Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Why? Trump hasn't said much that I would view as "out of line", especially not over this Khan crap. Just because your end of the political spectrum or personal belief may perceive certain rhetoric or policy positions as "out of line" doesn't mean everyone else does. I love the fact that he talks (bad word) about progressive talking points, "heroes", policies, and dignitaries. This is how he won more primary votes than any other candidate in Republican history while running through 16 competitors. Instead of acting like Romney and being "above the fray" (and losing horribly as a result) he punches back against the DNC-controlled corrupt media and gets his constituency fired up.

 

The only thing I think he overstepped his bounds on was on the FBI/Apple iPhone investigation, and that was months ago and fairly minuscule. Other than that, I agree with his policies on immigration, trade, taxes, foreign policy, and national security.

How is saying we should ignore international human rights laws and the Geneva conventions and advocating torture and the killing of terrorists families not out of line? He has literally said he wants us to be more like the monsters we're fighting to beat them. None of that is out of line? Discriminating against an entire culture of people based off of the actions of a few is not out of line? I'm not the biggest Trump distractor and I can see some of the good in his RHETORIC (key word here) but to just pretend like this guy doesn't say some of the most vile stuff is pure denial.

 

Quote:I think most Trump supporters recognize the man's flaws.  They also recognize a Hillary victory would likely be the end of conservative politics in America.  She would continue Obama's policies of completely unregulated illegal immigration on the southern border and the importation of thousands of violent jihadists.  She is beholden to the most repressive regimes in the Middle East.  And she has absolutely no respect for the rule of law. 

 

Then there's the opportunity to pack the Supreme Court with 3 or 4 more progressive judges.

 

Bottom line, if Hillary is elected, conservatives will never win another election.  They will never win another Supreme Court case.  The attacks on the 1st and 2nd Amendment will be relentless. 

How would Hillary be the end of conservative politics in America exactly? News flash: Hillary is not a liberal! She's far closer to a neocon than anything else and her actions prove it! All the BS social reform she's peddling right now will be tossed out the window when she gets to the White House. Hillary is probably more of a "conservative" than Trump (who is in fact not a conservative himself at all). At the end of the day both of these politicians are narcissistic opportunists who will say anything to get elected. BOTH OF THEM. Trump is just as bad as Hillary. Neither of them care about conservatism or liberalism (especially the contemporary definition of those ideologies as they've both been misinterpreted and misconstrued by ignorants over the course of time). They care about getting in the White House to feed their egos and money interests. You really think Trump gives a damn about defending conservative principles? LOL. He was basically a common variety New York liberal not but 5 years ago when it was convenient. Now he's a "classic Christian conservative" since it's the best position to be aligned in to get him elected. Trump is a textbook politician and the fact people can't see that just because he hides behind the fact he has no voting record is incredible to me. Wake up people.

 

Also, Obama's policies of completely unregulated illegal immigration? Obama has deported a record number of immigrants, so how exactly is he supporting/complicit in and/or advocating for unlimited illegal immigration access? Just because Obama doesn't argue for a ridiculous wall doesn't mean he wants unregulated illegal immigrants.

 

I agree packing the Supreme Court with more SJW regressive left activist judges is not going to help matters (as far as this ridiculous SJW crusade is concerned), but Trump putting a neocon corporate schill judge in the court is not going to do anything to help either.

 

Quote:Of course he's out of line at times.. But at least he's no Crooked Hillary.. At least he wants to protect this country from the influx of immigrants from terroristic countries, whereas Hillary wants to open the flood gates.. And at least Trump didn't sell weapons to Syria (which in turn gave weapons to ISIS)


Trump may be a lot of things, but he's the lesser of two evils and the more necessary.

