SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Trump on offense
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1726583281

Message started by Serowbot on 09/17/24 at 07:28:00

Title: Trump on offense
Post by Serowbot on 09/17/24 at 07:28:00

Actually offensive

This seems to be his campaign plan
Offend everyone

Offends immigrants with gross lies
Calls childless women "cat ladies"
Offends Taylor Swift fans by saying he "HATES TAYLOR SWIFT!"
Offends veterans by flouting rules of conduct and respect at Arlington
Offends 911 victims by bringing racist Lara Loomer, 911 conspiracist, to 911 memorial

How many votes has he gained with this tactic?
and when he loses, he'll say it was election fraud?
He's hemorrhaging votes and he'll cry cheating when he loses the election

... and so will you

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by JOG on 09/17/24 at 09:35:48

Yeah, he's down to hiring entertainment and bussing "Supporters" to his rallies.

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/24 at 09:45:20

Setting aside the fact you lied or mischaracterized a couple of those, I seriously doubt he lost votes, maybe not a single one.

I don’t think he’s lied about any immigrants at all. Illegal immigrants? Now that’s a different matter.

And I’m starting to agree with him and JD Vance, questioning childless women in positions of authority that have affect over other people, especially those with children. I’m not talking about childless women who would like to have children, but Kent or the opportunity has presented it yet, I’m talking about people, purposely make a decision to remain childless. I question whether those women should be in positions of authority.

And while his comment about Taylor Swift was stupid and ridiculous, again it’s not gonna change anybody’s vote.

And I think the Arlington crap was blown out of proportion. Nobody who got “upset” was a Trump supporter anyway. It was all just partisan grandstanding that the blue team media latched onto. The sad reality is those people who pretended to get upset weren’t even as upset over threats fact that 13 of those graves belong to soldiers Biden foolishly got killed. If you didn’t get more upset over that, there’s something seriously wrong with you.

I mean seriously, if you’re so tuned in to military protocol but think what Trump did is worse than what Harris did when she said we had no soldiers in a combat zone right now, there’s something wrong with you.

The truth is, Harris is the one losing votes every time she opens her mouth. Her campaign is right to hide her. She’s a dumb as a bag of nickels. Honestly, it’s scary to think that she might have less together upstairs than Biden does right now.

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/24 at 09:46:42

Sorry, I reread that and there’s lotta odd words. Voice to text isn’t perfect.

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by JOG on 09/17/24 at 10:04:34

https://theothermccain.com/2024/09/14/kamala-is-underperforming/

Willie Brown never said that

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by Eegore on 09/17/24 at 10:34:31

And I’m starting to agree with him and JD Vance, questioning childless women in positions of authority that have affect over other people, especially those with children. I’m not talking about childless women who would like to have children, but Kent or the opportunity has presented it yet, I’m talking about people, purposely make a decision to remain childless. I question whether those women should be in positions of authority.

I'm not sure what the problem is. If a woman wants to own a business, but have no children, she should not be able to have employees as she would have a position of authority over them?

Is it also fair to say childless men should not have positions of authority. Like should childless men be allowed to be police officers, or run a business, or be a Sergeant in the military?

Or is this a politics only thing, where only humans with children are qualified to be elected officials?

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by Serowbot on 09/17/24 at 11:02:05

Jesus should not be allowed to vote

Besides... he'd definitely vote Democrat

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by MnSpring on 09/17/24 at 11:44:10

615354454253447B57445D360 wrote:

"... I’m talking about people, purposely make a decision to remain childless..."

Especially when their decision affects Parents With children.
Which they know NOTHING about.

'California bans school rules requiring parents notification of child's pronoun change'

"... The new law comes after several school districts in California passed policies requiring that parents be notified if a child requests to change their gender identification. That led to pushback by Democratic state officials, ..."

"...The law bans school rules requiring teachers and other staff to disclose a student's gender identity or sexual orientation to any other person without the child's permission. Proponents of the legislation say it will help protect LGBTQ+ students who live in unwelcoming households...."

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by thumperclone on 09/17/24 at 12:20:01

why is this topic a concern
it's none of your Fin business
stay out of people's private lives
concern yourself with improving your life

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by Serowbot on 09/17/24 at 13:51:59

I remember Conservatives whining about a nanny state, now they want others to pay for their child rearing. (we already do by the way)
Not just the needy.... let's pay for the rich folks kiddies too
JD needs all the charity he can get
He must feel like his children are such a burden

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/24 at 13:57:39

022220283522470 wrote:

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/24 at 13:58:51

7462756870656873070 wrote:

Jesus should not be allowed to vote

Besides... he'd definitely vote Democrat

I have no idea and would not venture a guess.

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/24 at 14:00:33

[quote author=415D405845504756595A5B50350 link=1726583281/0#8 date=1726600801]why is this topic a concern
it's none of your Fin business
stay out of people's private lives
concern yourself with improving your life[/quote

Says the guy whose entire political ideology is about telling other people how to live….

A person in public office who has some level of authority over me or impacts or creates policy that affects me, as a matter fact, is my business.

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by Eegore on 09/17/24 at 14:23:55

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by Serowbot on 09/17/24 at 15:05:31

360403121504132C00130A610 wrote:

It’s just my opinion.

