, I asked for examples.  The examples you guys provided didn't convince me simply because they were taken out of context and labelled as hate speech -or- were arguments that were simply disagreed with.  One example is the pedophile thing.  If 99% of pedophiles are male, and 30% of pedo acts are against boys, it seems like pretty simple numbers to me.  If their data is wrong then I can hold that against them, but it doesn't seem far-fetched.  Another example is 'conversion therapy'.  If someone wants to go to therapy for a self-perceived condition, who the hell would think it is their own right to block that person? 

As far as the "christian-ess of their statements, how would you address something you see as morally wrong?  I haven't seen any evidences of them persuading violence or mistreatment?  Is it hate speech to simply say "doing _____ is wrong"?  If you can show me where they encourage violence or law-breaking, I will accept their status as a hate group, otherwise, yes I disagree.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3495
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #532 on: September 15, 2016, 06:16:36 PM »
And you are dodging.   They have a very strong affiliation with hate speech against the LGBT community - well documented and are listed as a hate group by the SPLC.  They may be out there helping flood victims as well.   But I don't think their words against the gay community are in the spirit of Christianity, IMO - maybe there is some wing of Christianity that selectively applies the bible???

But their speech is definitely defined as "hate speech".   It is false, has intent, and is purposely malicious.  It's hard for me to understand how church folks can act so mean to fellow humans.

I believe you are referencing the majority of American Christians!  :)  (Considering the financial position of the bible is significantly more mustachian than consumerist.  Plus the whole 'don't hate people bit', plus the 'you can't force your ideology on other people' aspect...)  Christianity in America is pretty darn screwed up.

Back to your main point, I asked for examples.  The examples you guys provided didn't convince me simply because they were taken out of context and labelled as hate speech -or- were arguments that were simply disagreed with.  One example is the pedophile thing.  If 99% of pedophiles are male, and 30% of pedo acts are against boys, it seems like pretty simple numbers to me.  If their data is wrong then I can hold that against them, but it doesn't seem far-fetched.  Another example is 'conversion therapy'.  If someone wants to go to therapy for a self-perceived condition, who the hell would think it is their own right to block that person? 

As far as the "christian-ess of their statements, how would you address something you see as morally wrong?  I haven't seen any evidences of them persuading violence or mistreatment?  Is it hate speech to simply say "doing _____ is wrong"?  If you can show me where they encourage violence or law-breaking, I will accept their status as a hate group, otherwise, yes I disagree.

The assertion that FRC is making is that homosexuals are more likely to be awful human beings and sexual predators. Period. Their treatment of statistics is shameful.
Here are some independent data: https://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/child-sexual-abuse-statistics
For example: 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys were sexually assaulted. Using their logic, this alone would refute their point.

For a much more rigorous take down and review of actual literature, see: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Now, it is protected speech to say, " I don't like _____." However, it is wrong and can be hate speech to attempt to legislate those beliefs into discriminatory law. Examples are: preventing marriage, adoption, or being allowed to have jobs such as being teachers.  He is also on the record as having fought against decriminalization of sodomy laws, which are are an indirect way to make (at least male) homosexuality illegal.

So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4931
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #533 on: September 15, 2016, 06:27:51 PM »
And you are dodging.   They have a very strong affiliation with hate speech against the LGBT community - well documented and are listed as a hate group by the SPLC.  They may be out there helping flood victims as well.   But I don't think their words against the gay community are in the spirit of Christianity, IMO - maybe there is some wing of Christianity that selectively applies the bible???

But their speech is definitely defined as "hate speech".   It is false, has intent, and is purposely malicious.  It's hard for me to understand how church folks can act so mean to fellow humans.

I believe you are referencing the majority of American Christians!  :)  (Considering the financial position of the bible is significantly more mustachian than consumerist.  Plus the whole 'don't hate people bit', plus the 'you can't force your ideology on other people' aspect...)  Christianity in America is pretty darn screwed up.

Back to your main point, I asked for examples.  The examples you guys provided didn't convince me simply because they were taken out of context and labelled as hate speech -or- were arguments that were simply disagreed with.  One example is the pedophile thing.  If 99% of pedophiles are male, and 30% of pedo acts are against boys, it seems like pretty simple numbers to me.  If their data is wrong then I can hold that against them, but it doesn't seem far-fetched.  Another example is 'conversion therapy'.  If someone wants to go to therapy for a self-perceived condition, who the hell would think it is their own right to block that person? 

