Trump brags about 43% approval rating

[NYcarbineer]

Once you get down around 35% approval, you're only hanging onto the deadenders who will say they approve of you no matter what.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uh, no, he was talking about the Fox Poll. READ. HIS. TWEET.

And in that poll, he had a 43% approval rating. Regardless, 45% would also suck balls, as he's still supposed to be within his 100-day honeymoon period, a time he has spent losing in federal court, feuding with the Australian PM, whining about Arnold Schwarzenegger, and attempting to dump the healthcare of almost every Trump voter. How you are able to do the mental gymnastics to defend this retard is something psychiatrists will be studying for a generation.

So wait, both Fox AND USA Today have him at 43% or greater, but YOU as an integrity free fascist brown shirt call HIM the liar?

Your Fuhrer loves you for your complete lack of honor!

Obama was at 45% when he lost the House in 2010.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uh, no, he was talking about the Fox Poll. READ. HIS. TWEET.

And in that poll, he had a 43% approval rating. Regardless, 45% would also suck balls, as he's still supposed to be within his 100-day honeymoon period, a time he has spent losing in federal court, feuding with the Australian PM, whining about Arnold Schwarzenegger, and attempting to dump the healthcare of almost every Trump voter. How you are able to do the mental gymnastics to defend this retard is something psychiatrists will be studying for a generation.

So wait, both Fox AND USA Today have him at 43% or greater, but YOU as an integrity free fascist brown shirt call HIM the liar?

Your Fuhrer loves you for your complete lack of honor!

Obama was at 45% when he lost the House in 2010.

Obama had a fanatical following, and that was just the press.

After the absurd bullshit the polls posted in November, anyone placing any stock on polls is a complete fool.

In 2018, you fascists will again be utterly distraught, when the GOP margins increase in both houses.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Hillary Clinton? What the fuck are you talking about? The election's been over for 5 months.

This is about Turmp's job approval. And it's in the toilet.

So you are whining the election has been over for 5 months: "Hillary Clinton? What the fuck are you talking about? The election's been over for 5 months."

Yet you have some 2106 Hillary Lost election results gibberish in the signature of your every lame post.

Sad really.

"sad really"

You fools are talking just as stupidly as drumpf, who won by a landslide when he lost by 3million votes.

Add that fact to his approval rating now and the conclusion is obvious-

Even the poor trumpkins are realizing they made a terrible mistake.

Think about it. We came so close to saving the middle class and catching up with the rest of the world. Thanks to the drumpf voters, it's very likely we will never recover.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

You write as if Hillary as president would be a good thing.

The nation said no - and then the down ballot slaughter


no wonder you are still butt hurt cupcake

See my sig.

The nation most definitely said yes to Hillary, and no to Trump. Hence the outrage you see -- and will continue to see -- under this so-called president.

The protests are good for the economy - gas, vehicles, rooms, planes, transport, food
and you can meet broads by acting like you care.


more more more

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Once you get down around 35% approval, you're only hanging onto the deadenders who will say they approve of you no matter what.

like you are with Hillary.

 

[GaryDog]

Uh, no, he was talking about the Fox Poll. READ. HIS. TWEET.

And in that poll, he had a 43% approval rating. Regardless, 45% would also suck balls, as he's still supposed to be within his 100-day honeymoon period, a time he has spent losing in federal court, feuding with the Australian PM, whining about Arnold Schwarzenegger, and attempting to dump the healthcare of almost every Trump voter. How you are able to do the mental gymnastics to defend this retard is something psychiatrists will be studying for a generation.

So wait, both Fox AND USA Today have him at 43% or greater, but YOU as an integrity free fascist brown shirt call HIM the liar?

Your Fuhrer loves you for your complete lack of honor!

How fucking retarded are you? The thread is about his dumb ass bragging about a 43% approval rating. It was not, for once, simply about him lying. Although we can certainly make about 48 different threads about that. You are seriously the dumbest person here. And it's not close.

