Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Americas first gay president

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Americas first gay president

    The left gave us our "first black president."

    The left WANTED to give us our "first woman president," though they picked the worst woman to run at it...

    Now they're giving us "the first gay president."

    Theories on how this is going to work out ??

    Homosexual Pete Buttigieg has decided to run for president.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pete Buttigieg is gay.

    The Democrats cant help themselves at this point when it comes to leveraging novelty, glass ceiling benchmarks in politics. First women, first black, first whatever.

    Its like drug addiction. Once you go down that road, you need more. It never stops.

    Pretty soon its like Tourettes Syndrome. The Democrats can only run now with First Candidates. Perhaps we should now call them the Party of Firsters.

    The ironic beauty here is that these are all superficial reasons to vote for anyone and have zero to do with any actual policies or any real fiber. Democrats dont care. Its all they have left. And Martin Luther King, who preached the diametric converse of this, weeps.

    Instead of a progressive party, we have a stubbornly regressive one, entirely bigoted in its approach, which is externally based and not about positions of what people believe.

    ...It never mattered what Obama actually believed. He was the first black president.

    That was in itself all that was necessary to transform society.

    It never mattered what Hillary believed. She was poised to be the first woman president. Game, set, match.

    Its like my friend last week who messaged me on Facebook. Hes a Democrat. He sent me an article about Pete Buttigieg titled Almost 70 percent of Americans okay with gay presidential candidate, poll finds. And then his own question to me at the top of the article; How about you?

    It was pure high school peer pressure stupidity. A leftist tactic.

    He has no idea how I view people, or how conservatives in general view people, which is to say, we dont on principle care all that much about things that dont matter. We only care about policies, positions and belief systems of candidates. Conservatives were never into tribal identity politics. Thats the lefts handiwork. Conservatives believe in liberty and, by and large, want to be left alone. It doesnt matter. Not to the left. You can tell them that and they will come right back with their bigotry and say, How about you? as if they didnt hear anything you just said. They have a tic.

    And so, the left thinks they have their Teflon candidate.

    They did the same with Obama. Its their sad and predictable leverage. If you criticized Obama, you were a racist. And so now, if you criticize Buttigieg, youre a homophobe.

    Policies? Why go there?


    Its like a car salesman who refuses to open the hood when asked. Why do you want to look under the hood? Its got amazing paint! Look at the sunset maroon, metallic factory paint job! As if cars where only meant to be looked at and never to be taken out for a spin, or to take you places.


    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...candidate.html

  • #2
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
    The left gave us our "first black president."

    The left WANTED to give us our "first woman president," though they picked the worst woman to run at it...

    Now they're giving us "the first gay president."

    Theories on how this is going to work out ??

    Homosexual Pete Buttigieg has decided to run for president.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pete Buttigieg is gay.

    The Democrats cant help themselves at this point when it comes to leveraging novelty, glass ceiling benchmarks in politics. First women, first black, first whatever.

    Its like drug addiction. Once you go down that road, you need more. It never stops.

    Pretty soon its like Tourettes Syndrome. The Democrats can only run now with First Candidates. Perhaps we should now call them the Party of Firsters.

    The ironic beauty here is that these are all superficial reasons to vote for anyone and have zero to do with any actual policies or any real fiber. Democrats dont care. Its all they have left. And Martin Luther King, who preached the diametric converse of this, weeps.

    Instead of a progressive party, we have a stubbornly regressive one, entirely bigoted in its approach, which is externally based and not about positions of what people believe.

    ...It never mattered what Obama actually believed. He was the first black president.

    That was in itself all that was necessary to transform society.

    It never mattered what Hillary believed. She was poised to be the first woman president. Game, set, match.

    Its like my friend last week who messaged me on Facebook. Hes a Democrat. He sent me an article about Pete Buttigieg titled Almost 70 percent of Americans okay with gay presidential candidate, poll finds. And then his own question to me at the top of the article; How about you?

