anatess2

Still dang cute!

Just wanting to put this out there... in case Steve Noel doesn't know it yet... We, Mormons, believe God, Angels, Cherubims, Seraphims, Saints, Man... are all the same species. Yep. So, just like God's essence is uncreated, Man's essence (we can refer to it as consciousness or sentience or WILL) is also uncreated... same with Angels and stuff. So basically, the words God, Angels, Saints, Man, etc are simply different States of Being (or states of progression) or different Callings of that individual's consciousness within the Plan of Happiness. God, of course, being the Most High - that State of Being or that WILL that is Perfection - who created all things, including the mortal bodies and spirit bodies (eternal form) of all consciousness gathered in His Kingdom.

Captain America. Because he's blonde. And cute.

Okay, this is how I see it: 1.) We come from Heavenly Father. 2.) We proceed to be born on earth. 3.) We then leave earth to go back to Heavenly Father. Presiding these events is Priesthood Power. Priesthood Power is exercised by a Holy Covenant between Man and God and between Woman and God from pre-mortality through post-mortality. Now, think of those events as a Circle going counter-clockwise... from Heavenly Father back to Heavenly Father... with the events leading to being born on earth on the left side and the going back to Heavenly Father on the right side. The Woman is the heart because the woman exercises her role under Priesthood Power in leading souls from Heavenly Father to our mortal birth. The Man is the mind because the man exercises his role under Priesthood Power in leading souls from our mortal death back to Heavenly Father. The heart part is complete faith to follow Christ. The mind part wades through mortal logic to find Christ. Of course, the events between mortal birth and mortal death is a perfect cooperation of Man and Woman fulfilling each of their own roles in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man. But the Woman is the one charged with bringing souls into mortality in the same way that it was Eve who chose to eat the Apple. And the Man is the one charged with bringing souls to immortality with their exercise of the Holy Priesthood to fulfill the saving ordinances of the gospel.

Hunstman 2. YES!!! MUCH BETTER THAN THE FIRST ONE! But yeah, the Ice Queen is Freya, not Elsa, and her sister is Ravena, not Anna... but still, I was expecting snowflake effects when Freya stepped on the ice floor... and my husband turned to me and said... I know you want so bad to sing Let it Go. HAH HAH... He is one amazing husband who has the ability to READ MY MIND! Anyway... the story started before Snow White and continued after Snow White vanquished Ravena... so they talk about Snow White and they refer to Snow White several times, but never showed Snow White... YES!!! If Charlize Theron (or even Emily Blunt) have to try to save a scene one more time from Kristen Stewart and her 3 facial muscles, I'm going to throw my shoes at the screen.

Dress to Impress is just another phrase for Respect. The dress, of course, is not just showing respect for your boss/peers/others, it also shows respect of self. It goes back to the 2nd of the greatest commandments to love others as yourself. Respect is inherent in the way you decorate your temple. You might say (like in the workplace)... I'm gonna wear whatever I want without regard to what would make you (the boss, the client, etc.) comfortable... that would be loving yourself more than others. You might say (same workplace)... I'm gonna wear what makes you (the boss, the client, etc.) comfortable even if it makes me broke or ridiculously uncomfortable... that would be loving others more than yourself. Get it?

Jajajaja! I'm Filipino, I have an excuse! What I meant about pure glucose is that natural honey... unlike table sugar... has glucose that is not bound to fructose (no extra digestion required) whereas grapes have sucrose that has glucose bound to fructose just like table sugar and would require breaking down. Pure glucose hits the bloodstream and spikes insulin because insulin delivers the glucose immediately... so, in saying that honey is bad for you because it is sugar is not necessarily true... nectar of the gods and all that...

Well, if that's what you're talking about... then it's not just refined sugar that is not necessary... anything processed is not necessary. Sugar beets is just as popular as sugar cane in the making of refined sugar. High-fructose corn syrup is another processed sugar. Even your "diet sugars" like Equal or Splenda or even refined Agave is more harmful than beneficial.