 

[martybegan]

And you are declaring doom and gloom for a poll that rates him 6% lower.

hack.

"Declaring doom and gloom"? BOTH polls are terrible this early in a presidency. It's a sign he's enormously unpopular, and totally inept. And he's bragging about it, because he's either retarded, or suffering from severe mental illness.

And yet you support him. Your desperation is palpable.

I support his desire to cut the federal government down to size, and since change is always hard, I am not surprised by the low % support.

Same thing when it comes to Obamacare repeal, actually doubly so because while some will disapprove of him for getting rid of it, others will disapprove for him not getting rid of it enough.

I'll hold my judgement until the midterms in 2018, you know, the only poll that matters.

He's adding $54 billion to defense. How does that cut government down to size?

That's one of the actual functions of the federal government.

So is regulating commerce, and all that comes with it. So is the general welfare clause. A strong central government is necessary for a large country. Take it up with Alexander Hamilton, moron.

Regulating interstate commerce, not all commerce. And the general welfare clause speaks of a concept, not of any actual powers.

And the need for a central government as strong as you idiots want it to be is questionable. 90% of our current social issues would be moot if you assholes would leave the people in Alabama alone when it comes to certain things.

 

[Kirwood Derby]

He has a way to go but he will soon reach the bottom of the pit where he belongs.

 

[GaryDog]

"Declaring doom and gloom"? BOTH polls are terrible this early in a presidency. It's a sign he's enormously unpopular, and totally inept. And he's bragging about it, because he's either retarded, or suffering from severe mental illness.

And yet you support him. Your desperation is palpable.

I support his desire to cut the federal government down to size, and since change is always hard, I am not surprised by the low % support.

Same thing when it comes to Obamacare repeal, actually doubly so because while some will disapprove of him for getting rid of it, others will disapprove for him not getting rid of it enough.

I'll hold my judgement until the midterms in 2018, you know, the only poll that matters.

He's adding $54 billion to defense. How does that cut government down to size?

That's one of the actual functions of the federal government.

So is regulating commerce, and all that comes with it. So is the general welfare clause. A strong central government is necessary for a large country. Take it up with Alexander Hamilton, moron.

Regulating interstate commerce, not all commerce. And the general welfare clause speaks of a concept, not of any actual powers.

And the need for a central government as strong as you idiots want it to be is questionable. 90% of our current social issues would be moot if you assholes would leave the people in Alabama alone when it comes to certain things.

Assuming the people of Alabama left blacks, women, and gays alone, I'd agree with you. And I'll throw an olive branch out -- the fact that we have universal federal laws for guns in all states is absurd. In Montana, outside of city areas, gun laws should be more lax. In Chicago and DC, they should be able to tightly restrict gun ownership. So in a way, I agree with some state/local autonomy.

But in no way, shape or form can we call ourselves a country when one state is allowed to freely trample the civil rights of a group of people, and then demand we "leave them alone." That's fucking absurd.

 

[Reasonable]

"This is the most failed 100 days of any president." —Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley on Trump

 

[Faun]

What a dumbfuck.

Donald Trump Approval Ratings Tweet Backfires | The Huffington Post


Of course his REAL approval rating from a legit source is 37%

Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval

Now Gallup is "legitimate"

LOL. I really should go find some progressive mewling about how Gallup's methodology favors Republicans.....

When wasn't it?

 

[martybegan]

I support his desire to cut the federal government down to size, and since change is always hard, I am not surprised by the low % support.

Same thing when it comes to Obamacare repeal, actually doubly so because while some will disapprove of him for getting rid of it, others will disapprove for him not getting rid of it enough.

I'll hold my judgement until the midterms in 2018, you know, the only poll that matters.

He's adding $54 billion to defense. How does that cut government down to size?

That's one of the actual functions of the federal government.

So is regulating commerce, and all that comes with it. So is the general welfare clause. A strong central government is necessary for a large country. Take it up with Alexander Hamilton, moron.