    It was pure high school peer pressure stupidity. A leftist tactic.

    He has no idea how I view people, or how conservatives in general view people, which is to say, we dont on principle care all that much about things that dont matter. We only care about policies, positions and belief systems of candidates. Conservatives were never into tribal identity politics. Thats the lefts handiwork. Conservatives believe in liberty and, by and large, want to be left alone. It doesnt matter. Not to the left. You can tell them that and they will come right back with their bigotry and say, How about you? as if they didnt hear anything you just said. They have a tic.

    And so, the left thinks they have their Teflon candidate.

    They did the same with Obama. Its their sad and predictable leverage. If you criticized Obama, you were a racist. And so now, if you criticize Buttigieg, youre a homophobe.

    Policies? Why go there?


    Its like a car salesman who refuses to open the hood when asked. Why do you want to look under the hood? Its got amazing paint! Look at the sunset maroon, metallic factory paint job! As if cars where only meant to be looked at and never to be taken out for a spin, or to take you places.


    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...candidate.html
    If you take look at Mayor Pete's Wikipedia page you can get an idea of how intelligent he is. Just contrast that with Trump's piddley ass little bachelor's degree which he earned with no academic honors. Egg-head Democrats have never done well with Republicans going back to Stevenson vs Eisenhower. From what I understand Pete is religious, but not in away that would appeal to the crotch grabbing gay hating Christians who have found their messiah in Trump. .https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pete-bu...mocratic-race/

    ?


    • #3
      Originally posted by redrover View Post
      If you take look at Mayor Pete's Wikipedia page you can get an idea of how intelligent he is. Just contrast that with Trump's piddley ass little bachelor's degree which he earned with no academic honors. Egg-head Democrats have never done well with Republicans going back to Stevenson vs Eisenhower. From what I understand Pete is religious, but not in away that would appeal to the crotch grabbing gay hating Christians who have found their messiah in Trump. .https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pete-bu...mocratic-race/
      Aside from the childish blasphemy about Trump the messiah, what do you think Mayor Petes chances are of becoming Americas first gay president ?

      And why ?

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

        Aside from the childish blasphemy about Trump the messiah, what do you think Mayor Petes chances are of becoming Americas first gay president ?

        And why ?
        I don't think America is ready for an intelligent president. It all comes down to who you would rather drink a beer with. Not long ago I saw a poll that 67%of people are comfortable voting for a gay candidate. As the mayor of South Bend Indiana he was reelected after he came out, getting 83% of the vote as you probably know South Bend is a far cry from gay friendly San Francisco.Gay no problem, intelligent no way Jose.

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by redrover View Post
          I don't think America is ready for an intelligent president. It all comes down to who you would rather drink a beer with. Not long ago I saw a poll that 67%of people are comfortable voting for a gay candidate. As the mayor of South Bend Indiana he was reelected after he came out, getting 83% of the vote as you probably know South Bend is a far cry from gay friendly San Francisco.Gay no problem, intelligent no way Jose.
          Ah, so THAT explains it !

          America will only vote for dumbasses !

          So this man Pete Buttigieg hasn't a chance, because he's not a dumb-ass of the Beavis and Butthead variety that America wants & loves !

          Got it, thanks for the advice, I hope both parties are reading this !

          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by redrover View Post

            I don't think America is ready for an intelligent president. It all comes down to who you would rather drink a beer with. Not long ago I saw a poll that 67%of people are comfortable voting for a gay candidate. As the mayor of South Bend Indiana he was reelected after he came out, getting 83% of the vote as you probably know South Bend is a far cry from gay friendly San Francisco.Gay no problem, intelligent no way Jose.
            You are speaking for your party, not America. None of the Dem candidates running for president have shown any intelligence. Either they don't have any or they know it would not be popular with the Dem voters.