This thread is very confusing with all the doubling of posts... hope it's not confusing you. I'm going to address your statement above. Baptism is an ordinance for salvation. Basically, it is the ordinance that QUALIFIES us for salvation. Jesus doesn't have to die first for a person baptized to qualify for salvation. Basically, all the covenant people that were baptized in the Old Testament times qualified for salvation before Christ fulfilled the atonement. The Old Testament baptisms and the New Testament baptisms are sourced from the same Priesthood authority and provided the exact same blessings. There is nothing different between the two... those baptized in the Old Testament qualified for salvation in the same way as those baptized in the New Testament and also in the same way as those baptized with the proper authority today. Everybody has to be baptized - including those who are in uncivilized societies who haven't even heard of the name Jesus, let alone be in contact with a person with the authority to baptize while they were alive on earth since the beginning of time. They all have to be baptized with the proper authority to qualify for salvation. In the LDS Church, we perform proxy baptisms for those who have passed away without having had the opportunity to do so. Those who are already in the spirit world continue to learn and grow in their testimony of Jesus Christ and the plan of happiness. But as baptism is a mortal ordinance, it can only be done in mortality, so a living person is baptized in place of the person who has died and the person who has died will have to accept or reject the baptismal covenant. Hope this helps.

This thread is very confusing with all the doubling of posts... hope it's not confusing you. I'm going to address your statement above. Baptism is an ordinance for salvation. Basically, it is the ordinance that QUALIFIES us for salvation. Jesus doesn't have to die first for a person baptized to qualify for salvation. Basically, all the covenant people that were baptized in the Old Testament times qualified for salvation before Christ fulfilled the atonement. The Old Testament baptisms and the New Testament baptisms are sourced from the same Priesthood authority and provided the exact same blessings. There is nothing different between the two... those baptized in the Old Testament qualified for salvation in the same way as those baptized in the New Testament and also in the same was those baptized with the proper authority today. Everybody has to be baptized - including those who are in uncivilized societies who haven't even heard of the name Jesus, let alone be in contact with a person with the authority to baptize while they were alive on earth since the beginning of time. They all have to be baptized with the proper authority to qualify for salvation. In the LDS Church, we perform proxy baptisms for those who have passed away without having had the opportunity to do so. Those who are already in the spirit world continue to learn and grow in their testimony of Jesus Christ and the plan of happiness. But as baptism is a mortal ordinance, it can only be done in mortality, so a living person is baptized in place of the person who has died and the person who has died will have to accept or reject the baptismal covenant. Hope this helps.

Lehi knows we disagree with the karate (or in my case, jiujitsu)... that my husband and kids are in. But... I actually agree with him on this one. Sometimes, we feel we have to put kids in certain activities for their well-being when it is costing parents their well-being. So, if this is the case with your family, then it's okay to see if you can accomplish the same things at home. Because, unless your kid is highly skilled that he can be slated for the MLS, a game of soccer in your backyard can be sufficient to meet your kids' physical activity needs. My advice is - In addition to Aish's excellent thoughts on embracing God... Simplify, simplify, simplify... and focus on the positive things you are providing for your family. Also, don't read Parenting magazines or mommy forums... they just make us feel unnecessarily guilty. I have a friend who has fibromyalgia and she refused medication because she is breast feeding. I suggested to her that there's nothing wrong with transitioning the baby to formula if that's what she needed to be able to take the meds that will relieve her of the pain. She said that would be selfish. It is, of course, a learning process for moms... we all eventually realize that the kids will be much better off if mom's well-being is made as important as the kids'.

Lehi knows we disagree with the karate (or in my case, jiujitsu)... that my husband and kids are in. But... I actually agree with him on this one. Sometimes, we feel we have to put kids in certain activities for their well-being when it is costing parents their well-being. So, if this is the case with your family, then it's okay to see if you can accomplish the same things at home. Because, unless your kid is highly skilled that he can be slated for the MLS, a game of soccer in your backyard can be sufficient to meet your kids' physical activity needs. My advice is - simplify, simplify, simplify... and focus on the positive things you are providing for your family and don't read Parenting magazines. I have a friend who has fibromyalgia and she refused medication because she is breast feeding. I suggested to her that there's nothing wrong with transitioning the baby to formula if that's what she needed to be able to take the meds that will relieve her of the pain. She said that would be selfish. It is, of course, a learning process for moms... we all eventually realize that the kids will be much better off if mom's well-being is made as important as the kids'.