Where has Hillary said she wants to open the floodgates to Muslim immigrants? Just because she speaks in platitudes of "breaking down walls and borders" doesn't mean there is anything in her actual policy platform advocating for ramped up Middle Eastern immigration. Furthermore, Trump hasn't done anything, he has no political track record, so we have no idea how he would have handled anything! He was for the Iraq War initially but then he was against it when it became unpopular. Yet he goes around acting like he had immense foresight and was always against it. Lies! Hillary's foreign policy positions are disastrous and Trump's rhetoric is spot on, but that's all it is...rhetoric! He lies for a living! Why would he stop things that he profits off of? No matter how much you dislike Hillary her criticisms of him at the DNC were spot on. He makes his ties in China...for a guy that claims he's going to bring American jobs back, why didn't he do it for his own companies? He profits off of the way the system is now and it has made him rich...what in the world makes you think he is going to want to change it to the potential detriment to his own bottom line?

Things I think Trump is telling the truth on:

 

Wanting to align with Russia

Legalize torture

Kill terrorists' families

Make NATO members pay up

Ban 90% of the ME from being able to get into America 

 

Everything else has a high likelihood of being horse manure. 

What she and the rest of her party wants is permanent control.  Despotism where they can eliminate opposing voices.

 

They desire to flood the country with D voters to accomplish this.  Once completed, they'll have established their perpetual "rule."

 

Nothing more, nothing less than securing, then abusing a permanency of power.

 

And the useful idiots continue to blindly comply... while whistling past the graveyard...

Quote:What she and the rest of her party wants is permanent control.  Despotism where they can eliminate opposing voices.

 

They desire to flood the country with D voters to accomplish this.  Once completed, they'll have established their perpetual "rule."

 

Nothing more, nothing less than securing, then abusing a permanency of power.

 

And the useful idiots continue to blindly comply... while whistling past the graveyard...

I'm sorry, who exactly likes Hillary other than feminists who only care about having a woman in the White House, the few airheads who look back on the Clinton years as the "golden days", and some random white women who don't understand anything about politics or policies and just think she's "good"? All of which are vast minorities. Last time I checked Clinton has something like a 77% disapproval rating. Doesn't sound like a lot of people are "blindly complying" to her. Furthermore, the object of every political party is to WIN. Same with the Republicans. By virtue of their very nature they would prefer there to only be one party, that's the way OPPOSING forces work. It's the framework of our government that's meant to keep that balance in check and prevent a one party rule. Political parties =/= government systems. To act like they're in the wrong for wanting to do what their meant to is silly and emotional. However, when one party has gone so far to the right to as become now comically out of touch with the majority of Americans, and by a large margin, that pushes the system.

 

The Republican party has nothing but itself to blame for losing so much fundamental demographic ground to Democrats by not evolving their positions to be more in line with the majority of Americans. America is never going to be the whitewashed country it was back in the 19th-20th centuries again and there will continue to be more diversity.  The Republican party needs to realize that many of its positions alienate key demographics and are doing the conservative ideology a disservice. There is a reason most millennials identify as liberal and it's because all of their lives they've seen nothing but Republicans carrying the banner of conservatism look like bigots and loons. Or maybe there is a problem with just defining "conservatism" as the classics American values, which many minorities take as code for "normal" white men and women families? The problem with conservatism has always been that at some point it crosses a line where it becomes "stuck-in-the-mud-ism". The world moves on, and the solutions and institutions that worked in the mid 20th century are not going to work in 2016.

 

However, unless Democrats destroy the constitution, there is never going to be a one party system in this country, so peddling a narrative of fear and boogieman Democrats does nothing constructive.

Quote:What she and the rest of her party wants is permanent control.  Despotism where they can eliminate opposing voices.

 

They desire to flood the country with D voters to accomplish this.  Once completed, they'll have established their perpetual "rule."

 

Nothing more, nothing less than securing, then abusing a permanency of power.

 

And the useful idiots continue to blindly comply... while whistling past the graveyard...

 

Truer words could not have been said on this forum.  I'm not really "pro-Trump", I'm more "anti-Hillary".  If Trump would keep his pie-hole shut and allow Hillary to speak, he wins in a landslide.