            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by Brexx View Post
              You are speaking for your party, not America. None of the Dem candidates running for president have shown any intelligence. Either they don't have any or they know it would not be popular with the Dem voters.
              Thing is, I think they're seriously misreading who these democrat voters are.

              Not that many people identifying with the democrat party, buy into all of the creepy crap todays candidates are trying to sell.

              Only fools think these candidates are "smart."

              Alexandria Ocasio-cortez is so stupid & ignorant it's scary.

              This Pete guy isn't all that smart. But he's counting on the fact that his "gayness" will work as enough of a novelty to get him a lot of support. It won't. Entirely foolish candidate that's going nowhere fast.

              Elizabeth Warren, our fake Indian, who is NOW yapping about impeaching the president.. she's joined nutty Maxine... she's no genius either. Going nowhere fast.

              Howard Schultz - THERE'S someone to watch ! He's not a complete yahoo or crazyman - and he's seriously pissed off the weirdo's in the democrat party. He's too normal for them ..Might be interesting possibility ??

              We'll see.

              But right now, it's a three ring circus of madmen & women drunk on the spotlight. Acting and saying bizarre things to see who can be the most outrageous I guess ? Reminds me of a shock-rock band concert at CBGB's - https://www.cbgb.com/

              These people think they're going to be elected to the Presidency ???????????? LOL

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                Thing is, I think they're seriously misreading who these democrat voters are.

                Not that many people identifying with the democrat party, buy into all of the creepy crap todays candidates are trying to sell.

                Only fools think these candidates are "smart."

                Alexandria Ocasio-cortez is so stupid & ignorant it's scary.

                This Pete guy isn't all that smart. But he's counting on the fact that his "gayness" will work as enough of a novelty to get him a lot of support. It won't. Entirely foolish candidate that's going nowhere fast.

                Elizabeth Warren, our fake Indian, who is NOW yapping about impeaching the president.. she's joined nutty Maxine... she's no genius either. Going nowhere fast.

                Howard Schultz - THERE'S someone to watch ! He's not a complete yahoo or crazyman - and he's seriously pissed off the weirdo's in the democrat party. He's too normal for them ..Might be interesting possibility ??

                We'll see.

                But right now, it's a three ring circus of madmen & women drunk on the spotlight. Acting and saying bizarre things to see who can be the most outrageous I guess ? Reminds me of a shock-rock band concert at CBGB's - https://www.cbgb.com/

                These people think they're going to be elected to the Presidency ???????????? LOL
                Its interesting that Schultz, a life-long Democrat, and a level-headed sensible person, quit the party to possibly run as an independent. He must believe the crazies have taken over the party to such an extent that a sensible person like him doesn't belong there anymore. That certainly is the way it looks to most people I think. Moderate Democrats must be appalled.

                ?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                  Its interesting that Schultz, a life-long Democrat, and a level-headed sensible person, quit the party to possibly run as an independent. He must believe the crazies have taken over the party to such an extent that a sensible person like him doesn't belong there anymore. That certainly is the way it looks to most people I think. Moderate Democrats must be appalled.
                  I think they probably are.

                  Which makes them vote a different way maybe ?

                  I know republicans will do it when they're "party" keeps acting like retards... it just gets harder and harder though choosing between the demonic and the retarded ...

                  ... what's a person to do ???

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                    I think they probably are.

                    Which makes them vote a different way maybe ?

                    I know republicans will do it when they're "party" keeps acting like retards... it just gets harder and harder though choosing between the demonic and the retarded ...

                    ... what's a person to do ???
                    I was talking to a liberal friend today and she said she is not enthralled with Mayor Pete, because she thinks he is just another excuse for people to ignore the many excellent women candidates in the race. Pete's relative youth make work against him too.America is more comfortable with the Viagra generation.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by redrover View Post
                      I was talking to a liberal friend today and she said she is not enthralled with Mayor Pete, because she thinks he is just another excuse for people to ignore the many excellent women candidates in the race.
                      Maybe so. BUT, the novelty of "gay" may not even do much for him. I question whether it will myself, I think people find the whole gay thing old and tired and boring.