As far as the "christian-ess of their statements, how would you address something you see as morally wrong?  I haven't seen any evidences of them persuading violence or mistreatment?  Is it hate speech to simply say "doing _____ is wrong"?  If you can show me where they encourage violence or law-breaking, I will accept their status as a hate group, otherwise, yes I disagree.
You know, you have stated you have a neuroscience degree (of some sort) yet can't understand basic flaws in statements that ANYONE with any knowledge of psychology or neuroscience or frankly most sciences would be able to understand as flaws.  Why is that?  To break it down for you, pedophiles are males true (or at least they have not yet found one) which is different than child abuse even child sexual abuse.  But then we come to your statement, which others have pointed out as problematic but I'll just keep to the science/psychology part.  Pedophilia is by definition toward pre-pubescent children and the research has shown that many pedophiles identify as straight while having sexual thoughts (or abusing) children of both genders.  This is basic psychology and neuroscience and information that would easy for a researcher to find, why did you not use ANY critical thinking towards those statements that would be required in any research based program?

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #534 on: September 15, 2016, 06:59:33 PM »
Reply in 3, 2, 1..............Oh no, you are taking this out of context.

It is very intellectually dishonest.   These homophobes are just scared to come out and say what they mean - we don't like gay people and will do everything we can to infringe upon their rights.   Thank goodness for folks with a sense of decency and humanity.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #535 on: September 15, 2016, 07:16:29 PM »
I do believe Trump will present more gridlock.

He is actually quite liberal, even now.

How do you figure?

As far as I can tell, and it's tough because he's hard to pin down on specifics, Trump's official policy positions are all exact copies of the positions espoused by the most conservative wing of the Republican party.  A quick sampling, taken mostly from http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm and recent news reports to emphasize his most recent positions on these topics:

Trump's new tax plan (released 9/15/16) is just the old GOP tax plan. 
Trump wants to repeal the sequester for defense spending but not government operations or programs, just like the GOP leadership does. 
Trump's list of proposed supreme court appointees is a conservative GOP wet dream. 
Trump opposes abortion and wants to defund Planned Parenthood. 
Trump opposes gay marriage.
Trump opposes NAFTA. 
Trump opposes all forms of gun control. 
Trump wants more tax cuts for the rich. 
Trump wants new tariffs on imported goods. 
Trump wants to stop all immigration from countries that have ties to terrorism. 
Trump wants to repeal Obamacare. 
Trump wants to abolish the EPA and the Department of Education. 
Trump wants a 0% corporate tax rate. 
Trump supports the death penalty.
Trump opposes legalizing pot. 
Trump supports vouchers for charter schools. 
Trump opposes renewable energy.
Trump denies that climate change is real.

So where exactly are these supposed policy differences that will lead to gridlock?  Don't let everyone's personal distaste for Trump the person be confused for disagreement with his policies.  Even Ted Cruz is thrilled with his policies.  If Trump gets elected, all three branches of government will have majority support for everything in this list.  That's not gridlock, that's a recipe for rapidly accelerating disaster.

The only real differences that I see between Trump and the most conservative parts of the GOP are his position on foreign policy and homeland security, which are areas that are typically seen as the only strong suits for conservatives.  I'm not sure why he has dumped the only good thing about the conservative movement and fully embraced all the dumb parts.  (Hilariously, Clinton the Warmonger has embraced all of those same traditionally conservative positions on foreign policy and homeland security.)

To be fair, there are lots of Americans who agree with most of the Trump policy positions in that list.  Those folks might consider voting for Trump, if they could get over the other candidate problems that would have normally disqualified him from being the conservative nominee (multiple divorces, multiple bankruptcies, no religion, no charitable giving, and supporting things like raising the minimum wage). 

But if you agree with Trump that climate change is a hoax, just as an example, then you're probably never voting for any Democrat anyway.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 07:32:31 PM by sol »

cliffhanger

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 178
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #536 on: September 15, 2016, 09:04:03 PM »
I do believe Trump will present more gridlock.