 

That being said, remember what Valerie Jarrett said when Obama was elected.  She was one of his chief advisers and her exact quote was "It is important that President-elect Obama is prepared to really take power and be ready to rule day one."  The thing is, the office of President isn't about ruling, it's about leadership.

 

So what has happened since 2008?  We now have "free speech zones" to eliminate opposing voices.  We had "ruler-ship" rather than "leadership" when the democrat congress rammed through Obamacare and it was signed into law by "his majesty".  The abuse of power has come from the many "executive orders" initiated by Obama when Congress would not pass legislation that he wanted.  The democrat party pretty much ensured the "coronation" of Hillary in the primary.

 

People are always calling for change and a shakeup of the political parties.  Donald Trump has accomplished that on the Republican side with many in the establishment either questioning or outright saying that they are against him.  Meanwhile on the Democrat side, it's "politics as usual" with the "coronation" of Hillary.  While both sides attempted to stop it, the Republican was out in the open about it.  Meanwhile the Democrat side was exposed for trying to do it secretly.

 

The bottom line is Trump sometimes runs his mouth more than he should.  I find it interesting that Hillary hasn't commented on any of the recent medial created "scandal" and instead relies on "his majesty" (Obama) to remark on it at a press conference regarding TPP.

Quote:I'm sorry, who exactly likes Hillary other than feminists who only care about having a woman in the White House, the few airheads who look back on the Clinton years as the "golden days", and some random white women who don't understand anything about politics or policies and just think she's "good"? All of which are vast minorities. Last time I checked Clinton has something like a 77% disapproval rating. Doesn't sound like a lot of people are "blindly complying" to her. Furthermore, the object of every political party is to WIN. Same with the Republicans. By virtue of their very nature they would prefer there to only be one party, that's the way OPPOSING forces work. It's the framework of our government that's meant to keep that balance in check and prevent a one party rule. Political parties =/= government systems. To act like they're in the wrong for wanting to do what their meant to is silly and emotional. However, when one party has gone so far to the right to as become now comically out of touch with the majority of Americans, and by a large margin, that pushes the system.

 

The Republican party has nothing but itself to blame for losing so much fundamental demographic ground to Democrats by not evolving their positions to be more in line with the majority of Americans. America is never going to be the whitewashed country it was back in the 19th-20th centuries again and there will continue to be more diversity.  The Republican party needs to realize that many of its positions alienate key demographics and are doing the conservative ideology a disservice. There is a reason most millennials identify as liberal and it's because all of their lives they've seen nothing but Republicans carrying the banner of conservatism look like bigots and loons. Or maybe there is a problem with just defining "conservatism" as the classics American values, which many minorities take as code for "normal" white men and women families? The problem with conservatism has always been that at some point it crosses a line where it becomes "stuck-in-the-mud-ism". The world moves on, and the solutions and institutions that worked in the mid 20th century are not going to work in 2016.

 

However, unless Democrats destroy the constitution, there is never going to be a one party system in this country, so peddling a narrative of fear and boogieman Democrats does nothing constructive.

 

You must be a Political Science major.

 

Republicans have gone so far to the right?  What about Democrats going so far to the left?  Regarding the first part in bold, the Democrat party alienates a vast majority of people with conservative principles.  It's not about demographics, it's about morals and values.

 

Regarding the second part in bold, that's how the left continues to brainwash the minions.  Conservatives are "bigots" and "loons"?  Show where conservatism == bigot.  For your information, I happen to be a minority (since race seems to be such an issue with liberals).  I'm a conservative, explain why I'm a "loon".  Again for your information, I'm involved not only with educating our young military members, but I also happen to be involved with developing many open source projects (both software and hardware).

 

Regarding the third part in bold, is that not a racist statement?  I happen to be a "minority" that is conservative.  I by no means have a "normal white men and women family".  I'm conservative for a lot of reasons which I won't go into right now.  However, I live in "the South", I drive a pickup truck, I have a bass boat and I listen to country music.  What exactly are you going to classify me as?