                      "Yeah, you're young & gay so what ! Why should I vote for you ? Really WHY ?"

                      Originally posted by redrover View Post
                      Pete's relative youth make work against him too.America is more comfortable with the Viagra generation.
                      Maybe, maybe not.

                      Sometimes I wonder myself if the "republicans" aren't so useless because they're an elderly bunch. They seem to have no vision or ambition to do more than regally squat in their high positions and accomplish nothing. Maybe others are sick of the Olde Farte squad too ? We'll see I guess.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                        Maybe so. BUT, the novelty of "gay" may not even do much for him. I question whether it will myself, I think people find the whole gay thing old and tired and boring.

                        "Yeah, you're young & gay so what ! Why should I vote for you ? Really WHY ?"



                        Maybe, maybe not.

                        Sometimes I wonder myself if the "republicans" aren't so useless because they're an elderly bunch. They seem to have no vision or ambition to do more than regally squat in their high positions and accomplish nothing. Maybe others are sick of the Olde Farte squad too ? We'll see I guess.
                        Here is a new youth survey from the Harvard Institute of politics. It's interesting to see how they feel about us. https://iop.harvard.edu/about/newsle...h-poll-results

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by redrover View Post
                          Here is a new youth survey from the Harvard Institute of politics. It's interesting to see how they feel about us. https://iop.harvard.edu/about/newsle...h-poll-results
                          The hysteria todays media - social & regular - creates in our young people, plays a big part in it.

                          The new technology, always connected and reacting to things, doesn't help. Constant over-stimulation is unhealthy.

                          So many "new issues" are used to create hysterics in more people of all ages.

                          It's a new method of manipulation via mass media and technology.

                          Note that at your link, it is stated;

                          "More than 4-in-5 young Americans check their phone at least once per day for news related to politics and current events. Facebook (46%) remains the most prominent platform for this use, followed by Instagram (34%), Twitter (30%)and Snapchat (20%)."

                          Constant input, creating hysteria about nothing, is what we see happening.

                          These platforms separate, rather than bring people together. We're interacting, not with each other but with devices.

                          It is unhealthy for social beings like us.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            But then there are a few unsavory items about our newest presidential candidate "mayor pete"

                            A significant number of people in America have accepted "homosexuality" - as it was in Sodom - as Ok and normal, when it isn't.

                            Not sure, but that MIGHT be objectionable to enough people to keep him far away from the Whitehouse.

                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Since the mayor is an admitted homosexual, with a "husband," no less, he obviously feels he must justify his choice of walking in the dark world of perversion. And make no mistake: homosexuality is perversion. If not, then all religions and denominations down through the ages have been wrong.

                            A serious person will not try to overturn civilization's morals, manners, and mores of thousands of years without much thoughtful consideration.

                            Evidently, Pete cannot be trusted to make decisions since he chose a degrading, dangerous, even deadly lifestyle.

                            Such a person should not be in charge of the national budget or foreign policy or have his finger on the button.


                            People who are soft on perversion don't know the difference between right and wrong, up and down, black and white, good and bad, or normal and abnormal.

                            The Hebrew prophet Amos commanded us to "hate the evil and love the good." (We are commanded to hate evil but never persons.)

                            However, most people relegate Amos to the ash heap and suggest that what is evil for one person may be good for another. Afraid not.

                            While there can be some honest disagreement about some things, when God speaks about an issue, that settles it. God has spoken clearly about perversion.

                            Most homosexuals, rather than deal with our objections and criticisms, resort to the embarrassing and humiliating ploy of screaming "hate," "bigotry," and "intolerance."

                            That is much easier than speaking to the real issue. Even if some "traditional marriage" proponents are haters, that does not mean homosexuality is right and good for society.

                            Pete has aggressively gone after Vice President Pence because Pence believes in "traditional marriage."

