What do you think of gay porn star colby keller supporting trump?

jtm011

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Posts
2,812
Media
0
Likes
6,359
Points
393
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Porn stars are not the most intelligent people, and those who supports Trump, with all his dirty history and screwed up mindset, show that they are either ill-informed or uneducated about politics. I'm not saying Hillary is good. I'm just saying that those who support Trump are doing so based on rhetoric not facts, and so they are either misinformed or they do not educate themselves on the candidates.
 

sqwertmasturx

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Posts
80
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
53
Location
Canada
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Not gonna lie when I say it hurts my heart a little to hear this. I love Colby and his work....I will not stop watching him and following him, but it is disheartening for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: henry777
D

deleted1025121

Guest
Its hard to look past someone's big cock when now all you can see is someone so ill-informed on the policies. Policies that if Trump is elected will reverse the steps towards equality the lgbt community has made in the past decade. To me that just brings his appeal much lower knowing he's not on my side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtm011 and henry777

braalian

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Posts
630
Media
7
Likes
1,978
Points
163
Age
41
Location
Grand Rapids (Michigan, United States)
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
He seems like a nice guy, but his reasoning for voting for Trump is a bunch of hot nonsense:

I’m going to vote for Trump! I think he’s a destabilizing force. I’m skeptical of him, too, and who exactly is behind Trump. But given that there’s eternal dissent in the Republican Party, that leads me to believe that whatever he represents might be a destabilizing force. And he’s made a lot of overtures to Russia and China, which in some ways could be thought of as an encouraging thing. I don’t support or endorse any of Trump’s policies. I just think it’ll escalate the problem, which is the best we can hope for. I hope at the very least he’d turn the White House into a reality show. America would tune in, right? And then he could do something nice, like give the money to the National Park Service, because they’re trying to defund it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KennF

jtm011

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Posts
2,812
Media
0
Likes
6,359
Points
393
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
"I don’t support or endorse any of Trump’s policies. I just think it’ll escalate the problem, which is the best we can hope for."
Yet he's still voting for Trump. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about -- I stated above that Trump voters are either "ill-informed or uneducated about politics." Colby's comment perfectly proves it. Idiots like this shouldn't be allowed to vote. Their vote affects the entire planet, not just the US. You need a license to drive a car but any idiot can vote.
 

CraigS41

Superior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Posts
1,082
Media
12
Likes
2,810
Points
368
Age
59
Location
Weaverville (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I think it's great. EVERYONE has the freedom to choose to support the candidate of his/her choice. That's no reason to call someone "Uneducated" and "Ill-Informed. Just because someone doesn't think the way you think is no reason to resort to name calling.

I remain more disturbed by what Clinton has DONE than by what Trump has SAID.

In reality, it doesn't matter one bit how we vote since it's not our votes that elect the President of the US. We'd have to go back to Reagan or before to see the Electoral College voting with the popular vote
 
  • Like
Reactions: malakos

Brodie888

Worshipped Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Posts
3,101
Media
0
Likes
12,950
Points
233
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I would be more surprised by a career porn star with a gifted intellect than one who'd vote for probably the worst GOP candidate in living memory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: henry777

jtm011

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Posts
2,812
Media
0
Likes
6,359
Points
393
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I think it's great. EVERYONE has the freedom to choose to support the candidate of his/her choice. That's no reason to call someone "Uneducated" and "Ill-Informed. Just because someone doesn't think the way you think is no reason to resort to name calling.

I remain more disturbed by what Clinton has DONE than by what Trump has SAID.

In reality, it doesn't matter one bit how we vote since it's not our votes that elect the President of the US. We'd have to go back to Reagan or before to see the Electoral College voting with the popular vote
This comment is wrong on so many different levels. First you don't understand how the Electoral College works, thereby further proving my point that Trump voters are "ill-informed or uneducated about politics". Notice I said "uneducated about politics" not uneducated in general.

Secondly, the point I put forward has nothing to do with someone thinking like or voting the way I do. I have been very clear that I don't care much for Hillary Clinton and I think this group of nominees are the absolute worst and lowest point I have ever seen in an election. The issue is that Trump supporters are mostly disenfranchised white, working class and the government/society/economy has passed them by. They have many legitimate problems. Trump comes along and points out all the problems but he has no solutions. His only answer is to blame "THEM" -- government, Clinton, Mexicans, Muslims etc etc. Logically, the two don't connect but by acknowledging their problems they feel listened to, without asking for solutions and so they support him and that is why they are "ill-informed or uneducated about politics".