Regulating interstate commerce, not all commerce. And the general welfare clause speaks of a concept, not of any actual powers.

And the need for a central government as strong as you idiots want it to be is questionable. 90% of our current social issues would be moot if you assholes would leave the people in Alabama alone when it comes to certain things.

Assuming the people of Alabama left blacks, women, and gays alone, I'd agree with you. And I'll throw an olive branch out -- the fact that we have universal federal laws for guns in all states is absurd. In Montana, outside of city areas, gun laws should be more lax. In Chicago and DC, they should be able to tightly restrict gun ownership. So in a way, I agree with some state/local autonomy.

But in no way, shape or form can we call ourselves a country when one state is allowed to freely trample the civil rights of a group of people, and then demand we "leave them alone." That's fucking absurd.

Define "leaving alone". Government has to be neutral, but when you start ruining bakers over not wanting to bake for a gay wedding, I think it is overreach. PA laws were designed to fight systemic economic discrimination, not butt hurt.

As for gun laws? The 2nd amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that in NYC it takes me 3-6 months and $1000 in fees just to get a revolver license is infringement. The fact that off duty officers and anyone friendly to government types can bypass these laws is tyranny.

 

[martybegan]

What a dumbfuck.

Donald Trump Approval Ratings Tweet Backfires | The Huffington Post


Of course his REAL approval rating from a legit source is 37%

Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval

Now Gallup is "legitimate"

LOL. I really should go find some progressive mewling about how Gallup's methodology favors Republicans.....

When wasn't it?

I already posted that I mistook Gallup for Rassmussen.

 

[GaryDog]

He's adding $54 billion to defense. How does that cut government down to size?

That's one of the actual functions of the federal government.

So is regulating commerce, and all that comes with it. So is the general welfare clause. A strong central government is necessary for a large country. Take it up with Alexander Hamilton, moron.

Regulating interstate commerce, not all commerce. And the general welfare clause speaks of a concept, not of any actual powers.

And the need for a central government as strong as you idiots want it to be is questionable. 90% of our current social issues would be moot if you assholes would leave the people in Alabama alone when it comes to certain things.

Assuming the people of Alabama left blacks, women, and gays alone, I'd agree with you. And I'll throw an olive branch out -- the fact that we have universal federal laws for guns in all states is absurd. In Montana, outside of city areas, gun laws should be more lax. In Chicago and DC, they should be able to tightly restrict gun ownership. So in a way, I agree with some state/local autonomy.

But in no way, shape or form can we call ourselves a country when one state is allowed to freely trample the civil rights of a group of people, and then demand we "leave them alone." That's fucking absurd.

Define "leaving alone". Government has to be neutral, but when you start ruining bakers over not wanting to bake for a gay wedding, I think it is overreach. PA laws were designed to fight systemic economic discrimination, not butt hurt.

As for gun laws? The 2nd amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that in NYC it takes me 3-6 months and $1000 in fees just to get a revolver license is infringement. The fact that off duty officers and anyone friendly to government types can bypass these laws is tyranny.

The bakers were discriminating based on WHO SOMEONE IS. That's illegal. Period.

If you're a baker, and you want to deny service, deny it. Flatly. Without explanation. No problem. But you can't discriminate based on gender/race/sexual orientation, etc. It's pretty simple.

What kind of fucking retard do you have to be to not realize that issuing guns to a populace in a place where 3 million people are right on top of each other is a different scenario than an area where there are 6 people per square mile?

Either you're for states rights, or you're not.

 

[martybegan]

That's one of the actual functions of the federal government.

So is regulating commerce, and all that comes with it. So is the general welfare clause. A strong central government is necessary for a large country. Take it up with Alexander Hamilton, moron.

Regulating interstate commerce, not all commerce. And the general welfare clause speaks of a concept, not of any actual powers.

And the need for a central government as strong as you idiots want it to be is questionable. 90% of our current social issues would be moot if you assholes would leave the people in Alabama alone when it comes to certain things.

