Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you mean about the "Trump clan"
Are you speaking about those who voted for him?
No, I am speaking about him and his sons and even Jared and Ivanka. I know quite a bit of them having lived a few miles from his Atlantic City busts and bankruptcies.
IMHO, we would be better off without Trump Family Values. They are wrong - IMHO - based on every religious AND secular reading I have done.
They might fit Machiavellian philosophy but it's hard to see how that is good for society or the USA.
Trump Clan means Trump Clan. Easy. Voting for one of a few choices doesn't make someone a clan member.
Hardly. I am semi-educated. I am referring to the area of Oceania which means "Many Islands". The people there are a blend, and some of the most physically attractive people on the planet.
No, they aren't.
Of course there are some mixed race people living in Polynesia but native Samoans, Tongans, Tahitians, etc. are not a blend of the major races. They're descended from Asians, without European or recent African lineage. If they look slightly African that's probably due to their Papuan ancestry.
More than 60 percent of all Hispanics identified as white. Only 2 percent identified as black. Many darker-skinned Hispanics reported belonging to an “other” race or to multiple racial groups.
Intermarriage is common among U.S.-born Hispanics. Thirty-five percent marry someone who isn’t Hispanic. About 12 percent of Hispanic men and 15 percent of Hispanic women born in the U.S. married a Hispanic person who was born outside the U.S.
Foreign-born Hispanics are much less likely to marry a non-Hispanic. More than half of foreign-born Hispanics have a foreign-born Hispanic spouse, which is an indication that the pool of possible partners is smaller for immigrants. Another 17 percent of foreign-born, Hispanic men and 13 percent of foreign-born, Hispanic women married U.S.-born Hispanics.
Hispanic men with higher education levels were more likely to intermarry. Those who had completed college were more than seven times more likely to marry a non-Hispanic white person than a Hispanic man without a high school education.
The larger the difference in median incomes between Hispanic people and non-Hispanic white people in a given community, the more likely Hispanic men were to marry Hispanic women.
Hispanic women who married at older ages were much more likely to intermarry, indicating that older Hispanic women “cast a wider net.” Hispanic women with jobs also were more likely to marry a non-Hispanic.
PS: Maybe one day it won't matter as to a person's ethnicity. Maybe one day all that live in the u.s will be able to say simply, 'We're American', and it will be accepted as such.
If you support Trump, don't quote scripture at me. If you can support a serial adulterer, fornicator, sexual abuser, liar, thief, con man, fraud, and traitor, you obviously don't believe a damned word of the scripture you're quoting.
Curious if I would be looking at the same dialogue if the Christian among us had put their support behind Hilary Clinton, instead?
Curious if I would be looking at the same dialogue if the Christian among us had put their support behind Hilary Clinton, instead?
In a normal world "Christians" would have split up their vote....many not even voted, some voted for green (there was a budding environmental movement) and many voted for Clinton...who "stood by her man" despite cheating.
Very few, it would seem, would vote for a guy who exemplified every breaking of moral and ethical codes. I mean....some people have redeeming factors, but Trump has few. He's not sorry about any of his past or present behavior.
If you support Trump, don't quote scripture at me. If you can support a serial adulterer, fornicator, sexual abuser, liar, thief, con man, fraud, and traitor, you obviously don't believe a damned word of the scripture you're quoting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Curious if I would be looking at the same dialogue if the Christian among us had put their support behind Hilary Clinton, instead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
In a normal world "Christians" would have split up their vote....many not even voted, some voted for green (there was a budding environmental movement) and many voted for Clinton...who "stood by her man" despite cheating.
Very few, it would seem, would vote for a guy who exemplified every breaking of moral and ethical codes. I mean....some people have redeeming factors, but Trump has few. He's not sorry about any of his past or present behavior.
I'm thinking I should be more specific since the Christian label can identify over 1,500 different faiths (which each one believing they are the only ones going to Heaven) so specifically evangelicals ... and I think I have found a true enough statement, in an opinion.
"Eighty percent of white evangelicals would vote against Jesus Christ himself if he ran as a Democrat."
___________
Simply put, they didn't vote for the man, they voted for the Party. At the RNC, the group that was part of the 'never trump' was hopeful, that there would be an unbinding of the delegates. However, it didn't happen because of the vote that took place in 2012 to stop Ron Paul, thus they voted to bind delegates, did not get undone, in 2016.
The Christian Democrat will most likely vote for the Party, as well, thus vote for Hilary, just as the evangelicals will always vote Republican.
The only hitch in that ...
Quote:
many not even voted
... if they can not vote their conscience, and trust there was no moral choice this last election. In essence, Christians that voted, did split their votes. So my question still stands, if I would be looking at the same responses if Hilary had made POTUS.
This comes from observing that the real religion today being that of Politics and people who have put their faith in the principle doctrine of Party, rather than the Biblical Principles. All the while holding the Bible in front of them as if that is to shield them some how from having to take responsibility for their actions.
As for as the declining white population (other than evolution and a warming globe) they once again failed to follow one simple lesson, be fruitful and multiply.
During the explosive prosperity of 1945 to 1960, America's population was 90% whitehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._United_States -- and that 90% was extremely homogenous, with a high work ethic & belief in personal responsibility, strict adherence to society's standards and laws, and a strong belief that it was shameful to have to rely on taxpayer charity to survive (let alone produce children that the taxpayer would have to support).
When our ultra-rich Ruling Class had their Washington politicians use the idealistic 1960s to make legal and economic changes that benefited themselves, it wasn't because they believed diversity was good for America. They did it because it opened the door to total Big Government/Big Business control, which had been prevented by the power of the prosperous working class. That almost-exclusively white working class was very generous with taxpayer-funded safety net programs, and the nation could handle it because those people would only use the safety net if their very lives depended on it. Also, the vast majority were responsible enough to not produce children they couldn't pay for.
Fast forward to after the Progressive movement's successful efforts to massively increase the number of non-whites in America. Now the generous "safety net" is taken for granted by countless groups that see no shame in taking advantage of it (even for generations), and these new groups do not produce anywhere near the tax revenue that the early Baby Boomers did. That means the "prosperous" working class is no longer prosperous, because we lose over half our income to pay for the Big Government that not only massively expands the Safety Net to those who use it without shame, but also uses as an excuse for its own growth.
Hate the facts all you want, but it was an almost-all white population that produced the best economy, with the highest prosperity for the everyday man, that the world has ever seen--along with low use of welfare, low crime, etc. Today, instead, we have diversity--no more prosperity, no more low crime, no more stigma associated with welfare, and no more limits on totalitarian Big Government and abusive Big Business.
Here's the thing with white people. There is a holy war that is raging between the Jewish "white people" and the European/Aryan "white people" and most people do not look closely enough to tell the difference between who is who. (Or are even aware that there is a difference...whiteys are whiteys as far as most non-whites are concerned.)
Currently the Jews have the upper hand and want the Aryans gone, because they know they are the only ones that are really a formidable opponent against their hegemony. Hence they are using their trickery to flood the "white" countries with brown people (Latinos, Arabs, etc) who are being used as pawns in this sick little game, to destroy European/Aryan culture. This goes back into history as far as you want to take it but has really picked up steam in the 20th and 21st century.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