About 80 years ago there was another charismatic leader that rose up quickly who blamed the nation's problem on "THEM" -- never forget that!
 

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In reality, it doesn't matter one bit how we vote since it's not our votes that elect the President of the US. We'd have to go back to Reagan or before to see the Electoral College voting with the popular vote

This not really a true statement. There are some bits of truth, but it is really misstating things.

First, you are correct. We don't vote for the President. We vote for the electors (or slate of electors) who vote for the President. However, many states have laws that state that the electors must vote the popular vote of their state. Thus electors aren't given total freedom to vote contrary to will of the people. (This has never had to be tested in the courts....yet.)

The misstatement comes from the idea that by "popular" vote, you are suggesting that the majority of the total US population. That is not and has not been the design of our system. The Great Compromise of 1787 (aka Connecticut Compromise or the Sherman Compromise), gave greater power to smaller states, in order to make our great republic work.

When you factor in demographics, people have very different power in their vote. Right now, a vote in Florida or Ohio or North Carolina is very critical, whereas a vote in Kansas or Oklahoma or Washington, not as much. Simply because of the "all-or-nothing" nature of the state laws on electors.

And even if you got it all back to the way it was designed, then the Electors would not be bound to vote but would support their candidate, since electors are selected to be as partisan as possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtm011

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
As for Colby, anyone who is voting for destabilization is scary to me.

It isn't like we are alone in the world. Revolutions aren't good news. More recently look, look at the "Arab Spring" destabilization results... Egypt got rid of a Dictatorial President and replaced it with a Military coup. In Libya, there has been civil war. Yemen has more than 10000 deaths and is still not recovered. After 3 years, Tunisia has a single body government making decisions. And, Syria is still in a civil war.

So, routing for destabilization... Not something I will support, even if he is hot looking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: henry777

jtm011

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Posts
2,812
Media
0
Likes
6,359
Points
393
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
As for Colby, anyone who is voting for destabilization is scary to me.

It isn't like we are alone in the world. Revolutions aren't good news. More recently look, look at the "Arab Spring" destabilization results... Egypt got rid of a Dictatorial President and replaced it with a Military coup. In Libya, there has been civil war. Yemen has more than 10000 deaths and is still not recovered. After 3 years, Tunisia has a single body government making decisions. And, Syria is still in a civil war.

So, routing for destabilization... Not something I will support, even if he is hot looking.
Revolution, in American history, as in Russian, French etc. has been an excellent thing. The nations you mentioned above all have one thing in common - they're all Middle Eastern countries and their "revolutions" have all had American influence that was meant to destabilize their nation, not build it, in order to create chaos in the region so as to provide a non-stop market for American military weapons. Let's at least be honest with the devil you are talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: henry777

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Revolution, in American history, as in Russian, French etc. has been an excellent thing. The nations you mentioned above all have one thing in common - they're all Middle Eastern countries and their "revolutions" have all had American influence that was meant to destabilize their nation, not build it, in order to create chaos in the region so as to provide a non-stop market for American military weapons. Let's at least be honest with the devil you are talking about.

Sorry, I'm can't support your reasoning. The Middle Eastern revolutions as examples of internally driven revolutions. The countries involved were not the only examples, true. Some of the Arab Spring revolutions has some positive change. They were the exception, not the rule. In the positive cases, there were more effective monarchies that choose to relinquish power.

The American Revolution was an internally driven revolution that worked, but, as with the French and Russian (which had other external influences), they were moving away from an ineffective monarchy. So, there isn't a true comparison.

Either way, to support a candidate just to destabilize is not the way to make effective change.
 

jtm011

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Posts
2,812
Media
0
Likes
6,359
Points
393
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Sorry, I'm can't support your reasoning. The Middle Eastern revolutions as examples of internally driven revolutions. The countries involved were not the only examples, true. Some of the Arab Spring revolutions has some positive change. They were the exception, not the rule. In the positive cases, there were more effective monarchies that choose to relinquish power.

The American Revolution was an internally driven revolution that worked, but, as with the French and Russian (which had other external influences), they were moving away from an ineffective monarchy. So, there isn't a true comparison.

Either way, to support a candidate just to destabilize is not the way to make effective change.
That's bullshit. The American Revolution, one can argue, was an internal revolution moving away from an ineffective monarchy as well.

Secondly, there was American involvement in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen, directly and/or indirectly. So if you think for one minute that these were "internally driven revolutions" then you don't know the facts on the ground.

In the end, I agree with your last sentence, but I disagree with how you got there.