Quote: 

 

However, unless Democrats destroy the constitution, there is never going to be a one party system in this country, so peddling a narrative of fear and boogieman Democrats does nothing constructive.

 

How ignorant of you to not see it's already being done.

 

Laws go unenforced purposefully, end-running the constitution by executive order, and appointing judges to the Supreme Court that defy Constitutional law.

 

How typically glib of those that blindly defend the left and their religious pursuit of political power.

I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier.

Then accepts it. So now he's even with McCain. Awesome

Quote:You must be a Political Science major.

 

Republicans have gone so far to the right?  What about Democrats going so far to the left?  Regarding the first part in bold, the Democrat party alienates a vast majority of people with conservative principles.  It's not about demographics, it's about morals and values.

 

Regarding the second part in bold, that's how the left continues to brainwash the minions.  Conservatives are "bigots" and "loons"?  Show where conservatism == bigot.  For your information, I happen to be a minority (since race seems to be such an issue with liberals).  I'm a conservative, explain why I'm a "loon".  Again for your information, I'm involved not only with educating our young military members, but I also happen to be involved with developing many open source projects (both software and hardware).

 

Regarding the third part in bold, is that not a racist statement?  I happen to be a "minority" that is conservative.  I by no means have a "normal white men and women family".  I'm conservative for a lot of reasons which I won't go into right now.  However, I live in "the South", I drive a pickup truck, I have a bass boat and I listen to country music.  What exactly are you going to classify me as?

An by "going so far to the left" you're referring to what exactly? In what way have they gone "so far to the left"? In terms of social issues? In that case sure (not that I care about that particular trend other than the fact some want to censor what conservatives have to say on the matter). In what other ways have they moved to the left, because they've progressively moved further to the right on economic and foreign policy ever since Bill Clinton. Are you using Clinton's new platform as justification? Because I assure you she is not sticking to one thing she said, and as of right now, the actual positions of the party are center right. Unless you're trying to argue there should absolutely be no form of government help and arguing for any type of social programs makes you a far leftist loony? In which case, your perception of what's far left is very skewed in modern terms, and I can only lol.

 

Anyway, did I say conservatives in general are bigots and loons? No, I said Republicans carrying the banner of conservatism give younger generations the impression they are bigots and loons that preach an ideology that seems to only benefit one demographic in the country. #NotAll.

 

You took what I said the wrong way. I am not saying conservatism in general preaches bigotry and lunacy, I'm saying a lot of it comes off that way with the way conservatives portray it. For instance, in the case of trans men being able to use public bathrooms, there was an ad ran where an ex-baseball star called these people "troubled men" who were "dangerous". Obviously this would be offensive to trans men and come of as bigoted to a younger generation who is more accepting and used to seeing trans people and don't necessarily see them as "troubled" or "dangerous" simply because they identify as a different gender. To the guy who believes it's wrong, he is just espousing his conservative beliefs that the traditional sense of manhood and the sanctity between man and woman is right, and the whole issue might just boil down to him not wanting men in the restrooms with their daughters, which I agree with. However, that doesn't change the fact the way the message is phrased, how it comes across, and ultimately just the very basis of it, is indeed bigoted and trannies and SJWs will take it as such, regardless of whether the guy is right or not. Here in lies the problem of modern day conservatism and the Republican party. Democrats don't have to do anything to circumvent laws to get into power. Republicans are running entire demographics of minorities and young people away from the party just from the simple moral basis behind the party's stances. Hell, a lot of black people agree more with Republicans on certain social issues than Democrats, but they are scared off by the elements in the party that push agendas that would negatively effect the black community. This is not an opinion, it is just the way it is. The left does not have to "brainwash" (and PSA the left says the same things about the right, go figure). America is much more of a libertarian state than a "traditional conservative" one when it comes to social/cultural rights.

 

And yes, I'm a political science major, what of it? lolnumbers amirite?

 

Quote:How ignorant of you to not see it's already being done.