He is actually quite liberal, even now.

How do you figure?

Mostly speculation, I'll admit. I think a Republican congress is more likely to go against a President Trump than a Democratic congress will go against a President Clinton. This is based off of official endorsements.

41 out of 54 Republican Senators have endorsed Trump while all 46 Democrats and Independents have endorsed Clinton. I didn't feel like counting House numbers, but I'll admit the Senator endorsements of Trump are higher than I thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016#U.S._Senators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016#U.S._Senators

Now I'll go beyond speculation into pure tinfoil. I don't think Trump intends to follow through on any of the conservative policies you mentioned. His past suggests that he leaned liberal up until 2010-ish. He's become a master of anti-fragility by saying outlandish stuff. None of us really know how will act as President.

I see him as a Republican version of 2008 Obama, by making promises that appeal to people's emotions rather than promises that will actually be kept. My 19 year old self was drawn to the 'Hope and Change' of his policies: immediate withdraw from Iraq, reign in Wall Street, be the most transparent administration.

Again, that's just me being wildly speculative.

cliffhanger

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 178
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #537 on: September 15, 2016, 09:21:48 PM »
So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4931
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #538 on: September 15, 2016, 09:45:11 PM »
So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.
First, given his history I am not sure any money changed hands.  Second, given the history of churches in this country to limit help to those within their in group (see the Salvation Army) or to force others to behave like them/ a certain manner, yes it does matter who he donated to.  He could have chosen to donate to the Red Cross or other non-religious, non-anti LGBT groups that are not likely to discriminate in their help.  But again, we get the first point, did he actually donate?  I don't believe so.

cliffhanger

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 178
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #539 on: September 16, 2016, 05:14:51 AM »
So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.
First, given his history I am not sure any money changed hands.  Second, given the history of churches in this country to limit help to those within their in group (see the Salvation Army) or to force others to behave like them/ a certain manner, yes it does matter who he donated to.  He could have chosen to donate to the Red Cross or other non-religious, non-anti LGBT groups that are not likely to discriminate in their help.  But again, we get the first point, did he actually donate?  I don't believe so.

Is your position that Perkins and Trump have both explicitly lied about this? Perkins has confirmed the donation: http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-confirms-donald-trump-gave-100-thousand-dollar-donation-louisiana-flood-relief-168509/ and others even have an image of the check: http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-donated-100k-la/.

From my experience growing up in a Southern Baptist Church, the church will have a finance committee who determines how to allocate funds. The interim pastor would have little to no say on this. Obviously this will be impossible to prove on either of our sides, but I highly doubt the people of this church are forcing people to conform in order to receive funds. Maybe you should go to LA, become a member of the church, and join the finance committee. Then we'll finally have explicit proof of this donation rather than your belief that everybody is lying!

I'm sure we can agree on the value of donating in a way that has a direct, noticeable effect on your own community. My question for you is how should Trump have donated his money in order to help the specific community that he visited with?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 06:30:20 AM by cliffhanger »

Yokan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Houston Tx
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #540 on: September 16, 2016, 06:37:57 AM »
This whole thread is pretty hilarious. I feel like the question OP originally presented was answered.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23226
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #541 on: September 16, 2016, 07:14:05 AM »
Are we REALLY going to have to go into this...?

Ok, whatever.

Firstly your quote cuts out a significant portion of what he said.  It also removes it completely from the context.

They claim that 99% or more of pedophiles are males.  They also claim that 30% of pedophile cases were against boys.  They claim that because of these two numbers, there is a higher instance of pedophilia activity among homosexuals than heterosexuals per capita.  They give references to several non-biased studies examining this data based on crime statistics.


Directly from their site:
Quote
As this is perhaps the most explosive claim about
homosexuals, a couple of clarifications are in order.
This does not mean that all homosexuals are
child molesters—no one has ever claimed that. It
does not even mean that most homosexuals are
child molesters—there is no evidence to support
that. But there is evidence that the relative rate
of child sexual abuse among homosexuals is far
higher than it is among heterosexuals.

They substantiate this claim with a few other studies with less breadth in measurement (measuring hundred of persons rather than thousands of cases).

