|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 24 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 05:24 zlefin wrote:On March 24 2018 03:58 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 03:41 zlefin wrote:On March 24 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 02:39 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, it looks like Trump is going sign the bill on the basis of the national defense spending stuff that's in there but otherwise crap all over the bill. It would be better if he veto'd it and held out for actual wall funding. Not this strings attached 1.5billion, no concrete compromise. He can put Congress on notice to not do pork business as usual. how would that put congress on notice to not do pork as they usually do? that sounds more like asking for more pork in the form of the wall. Congress gets the pork they want. Business as usual. Trump not elected, Clinton elected. Congress must surrender cash to border security, the wall and the more high tech stuff, in order to get any pork without veto. The election mattered. Compromise reached. I don't see your point; you're just asking for a bunch of pork for the wall. you don't set an anti-pork notice by asking for your own pork; tha'ts simply saying you want a larger share of the pork for yourself. if your goal is simply to change the pork allocation so trump gets more of the pork, fine; that makes a certain amount of sense. but that's still pork business as usual. and re: bob all that stuff trump previously said was lies/bs, therefore he changed his mind. it's not like he actually believed any of the stuff he said. he was jsut spewing some bs cuz it sounded good at the time; now he'll spew different bs that seems right for now. also, the list of people willing to work for trump is fairly short; and most people who're on it are people who would be barred by a sensible leader. I really don’t see what you don’t understand. Compromise on their pork priorities for your border security priorities. It’s not about only getting what you want where it overlaps with what they want (like congressional support for defense spending)
I think the disconnect here is zlfen sees the wall as pork while danglers doesn't.
One sees it as just shutting down the Gov to get the pork you want vs the pork you don't
and the other sees it as shutting down the gov for something they view as essential
|
On March 24 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 02:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2018 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 01:48 Plansix wrote:On March 24 2018 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 01:42 Plansix wrote:On March 24 2018 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On March 24 2018 01:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So you think it is Putin's desire for us to be engaged in conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Iran in the future? None of those places are Ukraine, so sure. He just wants to keep us from opposing him directly the next time he decides a peace keeping mission into some old Soviet Bloc nation is necessary. So then you are against US imposed regime change in Syria, supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons to use in Yemen, and military action against Iran proper? I really feel like you are leading the witness here. You asked me to speculate on Putin's intent and I did. I'm trying to understand your (the wider Trump is Russia's puppet) perspective and I think asking questions is the best way for me to do that. I have another more concrete question I'd like answered in the same vein but it's been ignored thus far so I thought I'd approach it from a different angle. It appears that this inquiry has come to a road block as well. Well I don't believe Trump is a Russian puppet, so you will need to ask someone else. I've been very clear on that subject. Fair enough, I must have mixed you up with the liberals who do. What does that mean as far as your perception on the whole collusion investigation? That they allied as peers, that Trump was duped, that it was a mutually exploitative relationship, some other nature?____________________________________________________________________________________________ Towards the liberals that do think Trump is a Russian puppet or some variation: I thought the ongoing narrative was that Trump colluded with Russia in a massive online propaganda campaign with a shifting interest from Russia ranging from Trump being their puppet to Trump being a stooge, to hoping Trump would show them favor. That many of Trump's nominees were placed to please Putin and that his lack of criticism and fawning over Putin is evidence that Putin has leverage over Trump or that Trump inexplicably wants to keep Putin happy. Am I getting something wrong in that? I don't think Trump himself is a Russian puppet. I think he's too much of a dumbass to follow any kind of script. But, he is an incredible narcissist who gives in easily to flattery, which many foreign leaders have exploited. I think there are Russian puppets within his team, and Trump is too much of an idiot to vet anyone. And a lot of those people are speaking directly in Trump's ear. I'd note p6's take seems different than it was 6 months ago and very different than what we see daily in liberal media outlets, but more along the lines of something I can agree with. Who do you think are the Russian puppets within his team? TBH, I'm losing track of a lot of his team at this point. Gates and Manafort were the low hanging obvious fruit at this point. I wouldn't say that guys like Kushner are necessarily puppets, in that they're not for any specific foreign interests. They just blew all their credit with local investments, and are open season for foreign money.
Are you retracting your claim that Trump has Russian puppets on his team?
|
On March 24 2018 06:29 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 05:24 zlefin wrote:On March 24 2018 03:58 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 03:41 zlefin wrote:On March 24 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 02:39 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, it looks like Trump is going sign the bill on the basis of the national defense spending stuff that's in there but otherwise crap all over the bill. It would be better if he veto'd it and held out for actual wall funding. Not this strings attached 1.5billion, no concrete compromise. He can put Congress on notice to not do pork business as usual. how would that put congress on notice to not do pork as they usually do? that sounds more like asking for more pork in the form of the wall. Congress gets the pork they want. Business as usual. Trump not elected, Clinton elected. Congress must surrender cash to border security, the wall and the more high tech stuff, in order to get any pork without veto. The election mattered. Compromise reached. I don't see your point; you're just asking for a bunch of pork for the wall. you don't set an anti-pork notice by asking for your own pork; tha'ts simply saying you want a larger share of the pork for yourself. if your goal is simply to change the pork allocation so trump gets more of the pork, fine; that makes a certain amount of sense. but that's still pork business as usual. and re: bob all that stuff trump previously said was lies/bs, therefore he changed his mind. it's not like he actually believed any of the stuff he said. he was jsut spewing some bs cuz it sounded good at the time; now he'll spew different bs that seems right for now. also, the list of people willing to work for trump is fairly short; and most people who're on it are people who would be barred by a sensible leader. I really don’t see what you don’t understand. Compromise on their pork priorities for your border security priorities. It’s not about only getting what you want where it overlaps with what they want (like congressional support for defense spending) I think the disconnect here is zlfen sees the wall as pork while danglers doesn't. One sees it as just shutting down the Gov to get the pork you want vs the pork you don't and the other sees it as shutting down the gov for something they view as essential
Its not like the threat was real anyways. Trump reacts strongly when he sees negative coverage on TV. And those negative emotions often take the form of tweets. But the man wasn't going to veto the bill and shut down the goverment when half of congress had already left town.