Assuming the people of Alabama left blacks, women, and gays alone, I'd agree with you. And I'll throw an olive branch out -- the fact that we have universal federal laws for guns in all states is absurd. In Montana, outside of city areas, gun laws should be more lax. In Chicago and DC, they should be able to tightly restrict gun ownership. So in a way, I agree with some state/local autonomy.

But in no way, shape or form can we call ourselves a country when one state is allowed to freely trample the civil rights of a group of people, and then demand we "leave them alone." That's fucking absurd.

Define "leaving alone". Government has to be neutral, but when you start ruining bakers over not wanting to bake for a gay wedding, I think it is overreach. PA laws were designed to fight systemic economic discrimination, not butt hurt.

As for gun laws? The 2nd amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that in NYC it takes me 3-6 months and $1000 in fees just to get a revolver license is infringement. The fact that off duty officers and anyone friendly to government types can bypass these laws is tyranny.

The bakers were discriminating based on WHO SOMEONE IS. That's illegal. Period.

If you're a baker, and you want to deny service, deny it. Flatly. Without explanation. No problem. But you can't discriminate based on gender/race/sexual orientation, etc. It's pretty simple.

What kind of fucking retard do you have to be to not realize that issuing guns to a populace in a place where 3 million people are right on top of each other is a different scenario than an area where there are 6 people per square mile?

Either you're for states rights, or you're not.

Why? Why do we care if a couple has to spend 10 more minutes finding another baker? Also, people have the right to free exercise of religion, unless there is a compelling government interest, and butt hurt is not a compelling interest.

Then repeal the 2nd amendment, until then my rights are being infringed.

How about we impose a 2 week waiting period and $100 fee for an abortion? I'm sure that would have you frothing.

Remember you don't support people's rights when you only support the right or the use of said right you agree with.

My rights as enumerated by the bill of rights overrides states rights, but only explicitly.

 

[GaryDog]

So is regulating commerce, and all that comes with it. So is the general welfare clause. A strong central government is necessary for a large country. Take it up with Alexander Hamilton, moron.

Regulating interstate commerce, not all commerce. And the general welfare clause speaks of a concept, not of any actual powers.

And the need for a central government as strong as you idiots want it to be is questionable. 90% of our current social issues would be moot if you assholes would leave the people in Alabama alone when it comes to certain things.

Assuming the people of Alabama left blacks, women, and gays alone, I'd agree with you. And I'll throw an olive branch out -- the fact that we have universal federal laws for guns in all states is absurd. In Montana, outside of city areas, gun laws should be more lax. In Chicago and DC, they should be able to tightly restrict gun ownership. So in a way, I agree with some state/local autonomy.

But in no way, shape or form can we call ourselves a country when one state is allowed to freely trample the civil rights of a group of people, and then demand we "leave them alone." That's fucking absurd.

Define "leaving alone". Government has to be neutral, but when you start ruining bakers over not wanting to bake for a gay wedding, I think it is overreach. PA laws were designed to fight systemic economic discrimination, not butt hurt.

As for gun laws? The 2nd amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that in NYC it takes me 3-6 months and $1000 in fees just to get a revolver license is infringement. The fact that off duty officers and anyone friendly to government types can bypass these laws is tyranny.

The bakers were discriminating based on WHO SOMEONE IS. That's illegal. Period.

If you're a baker, and you want to deny service, deny it. Flatly. Without explanation. No problem. But you can't discriminate based on gender/race/sexual orientation, etc. It's pretty simple.

What kind of fucking retard do you have to be to not realize that issuing guns to a populace in a place where 3 million people are right on top of each other is a different scenario than an area where there are 6 people per square mile?

Either you're for states rights, or you're not.

Why? Why do we care if a couple has to spend 10 more minutes finding another baker? Also, people have the right to free exercise of religion, unless there is a compelling government interest, and butt hurt is not a compelling interest.

