Ask Me Help Desk - Trump's latest mental confusion about what the truth is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottGem

No I got that from watching the live press conference. And you are missing the point. Trump made the statement that he had the largest margin since Reagan. A reporter confronted him with the fact that there were greater margins. This got him nonplussed and confused. It was very clear to anyone watching. I'm not arguing about how many electoral votes he got or how significant it was. I'm talking only about how he reacted when he was caught in an untruth.

Look, Dump believes his own B/S, he lives on planet Trump, and only daines to interact with us morals for his amusement. He is like all politicians, he starts with the script, and when caught out, he has nowhere to go. Everything he has said so far is Hyperbole, exaggeration of what he hopes to achieve. Where would it have got him if he said he would finish the border fence? Where would it have got him if all he said was he would enforce immigration laws? Where would it have got him if he just said we will reduce taxes? No, he had to make his policies bigger, better that what anyone had attempted because he is Trump.

Once in office the reality sets in and like all others he will do the possible and rant about the unfairness of someone, something, that prevents him from doing the rest, much of it will be money, Obama left the cupboard bare

Do you guys and gals like Cheese with your whine? Give it a break.

Quote:

Originally Posted by catonsville

Do you guys and gals like Cheese with your whine? Give it a break.

I do enjoy cheese and wine with my debate, a nice red

Quote:

Originally Posted by catonsville

Do you guys and gals like Cheese with your whine? Give it a break.

Hello c:

Gotta LOVE that 1st Amendment.. Dissent WORKS. Look.. The libs have NO power whatsoever, but we're changing things BIGLY. I dunno if you noticed, but we STOPPED the travel ban COLD.. And, I don't think they're gonna be repealing Obamacare any time soon.

Oh, I know... We're ALL paid to protest and they bus us from town to town... Bwa, ha, ha ha.. Snicker, snicker...

excon

Time will tell. Snicker, snicker...

Quote:

Originally Posted by catonsville

Time will tell. Snicker, snicker...

The problem here is by the time you Trump sycophants wake up to the way he's conned you, it may be too late for the country.

I refuse to drink the koolaid when faced with the undeniable facts, the lies, the obvious mental issues of Trumpy. Do you want more koolaid with your alternative facts?

How about that Lefties? Do you have any daughters? Snicker, Snicker.....
CNN anchor Cuomo says little girls should be forced to see nude males in locker rooms

Will CNN anchor Chris Cuomo still have a job next week?
The notoriously liberal and angry journalist crossed the line, with a perverted Twitter attack on a father.

Read why this notorious liberal must be fired,

Really? That's the best you can do? That headline is just the time of fake news that Trump complains about. Only its more on the conservative side.

Cuomo said nothing of the kind. That father doesn't understand what transgender is about if he thinks that boys who identify as girls are going to go parading through locker rooms with a penis hanging out. Or if he thinks that that boys are going to pretend to be transgender so they can get a look at girls in a lockeroom. So I agree with Cuomo that the father needs to be more tolerant and understanding.

lol ;all this gender and race identity ambiguity should play real havoc on laws protecting selective groups. There is no limiting principle for what will be classified as a race ,a sexual orientation or gender identity in the future if just identifying oneself as a protected class makes someone part of the protected class.

If laws instead of protecting equality before the law ,grant special privileges ;then it is logical that someone will exploit those laws if the only qualifying factor is that someone identifies as a member of a protected class.

My simple solution to the bathroom issue would be to change the name on the door from Men's and Women's rooms to 'Penis' and 'Vagina' . Then all you have to do is go to the one that you biologically belong in . It takes no more understanding than that .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

My simple solution to the bathroom issue would be to change the name on the door from Men's and Women's rooms to 'Penis' and 'Vagina' . Then all you have to do is go to the one that you biologically belong in . It takes no more understanding than that .

You're okay with someone in full makeup, with beautiful blond tresses, and wearing a sexy dress hiking up her skirt to use a urinal near you? And other males in this public bathroom will ignore her? And if she goes into a stall, how will you know if she has the required penis and is allowed in this bathroom?

Quote:

You're okay with someone in full makeup, with beautiful blond tresses, and wearing a sexy dress hiking up her skirt to use a urinal near you? And other males in this public bathroom will ignore her? And if she goes into a stall, how will you know if she has the required penis and is allowed in this bathroom?

No I'm not ok with it and Cuomo is wrong .I don't need to be more tolerant and understanding. I'm looking for some rules that makes sense . Short of making all restrooms single stall like a port-a-potty then that's the best I can come up with .

btw I hope the Dems continue to make such issues the central plank of their platform . and another thing . Despite what he thinks he identifies as ;Bruce Jenner will still need to go to the doc to get his prostate exam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Bruce Jenner will still need to go to the doc to get his prostate exam.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China????

Maybe he'll have it surgically removed along with the external male anatomy.