|
On March 24 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 05:24 zlefin wrote:On March 24 2018 03:58 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 03:41 zlefin wrote:On March 24 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 02:39 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, it looks like Trump is going sign the bill on the basis of the national defense spending stuff that's in there but otherwise crap all over the bill. It would be better if he veto'd it and held out for actual wall funding. Not this strings attached 1.5billion, no concrete compromise. He can put Congress on notice to not do pork business as usual. how would that put congress on notice to not do pork as they usually do? that sounds more like asking for more pork in the form of the wall. Congress gets the pork they want. Business as usual. Trump not elected, Clinton elected. Congress must surrender cash to border security, the wall and the more high tech stuff, in order to get any pork without veto. The election mattered. Compromise reached. I don't see your point; you're just asking for a bunch of pork for the wall. you don't set an anti-pork notice by asking for your own pork; tha'ts simply saying you want a larger share of the pork for yourself. if your goal is simply to change the pork allocation so trump gets more of the pork, fine; that makes a certain amount of sense. but that's still pork business as usual. and re: bob all that stuff trump previously said was lies/bs, therefore he changed his mind. it's not like he actually believed any of the stuff he said. he was jsut spewing some bs cuz it sounded good at the time; now he'll spew different bs that seems right for now. also, the list of people willing to work for trump is fairly short; and most people who're on it are people who would be barred by a sensible leader. I really don’t see what you don’t understand. Compromise on their pork priorities for your border security priorities. It’s not about only getting what you want where it overlaps with what they want (like congressional support for defense spending)
I didn' tget the part where it sounded like it was supposed to be some sort of anti-pork notice; rather than simply trump wanting a larger cut of the pork for himself
ok, so trump won, so he should get a larger cut of the pork. ok, that makes sense, gotcha.
|
On March 24 2018 03:30 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 22:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 23 2018 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On March 23 2018 22:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If all trump is doing by firing everyone and placing Bolton as head of NSA to knock Stormy Daniels off the news cycle. it hasn't worked. Her 60 Minutes Interview is this Sunday night, and he lawyer tweeted this.
On one hand, "let there be tapes". On the other, no one wants to hear/see Trump getting it on. ps. Considering all the shit Trump has done and his known previous affairs. Why even worry about this? There is no real reason to assume this will do anything to his approval numbers or his supporters. Guilty pleasure. I’d love to know what’s going on in the heads of the countless devot christians who voted for him and keep supporting him. At one point, his conduct will end up hurting him, i believe. People’s ability to contradict themselves is always surprising but it’s not infinite. Meanwhike, getting my popcorns ready. That Stormy Daniel woman must be having the time of her life. Looks like being in the spotlight is what she enjoys, and it looks like she would love to make as much damage as she can... I'm kind of hoping that it's video evidence of Trump implying physical violence against her at some point after he was inaugurated or something. Also, Evangelicals really, really don't care about character unless it's a useful avenue of attack on a Democrat. With Trump, it's all about ending abortion, protecting their ability to discriminate against gays, lesbians, trans, etc., and stacking the court. Pay particular attention to the sentence I emphasized near the end. Trump could be holding daily orgies in the Oval Office and they would let it slide as long as he continues to nominate young idealogues for lifetime court appointments. Show nested quote +During the 2016 campaign, Trump pledged to defend religious liberty, stand up for unborn life and appoint conservative jurists to the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts. And he has done exactly what he promised. The pro-abortion lobby NARAL complains that Trump has been “relentless” on these fronts, declaring his administration “the worst . . . that we’ve ever seen.” That is more important to most Christian conservatives than what the president may have done with a porn actress more than 10 years ago.
Trump’s election came as religious liberty was under unprecedented attack. The Obama administration was trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious conscience and facilitate payment for abortifacient drugs and other contraceptives. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, President Barack Obama’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court that churches and universities could lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton promised to escalate those attacks. In 2015, she declared at the Women in the World Summit that “religious beliefs . . . have to be changed” — perhaps the most radical threat to religious liberty ever delivered by a major presidential candidate. Had Clinton won, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist, giving the Supreme Court a liberal judicial-activist majority.
The impact would have been immediate, as the court prepares to decide two cases crucial to religious liberty. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, the court will decide whether the state of California can compel pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise access to abortion to their clients, in violation of their conscience. Those cases are being heard not by five liberals, but five conservatives, including Justice Neil M.Gorsuch — because Trump kept his promise to “appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.”
The president is moving at record pace to fill the federal appeals courts with young conservative judges who will protect life and religious freedom for decades. He also fulfilled his promise to defend the Little Sisters from government bullying, by expanding the religious and conscience exemption to the Obamacare contraception mandate to cover both nonprofit and for-profit organizations. www.washingtonpost.com
Agreed. Trump does not seem to be very religious himself but he does seem to cater to these various religious minorities that elected him to public office. I guess he figures that if it works, keep doing it?