I don't see how that is considered "hate". It may be incorrect or shortsighted, but being wrong is different from being hateful.


I disagree with you because I went all the way through to the original source and read the other side's position.  Pages 19 and 20 here: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf.

That's straight up wrong though.  Abusing a young boy doesn't mean that you're attracted and turned on by men.  Old women get raped too, it doesn't mean that the rapist thinks that old women are sexy, or even get turned on by them.  This type of sexual assault is often based on power, dominance, and opportunity.  Ignoring that fact and trying to say that gay people are more dangerous because boys often get molested is hate speech.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7352
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #542 on: September 16, 2016, 07:59:39 AM »
So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 08:02:56 AM by Kris »

Yokan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Houston Tx
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #543 on: September 16, 2016, 08:38:17 AM »
So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.

OMG. Why are you so sanctimonious about his donation? You don't know how the church will use that money. Why are you so focused on the theoretical recipients' demographics?  You could extend your logic and say that any donation made inside the United State is bad, because there are people outside the US suffering more than the poorest citizen here.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7352
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #544 on: September 16, 2016, 09:05:32 AM »
So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.

OMG. Why are you so sanctimonious about his donation? You don't know how the church will use that money. Why are you so focused on the theoretical recipients' demographics?  You could extend your logic and say that any donation made inside the United State is bad, because there are people outside the US suffering more than the poorest citizen here.

Yokan, every single aspect of a presidential nominee's words and actions is calculated. This is no mainstream church. I think it is worth noting that he could have donated to the state's relief association -- as the governor of Louisiana suggested -- but he chose to donate to a fringe church. A fringe church whose members very closely correspond to a demographic that makes up the majority of his base.

So, you know, you don't need to care about this. But I do. And I think it's worth pointing out that Trump did not donate to the "people of Baton Rouge." He donated to "people of Baton Rouge who want to elect me."
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 09:17:39 AM by Kris »

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #545 on: September 16, 2016, 09:25:57 AM »
Are we REALLY going to have to go into this...?

Ok, whatever.

Firstly your quote cuts out a significant portion of what he said.  It also removes it completely from the context.

They claim that 99% or more of pedophiles are males.  They also claim that 30% of pedophile cases were against boys.  They claim that because of these two numbers, there is a higher instance of pedophilia activity among homosexuals than heterosexuals per capita.  They give references to several non-biased studies examining this data based on crime statistics.


Directly from their site:
Quote
As this is perhaps the most explosive claim about
homosexuals, a couple of clarifications are in order.
This does not mean that all homosexuals are
child molesters—no one has ever claimed that. It
does not even mean that most homosexuals are
child molesters—there is no evidence to support
that. But there is evidence that the relative rate
of child sexual abuse among homosexuals is far
higher than it is among heterosexuals.

They substantiate this claim with a few other studies with less breadth in measurement (measuring hundred of persons rather than thousands of cases).

I don't see how that is considered "hate". It may be incorrect or shortsighted, but being wrong is different from being hateful.


I disagree with you because I went all the way through to the original source and read the other side's position.  Pages 19 and 20 here: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf.

That's straight up wrong though.  Abusing a young boy doesn't mean that you're attracted and turned on by men.  Old women get raped too, it doesn't mean that the rapist thinks that old women are sexy, or even get turned on by them.  This type of sexual assault is often based on power, dominance, and opportunity.  Ignoring that fact and trying to say that gay people are more dangerous because boys often get molested is hate speech.

I'm going to drop it because it doesn't matter much to this thread (and I appreciate the cordiality that this forum typically displays (Glenstache, Gin1984, Northwestie and Kris) even when discussing controversial subjects), but I want to point out, I agree they are wrong.  I bolded where I said that above.  To what extent they are wrong is debatable.  I simply don't classify being wrong as hate speech unless it is maliciously deceptive which I don't find their research (in this instance) to be.  I haven't examined everything they have ever said or if they cherry pick numbers.  I examined the examples presented.