In the Philippines, it hasn't changed. A civil wedding in one's city/town hall can be followed by a sealing in the near future depending on the town's proximity to a Temple. I think it's up to the individual bishop/stake president's judgment there. Temple weddings in the Philippines are legally binding but because of the impoverished conditions of a lot of Filipinos, it takes them a while to save up for a temple trip that for most Filipinos require a cost-prohibitive boat ride or two. Sometimes, a couple gets civilly wed thinking it will take them more than a year to save up for a temple trip and then good tidings come along that makes them ready to go sooner.

letmeoff... you're incorrect in this. If the body doesn't need sugar, then your tongue wouldn't have sweet receptors. As a matter of fact, the energy fuel that powers your body comes from sugar molecules. Without sugar, your body will simply.... cease to function. That said, not all sugars are made the same... there are different kinds of sugar molecules - glucose, fructose, sucrose, etc. These are all sugars. Honey, for example, is pure glucose. Honey is the nectar of the gods or liquid gold that is hailed in the homeopathic world as an immune booster, memory booster, energy booster, etc. etc. Grapes, another example, has a higher sugar content per serving than a traditional chocolate chip cookie. But, it's pretty obvious that grapes is healthier than a chocolate chip cookie. How is that? That's because grapes is made up of mostly natural glucose and fructose with a very little bit of sucrose thrown in. Glucose can be directly processed by the muscles without further breakdown. Extra glucose are stored in fat cells for later use. Fructose (the sweetest of them all) is sent to the liver for processing to convert it to glucose. Fructose, therefore, is a slow-metabolized sugar. Sucrose is broken down into glucose and fructose in the small intestines before it is sent to its processing organs. A traditional chocolate chip cookie, on the other hand, usually contains refined sugars. Refined sugar, also called table sugar, is basically sugar cane (a naturally occurring grass that is as healthy as grapes) ground to extract the juice and then boiled at very high temperatures, killing off all its beneficial nutrients and bonding the glucose and fructose together to result in 99% sucrose crystals of nothing but empty calories. It is very easy to overload on these unhealthy sweeteners because you can easily pour an entire tablespoon full of table sugar into your lemonade which equates to 2 cups of grapes or 3 sticks of sugar cane.... Now, most Filipinos know that chomping on one stick of sugar cane takes a while... such that if you've chomped on 3 sticks in one sitting, your jaw would be sore the next day. When we climb the mountain by our house, we take one stick and tie it to our back like a ninja sword. We chomp on the stick to give us the needed energy to make it to the top of the mountain. And usually, you still have half the stick to munch on on the way down. Now, high-fructose corn syrup is even worse. Every processed drink in the US seem to contain high-fructose corn syrup. This is basically corn starch (long chains of glucose molecules) that is turned into fructose (sweeter than glucose) by adding bacteria enzymes. So, not only does the process end up killing off all the beneficial nutrients of corn, it adds harmful chemicals in turning it into fructose. And, like table sugar, you can easily overload on it. So yes... the fatigue problem that the OP has... that can be a lack of energy to power the brain... the answer of which is a boost of good sugar... so grapes and its naturally occurring whole-food sugar content goes a long way to fueling that brain on the short-term.

I THOUGHT THE SAME THING! Hah hah. I get a lot of teasing from my friends because I like Vitas - they say I only like him because he looks like Loki! hah hah. But then, these friends like Kpop so.... lol. Another Vitas awesomeness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwFKjlQDmaE

MormonGator would really run very far away from me on this next guilty pleasure... although... nobody should feel guilty about loving Vitas. It's VITAS... it's like... the end-all be-all of musical expressions.

I could use a little less exotic pets... we have 6 ball pythons. Want them MormonGator? But yeah, if I had the money, I'd build a public zoo. Elephants and giraffes and lions and tigers and silverbacks and chimpanzees and all that jazz... and shamu. I want shamu. Sea World don't want shamu anymore.