|
On March 24 2018 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2018 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 02:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2018 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 01:48 Plansix wrote:On March 24 2018 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 01:42 Plansix wrote:On March 24 2018 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
None of those places are Ukraine, so sure. He just wants to keep us from opposing him directly the next time he decides a peace keeping mission into some old Soviet Bloc nation is necessary. So then you are against US imposed regime change in Syria, supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons to use in Yemen, and military action against Iran proper? I really feel like you are leading the witness here. You asked me to speculate on Putin's intent and I did. I'm trying to understand your (the wider Trump is Russia's puppet) perspective and I think asking questions is the best way for me to do that. I have another more concrete question I'd like answered in the same vein but it's been ignored thus far so I thought I'd approach it from a different angle. It appears that this inquiry has come to a road block as well. Well I don't believe Trump is a Russian puppet, so you will need to ask someone else. I've been very clear on that subject. Fair enough, I must have mixed you up with the liberals who do. What does that mean as far as your perception on the whole collusion investigation? That they allied as peers, that Trump was duped, that it was a mutually exploitative relationship, some other nature?____________________________________________________________________________________________ Towards the liberals that do think Trump is a Russian puppet or some variation: I thought the ongoing narrative was that Trump colluded with Russia in a massive online propaganda campaign with a shifting interest from Russia ranging from Trump being their puppet to Trump being a stooge, to hoping Trump would show them favor. That many of Trump's nominees were placed to please Putin and that his lack of criticism and fawning over Putin is evidence that Putin has leverage over Trump or that Trump inexplicably wants to keep Putin happy. Am I getting something wrong in that? I don't think Trump himself is a Russian puppet. I think he's too much of a dumbass to follow any kind of script. But, he is an incredible narcissist who gives in easily to flattery, which many foreign leaders have exploited. I think there are Russian puppets within his team, and Trump is too much of an idiot to vet anyone. And a lot of those people are speaking directly in Trump's ear. I'd note p6's take seems different than it was 6 months ago and very different than what we see daily in liberal media outlets, but more along the lines of something I can agree with. Who do you think are the Russian puppets within his team? TBH, I'm losing track of a lot of his team at this point. Gates and Manafort were the low hanging obvious fruit at this point. I wouldn't say that guys like Kushner are necessarily puppets, in that they're not for any specific foreign interests. They just blew all their credit with local investments, and are open season for foreign money. Are you retracting your claim that Trump has Russian puppets on his team?
No? Well, okay, I guess Manafort and Gates aren't actually on his team anymore.
I can't point specifically at any other previous, current or expected members of his team, but I expect there to be more uncovered as investigations continue.
|
On March 24 2018 07:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2018 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 02:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2018 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 01:48 Plansix wrote:On March 24 2018 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 01:42 Plansix wrote:On March 24 2018 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So then you are against US imposed regime change in Syria, supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons to use in Yemen, and military action against Iran proper? I really feel like you are leading the witness here. You asked me to speculate on Putin's intent and I did. I'm trying to understand your (the wider Trump is Russia's puppet) perspective and I think asking questions is the best way for me to do that. I have another more concrete question I'd like answered in the same vein but it's been ignored thus far so I thought I'd approach it from a different angle. It appears that this inquiry has come to a road block as well. Well I don't believe Trump is a Russian puppet, so you will need to ask someone else. I've been very clear on that subject. Fair enough, I must have mixed you up with the liberals who do. What does that mean as far as your perception on the whole collusion investigation? That they allied as peers, that Trump was duped, that it was a mutually exploitative relationship, some other nature?____________________________________________________________________________________________ Towards the liberals that do think Trump is a Russian puppet or some variation: I thought the ongoing narrative was that Trump colluded with Russia in a massive online propaganda campaign with a shifting interest from Russia ranging from Trump being their puppet to Trump being a stooge, to hoping Trump would show them favor. That many of Trump's nominees were placed to please Putin and that his lack of criticism and fawning over Putin is evidence that Putin has leverage over Trump or that Trump inexplicably wants to keep Putin happy. Am I getting something wrong in that? I don't think Trump himself is a Russian puppet. I think he's too much of a dumbass to follow any kind of script. But, he is an incredible narcissist who gives in easily to flattery, which many foreign leaders have exploited. I think there are Russian puppets within his team, and Trump is too much of an idiot to vet anyone. And a lot of those people are speaking directly in Trump's ear. I'd note p6's take seems different than it was 6 months ago and very different than what we see daily in liberal media outlets, but more along the lines of something I can agree with. Who do you think are the Russian puppets within his team? TBH, I'm losing track of a lot of his team at this point. Gates and Manafort were the low hanging obvious fruit at this point. I wouldn't say that guys like Kushner are necessarily puppets, in that they're not for any specific foreign interests. They just blew all their credit with local investments, and are open season for foreign money. Are you retracting your claim that Trump has Russian puppets on his team? No? Well, okay, I guess Manafort and Gates aren't actually on his team anymore. I can't point specifically at any other previous, current or expected members of his team, but I expect there to be more uncovered as investigations continue.
Do you maintain the possibility that there were never any Russian puppets in Trump's government and that the assertion that there are without evidence is irresponsible?
|
On March 24 2018 03:30 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 22:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 23 2018 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On March 23 2018 22:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If all trump is doing by firing everyone and placing Bolton as head of NSA to knock Stormy Daniels off the news cycle. it hasn't worked. Her 60 Minutes Interview is this Sunday night, and he lawyer tweeted this. https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/977015170231885825 On one hand, "let there be tapes". On the other, no one wants to hear/see Trump getting it on. ps. Considering all the shit Trump has done and his known previous affairs. Why even worry about this? There is no real reason to assume this will do anything to his approval numbers or his supporters. Guilty pleasure. I’d love to know what’s going on in the heads of the countless devot christians who voted for him and keep supporting him. At one point, his conduct will end up hurting him, i believe. People’s ability to contradict themselves is always surprising but it’s not infinite. Meanwhike, getting my popcorns ready. That Stormy Daniel woman must be having the time of her life. Looks like being in the spotlight is what she enjoys, and it looks like she would love to make as much damage as she can... I'm kind of hoping that it's video evidence of Trump implying physical violence against her at some point after he was inaugurated or something. Also, Evangelicals really, really don't care about character unless it's a useful avenue of attack on a Democrat. With Trump, it's all about ending abortion, protecting their ability to discriminate against gays, lesbians, trans, etc., and stacking the court. Pay particular attention to the sentence I emphasized near the end. Trump could be holding daily orgies in the Oval Office and they would let it slide as long as he continues to nominate young idealogues for lifetime court appointments. Show nested quote +During the 2016 campaign, Trump pledged to defend religious liberty, stand up for unborn life and appoint conservative jurists to the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts. And he has done exactly what he promised. The pro-abortion lobby NARAL complains that Trump has been “relentless” on these fronts, declaring his administration “the worst . . . that we’ve ever seen.” That is more important to most Christian conservatives than what the president may have done with a porn actress more than 10 years ago.
