Yup. We even believed that when pressing the button in the booth back in 2016.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Clinton child sex ring
- Thread starter 1DOWN4UP
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Being guided by the 'wisdom' of the crowd is how we got in this mess in the first place. What percentage is 'most'? Is 50.1% enough? With what confidence level? What polls should we trust to tell us what to think?
What you're saying is you think Trump is [insert complaints and moralisms here] and because of that, everyone else should too. Not everyone has quite that high an opinion of you
Rather interesting how you speak out of the corners of your mouth on this matter. The wisdom of the crowd vs state mandates. Democracy vs. tyranny.
If you need a poll to tell you what to think because you can't think for yourself......
As to moral behavior....I thought Christianity (among almost all other faiths) and its teachings established a manner of behavior and conduct that should be followed. But you Christians are so unlike your Christ...(someone said that before....I'm sure he's worthy of your criticism as well)
Last edited:
No no no, Alpo, you're not versed in the currently vogue sophistry.
You only THINK you are not alone. There is no objective truth to whether you really ARE not alone. Only in your innermost thoughts can know if you are truly not alone, and even then it is only if you're being honest with yourself. To state something as truth is really just to opine on something that is easily dismissed as being subjective to your prejudices and confirmation bias.
No, only Trump supporters have that authority to state MAGA inspired truth as actual truth.
I'm working off your assumption that you know what 'most' people think or are qualified to speak for them or can even define 'most' meaningfully in this context. If you're concluding 'most' based on statistics (polling) the questions are applicable. If not,I believe what you mean is 'most' people in your acquaintance you assume think like you so those sentiments should carry the day for all 'right thinking' people. The next 'poll' that counts is due 3 Nov 2020
Last edited:
Are you sure you don't mean equivocation instead of sophistry, else you should probably prove the arguments fallacious rather than just labeling them so. You suffer from Alpoism, or Alpo suffers from T.Lexism - it's hard to tell without a program
If you believe in the hereafter, there will unlikely be time for debate or polling at the gate.
If you have lived your life in a Trumpian manner.....I doubt that you'll have a chance to see much through the flames.
So... now I can openly use the "N word", so long asI'm not using it with a racist motivation?
Depends whether we're talking about should or is.
Anyone should be able to use if not with a racist motivation. That word should be neutered, and the only way to do that is to normalize it in benign ways. If it's taboo, it will live on and always carry the same stigma as is it's current state.
You seem unable to comprehend that I might hire someone I feel is best qualified to solve what I see as a problem without being overly concerned about their conduct in their personal lives (as long as they deliver the solution I hired them to provide)
Do you ask the plumber or electrician you call whether they are faithful to their wives or what their opinions are of illegal aliens or gays? If not, why not? By your lights you risk sullying your own hem in the dirt of their potential sinfullness
It just galls you and T.lex that you can't exert much influence on people to 'listen to their betters' and scorn this Trump person. He's not my pastor or my spiritual leader
sanctimony
The annoying trait of acting morally superior to others is called sanctimony. When you find yourself giving an insincere, smug lecture to your friends about the way they should behave or the things they ought to do, you're guilty of sanctimony. Before this word (and its partner, sanctimonious) gained its modern meaning, it was used un-ironically, to mean "virtuousness." It comes from the Latin sanctimonia, "holiness," from the root sanctus, "holy."
Do you ask the plumber or electrician you call whether they are faithful to their wives or what their opinions are of illegal aliens or gays? If not, why not? By your lights you risk sullying your own hem in the dirt of their potential sinfullness
It just galls you and T.lex that you can't exert much influence on people to 'listen to their betters' and scorn this Trump person. He's not my pastor or my spiritual leader
sanctimony
The annoying trait of acting morally superior to others is called sanctimony. When you find yourself giving an insincere, smug lecture to your friends about the way they should behave or the things they ought to do, you're guilty of sanctimony. Before this word (and its partner, sanctimonious) gained its modern meaning, it was used un-ironically, to mean "virtuousness." It comes from the Latin sanctimonia, "holiness," from the root sanctus, "holy."
One point about the conduct of the people we elect. We were given the choice between two morally reprehensible people. If you voted for either candidate, you voted for an immoral person. I'm not going to disparage the morality of democrats for voting Hillary, when the guy I voted for ****ed a porn star while his wife was pregnant with his son, and then paid the ***** off to STFU about it. Sometimes you're just stuck with a turd and a douche and you have to pick one or the other, and your reasoning follows your ideological preferences. But. I will disparage those democrats who refuse to acknowledge that Hillary was/is a horribly immoral person. Probably fair to apply that to Trump voters as well. Yes. You voted for an immoral person. If you can't admit his faults because it feels too much like treason to your side, well, I ain't got much else to say for you.
It's fine to say, yes. Trump is an immoral douche. But I like most of his policies. So who else is there to vote for?
So maybe we could stop throwing around the moral implications just because this person voted for that candidate. It's more than just the morality of the candidates available. It's the outcome that they will produce. It's not all roses with Trump. But it's not all thorns either. He's doing better than I thought. But far from ideal.
It's fine to say, yes. Trump is an immoral douche. But I like most of his policies. So who else is there to vote for?
So maybe we could stop throwing around the moral implications just because this person voted for that candidate. It's more than just the morality of the candidates available. It's the outcome that they will produce. It's not all roses with Trump. But it's not all thorns either. He's doing better than I thought. But far from ideal.
Because I don't openly support a pathologic liar and a man of low moral character in the presidency .... and that's equivalent to hiring an electrician to fix a circuit breaker?
You go to extremes to justify a man that should be held in low regard by almost any rational, sober individual.
But...I suppose, that's the nature of the new millennium.
You're welcome to it.
You go to extremes to justify a man that should be held in low regard by almost any rational, sober individual.
But...I suppose, that's the nature of the new millennium.
You're welcome to it.
A much more rational observation.
Well, first, the operative decision for most here was not in the general, but in the primary. That's when there was a clearer choice on the matter.
Second, that one voted for Trump at the time does not require support for him now. People can choose that. That choice reflects their personal principles.
Likewise, the manner in which any negative Trump observations are met with parries that devolve into ad hom or "but Clinton" reveals even more about those Trump supporters.
ETA:
To bring it back to the topic, Epstein didn't have to invite underage girls to his home(s). He made that choice. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.
Once they were there, he had another choice in how to interact with them. That latter choice is the reprehensible one.
That is so flawed that I really don't think you said what you meant to say
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- red_zr24x4
- gpasp101
- JUMBO
- mondoreli
- snorko
- Brad69
- singlesix
- crookcountygo
- Kirk Freeman
- E7Wrangler
- EODFXSTI
- 45sRfun
- TJ Kackowski
- CrazyCat
- BeDome
- dieselrealtor
- Tankerdave
- Mark-DuCo
- 2tonic
- Jvernon
- Tradesylver
- Romero Zombie
- TomN
- OneBadV8
- rhamersley
- ws6duramax
- Demoderb1989
- carsgunsandgirls
- ISP 5353
- Firehawk
- bobzilla
- dowalker
- dak109
- rwilken50
- d.kaufman
- rkwhyte2
- INPatriot
- FN USA
- spencer rifle
- papa6x
- asquinton
- B40B
- joshf63a
- DoggyDaddy
- slims2002
- KJQ6945
- semperfi211
- AndreusMaximus
- KG1
- Edged Tools