|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 22 2016 09:23 Nyxisto wrote:
It's not a lack of education, it's the communitarianism. The Protestant denominations could use a Pope that ups the scholasticism a bit so that you don't end up with folk preachers and televangelists.
A bit of an oversimplification but yes, the lack of rigor in evangelical Protestant exegesis is startling and the Republican platform is actually a pretty good snapshot of its side-effects. Many southern "fundamentalists" (which is a misnomer itself) are spoon-fed the Bible in very pointed and interpretatively shallow bites that conform to the denominational bottomline of wealth-gathering.
|
On July 22 2016 08:28 Plansix wrote:
"Anyone who endorses violence, hatred or oppression is not welcome in our country and never will be." -Trump tonight
This coming from a man who told his supporters to rough up protesters and he would pay their legal bills. I look forward for this vain attempt to cater to Bernie supporters.
Also coming from the man who said "we have to kill their families"
|
CLEVELAND — A super PAC backing Hillary Clinton on Thursday night mysteriously obtained and leaked drafts of Donald Trump’s nomination speech — and those of several other convention speakers — hours before the night’s proceedings were set to kick off, sending the Trump campaign scrambling on the final night of what has been a chaotic convention.
The super PAC, Correct the Record, obtained a document containing the drafts from “a Republican source who had access to it and they sent it to us,” said Correct the Record founder David Brock, a close Clinton ally.
Correct the Record sent the text of Trump’s draft speech to its press list a little after 6 pm, gloating “as if this convention hasn't been enough of a failure for Trump, somehow he let US get a hold of his full remarks before the speech.”
About 15 minutes later, the Trump campaign sent out a press release containing excerpts of Trump’s speech that closely matched the draft released by Correct the Record.
Source
|
On July 22 2016 09:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
i know its gotta be embarrassing for our conservative fellows to have that platform brought up. heck, i'm already embarrassed just as an american.
Even for Trump I bet. That's just really sad, smh.
|
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO.
|
On July 22 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO.
why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal
edit: just looked it up, only 5 countries are meeting their requirements to put 2% of their gdp towards military expenditures. So seems like there is a bit of freeloading going on by the rest no?
|
Second paragraph:
"Our Convention occurs at a moment of crisis for our nation. The attacks on our police, and the terrorism in our cities, threaten our very way of life. Any politician who does not grasp this danger is not fit to lead our country."
LOL if that wasn't predictable
|
"Nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens."
You really have to be out of touch if you feel in as much danger as Trump's speech claims.
|
On July 22 2016 09:59 Doodsmack wrote:
"Nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens."
You really have to be out of touch if you feel in as much danger as Trump's speech claims.
He needs to be end this with "hide your kids, hide your wife!!!!!"
|
For as much as I dislike Reince Priebus, there is one thing that I'm thankful for: he is not Debbie Wasserman-Schulz.
|
|
|
|
|
"My opponent asks her supporters to recite a three-word loyalty pledge. It reads: “I’m With Her”."
Isn't this just a lie? He's trying to pretend every single thing the media reports on is hysteria (because they reported on him doing this).
|
goodness reince is so dweeby, dude rolled a zero for charisma
|
On July 22 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO. why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal edit: just looked it up, only 5 countries are meeting their requirements to put 2% of their gdp towards military expenditures. So seems like there is a bit of freeloading going on by the rest no?
For me it's mostly that his comments continue to make it quite clear he has never read the Constitution's section on international treaties.
|
Finished reading his speech. For the most part, it looks like boilerplate Republican ideas (cut taxes, secure borders,
"diversity", Benghazi, etc).
The interesting part was there were nearly zero policy prescriptions. No recommendations, no analyses, no estimates or bounds. Does Trump even have a policy committee or wonk group in his campaign team?
On July 22 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO. why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal edit: just looked it up, only 5 countries are meeting their requirements to put 2% of their gdp towards military expenditures. So seems like there is a bit of freeloading going on by the rest no?
1: There is no requirement for countries to put in 2% of their GDP. That's a suggestion which is flexible depending on the country's means, geographical location, and strategic importance.
2: Read the interview. If a country is dragging down NATO, the time to kick them out is before anything happens. Trump is suggesting that, if an invasion occurs, he will then unilaterally review whether or not he believes said country paid their "fair" share into NATO before deciding whether or not the United States should send send military aid. This is a really stupid idea for obvious reasons.
NATO isn't a multi-tiered citizenship where America unilaterally decides to help some members and not others. If other countries in NATO acted in the same way, NATO would effectively not exist. Countries are only allowed to join NATO if they are presumed to be important enough for us to defend and for them to defend us in one form or another.
|
On July 22 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO. why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal edit: just looked it up, only 5 countries are meeting their requirements to put 2% of their gdp towards military expenditures. So seems like there is a bit of freeloading going on by the rest no?
2% is not a requirement, it's a recommendation. NATO is first and foremost a deterrent, the main requirement is literally to say that you will defend fellow NATO memebers. Saying that you may or may not do that is about the most idiotic thing a western diplomat can say, and pretty much the only way to not 'hold up your end of the deal' in peacetime.
Saying you will defend fellow NATO members if the need arises even if you do not plan to do so, costs literally nothing. There are plenty of ways to complain about military spending, this one is about the worst possible ways to go about scoring populist points on the topic.
|
|
|
On July 22 2016 10:19 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO. why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal edit: just looked it up, only 5 countries are meeting their requirements to put 2% of their gdp towards military expenditures. So seems like there is a bit of freeloading going on by the rest no? 2% is not a requirement, it's a recommendation. NATO is first and foremost a deterrent, the main requirement is literally to say that you will defend fellow NATO memebers. Saying that you may or may not do that is about the most idiotic thing a western diplomat can say, and pretty much the only way to not 'hold up your end of the deal' in peacetime. Saying you will defend fellow NATO members if the need arises even if you do not plan to do so, costs literally nothing. There are plenty of ways to complain about military spending, this one is about the worst possible ways to go about scoring populist points on the topic.
you guys are over reacting imo, take his words with a grain of salt. If push comes to shove the US will always be the first to act, as it always has in the past. He approaches every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal so it is natural for him to say things like that. Doesn't mean he won't actually employ military force if one of our allies gets attacked.
|
On July 22 2016 09:32 CorsairHero wrote:
Is testie banned from posting here
I believe so but not sure
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