Trump’s election came as religious liberty was under unprecedented attack. The Obama administration was trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious conscience and facilitate payment for abortifacient drugs and other contraceptives. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, President Barack Obama’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court that churches and universities could lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton promised to escalate those attacks. In 2015, she declared at the Women in the World Summit that “religious beliefs . . . have to be changed” — perhaps the most radical threat to religious liberty ever delivered by a major presidential candidate. Had Clinton won, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist, giving the Supreme Court a liberal judicial-activist majority.
The impact would have been immediate, as the court prepares to decide two cases crucial to religious liberty. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, the court will decide whether the state of California can compel pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise access to abortion to their clients, in violation of their conscience. Those cases are being heard not by five liberals, but five conservatives, including Justice Neil M.Gorsuch — because Trump kept his promise to “appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.”
The president is moving at record pace to fill the federal appeals courts with young conservative judges who will protect life and religious freedom for decades. He also fulfilled his promise to defend the Little Sisters from government bullying, by expanding the religious and conscience exemption to the Obamacare contraception mandate to cover both nonprofit and for-profit organizations. www.washingtonpost.com
You highlight the trouble in calling these issues. For you, it’s about “protecting their ability to discriminate against gays.” For me, it’s about religious liberty, and if I were to punch up the emotion to your level, it would be to “force religious people to violate their conscience by government fiat.” This is very important in cases like the Masterpiece Cakeshop, where they will readily sell premade cakes, but will not custom build a celebratory message for a gay wedding.
I think the entire lack of nuance here underlies the point: you’ve given up compromise, and the religious must go to people that aren’t activists against their rights. I’ll take a Trump that is personally abhorrent simply because he’s not crusading to force school districts to put anatomical males into female locker rooms. I can actually put my input in the local school district. Or make universities apply reduced standards for conviction and expulsion for rape accusations under Title IX. It’s definitely a disconnect, and I don’t know how much of that is willful malice against religion, against due process, and against state rights and local control. The only thing that makes sense is that some of the latter is in the mix. Forcing nuns to fully subsidize contraception is one of the stupider results from the black-and-white approach.
|
This spending bill is not playing well with Trumps base. Check Breitbart for laughs.
|
On March 24 2018 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 07:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2018 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2018 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 02:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2018 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 01:48 Plansix wrote:On March 24 2018 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2018 01:42 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I really feel like you are leading the witness here. You asked me to speculate on Putin's intent and I did. I'm trying to understand your (the wider Trump is Russia's puppet) perspective and I think asking questions is the best way for me to do that. I have another more concrete question I'd like answered in the same vein but it's been ignored thus far so I thought I'd approach it from a different angle. It appears that this inquiry has come to a road block as well. Well I don't believe Trump is a Russian puppet, so you will need to ask someone else. I've been very clear on that subject. Fair enough, I must have mixed you up with the liberals who do. What does that mean as far as your perception on the whole collusion investigation? That they allied as peers, that Trump was duped, that it was a mutually exploitative relationship, some other nature?____________________________________________________________________________________________ Towards the liberals that do think Trump is a Russian puppet or some variation: I thought the ongoing narrative was that Trump colluded with Russia in a massive online propaganda campaign with a shifting interest from Russia ranging from Trump being their puppet to Trump being a stooge, to hoping Trump would show them favor. That many of Trump's nominees were placed to please Putin and that his lack of criticism and fawning over Putin is evidence that Putin has leverage over Trump or that Trump inexplicably wants to keep Putin happy. Am I getting something wrong in that? I don't think Trump himself is a Russian puppet. I think he's too much of a dumbass to follow any kind of script. But, he is an incredible narcissist who gives in easily to flattery, which many foreign leaders have exploited. I think there are Russian puppets within his team, and Trump is too much of an idiot to vet anyone. And a lot of those people are speaking directly in Trump's ear. I'd note p6's take seems different than it was 6 months ago and very different than what we see daily in liberal media outlets, but more along the lines of something I can agree with. Who do you think are the Russian puppets within his team? TBH, I'm losing track of a lot of his team at this point. Gates and Manafort were the low hanging obvious fruit at this point. I wouldn't say that guys like Kushner are necessarily puppets, in that they're not for any specific foreign interests. They just blew all their credit with local investments, and are open season for foreign money. Are you retracting your claim that Trump has Russian puppets on his team? No? Well, okay, I guess Manafort and Gates aren't actually on his team anymore. I can't point specifically at any other previous, current or expected members of his team, but I expect there to be more uncovered as investigations continue. Do you maintain the possibility that there were never any Russian puppets in Trump's government and that the assertion that there are without evidence is irresponsible?