 

Laws go unenforced purposefully, end-running the constitution by executive order, and appointing judges to the Supreme Court that defy Constitutional law.

 

How typically glib of those that blindly defend the left and their religious pursuit of political power.

I don't even know what the hell you're talking about, you're just speaking in vague platitudes.

Vino, when I was college age I believed all the same stuff.  The conservatives were old, mean, and clueless.  Then I got a job, ignored politics for decades because I was too busy, and when I had time to look around I was a lot more conservative, especially fiscally.  

 

Bottom line, don't go into heavy debt learning "political science".  There are only so many jobs for captured media and policy wonks. 

Quote:Things I think Trump is telling the truth on:



Make NATO members pay up



Everything else has a high likelihood of being horse manure.

I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THIS. Pay up other NATO hangers-on.

Khizr Khan Believes the Constitution ‘Must Always Be Subordinated to the Sharia’

 

Notwithstanding his war-hero son’s genuinely patriotic example, Khizr M. Khan has published papers supporting the supremacy of Islamic law over “man-made” Western law — including the very Constitution he championed in his Democratic National Convention speech attacking GOP presidential nod Donald Trump.

 

In 1983, for example, Khan wrote a glowing review of a book compiled from a seminar held in Kuwait called “Human Rights In Islam” in which he singles out for praise the keynote address of fellow Pakistani Allah K. Brohi, a pro-jihad Islamic jurist who was one of the closest advisers to late Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq, the father of the Taliban movement.

 

Khan speaks admiringly of Brohi’s interpretation of human rights, even though it included the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic laws and even the right of men to “beat” wives who act “unseemly.”

 

http://www.breitbart.com/national-securi...on-sharia/

 

The media says I should respect this Khan guy?

 

Quote:Sorry to beat the dead horse but didn't TMD swear that Barrack was going to get the laws changed and run for a 3rd term? What is the mad dog doing these days?

Still finalizing plans to take everyone's guns I guess.

This is not looking good for Hillary, considering her long term business relationship with Khan.

Quote:This is not looking good for Hillary, considering her long term business relationship with Khan.

 

adorable

So, now not only did Khan say his sons hero was John McCain, but he has also called for Trump to return the purple heart. 

 

How much do you think this guy got paid? Seriously.

If John McCain was somebody's hero it's more of a lobotomy than a payoff.  McCain killed 134 sailors and caused loss of limbs, blindness and burns to 161 others.  Mr. hotshot Admiral's son did a "wet start" of his jet on the U.S.S. Forrestal.  His Zuni rocket was armed (against policy) and launched across the deck into other planes that were packing high-explosive bombs. 

Quote:So, now not only did Khan say his sons hero was John McCain, but he has also called for Trump to return the purple heart. 

 

How much do you think this guy got paid? Seriously.

 

Probably the same amount you are.

 

Seriously.

Quote:Vino, when I was college age I believed all the same stuff.  The conservatives were old, mean, and clueless.  Then I got a job, ignored politics for decades because I was too busy, and when I had time to look around I was a lot more conservative, especially fiscally.  

 

Bottom line, don't go into heavy debt learning "political science".  There are only so many jobs for captured media and policy wonks.

A bachelors in poly sci alone may not be the best. But backing up that degree with a post graduate degree can be very lucrative. Follow your interests, vino. But I would recommend either a double major or going on for either a masters degree or a J.D.

I live in Jacksonville. North Florida. Tons of veterans. I think you have to agree to retire to Orange park when you sign up.

 

Thus I hear a lot of "thank you for your service", we love or veterans, the word hero is thrown around a lot.

 

Apparently a lot of that is a bunch of hooey - at least by some on this board. A family loses a son in service and you can't just do the decent thing and say "Thanks for you son's ultimate sacrifice" and let it go. Nope. Have to attack the mother. Have to attack the father. And now Byron stays true to form and attacks John McCain. All for Donald Trump!

 

Real classy.

 

At least now I know that "thank you for your service" really means "thank you for letting me use your service for political purposes."