                            I wonder how he would respond if Pence said, "I believe in the biblical truth that homosexuality is perversion and is an abomination to God and man."

                            You see, that is exactly what Pence and others are really saying when they speak of "traditional marriage" and is more pleasant to hear.


                            Pete, rather than accepting responsibility for willingly living a homosexual lifestyle, tried to blame his sexual choice on God. He said to Pence, "Your quarrel is with my Creator."

                            No, it is not the Creator's fault, because Christ said in Matthew 19:45, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" Obviously, Pete chose not to obey his Creator's command and plan for the human race. The mayor has that legal right, but it is folly for him to suggest that his lifestyle choice is moral or to suggest that it is wrong for decent people to question his wisdom or to even bring up the issue.

                            Just because the mayor has desires for his "husband," that does not mean he was created homosexual. Because Pete reacts to that desire, that does not make him a homosexual. It only means he is a stupid sinner, like all of us. Practicing homosexuals are people who were born heterosexual and are rebelling against the God-ordained plan for their lives. Homosexual is simply a term given to heterosexuals who rebel against God's plan for mankind.

                            One does not have to react to every desire. One may be naturally lazy, but he still gets up each day and goes to work. One has a natural and driving desire for chocolate, but he doesn't eat a dozen Snickers each day. Even if an alcoholic gene were found, it would not justify a person becoming a drunk. Nothing and no one forces a man to slip between the sheets with another man and to do so is abnormal, aberrant, and abominable.

                            People change all the time, so the counselors should not tell people they cannot change their sexual desires and practices.

                            Of course they can change. I know former practicing homosexuals who have changed and are living normal, happy, productive lives with a houseful of children. If homosexuals cannot change, then there is no hope for the pedophile. Moreover, if the pedophile is "born that way" and cannot change his behavior, then how can prison be justified?

                            A black sports figure, Chris Broussard, announcer for ESPN, expressed a politically incorrect opinion for which he was symbolically drawn and quartered by the "tolerant" left. Chris said, "I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality. I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin ... that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ."

                            All informed and honest Christians will agree with his courageous statement; however, those on the Left who make decisions based on their "feelings" frothed at the mouth for Chris's courage, commitment, and convictions. He was reprimanded by the channel and is no longer with them. I wonder why. After all, doesn't everyone want diversity? Doesn't tolerance extend to Christian conservatives? I suppose not.

                            The fact that ESPN apologized for its announcer is proof positive that the mainstream media are master hypocrites when they speak of diversity, fairness, and equality.

                            When a man like Chris expresses historic, sensible, and biblical views, his employer should proudly say, "See, we really believe in diversity. We believe everyone has a right to express his views even if some people are offended. We are proud of him for having the courage to express his views so eloquently."


                            Yeah, sure.

                            Pete and other homosexuals who came out of the closet are called "a hero," "brave," and "courageous," but that might be a little hyperbolic. It used to be that a hero was someone who risked his life dragging a fellow soldier out of danger at the risk of life or a firefighter who carries a child from a burning building. Not only is the world changing, but it seems that words are also changing.

                            The fact is, homosexuals don't exist, but there are heterosexuals who choose a life of perversion and rebellion against God. Let me make it clear: homosexuals, as a group, do not exist, but homosexuality does exist, as it is a choice made by weak, warped, willful, and wicked people.

                            Growing Up Straight, a book recommended by the National Institute of Mental Health, reveals that "[s]cientific consensus holds that homosexuality is very largely conditioned by the environment and childhood and most particularly by parental influence in the home." No gay gene, so no excuse.

                            Two researchers, Bearrman and Bruckner, in the March 2002 American Journal of Sociology, concluded, "[O]ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences." The Yale-Columbia professors are saying DNA does not determine same-sex preferences. It is life experience that shapes sexual preferences. No one is born gay. No one.

                            Bryan Fischer quoted ScienceDaily as saying, "[N]o major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection." No one is born gay.