I'm not sure what you're asking? Are you suggesting Manafort and Gates do not have explicit pro-Russian government ties in dealings before and during their work in Trump's campaign?
|
On March 24 2018 07:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 03:30 Kyadytim wrote:On March 23 2018 22:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 23 2018 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On March 23 2018 22:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If all trump is doing by firing everyone and placing Bolton as head of NSA to knock Stormy Daniels off the news cycle. it hasn't worked. Her 60 Minutes Interview is this Sunday night, and he lawyer tweeted this. https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/977015170231885825 On one hand, "let there be tapes". On the other, no one wants to hear/see Trump getting it on. ps. Considering all the shit Trump has done and his known previous affairs. Why even worry about this? There is no real reason to assume this will do anything to his approval numbers or his supporters. Guilty pleasure. I’d love to know what’s going on in the heads of the countless devot christians who voted for him and keep supporting him. At one point, his conduct will end up hurting him, i believe. People’s ability to contradict themselves is always surprising but it’s not infinite. Meanwhike, getting my popcorns ready. That Stormy Daniel woman must be having the time of her life. Looks like being in the spotlight is what she enjoys, and it looks like she would love to make as much damage as she can... I'm kind of hoping that it's video evidence of Trump implying physical violence against her at some point after he was inaugurated or something. Also, Evangelicals really, really don't care about character unless it's a useful avenue of attack on a Democrat. With Trump, it's all about ending abortion, protecting their ability to discriminate against gays, lesbians, trans, etc., and stacking the court. Pay particular attention to the sentence I emphasized near the end. Trump could be holding daily orgies in the Oval Office and they would let it slide as long as he continues to nominate young idealogues for lifetime court appointments. During the 2016 campaign, Trump pledged to defend religious liberty, stand up for unborn life and appoint conservative jurists to the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts. And he has done exactly what he promised. The pro-abortion lobby NARAL complains that Trump has been “relentless” on these fronts, declaring his administration “the worst . . . that we’ve ever seen.” That is more important to most Christian conservatives than what the president may have done with a porn actress more than 10 years ago.
Trump’s election came as religious liberty was under unprecedented attack. The Obama administration was trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious conscience and facilitate payment for abortifacient drugs and other contraceptives. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, President Barack Obama’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court that churches and universities could lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton promised to escalate those attacks. In 2015, she declared at the Women in the World Summit that “religious beliefs . . . have to be changed” — perhaps the most radical threat to religious liberty ever delivered by a major presidential candidate. Had Clinton won, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist, giving the Supreme Court a liberal judicial-activist majority.
The impact would have been immediate, as the court prepares to decide two cases crucial to religious liberty. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, the court will decide whether the state of California can compel pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise access to abortion to their clients, in violation of their conscience. Those cases are being heard not by five liberals, but five conservatives, including Justice Neil M.Gorsuch — because Trump kept his promise to “appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.”
The president is moving at record pace to fill the federal appeals courts with young conservative judges who will protect life and religious freedom for decades. He also fulfilled his promise to defend the Little Sisters from government bullying, by expanding the religious and conscience exemption to the Obamacare contraception mandate to cover both nonprofit and for-profit organizations. www.washingtonpost.com You highlight the trouble in calling these issues. For you, it’s about “protecting their ability to discriminate against gays.” For me, it’s about religious liberty, and if I were to punch up the emotion to your level, it would be to “force religious people to violate their conscience by government fiat.” This is very important in cases like the Masterpiece Cakeshop, where they will readily sell premade cakes, but will not custom build a celebratory message for a gay wedding. I think the entire lack of nuance here underlies the point: you’ve given up compromise, and the religious must go to people that aren’t activists against their rights. I’ll take a Trump that is personally abhorrent simply because he’s not crusading to force school districts to put anatomical males into female locker rooms. I can actually put my input in the local school district. Or make universities apply reduced standards for conviction and expulsion for rape accusations under Title IX. It’s definitely a disconnect, and I don’t know how much of that is willful malice against religion, against due process, and against state rights and local control. The only thing that makes sense is that some of the latter is in the mix. Forcing nuns to fully subsidize contraception is one of the stupider results from the black-and-white approach.
Interesting how people who can’t compromise with their religion to not be complete assholes to gay customers are very flexible when it’s about voting for a guy who cheated his pregnant wife with a pornstar. But nevermind.
So, anyway, does the whole thing work with islam with practitioners discriminating against, say, non muslim people, or have christian nuts the monopoly of being jerks under the protection of the constitution? Because, let me tell you, it’s a very, very slippery slope. And one wouldn’t want to be accused of double standard and using the constitution to justify biggotery and intolerance.
|
Its amazing how you can read a post completely miss the point and then completely make the posts point at the same time.
You attack people telling them that they're using the constitution to justify bigotry and intolerance so they go to Trump to protect them. Do you really think you have the moral high ground in this issue?
|
I believe the point is that there is no moral issue. There is no high ground in results based voting, which is what Evangelicals are about. Religion is protected and cannot be discriminated against. But that protection of religion is not a loop hole to discriminate based on Religion.
But it is part of a larger issue. Religious conservatives are pushing to remove the prohibition on political activity on churches and let them raise money and run ads. This move is opposed by large number of churches and religious organizations because they don't want to be political in that way. But the push is there. Religion and politics are a toxic mix and the efforts to erode the separations between church and state in this country are troubling. Even if they are a minority.
|
United States24751 Posts
Once again, you all need to stop making posts about each other and stick to the discussion of US Politics itself. Asking for a clarification is fine, but analyzing each other never accomplishes anything. GH, looking back at your past dozen posts, most of them are asking people to explain themselves so you can better understand their position and if you really need to question them that badly then perhaps take it to PM (only if the other person is willing) because it's not helping to discuss the issues at hand.