Support for bad policy doesn't count unless you were in elected office when you supported it? I reject that argument. Rejected. So . . . he supported it. A small-government conservative, wouldn't have. I've said it many times before... if you want a die-hard conservative ideologue, Cruz is your guy. Trump is neither conservative nor liberal - he's pragmatic. Cruz is your ideologue - he'll burn down the country before he'll do anything non-conservative. Ok, that's exaggerated but it's not that far off the gist of his conservatism.... government shut-down and all that jazz - which is what a lot of conservatives want. That's not Trump. That's not Kasich either. That's not Romney. That's not Bush. That's not McCain. And that's not Reagan - yep. Trump is closer to Reagan than Cruz is. Kasich - now, that's Reagan. Trump will not shut down a government if the alternative is not conservative. He'll shut down the government if the alternative is stupidity. Liberal doesn't always mean stupidity. And that's why he's expanding the Republican voter base. He advocated a 45% tariff for China during his editorial board meeting with the New York Times. (He now denies it, but the Times can't release the audio without his authorization because other parts of the same meeting were off-the-record.) He advocated 25% before that.... the percentage is not the point. The point is to put tariffs on China proportional to the trade deficits... See, this is the difference between somebody who says stuff to appeal to a voter base and somebody who says stuff right out of his brain. The traditional politician will have to focus-group the exact percentage - "which percentage should I say that would not ripple the voter base? If it would take a 45% tariff to balance the trade deficits, would that make the voters think it's too high? So, I should just stick with 25% because voters like that better?" That's one thing about Trump - he doesn't focus-group anything. By the way, Smoot-Hawley was also supposedly merely a response to "unfair trade" practices. Didn't make it any less disastrous for the country. Social Security currently has over $23.7 trillion in unfunded liabilities to current plan participants. Small-government conservatives understand this. Trump, like the progressives, would have us continue to sing "everything is awesome!" as we dance on into a cash crunch of epic proportions. There's nothing small-government about raising the retirement age. Trump, unlike the progressives, doesn't think everything is awesome. He just believes that a more robust economy that increases the job participation rate in record numbers will do more to Social Security than raising the retirement age. Which one is more small-government conservative? Because, you know, raising the retirement age is really not that much different than raising taxes (which can be a small-government conservative solution but is not popular on the stump). So . . . he supports government's right to tell private companies who to hire. Small-government conservatives, don't. Small-government conservatives are not that much of an ideologue that they will fully eliminate government regulatory actions on businesses. They're small-government not NO-government. Affirmative action, when needed, can be part of that regulatory action... it's not the action that makes it non-conservative... it's the hobby-horse of the day that makes it non-conservative. But yes, other people (like me) think affirmative action has served its purpose and needed to sunset 20 years ago. So . . . when the assault weapons ban was subject to renewal, he supported it. Small-government conservatives, wouldn't have. He was a Democrat in 2004. "Lyin' Ted"? "Little Marco"? "She had blood coming out of her eyes, she had blood coming out of her everywhere"? It's a campaign slogan. And it's very effective. Low-energy Jeb. Crooked Hillary. Using Lyin' Ted to make it stick in people's heads is not vilifying Ted Cruz as a person nor Conservatism in general in the same way that Cruz telling people Trump is a liar is not vilifying Trump as a person. Trump just has a better method of making it stick in people's heads through these little slogans. Blood coming out of stuff... that's highly sensationalized by drive-by. It was pretty obvious what he meant - Megyn Kelly was a bulldog in that first debate - she was not a moderator, she was a debater. She made Candy Crowley look like a tiny puppy. Now, New York Values is also highly sensationalized by drive-by. It's also pretty obvious what Cruz meant when he said it. And Trump took major advantage of it. It's politics, folks. Thou sayest. I reject the notion that the evil in society compels us to join in that evil. There are 2 sides to that evil - the politicians and the businessmen. So you got 2 choices - vote for the politician or vote for the businessman. Romney, by the way, was both a politician and a businessman. The only difference is - he greased Republican politicians only. No, I was talking about his bankruptcies. They hurt people, Anatess. Not paying your contractual obligations, hurts people. If you file for bankruptcy, and then wind up sitting on four billion or ten billion dollars or however much Trump has--you don't gloat about how you got away with it. You go to the people you hurt and make them whole. Okay... this is ridiculous. Trump has 515 businesses (maybe more - this was just the businesses that he is the CEO of). He failed at 4 - chapter 11's, not chapter 7's. 500-odd ones he succeeded... So you're saying... if you file for bankruptcy you're hurting people. Well, duh. That's the risk of doing business. In a Chapter 11, the business is handed over to the judge. The judge decides who-gets-what-money-when while the company restructures. A bank who invested in that business will be one of the last people to get money - most of the time, they are not given any. So, if you're saying that not giving the bank a return on their investment is hurting people... then you must be a big supporter of TARP. But you're not. So, you're not making any sense whatsoever. Not many, actually. They just need to be good ideas. So far, the bulk of Trump's campaign has been about how he, personally, is so awesome. And you understood this back in March when you dismissed the importance of plans in favor of ability and "vision". Trump is all about how he is awesome. And goshdarnit, it's about time we got somebody who thinks he is awesome and has no problem saying it. It's about time somebody points to himself and says... "I'm rich and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. As a matter of fact, I want you all to be rich like me!"... it's such a great relief from the, "When we left the White House, we were so poor... we had to eat ramen for months... all the rich people have to be punished!" But no, his campaign is not about how he is so awesome. His campaign is about making America awesome. And that's pretty much the same for Cruz and Kasich.

