Would Your Vote For Trump?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reba said:
Based on what?
Click to expand...

Based on the fact that he knows how to lead. He excited the public and the public voted for him.

McCain doesn't have that.
 
netrox said:
Based on the fact that he knows how to lead. He excited the public and the public voted for him.

McCain doesn't have that.
Click to expand...
Knowing how to lead and knowing how to get votes are not the same thing.
 
darkdog said:
I tend to think the opposite is true. 100 or 200 years ago, it would have been easier to not really care about what was happening in Alaska, especially since people had to work so hard, they didn't have time to care about that stuff. Nowadays, if something awful happens, it gets beamed into our TVs and computers instantaneously so people thousands of miles away can feel a connection to it.


That's just wrong. Exxon and BP have paid billions of dollars for their accidents. You seem to think those companies should go out of business whenever something like this happens. But accidents do happen in this industry- whether it be from human error, plain bad luck, or both. That's just the nature of the beast. I don't think that's a sufficient reason to force a company which employees hundreds of thousands of people and has very specialized skills and equipment out of business.

Also, the fact that Exxon is making the largest profit is neither surprising nor bad. It's not surprising because it's one of the largest, if not the largest, companies in the world. Given the amazingly complex tasks they perform on a daily basis, oil companies have to be large. The fact that they're making profits means they're doing their job in an efficient manner without creating costly disasters. It's good for the consumers, the employees, and the shareholders.
Click to expand...

The spills are an occupational hazard. As the population gets larger, the need increases. Nothing we can do to derail progress. Someday, there may be no areas left that are somewhat pristine in nature. People might prefer Disney World over Yellowstone. National parks are not money makers. Manmade amusement parks are. Which do you think will reign supreme in 100 years?

We are going in circles here. I respect your opinions, but we disagree.
 
Anyway, this thread is about Trump. :giggle:
 
Reba said:
Anyway, this thread is about Trump. :giggle:
Click to expand...

Yes Ms. Reba...:P
2uygjkx.jpg
 
saywhatkid said:
The spills are an occupational hazard. As the population gets larger, the need increases. Nothing we can do to derail progress.
Click to expand...
Sure there is. Progress is not inevitable. There's plenty we can do to stop progress. Look at Argentina for example. They started the 20th century as one of the wealthiest nations in the world- wealthier than most of western Europe. After Juan Peron came along with policies that would make any modern-day progressive cheer, Argentina has fallen way behind western Europe, despite that fact that Europe suffered two hugely devastating world wars.

saywhatkid said:
Someday, there may be no areas left that are somewhat pristine in nature. People might prefer Disney World over Yellowstone. National parks are not money makers. Manmade amusement parks are. Which do you think will reign supreme in 100 years?
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly worried the entire planet will be blighted by amusement parks. The fact is the vast vast vast majority of land is currently uninhabited. I would expect that if progress continues, it will only be good for the environment. The wealthier we've become, the cleaner our environment has become. In comparison, some of the dirtiest countries are the poorest countries. That's because they don't have the time or resources to care about the environment. Why should they when they're struggling just to eat? We have the luxury to pour capital into researching, developing, and utilizing environmentally-friendly technologies.

saywhatkid said:
We are going in circles here. I respect your opinions, but we disagree.
Click to expand...
Hmm, felt like a straight line to me.
 
Foxrac said:
Well, I disagree with you but I'm going leave this matter to court and they are currently under challenge in federal court appeals and expected go all way to US Supreme Court for question about 14th Amendment. If US Supreme Court rule gay marriage ban as unconstitutional so it will legal in all states and my battle may be over, except for tell congress to not pass the constitution ban or something like that, though, I doubt they will due difficult to reach supermajorities in congress.
Click to expand...
We'll see how that goes. I'm not one to make absolute predictions about the court, but I wouldn't be surprised if the court did not rule that gay marriage is protected by the equal protection clause. Such a ruling would change the way equal protection is understood and the ramifications of that could be huge and extend way beyond just gay marriage. The way equal protection is understood now, it applies to individuals, not types of unions. In other words, it protects individual gays from preferential treatment, but unions between a man and a woman can be held higher than unions between two men or two women.

Also, the Supreme Court can't order the Congress to not amend the Constitution. Even if the Supreme Court finds gay marriage to be constitutional, the Congress could turn around the next day and amend the Constitution to ban states from allowing gay marriage and that will take precedence over the Supreme Court ruling. Why? Because at that point, gay marriage will be unconstitutional. I think it's very unlikely to happen, but that's the way the system works.
 
darkdog said:
We'll see how that goes. I'm not one to make absolute predictions about the court, but I wouldn't be surprised if the court did not rule that gay marriage is protected by the equal protection clause. Such a ruling would change the way equal protection is understood and the ramifications of that could be huge and extend way beyond just gay marriage. The way equal protection is understood now, it applies to individuals, not types of unions. In other words, it protects individual gays from preferential treatment, but unions between a man and a woman can be held higher than unions between two men or two women.

Also, the Supreme Court can't order the Congress to not amend the Constitution. Even if the Supreme Court finds gay marriage to be constitutional, the Congress could turn around the next day and amend the Constitution to ban states from allowing gay marriage and that will take precedence over the Supreme Court ruling. Why? Because at that point, gay marriage will be unconstitutional. I think it's very unlikely to happen, but that's the way the system works.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I was talking.

What guess? I'm going move on because you don't understand my post at all.
 
Foxrac said:
No, that's not what I was talking.

What guess? I'm going move on because you don't understand my post at all.
Click to expand...
On a second reading, I think you probably meant that you were planning to tell Congress to not enact an anti-gay marriage amendment rather than expecting the Supreme Court to tell that to Congress. I apologize for the misunderstanding. If I've misunderstood anything else, please let me know.
 
darkdog said:
On a second reading, I think you probably meant that you were planning to tell Congress to not enact an anti-gay marriage amendment rather than expecting the Supreme Court to tell that to Congress. I apologize for the misunderstanding. If I've misunderstood anything else, please let me know.
Click to expand...

Yup, that what I means and just tell congress to not pass this amendment after Supreme Court rule gay marriage ban as unconstitutional under 14th Amendment.

I don't know about US Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage under 14th Amendment so we have to wait for few years to hear from them.
 
Sure would be nice if all the groups would stop begging for more until we get the bills paid. Just sayin
 
Foxrac said:
Yup, that what I means and just tell congress to not pass this amendment after Supreme Court rule gay marriage ban as unconstitutional under 14th Amendment.

I don't know about US Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage under 14th Amendment so we have to wait for few years to hear from them.
Click to expand...
Yup. If nothing else, it will at least be interesting, whichever way it turns out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top