|
On March 24 2018 08:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 07:43 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 03:30 Kyadytim wrote:On March 23 2018 22:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 23 2018 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On March 23 2018 22:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If all trump is doing by firing everyone and placing Bolton as head of NSA to knock Stormy Daniels off the news cycle. it hasn't worked. Her 60 Minutes Interview is this Sunday night, and he lawyer tweeted this. https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/977015170231885825 On one hand, "let there be tapes". On the other, no one wants to hear/see Trump getting it on. ps. Considering all the shit Trump has done and his known previous affairs. Why even worry about this? There is no real reason to assume this will do anything to his approval numbers or his supporters. Guilty pleasure. I’d love to know what’s going on in the heads of the countless devot christians who voted for him and keep supporting him. At one point, his conduct will end up hurting him, i believe. People’s ability to contradict themselves is always surprising but it’s not infinite. Meanwhike, getting my popcorns ready. That Stormy Daniel woman must be having the time of her life. Looks like being in the spotlight is what she enjoys, and it looks like she would love to make as much damage as she can... I'm kind of hoping that it's video evidence of Trump implying physical violence against her at some point after he was inaugurated or something. Also, Evangelicals really, really don't care about character unless it's a useful avenue of attack on a Democrat. With Trump, it's all about ending abortion, protecting their ability to discriminate against gays, lesbians, trans, etc., and stacking the court. Pay particular attention to the sentence I emphasized near the end. Trump could be holding daily orgies in the Oval Office and they would let it slide as long as he continues to nominate young idealogues for lifetime court appointments. During the 2016 campaign, Trump pledged to defend religious liberty, stand up for unborn life and appoint conservative jurists to the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts. And he has done exactly what he promised. The pro-abortion lobby NARAL complains that Trump has been “relentless” on these fronts, declaring his administration “the worst . . . that we’ve ever seen.” That is more important to most Christian conservatives than what the president may have done with a porn actress more than 10 years ago.
Trump’s election came as religious liberty was under unprecedented attack. The Obama administration was trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious conscience and facilitate payment for abortifacient drugs and other contraceptives. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, President Barack Obama’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court that churches and universities could lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton promised to escalate those attacks. In 2015, she declared at the Women in the World Summit that “religious beliefs . . . have to be changed” — perhaps the most radical threat to religious liberty ever delivered by a major presidential candidate. Had Clinton won, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist, giving the Supreme Court a liberal judicial-activist majority.
The impact would have been immediate, as the court prepares to decide two cases crucial to religious liberty. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, the court will decide whether the state of California can compel pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise access to abortion to their clients, in violation of their conscience. Those cases are being heard not by five liberals, but five conservatives, including Justice Neil M.Gorsuch — because Trump kept his promise to “appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.”
The president is moving at record pace to fill the federal appeals courts with young conservative judges who will protect life and religious freedom for decades. He also fulfilled his promise to defend the Little Sisters from government bullying, by expanding the religious and conscience exemption to the Obamacare contraception mandate to cover both nonprofit and for-profit organizations. www.washingtonpost.com You highlight the trouble in calling these issues. For you, it’s about “protecting their ability to discriminate against gays.” For me, it’s about religious liberty, and if I were to punch up the emotion to your level, it would be to “force religious people to violate their conscience by government fiat.” This is very important in cases like the Masterpiece Cakeshop, where they will readily sell premade cakes, but will not custom build a celebratory message for a gay wedding. I think the entire lack of nuance here underlies the point: you’ve given up compromise, and the religious must go to people that aren’t activists against their rights. I’ll take a Trump that is personally abhorrent simply because he’s not crusading to force school districts to put anatomical males into female locker rooms. I can actually put my input in the local school district. Or make universities apply reduced standards for conviction and expulsion for rape accusations under Title IX. It’s definitely a disconnect, and I don’t know how much of that is willful malice against religion, against due process, and against state rights and local control. The only thing that makes sense is that some of the latter is in the mix. Forcing nuns to fully subsidize contraception is one of the stupider results from the black-and-white approach. Interesting how people who can’t compromise with their religion to not be complete assholes to gay customers are very flexible when it’s about voting for a guy who cheated his pregnant wife with a pornstar. But nevermind. So, anyway, does the whole thing work with islam with practitioners discriminating against, say, non muslim people, or have christian nuts the monopoly of being jerks under the protection of the constitution? Because, let me tell you, it’s a very, very slippery slope. And one wouldn’t want to be accused of double standard and using the constitution to justify biggotery and intolerance.
I think that the point here is that this is not a video game. We're not in a Tom Clancy novel or a Farcry universe here. This is real life. Trump does make compromises to the vast white & mexican constituencies that elected him by campaigning to change the job market in such a way that things are better for most people. I understand that this upsets people who didn't vote for him. That's a bummer but what can ya do. That being said, I wish that the trade deficit that America has with other countries were a little smaller. It does seem like what the president is doing is renegotiating the trade contracts that he has with other countries in order to try & trim things down a bit. That's not such a bad idea in & of itself as long as the US economy does do well. Brazil & Peru are following the US right now & are trying to reform their own economies there so I guess what I'm saying is that there are changes that are going on right now. Specifically, Brazil is cutting the national interest rates in an effort to shake up the banking system a bit & see what comes out
https://www.wsj.com/articles/brazils-central-bank-cuts-rate-again-sees-additional-easing-as-appropriate-1521675795
https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-mixed-race-brazil-sperm-imports-from-u-s-whites-are-booming-1521711000
|
On March 24 2018 07:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 03:30 Kyadytim wrote:On March 23 2018 22:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 23 2018 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On March 23 2018 22:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If all trump is doing by firing everyone and placing Bolton as head of NSA to knock Stormy Daniels off the news cycle. it hasn't worked. Her 60 Minutes Interview is this Sunday night, and he lawyer tweeted this. https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/977015170231885825 On one hand, "let there be tapes". On the other, no one wants to hear/see Trump getting it on. ps. Considering all the shit Trump has done and his known previous affairs. Why even worry about this? There is no real reason to assume this will do anything to his approval numbers or his supporters. Guilty pleasure. I’d love to know what’s going on in the heads of the countless devot christians who voted for him and keep supporting him. At one point, his conduct will end up hurting him, i believe. People’s ability to contradict themselves is always surprising but it’s not infinite. Meanwhike, getting my popcorns ready. That Stormy Daniel woman must be having the time of her life. Looks like being in the spotlight is what she enjoys, and it looks like she would love to make as much damage as she can... I'm kind of hoping that it's video evidence of Trump implying physical violence against her at some point after he was inaugurated or something. Also, Evangelicals really, really don't care about character unless it's a useful avenue of attack on a Democrat. With Trump, it's all about ending abortion, protecting their ability to discriminate against gays, lesbians, trans, etc., and stacking the court. Pay particular attention to the sentence I emphasized near the end. Trump could be holding daily orgies in the Oval Office and they would let it slide as long as he continues to nominate young idealogues for lifetime court appointments. During the 2016 campaign, Trump pledged to defend religious liberty, stand up for unborn life and appoint conservative jurists to the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts. And he has done exactly what he promised. The pro-abortion lobby NARAL complains that Trump has been “relentless” on these fronts, declaring his administration “the worst . . . that we’ve ever seen.” That is more important to most Christian conservatives than what the president may have done with a porn actress more than 10 years ago.