                            Dr. Lisa Diamond, a lesbian feminist psychologist who is also a highly respected member of the American Psychological Association, has spent years refuting the idea that homosexuality is innate and immutable. As stated by clinical psychologist Dr. Laura A. Haynes, through her publications, Diamond is declaring, "The battle to disprove 'Born that way and can't change' is now over, and (Diamond) is telling LGBT activists to stop promoting the myth."


                            Whenever some Tom, Dick, or Pete comes out of the closet, everyone speaks of "celebrating diversity" and promoting toleration; however, no one celebrates me for being a white, pro-gun, conservative young-Earth creationist straight Christian. What am I? Chopped liver? Are we to be tolerant of leftist loonies but critical of those who lean toward right?

                            Some nave Americans think Pete has a chance to become president of the United States, but they also believe that Taiwan will retake Red China; Pepsi will sell for a nickel again; and any day, they'll find Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Parker, and Amelia Earhart playing checkers in a Mexican bar with Elvis Presley.

                            Don't bet the farm on it.


                            https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...sexuality.html

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                              But then there are a few unsavory items about our newest presidential candidate "mayor pete"

                              A significant number of people in America have accepted "homosexuality" - as it was in Sodom - as Ok and normal, when it isn't.

                              Not sure, but that MIGHT be objectionable to enough people to keep him far away from the Whitehouse.

                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Since the mayor is an admitted homosexual, with a "husband," no less, he obviously feels he must justify his choice of walking in the dark world of perversion. And make no mistake: homosexuality is perversion. If not, then all religions and denominations down through the ages have been wrong.

                              A serious person will not try to overturn civilization's morals, manners, and mores of thousands of years without much thoughtful consideration.

                              Evidently, Pete cannot be trusted to make decisions since he chose a degrading, dangerous, even deadly lifestyle.

                              Such a person should not be in charge of the national budget or foreign policy or have his finger on the button.


                              People who are soft on perversion don't know the difference between right and wrong, up and down, black and white, good and bad, or normal and abnormal.

                              The Hebrew prophet Amos commanded us to "hate the evil and love the good." (We are commanded to hate evil but never persons.)

                              However, most people relegate Amos to the ash heap and suggest that what is evil for one person may be good for another. Afraid not.

                              While there can be some honest disagreement about some things, when God speaks about an issue, that settles it. God has spoken clearly about perversion.

                              Most homosexuals, rather than deal with our objections and criticisms, resort to the embarrassing and humiliating ploy of screaming "hate," "bigotry," and "intolerance."

                              That is much easier than speaking to the real issue. Even if some "traditional marriage" proponents are haters, that does not mean homosexuality is right and good for society.

                              Pete has aggressively gone after Vice President Pence because Pence believes in "traditional marriage."

                              I wonder how he would respond if Pence said, "I believe in the biblical truth that homosexuality is perversion and is an abomination to God and man."

                              You see, that is exactly what Pence and others are really saying when they speak of "traditional marriage" and is more pleasant to hear.


                              Pete, rather than accepting responsibility for willingly living a homosexual lifestyle, tried to blame his sexual choice on God. He said to Pence, "Your quarrel is with my Creator."

                              No, it is not the Creator's fault, because Christ said in Matthew 19:45, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" Obviously, Pete chose not to obey his Creator's command and plan for the human race. The mayor has that legal right, but it is folly for him to suggest that his lifestyle choice is moral or to suggest that it is wrong for decent people to question his wisdom or to even bring up the issue.

                              Just because the mayor has desires for his "husband," that does not mean he was created homosexual. Because Pete reacts to that desire, that does not make him a homosexual. It only means he is a stupid sinner, like all of us. Practicing homosexuals are people who were born heterosexual and are rebelling against the God-ordained plan for their lives. Homosexual is simply a term given to heterosexuals who rebel against God's plan for mankind.