I still don't know how to split a quote... Plans - You didn't ask for specific plans. You asked for DETAILED plans, remember? I gave you lots of plans and then you say... where's the details? Intention - That may be... but a side-by-side of HIllary is pretty dang obvious just by looking at the D beside her name. A side by side of Cruz/Kasich and Trump is more helpful... which I've provided. It shows that if you're voting Cruz, there's not much difference between Cruz and Trump policy positions. Cruz/Trump - putting words in my mouth is really wierding me out.... it's like an anti-Mormon explaining to me what I believe. This tells me more about you than it does about me. Write on this thread - yes, I wrote in this thread. I don't understand what you're saying. The point was, I believe a video is better than text - not as easy to spin. I wrote in this thread because I want to maintain anonymity - I am not going to talk to you through a video even if it is a more superior form of communication. Lincoln - yes, Lincoln who didn't win the popular delegates vote... much like Cruz and Kasich. Your juxtaposition on this tells me more about you than it does about me also... bloodshed - I never said that about 2016. I only said that about 1860. You pointed to 1860 as an example - like it supports your NeverTrump position. It doesn't. 1860 was so bad it led to secession and bloodshed. You shouldn't equate 2016 to 1860. Basically - if Trump gets what he wants, you should unite behind him. If he doesn't get what he wants and Cruz does - unite behind him.

More Trump ideas in soundbite format: “A nation without borders is not a nation,” “As president .... I would be very, very tough on the borders, and I would be not allowing certain people to come into this country without absolute perfect documentation,” “We have at least 11 million people in this country that came in illegally. They will go out, they will come back, some will come back, the best, through a process ... it may not be a very quick process, but I think that's very fair and very fine,” "“I will end forever the use of the H-1B as a cheap labor program." "Public funding of abortion providers is an insult to people of conscience at the least and an affront to good governance at best.” “The right of self-defense doesn't stop at the end of your driveway. That's why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states,” “We will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally -- the state of Israel,” “there's nothing I would rather do than bring peace to Israel and its neighbors. Generally, I think it serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy.” “We need to stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves.” “I try and pay as little tax as possible, because I hate what they do with my tax money. I hate the way they spend our money.” “we need leadership in Washington to get the tax code changed so companies will be coming to America, not looking for ways to leave.” “Simplifying the tax code and cutting every American's taxes will boost consumer spending, encourage savings and investment, and maximize economic growth,” “When you have a hedge fund guy who's making $200 million a year and ... he's paying a very low rate of taxes, it's not fair and I think it says a lot,” "I would raise taxes on unfair imports. The lobbyists are going to come and see me, but I don't give a s-- about lobbyists.” “No business of any size, from a fortune 500 company to a mom-and-pop shop to a freelancer living from gig to gig, will pay more than 15 percent of their business income in taxes,” “Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas,” “the worst” of Beijing's “sins” is the “wanton manipulation of China's currency, robbing Americans of billions of dollars of capital and millions of jobs.” (On eminent domain) “If you're going to create 10,000 jobs for a town that's in trouble and you need a piece of property, I'll tell you what folks, I want to create jobs and I want to give the people that own that property more than it's worth,” “These people always hit me with eminent domain, and frankly I'm not in love with eminent domain,” “I have to say that the police are absolutely mistreated and misunderstood,” "Global warming is an expensive hoax!” “I consider climate change to be not one of our big problems,” “I'm a huge believer in clean air,” “EPA is an impediment to both growth and jobs.” “I'm a tremendous believer in education, but education has to be at a local level. We cannot have the bureaucrats in Washington telling you how to manage your child's education,” “These student loans are probably one of the only things that the government shouldn't make money from and yet it does,” “Waterboarding would be fine. If they can expand the laws, I would do a lot more than waterboarding,” "I would like to build a safe zone in Syria, build a big, beautiful safe zone, and you have whatever it is, so they can live.” “I will build a military so strong that we'll never have to use it because they are going to be saying, 'I'm not going to mess with that guy,' ” "<My supporters> are not necessarily loyal to me, they're loyal to the country. They want great security. They want great military. They want to take care of their vets. They want a border. They want a wall.” "“My record of veteran support is well-documented. I served as co-chairman of the New York Vietnam Veterans Memorial Commission and was responsible, with a small group, for getting it built.” “The power to choose will stop the wait time backlogs and force the VA to improve and compete if the department wants to keep receiving veterans' healthcare dollars." "Sources of “green energy” are “really just an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves.” “Energy independence is a requirement if America is to become great again,”