Trump’s election came as religious liberty was under unprecedented attack. The Obama administration was trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious conscience and facilitate payment for abortifacient drugs and other contraceptives. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, President Barack Obama’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court that churches and universities could lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton promised to escalate those attacks. In 2015, she declared at the Women in the World Summit that “religious beliefs . . . have to be changed” — perhaps the most radical threat to religious liberty ever delivered by a major presidential candidate. Had Clinton won, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist, giving the Supreme Court a liberal judicial-activist majority.
The impact would have been immediate, as the court prepares to decide two cases crucial to religious liberty. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, the court will decide whether the state of California can compel pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise access to abortion to their clients, in violation of their conscience. Those cases are being heard not by five liberals, but five conservatives, including Justice Neil M.Gorsuch — because Trump kept his promise to “appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.”
The president is moving at record pace to fill the federal appeals courts with young conservative judges who will protect life and religious freedom for decades. He also fulfilled his promise to defend the Little Sisters from government bullying, by expanding the religious and conscience exemption to the Obamacare contraception mandate to cover both nonprofit and for-profit organizations. www.washingtonpost.com You highlight the trouble in calling these issues. For you, it’s about “protecting their ability to discriminate against gays.” For me, it’s about religious liberty, and if I were to punch up the emotion to your level, it would be to “force religious people to violate their conscience by government fiat.” This is very important in cases like the Masterpiece Cakeshop, where they will readily sell premade cakes, but will not custom build a celebratory message for a gay wedding. I think the entire lack of nuance here underlies the point: you’ve given up compromise, and the religious must go to people that aren’t activists against their rights. I’ll take a Trump that is personally abhorrent simply because he’s not crusading to force school districts to put anatomical males into female locker rooms. I can actually put my input in the local school district. Or make universities apply reduced standards for conviction and expulsion for rape accusations under Title IX. It’s definitely a disconnect, and I don’t know how much of that is willful malice against religion, against due process, and against state rights and local control. The only thing that makes sense is that some of the latter is in the mix. Forcing nuns to fully subsidize contraception is one of the stupider results from the black-and-white approach.
The religious right in America aren't exactly the posterboys for compromise, though, are they?
The push/pull here is pretty obvious; the government doesn't want to violate religious liberty, but a lot of people think 'religious liberty' is equal to 'discriminate against gay people', which is something the government also doesn't want. Both sides think their side should win out, for whatever reason.
Your argument for going with Trump is fine, provided you accept that Evangelicals have given up the moral high ground. You cannot make the argument 'I'm supporting Trump while condemning Trump'; the conscientious thing to do would surely have been not to vote if Hilary really is as bad as your side claims, and Trump... well, Trump absolutely is as bad as everyone thinks he is and most of your side - including yourself - know it.
When gay people are mostly campaigning to be treated like everyone else and Christians are campaigning to treat them like they're different, there's no easy solution. Long-term, though, the gays are likely to win out.
As are trans people, actually, but that will take quite a long time since I don't think many people even know what a trans person really is yet, let alone understand them.
|
On March 24 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 07:43 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 03:30 Kyadytim wrote:On March 23 2018 22:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 23 2018 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On March 23 2018 22:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If all trump is doing by firing everyone and placing Bolton as head of NSA to knock Stormy Daniels off the news cycle. it hasn't worked. Her 60 Minutes Interview is this Sunday night, and he lawyer tweeted this. https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/977015170231885825 On one hand, "let there be tapes". On the other, no one wants to hear/see Trump getting it on. ps. Considering all the shit Trump has done and his known previous affairs. Why even worry about this? There is no real reason to assume this will do anything to his approval numbers or his supporters. Guilty pleasure. I’d love to know what’s going on in the heads of the countless devot christians who voted for him and keep supporting him. At one point, his conduct will end up hurting him, i believe. People’s ability to contradict themselves is always surprising but it’s not infinite. Meanwhike, getting my popcorns ready. That Stormy Daniel woman must be having the time of her life. Looks like being in the spotlight is what she enjoys, and it looks like she would love to make as much damage as she can... I'm kind of hoping that it's video evidence of Trump implying physical violence against her at some point after he was inaugurated or something. Also, Evangelicals really, really don't care about character unless it's a useful avenue of attack on a Democrat. With Trump, it's all about ending abortion, protecting their ability to discriminate against gays, lesbians, trans, etc., and stacking the court. Pay particular attention to the sentence I emphasized near the end. Trump could be holding daily orgies in the Oval Office and they would let it slide as long as he continues to nominate young idealogues for lifetime court appointments. During the 2016 campaign, Trump pledged to defend religious liberty, stand up for unborn life and appoint conservative jurists to the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts. And he has done exactly what he promised. The pro-abortion lobby NARAL complains that Trump has been “relentless” on these fronts, declaring his administration “the worst . . . that we’ve ever seen.” That is more important to most Christian conservatives than what the president may have done with a porn actress more than 10 years ago.
Trump’s election came as religious liberty was under unprecedented attack. The Obama administration was trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious conscience and facilitate payment for abortifacient drugs and other contraceptives. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, President Barack Obama’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court that churches and universities could lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton promised to escalate those attacks. In 2015, she declared at the Women in the World Summit that “religious beliefs . . . have to be changed” — perhaps the most radical threat to religious liberty ever delivered by a major presidential candidate. Had Clinton won, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist, giving the Supreme Court a liberal judicial-activist majority.