You know, you have stated you have a neuroscience degree (of some sort) yet can't understand basic flaws in statements that ANYONE with any knowledge of psychology or neuroscience or frankly most sciences would be able to understand as flaws.  Why is that?  To break it down for you, pedophiles are males true (or at least they have not yet found one) which is different than child abuse even child sexual abuse.  But then we come to your statement, which others have pointed out as problematic but I'll just keep to the science/psychology part.  Pedophilia is by definition toward pre-pubescent children and the research has shown that many pedophiles identify as straight while having sexual thoughts (or abusing) children of both genders.  This is basic psychology and neuroscience and information that would easy for a researcher to find, why did you not use ANY critical thinking towards those statements that would be required in any research based program?

To answer your questions Gin, no I haven't independently researched the stats.  I simply looked through to their sources that are not beyond the realm of being reasonable.    If 1/5 girls is abused and 1/10 boys are abused, then 1/3 of abuse occurs on males- matching their stat of 30%.  No, I don't think open homosexuality is the cause of the elevated figure among male abuse, and I'm not even sure they claim such a thing since they openly state the opposite.  I do however recognize that may be possible in an unhealthy individual to have repressed homosexual attraction that can cause abusers to select a victim preference to which they don't regularly identify or wouldn't openly identify- and that this can cause the abnormal context of the 'relationship' (IE selecting a significantly younger age) for the pedophile.  As such, their argument doesn't seem to be to be completely falsified and as such isn't hate speech.  To answer your other question, no I do not have a degree.  I am actively enrolled in a Master's program at a top tier university in my second year.  I'm not trying to diagnose.  I'm just claiming that I disagree with it being labeled as hate speech because I do not find it intentionally malicious, especially when the comments are taken out of context and expanded.  How many times do you see that with research?  Taking one phrase out and slapping something else said three pages later onto the end of it?  Its terrible practice but it is what is being endorsed here.

Either way, its a simple disagreement on whether it constitutes hate speech or not, and I was originally intrigued by Kris' labeling of the church.

Seeing as they don't endorse violence against homosexuals in anything of theirs I have found, I am reluctant to call any of it hate speech-  unless you guys somehow define it differently from endorsing hatred against an individual or group.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7352
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #546 on: September 16, 2016, 09:31:56 AM »
Are we REALLY going to have to go into this...?

Ok, whatever.

Firstly your quote cuts out a significant portion of what he said.  It also removes it completely from the context.

They claim that 99% or more of pedophiles are males.  They also claim that 30% of pedophile cases were against boys.  They claim that because of these two numbers, there is a higher instance of pedophilia activity among homosexuals than heterosexuals per capita.  They give references to several non-biased studies examining this data based on crime statistics.


Directly from their site:
Quote
As this is perhaps the most explosive claim about
homosexuals, a couple of clarifications are in order.
This does not mean that all homosexuals are
child molesters—no one has ever claimed that. It
does not even mean that most homosexuals are
child molesters—there is no evidence to support
that. But there is evidence that the relative rate
of child sexual abuse among homosexuals is far
higher than it is among heterosexuals.

They substantiate this claim with a few other studies with less breadth in measurement (measuring hundred of persons rather than thousands of cases).

I don't see how that is considered "hate". It may be incorrect or shortsighted, but being wrong is different from being hateful.


I disagree with you because I went all the way through to the original source and read the other side's position.  Pages 19 and 20 here: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf.

That's straight up wrong though.  Abusing a young boy doesn't mean that you're attracted and turned on by men.  Old women get raped too, it doesn't mean that the rapist thinks that old women are sexy, or even get turned on by them.  This type of sexual assault is often based on power, dominance, and opportunity.  Ignoring that fact and trying to say that gay people are more dangerous because boys often get molested is hate speech.

I'm going to drop it because it doesn't matter much to this thread (and I appreciate the cordiality that this forum typically displays (Glenstache, Gin1984, Northwestie and Kris) even when discussing controversial subjects), but I want to point out, I agree they are wrong.  I bolded where I said that above.  To what extent they are wrong is debatable.  I simply don't classify being wrong as hate speech unless it is maliciously deceptive which I don't find their research (in this instance) to be.  I haven't examined everything they have ever said or if they cherry pick numbers.  I examined the examples presented.

