US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7748

On June 03 2017 07:53 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:

The fact that christians voted for a guy that literally pretends to be religious and is pretty much the culmination of sins is still very funny to me.

The Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee asked U.S. spy agencies late last year to reveal the names of U.S. individuals or organizations contained in classified intelligence on Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, engaging in the same practice that President Trump has accused the Obama administration of abusing, current and former officials said.

The chairman of the committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), has since cast the practice of “unmasking” of U.S. individuals and organizations mentioned in classified reports as an abuse of surveillance powers by the outgoing Obama administration.

Trump has argued that investigators should focus their attention on former officials leaking names from intelligence reports, rather than whether the Kremlin coordinated its activities with the Trump campaign, an allegation he has denied. “The big story is the ‘unmasking and surveillance’ of people that took place during the Obama administration,” Trump tweeted Thursday.

On June 03 2017 08:57 Wulfey_LA wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

Reality show President thinks he is looking for a new Apprentice.

On June 03 2017 09:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So Sessions is essentially under FBI investigation now, No? Honestly nithing would make me happier than to see that old neo-confederate pos rot in prison.

On June 03 2017 08:51 Danglars wrote:

It's better to have someone apathetic to religious freedom than an ideology and cause that pursues limiting it under such banners as "war on women" or "license to discriminate." I'd rather have someone clueless on the subject (and distrustful of intellectual opinion) than oppositely-aligned people (and Hillary Clinton was just that.

On June 03 2017 09:44 zlefin wrote:

I disagree; religious freedoms, like all freedoms, at times opposes other freedoms, and they must all be balanced.
and religious freedom is still very plentifully free under the Democrats; not like actual true restrictions on religious freedom that have existed in the world.
and someone distrustful of intellectual opinion will not be able to make proper judgments in these matters given how complicated the questions of ethics are.

On June 03 2017 09:47 LegalLord wrote:
I predict that in a few years, instead of gasoline, our cars will run on the power of hope. Sure is a lot of that stuff around, we could probably use it as a power source.

On June 03 2017 09:41 warding wrote:
I'm late to the electric car debate but it's weird how some aren't able to recognize a simple and recurring pattern in new technology: electric cars are still expensive because of the batteries so they only appeal to a niche; battery prices are in a nice downward trend that will continue; therefore electric cars will become affordable and take over internal combustion because they're superior in every other aspect. Not only are they cleaner and can accelerate fast, but they are much cheaper to maintain. Electric motors are super simple in comparison to internal combustion. And yeah you have to be a Legalordian cynic to note be able to appreciate Elon Musk.

On June 03 2017 10:15 Danglars wrote:

Haha and your perspective to call it "plentifully free" is based on what exactly? I'm actually pretty happy for the reminder; the country dodged a bullet on that Hillary. Ivanka & Co are still advising against it (as seen in softening of religious freedom EO) so there's still a danger. But nothing compared to the Democratic Party nominee with all her campaigns Catholic bigotry and diatribes on how religion had to change. Probably unnoticed by you, to be honest.

On June 03 2017 10:35 zlefin wrote:

based on the reality of religious oppression throughout history, and the vastly overblown claims of religious oppression the republicans have put forth. The notion that religious freedom is actually under threat is unfounded; you'd need to provide an actual foundation to establish that claim. Especially given that the first amendment would and still does entirely apply, and is backed by the democrats; their interpretation of it may be a bit different from yours, but it's well within the boundaries of reasonable interpretations, and really isn't all that different.
catholic bigotry is certainly not so good; neither was the sizeable amounts of bigotry coming from the trump campaign. it's not a position to claim superiority on given what trump stood for.
dodging a bullet only to get hit by a cannon isn't an improvement.

On June 03 2017 08:01 KwarK wrote:

His temperance with regard to substances is one. That's more of a big deal in Islam than Christianity but take virtues where you can get them. The rest though, not so much.

On June 03 2017 10:51 Danglars wrote:

No cannon here, Trump's objectively better on religious freedoms. Thank God Hillary didn't drag it over the finish line. Also, I'd like to point out that when I linked an article entitled "Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty," I did actually expect responders to read it if they thought all claims are unfounded. I want to believe you have something other than belief that the Democrats aren't that bad, but I still haven't seen anything other than your personal judgement and partisan choice at play here.

On June 03 2017 11:10 a_flayer wrote:
It's a good thing if certain religiously-inspired beliefs are declining. From beliefs held in ultra-conservative Islam to the idea that some type of godly intervention will solve the climate change problem, or that protesting at funerals is an appropriate thing to do.

On June 03 2017 10:51 Danglars wrote:

No cannon here, Trump's objectively better on religious freedoms. Thank God Hillary didn't drag it over the finish line. Also, I'd like to point out that when I linked an article entitled "Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty," I did actually expect responders to read it if they thought all claims are unfounded. I want to believe you have something other than belief that the Democrats aren't that bad, but I still haven't seen anything other than your personal judgement and partisan choice at play here.