                              One does not have to react to every desire. One may be naturally lazy, but he still gets up each day and goes to work. One has a natural and driving desire for chocolate, but he doesn't eat a dozen Snickers each day. Even if an alcoholic gene were found, it would not justify a person becoming a drunk. Nothing and no one forces a man to slip between the sheets with another man and to do so is abnormal, aberrant, and abominable.

                              People change all the time, so the counselors should not tell people they cannot change their sexual desires and practices.

                              Of course they can change. I know former practicing homosexuals who have changed and are living normal, happy, productive lives with a houseful of children. If homosexuals cannot change, then there is no hope for the pedophile. Moreover, if the pedophile is "born that way" and cannot change his behavior, then how can prison be justified?

                              A black sports figure, Chris Broussard, announcer for ESPN, expressed a politically incorrect opinion for which he was symbolically drawn and quartered by the "tolerant" left. Chris said, "I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality. I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin ... that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ."

                              All informed and honest Christians will agree with his courageous statement; however, those on the Left who make decisions based on their "feelings" frothed at the mouth for Chris's courage, commitment, and convictions. He was reprimanded by the channel and is no longer with them. I wonder why. After all, doesn't everyone want diversity? Doesn't tolerance extend to Christian conservatives? I suppose not.

                              The fact that ESPN apologized for its announcer is proof positive that the mainstream media are master hypocrites when they speak of diversity, fairness, and equality.

                              When a man like Chris expresses historic, sensible, and biblical views, his employer should proudly say, "See, we really believe in diversity. We believe everyone has a right to express his views even if some people are offended. We are proud of him for having the courage to express his views so eloquently."


                              Yeah, sure.

                              Pete and other homosexuals who came out of the closet are called "a hero," "brave," and "courageous," but that might be a little hyperbolic. It used to be that a hero was someone who risked his life dragging a fellow soldier out of danger at the risk of life or a firefighter who carries a child from a burning building. Not only is the world changing, but it seems that words are also changing.

                              The fact is, homosexuals don't exist, but there are heterosexuals who choose a life of perversion and rebellion against God. Let me make it clear: homosexuals, as a group, do not exist, but homosexuality does exist, as it is a choice made by weak, warped, willful, and wicked people.

                              Growing Up Straight, a book recommended by the National Institute of Mental Health, reveals that "[s]cientific consensus holds that homosexuality is very largely conditioned by the environment and childhood and most particularly by parental influence in the home." No gay gene, so no excuse.

                              Two researchers, Bearrman and Bruckner, in the March 2002 American Journal of Sociology, concluded, "[O]ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences." The Yale-Columbia professors are saying DNA does not determine same-sex preferences. It is life experience that shapes sexual preferences. No one is born gay. No one.

                              Bryan Fischer quoted ScienceDaily as saying, "[N]o major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection." No one is born gay.

                              Dr. Lisa Diamond, a lesbian feminist psychologist who is also a highly respected member of the American Psychological Association, has spent years refuting the idea that homosexuality is innate and immutable. As stated by clinical psychologist Dr. Laura A. Haynes, through her publications, Diamond is declaring, "The battle to disprove 'Born that way and can't change' is now over, and (Diamond) is telling LGBT activists to stop promoting the myth."


                              Whenever some Tom, Dick, or Pete comes out of the closet, everyone speaks of "celebrating diversity" and promoting toleration; however, no one celebrates me for being a white, pro-gun, conservative young-Earth creationist straight Christian. What am I? Chopped liver? Are we to be tolerant of leftist loonies but critical of those who lean toward right?

                              Some nave Americans think Pete has a chance to become president of the United States, but they also believe that Taiwan will retake Red China; Pepsi will sell for a nickel again; and any day, they'll find Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Parker, and Amelia Earhart playing checkers in a Mexican bar with Elvis Presley.

                              Don't bet the farm on it.


                              https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...sexuality.html
                              Or, how can letting them out of prison be justified?

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X