You know, you have stated you have a neuroscience degree (of some sort) yet can't understand basic flaws in statements that ANYONE with any knowledge of psychology or neuroscience or frankly most sciences would be able to understand as flaws.  Why is that?  To break it down for you, pedophiles are males true (or at least they have not yet found one) which is different than child abuse even child sexual abuse.  But then we come to your statement, which others have pointed out as problematic but I'll just keep to the science/psychology part.  Pedophilia is by definition toward pre-pubescent children and the research has shown that many pedophiles identify as straight while having sexual thoughts (or abusing) children of both genders.  This is basic psychology and neuroscience and information that would easy for a researcher to find, why did you not use ANY critical thinking towards those statements that would be required in any research based program?

To answer your questions Gin, no I haven't independently researched the stats.  I simply looked through to their sources that are not beyond the realm of being reasonable.    If 1/5 girls is abused and 1/10 boys are abused, then 1/3 of abuse occurs on males- matching their stat of 30%.  No, I don't think open homosexuality is the cause of the elevated figure among male abuse, and I'm not even sure they claim such a thing since they openly state the opposite.  I do however recognize that may be possible in an unhealthy individual to have repressed homosexual attraction that can cause abusers to select a victim preference to which they don't regularly identify or wouldn't openly identify- and that this can cause the abnormal context of the 'relationship' (IE selecting a significantly younger age) for the pedophile.  As such, their argument doesn't seem to be to be completely falsified and as such isn't hate speech.  To answer your other question, no I do not have a degree.  I am actively enrolled in a Master's program at a top tier university in my second year.  I'm not trying to diagnose.  I'm just claiming that I disagree with it being labeled as hate speech because I do not find it intentionally malicious, especially when the comments are taken out of context and expanded.  How many times do you see that with research?  Taking one phrase out and slapping something else said three pages later onto the end of it?  Its terrible practice but it is what is being endorsed here.

Either way, its a simple disagreement on whether it constitutes hate speech or not, and I was originally intrigued by Kris' labeling of the church.

Seeing as they don't endorse violence against homosexuals in anything of theirs I have found, I am reluctant to call any of it hate speech-  unless you guys somehow define it differently from endorsing hatred against an individual or group.

Just one point on this -- and by the way, thank you for appreciating my cordiality.

I can understand that there may seem to be a gray area on what constitutes hate speech. You say they do not endorse violence. Okay. But, my point would be this: when someone uses a word like "vile," to choose just one example, when referring to another group, that is pretty emotionally charged language. It's pretty difficult to interpret "vile" in a neutral manner.

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

That one word alone meets at least two of the three, don't you think? I personally cannot imagine having that word applied to me based on my race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or other trait, and not feeling offended and insulted.

Yokan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Houston Tx
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #547 on: September 16, 2016, 09:33:48 AM »
So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.

OMG. Why are you so sanctimonious about his donation? You don't know how the church will use that money. Why are you so focused on the theoretical recipients' demographics?  You could extend your logic and say that any donation made inside the United State is bad, because there are people outside the US suffering more than the poorest citizen here.

Yokan, every single aspect of a presidential nominee's words and actions is calculated. This is no mainstream church. I think it is worth noting that he could have donated to the state's relief association -- as the governor of Louisiana suggested -- but he chose to donate to a fringe church. A fringe church whose members very closely correspond to a demographic that makes up the majority of his base.

So, you know, you don't need to care about this. But I do. And I think it's worth pointing out that Trump did not donate to the "people of Baton Rouge." He donated to "people of Baton Rouge who want to elect me."

Fair enough. I guess the point I've been trying to poorly articulate is every politician has sociopath tendencies. I would include the Clintons, Bernie, Trump, the Bushs, and even Gary Johnson/The Pauls. I'm under the presumption that none of what they say is sincere. Is it really worth analyzing their intent? Of course you may come to the conclusion that it is worth it. That's fine and it may even be valid, even though I disagree.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 09:35:39 AM by Yokan »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4931
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #548 on: September 16, 2016, 09:34:54 AM »
So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.
First, given his history I am not sure any money changed hands.  Second, given the history of churches in this country to limit help to those within their in group (see the Salvation Army) or to force others to behave like them/ a certain manner, yes it does matter who he donated to.  He could have chosen to donate to the Red Cross or other non-religious, non-anti LGBT groups that are not likely to discriminate in their help.  But again, we get the first point, did he actually donate?  I don't believe so.