So much BS, it has been fine before the Liberals decided to make everyone feel so comfy. What the heck is wrong with the way it has been for centuries? One thing leads to another and after that, someone comes up with "an another". Tomder55 I agree. One of these days, someone will decide it is okay for everyone to walk around naked, oh, that is just "An Another" that will need to be worked on. Wow, nothing like going back centuries to satisfy the weird.

Tom your porta-potty idea is GREAT. Some smart guy can design unisex bathrooms everyone can use with privacy, and safety for schools and public places, once we stop yammering about those good old days when men were men and women were women and there was no in between. Evolution is messy, and for some scary.

I realized long ago that the wingers aren't going no where so the noise will never stop. That doesn't mean the rest of us can't progress though, and make some adjustments that includes and not excludes, and embraces and not punishes ordinary people for their own uniqueness.

As for the provocative prez "SEE YOU IN COURT!!"!

A Texas transformer girl on steroids, in a 'transition to being a 'male', has a 55-0 record in girls wrestling and is advancing towards the state championship. Now she has said she'd prefer to wrestle against boys . However state rule prohibits girls from wrestling in the boys division and vice versa. Much better that she be able to compete juiced up on steroids I guess.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/lo...134761654.html

The steroids were prescribed by a doctor, reviewed by the state, and the wrestler was approved to compete, though I shake my head at that decision. Doesn't seem that fair to me but what do I know?

The important thing to remember is gender's just an imaginary construct....right ?

I'm not transgender, but I have a few friends that are. I've always been about equal rights for everyone, and everyone means everyone! I never did understand how someone can feel like they're in the wrong body, until one transgender friend said this to me. Now I'm going to change it to man instead of woman, because the majority of people on this thread are men, but here's what I would like you to consider.

Let's say that tomorrow you wake up and you're suddenly the opposite gender. You went to bed a man, and woke up a woman. Now, all "I'd sit at home all day playing with my breasts and experiencing multiple orgasms" jokes aside, think about how you'd feel. Would you be okay with being female for the rest of your life, or would you perhaps hate it? I know as a female that loves being female, I would not want to suddenly be male and have to live as a male the remainder of my life.

That's what transgender is. You're born a certain sex, but everything you love, everything you do, everything you feel, is the opposite of the sex you were born into. Imagine having to live out your life being something you're not just because you're born with the parts.

Let's go even further. You're male, tomorrow you wake up female, but all of your records state that you're male. You now look like a female in every way, you are female in every way, but you still have to use the mens bathroom because it says on your birth certificate that you're male. Is that okay?

Trans people don't want to use the bathroom of the gender they're transitioning to because they're perverts and want to look at your pee pee. They just want to pee and poo, like every other person in the world. They don't want to go into a woman's bathroom dressed as and looking like a man, because that would be uncomfortable not only for them, but the women in the bathroom. They don't want to go into the mens bathroom dressed like and looking like a woman, because that would be uncomfortable for them and the men in the bathroom. They don't want to constantly have to explain "yes, I look like a woman but I was born a man so I'm sorry, but I have to use the bathroom with you guys because too many close minded people think that if I use the women's bathroom, I'll molest the women because I still have a penis".

Trust me, no one wants to see your pee pee, or touch your pee pee, or molest you with their pee pee. They just want to pee pee!

Well said Alty!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The important thing to remember is gender's just an imaginary construct....right ?

There is nothing imaginary about feelings... yours or someone else's. It doesn't just apply to transgender, but with any "category" of human. Gay, black, irish, doesn't matter, no one likes to be discriminated against, ostracized, or dictated to, because of their uniqueness or differences.

I think it's the differences that are imaginary.

Tal that will play havock on all those civil rights and gender rights laws that protect special classes of people if they apply to anyone based on constructs of feelings instead of their physical reality .

We already saw an example of that played out in colleges hiring a blond haired blue eyed Elizabeth Warren because she identified as a Native American. Warren listed herself as 'white ' while teaching at the university of Texas. In the late 80s she began listing herself as a Native American. Shortly after that she landed a high paying job teaching in an Ivy League school .

Hey ,she may in fact be 1/32 Cherokee . DNA tests show I have some African DNA in me . Should I then identify as an African when there is a chance to benefit from it ?

You're a capitalist! Benefit is what you do isn't it? Or is that profit? I'll just point out that there would be no need for special protection if there were no need for it from other humans. You know equal protection under the law, and equal opportunity like it says in our Constitution? Even the founders didn't follow it as written, and we still don't today.

Maybe that's the problem!

Are you admitting that laws protecting special groups are unnecessary and unconstitutional ?

As long as there are those that discriminate there must be a balancing reaction. Like affirmative action to address lack of equal opportunity. Such things are very NECESSARY, even if they are as unconstitutional as the situation they seek to address. If discrimination isn't addressed, then what would be a better corrective action? Jail for those that knowingly discriminate? Will that include law makers that make discriminatory laws?