Yeah, I'm not getting it either. You're born with the truth? That doesn't make sense. The objective of mortality is to learn line upon line precept upon precept... with free agency. So, a truth cannot be given unless it is asked for. So, it all starts with a question... "Is Jesus the Christ?" and the answer is then given. And yes, the answer doesn't have to come from a missionary or the Church. It can come from God himself as has happened with Peter.

Trump couldn't have supported TARP or the stimulus or the GM bailout because... he was not a Congressman or a politician. So, all this is something he said to someone on an interview from a businessman running over 500 businesses... So here's the interview about TARP: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/09/26/donald-trump-on-700-billion-bailout-plan.html Here's the interview about the auto bailouts: http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/trump-auto-bailout/2008/12/10/id/327036/ He has repeatedly stated he advocates Free Trade but Trade Deficits is not Free. "Advocating 45% tarrif" is silly - which country? What product?. Nobody - especially not a guy like Trump who is an expert on economy and finance - advocates for across the board tariffs of all imports. Rather, Trump wants to negotiate trade deals on a country-by-country basis - hence, no NAFTA, TPP, etc. Here's his plan for China: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform He has a different one for Mexico as it is incorporated into his immigration plan. Raise taxes on the wealthy - not that simple, but yes, he advocates for a progressive income tax plan with the highest earners taxed higher than middle and low earners. But his highest income bracket has a 3% lower rate than Kasich's plan. His reasoning for progressive income tax is that high income earners need to be incentivized to put their assets into investments to drive the economy. This is supported by low capital gains taxes. Here's his tax plan. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform Social Security Reform - yes he opposes raising the retirement age or any of that kind of change. He wants Social Security to be left alone but work to make it more efficient and eliminate fraud within the system. He believes that there are 2 partners in Social Security - the Contributors and the Recipients. Say 1 contributor covers the benefits of 1 recipient and the corresponding overhead... if there are 10 contributors and 10 recipients, then SS is balanced. If there are 5 recipients, you have a surplus. If there are 15 recipients, you have a deficit. The system works fine if when the system is in surplus, the money is invested such that it will cover upcoming deficits. This is the problem - in the hayday of the 80's and 90's, SS surplus was spent on government programs so that when the job participation rate crashed in the 2000's in time for the boomers, there was no money to cover deficits. Deficits got added to the national debt. Trump plans to fix it so that surplus stays in SS to cover deficits. In addition, he plans to increase job participation rates to bring the system back into healthy balance. He also plans to make it more efficient to reduce overhead. Affirmative action - Trump Organization is a merit-based corporation. In any case, this is his answer to this question: Q: You said that you're "fine" with affirmative action. What about those who say the time for that kind of preferential treatment has come and gone? TRUMP:ÿI'm fine with it, but we have it, it's there.ÿBut it's coming to a time when maybe we don't need it. That would be a wonderful thing.ÿI don't think we need it so much anymore. It has served its place, and it served its time. Some people have loved it and some people don't like it at all. But I think there will be a time when you don't need it. Source: Fox News Sunday 2015 Coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Oct 18, 2015 Assault Weapons - note that Trump has a concealed carry permit in NY (a state with strict gun laws) and his kids are marksmen. That said, in his book published in 2000, "The America We Deserve" he states that he supports the ban on assault weapons - this was already the law back then but it was set to expire in 2004 unless Congress extends it - the Democrats failed to extend it. So Trump has gone through both conditions where there's a ban and there's no ban. So when he presented his Presidential stance on the 2nd amendment he came up with this: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights. Conservative is a label. He doesn't vilify people. He vilifies actions. So just because he vilifies the actions of Conservatives doesn't mean he vilifies Conservatism. For example - he really doesn't like Bush's foreign policy. Now, you might think Bush's foreign policy is conservative... well, just because a Republican wanted it doesn't mean that going into Iraq was conservative. Scott Walker - Trump attacked him for not raising taxes when Wisconsin was about to run deficits projected at 2.2B (Wisconsin, by law, has to submit a balanced budget). Instead, he cut services including the school budget. Now, this can be seen as a non-conservative position. But this is the peril of legally ibinding Congress to a balanced budget... when market health takes a dive (which may not be the fault of the State as has happened in Wisconsin), the balanced budget legislation forces Congress to take immediate measures - either raise taxes or cut costs. It doesn't have the flexibility to float a surplus to cover a deficit or vice versa. So, there are 2 schools of thought on here - both conservative. You can temporarily raise taxes (with a projected sunset - we did this in my city sales tax run by a conservative mayor.. and remember the "read my lips" of HW) to cover the deficit and not hurt State services, or you temporarily cut State services. Trump believes that Walker sacrificed schools because raising taxes looks bad on a Presidential bid. I don't think that's what Walker did - I think he just really abhors raising taxes. Bought politicians and cozy relationships - this is part of his bread and butter. He rails against a system that compels a businessman to have to buy politicians because it's the only way for them to compete in business. He'd say, "I would know about having to buy politicians - I was a businessman and I had to do it. Believe me!". He's saying this same thing about the delegates system. He rails against a system where the delegates don't have to represent the will of the people - so you court delegates instead of court the people. He'd say, "I can court delegates, ok? It would be so easy. But I don't want to do that. I want the people to have a voice. A huge voice. But, if I have to, I'll court the delegates." Contractual obligations - not sure what this is. But, this is Trump - "of course I try to get away with paying the lowest taxes possible! It would be so stupid to pay more taxes than you are legally required". Trump University - "I'm fighting that in court. These people come and take my course and when it didn't work out for them they try to sue me. What I wanna know is how they applied what they learned after taking my course." Advancing himself - no idea what you're saying. Of course he's advancing himself... he's trying to run for President. Build the Wall - an idea. Let Mexico pay for it - another idea. Renegotiate trade deals - more ideas... how many ideas do you need before you become a candidate running on ideas?