Is your position that Perkins and Trump have both explicitly lied about this? Perkins has confirmed the donation: http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-confirms-donald-trump-gave-100-thousand-dollar-donation-louisiana-flood-relief-168509/ and others even have an image of the check: http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-donated-100k-la/.

From my experience growing up in a Southern Baptist Church, the church will have a finance committee who determines how to allocate funds. The interim pastor would have little to no say on this. Obviously this will be impossible to prove on either of our sides, but I highly doubt the people of this church are forcing people to conform in order to receive funds. Maybe you should go to LA, become a member of the church, and join the finance committee. Then we'll finally have explicit proof of this donation rather than your belief that everybody is lying!

I'm sure we can agree on the value of donating in a way that has a direct, noticeable effect on your own community. My question for you is how should Trump have donated his money in order to help the specific community that he visited with?
How about to the state or the red cross as I mentioned prior?  And given that churches have a history of refusing LGBT people it is not surprising that people are questioning where he chose to donate, if again, he actual did (see the Salvation Army as an example).  Especially when you look at his past donations: http://newsexaminer.net/politics/donald-trump-the-least-charitable-billionaire/
Also if you actual read the statement from snopes that you posted: "There is no confirmation that Donald Trump gave money directly to Tony Perkins or the Family Research Council."  All that snopes said is the Trump said he gave the money and the facebook page said that " Donald Trump is sending a financial contribution to the church to aid our efforts."  They have never come out and stated, per your articles that he has sent it.
Trump has previously lied about donating so why should I not be questioning him:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/trumps-charity-brags-could-land-him-in-court.html
Especially given that he won't release his tax returns (which would show prior donations).

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7352
Re: Trump Voters.... why?
« Reply #549 on: September 16, 2016, 09:42:30 AM »
So, let's go back to Trump, who chose to support Mr.Perkins, and by extension what he stands for. Is that really Making America Great Again? No. No it is not.

Whew, that was a wild ride. Thanks for reigning it it.

Considering the donation was made to the church with the intent of helping people of that community, I don't view Trump as supporting Mr. Perkins or his views. Even if Mr. Perkins was the worst homophobe, bigot, etc. you can think of, that money went to helping out those affected by the flood. Isn't that what truly matters?

Do you think that his donation to that church was bad? I'm still trying to understand why his visit to Louisiana was so bad according to so many non-supporters. I think people that hate Trump will find a way to hate 100% of what he does.

Well, there is the fact that this church, and this community, is lily-white in a city where 50% of the population is African-American. So... at the very least, it's noteworthy that he gave money selectively to a church that is likely to help few or no people of color. This, to me, is significant.

OMG. Why are you so sanctimonious about his donation? You don't know how the church will use that money. Why are you so focused on the theoretical recipients' demographics?  You could extend your logic and say that any donation made inside the United State is bad, because there are people outside the US suffering more than the poorest citizen here.

Yokan, every single aspect of a presidential nominee's words and actions is calculated. This is no mainstream church. I think it is worth noting that he could have donated to the state's relief association -- as the governor of Louisiana suggested -- but he chose to donate to a fringe church. A fringe church whose members very closely correspond to a demographic that makes up the majority of his base.

So, you know, you don't need to care about this. But I do. And I think it's worth pointing out that Trump did not donate to the "people of Baton Rouge." He donated to "people of Baton Rouge who want to elect me."

Fair enough. I guess the point I've been trying to poorly articulate is every politician has sociopath tendencies. I would include the Clintons, Bernie, Trump, the Bushs, and even Gary Johnson/The Pauls. I'm under the presumption that none of what they say is sincere. Is it really worth analyzing their intent? Of course you may come to the conclusion that it is worth it. That's fine and it may even be valid, even though I disagree.

I'm sorry. This is a ridiculous, unfounded statement, and even if you were trained in diagnosing sociopaths -- which I'm guessing you are not -- there is no way that you could possibly have "diagnosed" every politician.

So, given that, the rest of your point just doesn't seem to make much sense. I personally think it is worth paying attention to the actions of politicians, yes.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 09:44:08 AM by Kris »

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!