You said it

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/24 at 15:29:08

7151535B4651340 wrote:

It’s just my opinion. I think having children expands your perspective on many different topics, which makes you, all other things being equal, more preferable to someone who doesn’t. That’s all. I’m aware I’m in the minority. But then again, I don’t think you should be able to vote if you don’t pay income tax either.

Ok so women without children, by choice, should they be allowed to own a business? Military promotions? Or are you just talking elected positions?sure, but for elected office, I get a little bit suspicious, and again all things being equal I would prefer someone else. Remember, all things being equal you’re certainly married women with kids who were absolute freaking lunatics compared to single women without kids. I get it. This is a broad generalization.

I understand being able to choose the "more preferable" person as a constituent, but I'm not sure why one would prohibit only women without children from very rewarding aspects of the American Dream, like business ownership or community leadership. I never said I did. Why would I do that, I wouldn’t. You’re sounding like a Democratic member of the media now making up stuff.

I know a woman that owns a successful glass blowing company, and is a County Commissioner. Should she be denied that because she doesn't have a kid? Not necessarily now. But again, all things being equal, and I mean equal, I think I would select someone who was married with kids. But then again, I’m not exactly sure what a county commissioner will impact me.

Do you think the same prohibition on jobs should apply to men without children as well?

all things being equal, I would prefer a married man with kids, yes.

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/24 at 15:32:15

6177607D65707D66120 wrote:

[quote author=360403121504132C00130A610 link=1726583281/0#10 date=1726606659]It’s just my opinion.

You said it[/quote]
I realize, compared to you, I probably sound God-like when displaying my wisdom. But…..these are just my opinions, not Commandments.

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by Serowbot on 09/17/24 at 15:47:19

More Trumplike... hardly Godlike

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by Eegore on 09/17/24 at 16:10:01

sure, but for elected office, I get a little bit suspicious, and again all things being equal I would prefer someone else. Remember, all things being equal you’re certainly married women with kids who were absolute freaking lunatics compared to single women without kids. I get it. This is a broad generalization.

Ok so you are talking specifically questioning elected officials without children and not questioning private citizens without children that own a business, military promotions or other positions of authority.

I never said I did. Why would I do that, I wouldn’t. You’re sounding like a Democratic member of the media now making up stuff.

I never said You said that, I am asking, and then proposing alternative point of view that I am unsure of. I am unsure of why one, or specifically, any single human, would prohibit childless humans from positions of authority. Not something You specifically have proposed.

Not necessarily now. But again, all things being equal, and I mean equal, I think I would select someone who was married with kids. But then again, I’m not exactly sure what a county commissioner will impact me.

What do you mean by "Not necessarily now"? Is there a future time that a human without children should not own a business or have an elected position? Or your opinion now, based off lack of knowledge on Commissioner impacts? FYI they basically run the county budget.

I'm not sure about the marriage thing either. If one get's divorced would they lose their position of authority?

all things being equal, I would prefer a married man with kids, yes.

I understand allowing the constituent to choose what they prefer, but I am not sure I understand why any prohibitions of such positions should exist based of marriage and children. As in any human's idea that marriage and children is an important value to them, and as such must be placed as a value on others in order to contribute to society from an elected position.

Not that You proposed that, but that's specifically what Vance has talked about, and others. Marriage and children are important to them, so others must do that to, or they can't hold office.

Title: Re: Trump on offense
Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/24 at 17:40:35

7555575F4255300 wrote:

sure, but for elected office, I get a little bit suspicious, and again all things being equal I would prefer someone else. Remember, all things being equal you’re certainly married women with kids who were absolute freaking lunatics compared to single women without kids. I get it. This is a broad generalization.

Ok so you are talking specifically questioning elected officials without children and not questioning private citizens without children that own a business, military promotions or other positions of authority. Correct, I thought that was obvious.

I never said I did. Why would I do that, I wouldn’t. You’re sounding like a Democratic member of the media now making up stuff.

I never said You said that, I am asking, and then proposing alternative point of view that I am unsure of. I am unsure of why one, or specifically, any single human, would prohibit childless humans from positions of authority. Not something You specifically have proposed.

Not necessarily now. But again, all things being equal, and I mean equal, I think I would select someone who was married with kids. But then again, I’m not exactly sure what a county commissioner will impact me.

What do you mean by "Not necessarily now"? This is one of those voice to text errors. I didn’t say now, not sure why it put that in. Is there a future time that a human without children should not own a business or have an elected position? Or your opinion now, based off lack of knowledge on Commissioner impacts? FYI they basically run the county budget.

I'm not sure about the marriage thing either. If one get's divorced would they lose their position of authority?

all things being equal, I would prefer a married man with kids, yes.

I understand allowing the constituent to choose what they prefer, but I am not sure I understand why any prohibitions I can’t see there being an actual prohibition.of such positions should exist based of marriage and children. As in any human's idea that marriage and children is an important value to them, and as such must be placed as a value on others in order to contribute to society from an elected position.

Not that You proposed that, but that's specifically what Vance has talked about, and others. Marriage and children are important to them, so others must do that to, or they can't hold office.

Like I said, marriage and children create an entirely different perspective in most people.