Then repeal the 2nd amendment, until then my rights are being infringed.

How about we impose a 2 week waiting period and $100 fee for an abortion? I'm sure that would have you frothing.

Remember you don't support people's rights when you only support the right or the use of said right you agree with.

My rights as enumerated by the bill of rights overrides states rights, but only explicitly.

A simple "I'm a borderline retarded hypocrite" would've sufficed.

Civil rights and equal protection are "enumerated" and codified into federal law. You choose to ignore that, and assume the 2nd Amendment is, by law, more important than the 14th.

It's not. Period.

And wake up, dipshit, Texas/Alabama/The rest of the Retard belt are doing that and far more with regard to abortion.

 

[martybegan]

Regulating interstate commerce, not all commerce. And the general welfare clause speaks of a concept, not of any actual powers.

And the need for a central government as strong as you idiots want it to be is questionable. 90% of our current social issues would be moot if you assholes would leave the people in Alabama alone when it comes to certain things.

Assuming the people of Alabama left blacks, women, and gays alone, I'd agree with you. And I'll throw an olive branch out -- the fact that we have universal federal laws for guns in all states is absurd. In Montana, outside of city areas, gun laws should be more lax. In Chicago and DC, they should be able to tightly restrict gun ownership. So in a way, I agree with some state/local autonomy.

But in no way, shape or form can we call ourselves a country when one state is allowed to freely trample the civil rights of a group of people, and then demand we "leave them alone." That's fucking absurd.

Define "leaving alone". Government has to be neutral, but when you start ruining bakers over not wanting to bake for a gay wedding, I think it is overreach. PA laws were designed to fight systemic economic discrimination, not butt hurt.

As for gun laws? The 2nd amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that in NYC it takes me 3-6 months and $1000 in fees just to get a revolver license is infringement. The fact that off duty officers and anyone friendly to government types can bypass these laws is tyranny.

The bakers were discriminating based on WHO SOMEONE IS. That's illegal. Period.

If you're a baker, and you want to deny service, deny it. Flatly. Without explanation. No problem. But you can't discriminate based on gender/race/sexual orientation, etc. It's pretty simple.

What kind of fucking retard do you have to be to not realize that issuing guns to a populace in a place where 3 million people are right on top of each other is a different scenario than an area where there are 6 people per square mile?

Either you're for states rights, or you're not.

Why? Why do we care if a couple has to spend 10 more minutes finding another baker? Also, people have the right to free exercise of religion, unless there is a compelling government interest, and butt hurt is not a compelling interest.

Then repeal the 2nd amendment, until then my rights are being infringed.

How about we impose a 2 week waiting period and $100 fee for an abortion? I'm sure that would have you frothing.

Remember you don't support people's rights when you only support the right or the use of said right you agree with.

My rights as enumerated by the bill of rights overrides states rights, but only explicitly.

A simple "I'm a borderline retarded hypocrite" would've sufficed.

Civil rights and equal protection are "enumerated" and codified into federal law. You choose to ignore that, and assume the 2nd Amendment is, by law, more important than the 14th.

It's not. Period.

And wake up, dipshit, Texas/Alabama/The rest of the Retard belt are doing that and far more with regard to abortion.

My position is far more consistent than yours. I don't ignore rights I don't like, and create ones to cover things I do.

You assume the 1st is less important than someone's right to buy a cake. How stupid is that?

Equal protection under the law doesn't mean you get to force people to do things you want them to do, unless there is a compelling government interest. butt hurt soothing and your desire to ruin people you disagree with isn't compelling. It's borderline fascist.

Considering I think Roe is one of the most terrible constitutional concepts ever, I don't care what Texas and Alabama does with Abortion. It's protected by law in NY and that's fine by me, just like I hate Obergfell but am glad NY passed SSM via legislative action.

And its typical you have to go with the "Retard belt" thing, it shows you are a shallow shell of a person, who's worldviews have to be everyone else's OR ELSE.

You and your ilk sicken me.