The answer is that only laws barring the state from discriminating are constitutional. For the private sector ,if competitive market forces are allowed to work, the problem of discrimination will be solved by the entry of new firms who will cater to mass markets, wholly without legal compulsion. Individuals have 1st amendment rights to speech ,association ,religion,and thought .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Are you admitting that laws protecting special groups are unnecessary and unconstitutional ?

What has happened that special groups need laws in the first place?

Quote:

What has happened that special groups need laws in the first place?

Plessy v Ferguson codified state discrimination . Brown v Board of Education reversed it . It has to do with state powers . Once Brown reversed Plessy then the clear language of the 14th amendment applied .The laws could not be discriminatory . It says nothing about special protections for protected groups against private discrimination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Plessy v Ferguson codified state discrimination . Brown v Board of Education reversed it . It has to do with state powers . Once Brown reversed Plessy then the clear language of the 14th amendment applied .The laws could not be discriminatory . It says nothing about special protections for protected groups against private discrimination.

That doesn't answer my question. WHY are special protections needed? WHY affirmative action? Aren't we a Christian nation helping "the least of these"?

That's what individuals should do. There is no virtue if the individual is compelled to help . The reason there are the laws is because of the false idea that the government can control people's thoughts. If they understood the market place they would know that if a florists did not want to provide services for a gay 'marriage' then another one would be willing to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

If they understood the market place they would know that if a florists did not want to provide services for a gay 'marriage' then another one would be willing to do so.

Why did you put the word marriage in single quote marks?

Maybe the gay couple thought, since the bakery was open for business, the owner(s) wanted customers who would pay for products.

Quote:

Why did you put the word marriage in single quote marks?

Since you know my position on the issue the answer should be obvious

Quote:

Maybe the gay couple thought, since the bakery was open for business, the owner(s) wanted customers who would pay for products.

Maybe they did . But when the baker made it clear that they did not want the patronage then it was time to move on and find one willing to do business with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Maybe they did . But when the baker made it clear that they did not want the patronage then it was time to move on and find one willing to do business with them.

So if you go to a well-known bakery on Main Street, the clerk asks if you are a straight male, you say yes, and then the clerk says,"Sorry. We don't bake for and sell to straight men," what would you think and do? (That's probably a rhetorical question. I know YOU would politely thank them and with a jauntiness in your step return to your car and go to another bakery that likes straight-men dollars.)

of course . I certainly wouldn't compel them or use the force of law against them . I could only hazard a guess as to what the cake would contain. I always want the places I patron to want to serve me. If you are a Muslim baker why should you be compelled to cater to a bar mitzvah ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

of course . I certainly wouldn't compel them or use the force of law against them . I could only hazard a guess as to what the cake would contain. I always want the places I patron to want to serve me. If you are a Muslim baker why should you be compelled to cater to a bar mitzvah ?

But we're not talking about specialty bakeries here. We're talking about run-of-the-mill main-street bakeries that are in business to sell baked goods to customers who walk in to the shop. No bakery clerk has EVER asked me if I'm a lesbian before ringing up my purchase.

And bakeries don't usual cater at dinners/celebrations/events. They will bake and possibly deliver the ordered goodies. Or one of the organizers will pick up the baked goods.

What you are saying is that a baker (originally I used a florist but the point is the same ) no longer has the right to exercise religious liberty .

So it's okay to discriminate in public/private sector because of YOUR religious beliefs? That's not even close to hate the sin but love the sinner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

What you are saying is that a baker (originally I used a florist but the point is the same ) no longer has the right to exercise religious liberty .

Why would he/she? What's the point? If the baker is Christian, he/she definitely misunderstands Jesus' second greatest commandment.

Whether you think they are good Christians or not is irrelevent . Government is based on coercion ,not on the free will that God gave us. Please show me the quote where Jesus implored the government to use force to transfer resources from one group to another. Don't waste your time ;you can't . So if anything I am amused when someone tells me that government should force Christians to act in what THEY define a Christian way .

The below quote is relevant whether you are forcing someone to give charity ,or forcing them to act against their beliefs .

“There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head.” [PJ O'Rourke]

Quote:

I am amused when someone tells me that government should force Christians to act in what THEY define a Christian way .

*cough* Where have I said anything about government coercion? I said, if the business-desiring baker is truly Christian, he will sell his goods to any customer who walks in -- doctor, lawyer, Indian chief, lesbian, alcoholic, gay guy, grandmother, burglar, liar, cheater, priest, AMHD member and so on (without being questioned at the door).

(A bakery business is not a charity.)

Just like a Muslim cannot contradict the laws of the land to practice certain tenants of sharia law, the Christian is also obliged to follow the law against discrimination. I didn't know that Christians were exempt from the laws of the land, even if they are in some cases accommodated by it. What I find interesting is the Christians who seek to make other Americans subjects to their religious morality by attempting to making laws, and policies that go into other peoples bedrooms, and private lives.

I'm surprised that those that discriminate aren't sued for all they are worth.

A bit off topic I know, but that's my two cents.