I didn't say we shouldn't expect specific plans. I said, staking your pick on a specific plan is practically useless. Presidents don't make plans - they make visions and missions and EXECUTE plans made by Congress. You can "I'm gonna do it like this" all day long on the stump... it's not gonna happen like that... because we're not in a dictatorship. The past 20 years should be enough to prove that. But... specific plans have been laid out by the Trump Campaign since day 1... You just don't like it because it's not DETAILED plans. Well... there's more details now. We're close to the nomination you know. No, I have no beef over you not being impressed by Trump. That's not my intent to have you impressed. Any of the 17 Republican candidates are impressive enough to be far superior than Hillary. My intent is for you to realize that when it comes down to Hillary vs Trump, Trump is superior. I'm also trying to make you realize that Trump voters are not blind idiots. I don't treat you like an errant schoolboy. I call you out on your usage of the Democrat playbook. Party unity is for the candidates to call. I am simply making the case that Trump is better than Hillary. And I posted videos because videos are superior - that's why I broke down the 50-minute video into what is talked about on what minute so you can watch pieces of it if you prefer. It's fact that you reading what I'm trying to say is far less effective than you watching and hearing me say it. But, I can give it to you in text if you like... it would be news items - which can be biased depending on the source - because, really, how many interviews are provided with transcripts? But then, a lot of his stuff is in his books... which takes hours to read. Talk of violence about the nomination? When did I say that? I have no problem with Cruz or Kasich - OR ANY OF THE 17 REPUBLICANS getting the nomination. ZERO. None whatsoever. Lindsay Graham is an idiot and a half, but I'll campaign for him over Hillary. And "Trump and his goon squad" is a drive-by media fabrication. The guy with the paid protesters is Bernie.

There's nothing Guilty about ACDC. C'mon... I mean... they're so not the Nelsons.

1860 should be your lesson in fracturing the votes. The Republicans got lucky that the Democrats split, otherwise, Lincoln wouldn't be your President. But even then... Lincoln won without the South... leading to secession... and.... the Civil War. You don't want a repeat of that, I'm sure.