 

[Faun]

Assuming the people of Alabama left blacks, women, and gays alone, I'd agree with you. And I'll throw an olive branch out -- the fact that we have universal federal laws for guns in all states is absurd. In Montana, outside of city areas, gun laws should be more lax. In Chicago and DC, they should be able to tightly restrict gun ownership. So in a way, I agree with some state/local autonomy.

But in no way, shape or form can we call ourselves a country when one state is allowed to freely trample the civil rights of a group of people, and then demand we "leave them alone." That's fucking absurd.

Define "leaving alone". Government has to be neutral, but when you start ruining bakers over not wanting to bake for a gay wedding, I think it is overreach. PA laws were designed to fight systemic economic discrimination, not butt hurt.

As for gun laws? The 2nd amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that in NYC it takes me 3-6 months and $1000 in fees just to get a revolver license is infringement. The fact that off duty officers and anyone friendly to government types can bypass these laws is tyranny.

The bakers were discriminating based on WHO SOMEONE IS. That's illegal. Period.

If you're a baker, and you want to deny service, deny it. Flatly. Without explanation. No problem. But you can't discriminate based on gender/race/sexual orientation, etc. It's pretty simple.

What kind of fucking retard do you have to be to not realize that issuing guns to a populace in a place where 3 million people are right on top of each other is a different scenario than an area where there are 6 people per square mile?

Either you're for states rights, or you're not.

Why? Why do we care if a couple has to spend 10 more minutes finding another baker? Also, people have the right to free exercise of religion, unless there is a compelling government interest, and butt hurt is not a compelling interest.

Then repeal the 2nd amendment, until then my rights are being infringed.

How about we impose a 2 week waiting period and $100 fee for an abortion? I'm sure that would have you frothing.

Remember you don't support people's rights when you only support the right or the use of said right you agree with.

My rights as enumerated by the bill of rights overrides states rights, but only explicitly.

A simple "I'm a borderline retarded hypocrite" would've sufficed.

Civil rights and equal protection are "enumerated" and codified into federal law. You choose to ignore that, and assume the 2nd Amendment is, by law, more important than the 14th.

It's not. Period.

And wake up, dipshit, Texas/Alabama/The rest of the Retard belt are doing that and far more with regard to abortion.

You and your ilk sicken me.

Thanks for the confirmation we're doing a good job.

 

[GaryDog]

Assuming the people of Alabama left blacks, women, and gays alone, I'd agree with you. And I'll throw an olive branch out -- the fact that we have universal federal laws for guns in all states is absurd. In Montana, outside of city areas, gun laws should be more lax. In Chicago and DC, they should be able to tightly restrict gun ownership. So in a way, I agree with some state/local autonomy.

But in no way, shape or form can we call ourselves a country when one state is allowed to freely trample the civil rights of a group of people, and then demand we "leave them alone." That's fucking absurd.

Define "leaving alone". Government has to be neutral, but when you start ruining bakers over not wanting to bake for a gay wedding, I think it is overreach. PA laws were designed to fight systemic economic discrimination, not butt hurt.

As for gun laws? The 2nd amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that in NYC it takes me 3-6 months and $1000 in fees just to get a revolver license is infringement. The fact that off duty officers and anyone friendly to government types can bypass these laws is tyranny.

The bakers were discriminating based on WHO SOMEONE IS. That's illegal. Period.

If you're a baker, and you want to deny service, deny it. Flatly. Without explanation. No problem. But you can't discriminate based on gender/race/sexual orientation, etc. It's pretty simple.

What kind of fucking retard do you have to be to not realize that issuing guns to a populace in a place where 3 million people are right on top of each other is a different scenario than an area where there are 6 people per square mile?

Either you're for states rights, or you're not.

Why? Why do we care if a couple has to spend 10 more minutes finding another baker? Also, people have the right to free exercise of religion, unless there is a compelling government interest, and butt hurt is not a compelling interest.

Then repeal the 2nd amendment, until then my rights are being infringed.

How about we impose a 2 week waiting period and $100 fee for an abortion? I'm sure that would have you frothing.

Remember you don't support people's rights when you only support the right or the use of said right you agree with.

My rights as enumerated by the bill of rights overrides states rights, but only explicitly.

A simple "I'm a borderline retarded hypocrite" would've sufficed.

Civil rights and equal protection are "enumerated" and codified into federal law. You choose to ignore that, and assume the 2nd Amendment is, by law, more important than the 14th.

It's not. Period.

And wake up, dipshit, Texas/Alabama/The rest of the Retard belt are doing that and far more with regard to abortion.

My position is far more consistent than yours. I don't ignore rights I don't like, and create ones to cover things I do.

You assume the 1st is less important than someone's right to buy a cake. How stupid is that?

Equal protection under the law doesn't mean you get to force people to do things you want them to do, unless there is a compelling government interest. butt hurt soothing and your desire to ruin people you disagree with isn't compelling. It's borderline fascist.

Considering I think Roe is one of the most terrible constitutional concepts ever, I don't care what Texas and Alabama does with Abortion. It's protected by law in NY and that's fine by me, just like I hate Obergfell but am glad NY passed SSM via legislative action.

And its typical you have to go with the "Retard belt" thing, it shows you are a shallow shell of a person, who's worldviews have to be everyone else's OR ELSE.

You and your ilk sicken me.

They're not "exercising their religion" you fucking assclown, they're RUNNING A BUSINESS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

What is difficult about that to you? And how is their exercise of their own religion impeded by baking a cake? Am I taking crazy pills? Are you trolling?

Equal Protection has to do with discrimination. Not "making someone do something borderline fascist" (Whatever the fuck that means in your Insanity Dictionary).

I call it the "retard belt" because they're last in literacy, last in public schools, and first in science-denial. It's really not an insult if I'm simply stating facts. I get it, you throw your lot in with people who believe in talking snakes and flying Magic Jews. Just own it, stupid.

 

[martybegan]

Define "leaving alone". Government has to be neutral, but when you start ruining bakers over not wanting to bake for a gay wedding, I think it is overreach. PA laws were designed to fight systemic economic discrimination, not butt hurt.

As for gun laws? The 2nd amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that in NYC it takes me 3-6 months and $1000 in fees just to get a revolver license is infringement. The fact that off duty officers and anyone friendly to government types can bypass these laws is tyranny.

The bakers were discriminating based on WHO SOMEONE IS. That's illegal. Period.

If you're a baker, and you want to deny service, deny it. Flatly. Without explanation. No problem. But you can't discriminate based on gender/race/sexual orientation, etc. It's pretty simple.

What kind of fucking retard do you have to be to not realize that issuing guns to a populace in a place where 3 million people are right on top of each other is a different scenario than an area where there are 6 people per square mile?

Either you're for states rights, or you're not.

Why? Why do we care if a couple has to spend 10 more minutes finding another baker? Also, people have the right to free exercise of religion, unless there is a compelling government interest, and butt hurt is not a compelling interest.

Then repeal the 2nd amendment, until then my rights are being infringed.

How about we impose a 2 week waiting period and $100 fee for an abortion? I'm sure that would have you frothing.

Remember you don't support people's rights when you only support the right or the use of said right you agree with.

My rights as enumerated by the bill of rights overrides states rights, but only explicitly.

A simple "I'm a borderline retarded hypocrite" would've sufficed.

Civil rights and equal protection are "enumerated" and codified into federal law. You choose to ignore that, and assume the 2nd Amendment is, by law, more important than the 14th.

It's not. Period.

And wake up, dipshit, Texas/Alabama/The rest of the Retard belt are doing that and far more with regard to abortion.

You and your ilk sicken me.

Thanks for the confirmation we're doing a good job.

It's bad enough to be an asshole, but you are a cowardly one that lets government do you dirty work.