The impact would have been immediate, as the court prepares to decide two cases crucial to religious liberty. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, the court will decide whether the state of California can compel pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise access to abortion to their clients, in violation of their conscience. Those cases are being heard not by five liberals, but five conservatives, including Justice Neil M.Gorsuch — because Trump kept his promise to “appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.”
The president is moving at record pace to fill the federal appeals courts with young conservative judges who will protect life and religious freedom for decades. He also fulfilled his promise to defend the Little Sisters from government bullying, by expanding the religious and conscience exemption to the Obamacare contraception mandate to cover both nonprofit and for-profit organizations. www.washingtonpost.com You highlight the trouble in calling these issues. For you, it’s about “protecting their ability to discriminate against gays.” For me, it’s about religious liberty, and if I were to punch up the emotion to your level, it would be to “force religious people to violate their conscience by government fiat.” This is very important in cases like the Masterpiece Cakeshop, where they will readily sell premade cakes, but will not custom build a celebratory message for a gay wedding. I think the entire lack of nuance here underlies the point: you’ve given up compromise, and the religious must go to people that aren’t activists against their rights. I’ll take a Trump that is personally abhorrent simply because he’s not crusading to force school districts to put anatomical males into female locker rooms. I can actually put my input in the local school district. Or make universities apply reduced standards for conviction and expulsion for rape accusations under Title IX. It’s definitely a disconnect, and I don’t know how much of that is willful malice against religion, against due process, and against state rights and local control. The only thing that makes sense is that some of the latter is in the mix. Forcing nuns to fully subsidize contraception is one of the stupider results from the black-and-white approach. The religious right in America aren't exactly the posterboys for compromise, though, are they? The push/pull here is pretty obvious; the government doesn't want to violate religious liberty, but a lot of people think 'religious liberty' is equal to 'discriminate against gay people', which is something the government also doesn't want. Both sides think their side should win out, for whatever reason. Your argument for going with Trump is fine, provided you accept that Evangelicals have given up the moral high ground. You cannot make the argument 'I'm supporting Trump while condemning Trump'; the conscientious thing to do would surely have been not to vote if Hilary really is as bad as your side claims, and Trump... well, Trump absolutely is as bad as everyone thinks he is and most of your side - including yourself - know it. When gay people are mostly campaigning to be treated like everyone else and Christians are campaigning to treat them like they're different, there's no easy solution. Long-term, though, the gays are likely to win out. As are trans people, actually, but that will take quite a long time since I don't think many people even know what a trans person really is yet, let alone understand them.
The opposite is in fact true. The crusaders against any common sense religious liberty accommodations are rejected in favor of zero-compromise “discrimination” framings. Your rights are meaningless, because I choose to interpret your religion as merely an excuse for discrimination. And, well, it’s saddening but a lot of people have adopted that mean-spirited attitude against the religious faithful. It’s totally counter-factual too—if the real goal was discrimination, they would refuse other services to gay couples. Instead, companies like Masterpiece Cakeshop serve all customers of any religion and creed the full extent of services not involving their custom religious ceremony artistic creations.
I don’t really think you understood my post based on the remainder of what you’ve written. Christians will accept someone that doesn’t campaign so vociferously against their civil rights if that’s the current trend. The indifference of a morally repugnant individual is preferential to these moral busybodies that agitate against personal liberty. It’s that people in agreement with your point of view have made themselves so odious in lawmaking that they’ve made a great many alternatives easily acceptable.
|
The reason the religion thing has experienced such friction is because it's a business, not someone's personal relationship or venture. Serving a gay person/couple who is just going about their business isn't doing anything to persecute you as a religious person, they're simply offering money in exchange for a service. I find it hard to buy the idea that refusing to serve gay people on the premise of your religion's backward view on gay people is anything but discrimination. Their money is the same as anyone else's, and who they choose to love is their business.
On the other hand, while I wouldn't be sad if it came to a court decision, I'm also all for that couple simply taking their business elsewhere, and letting the court of public opinion deal with a cake-maker that refuses to acknowledge gay rights. But maybe they didn't have the luxury of choice. Either way, I don't think it's a wise decision to let anyone freely deny service to gay people under the vague blanket of religious protection. It would be, how you say, a slippery slope.
|
On March 24 2018 08:58 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 08:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 24 2018 07:43 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 03:30 Kyadytim wrote:On March 23 2018 22:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 23 2018 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On March 23 2018 22:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If all trump is doing by firing everyone and placing Bolton as head of NSA to knock Stormy Daniels off the news cycle. it hasn't worked. Her 60 Minutes Interview is this Sunday night, and he lawyer tweeted this. https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/977015170231885825 On one hand, "let there be tapes". On the other, no one wants to hear/see Trump getting it on. ps. Considering all the shit Trump has done and his known previous affairs. Why even worry about this? There is no real reason to assume this will do anything to his approval numbers or his supporters. Guilty pleasure. I’d love to know what’s going on in the heads of the countless devot christians who voted for him and keep supporting him. At one point, his conduct will end up hurting him, i believe. People’s ability to contradict themselves is always surprising but it’s not infinite. Meanwhike, getting my popcorns ready. That Stormy Daniel woman must be having the time of her life. Looks like being in the spotlight is what she enjoys, and it looks like she would love to make as much damage as she can... I'm kind of hoping that it's video evidence of Trump implying physical violence against her at some point after he was inaugurated or something. Also, Evangelicals really, really don't care about character unless it's a useful avenue of attack on a Democrat. With Trump, it's all about ending abortion, protecting their ability to discriminate against gays, lesbians, trans, etc., and stacking the court. Pay particular attention to the sentence I emphasized near the end. Trump could be holding daily orgies in the Oval Office and they would let it slide as long as he continues to nominate young idealogues for lifetime court appointments. During the 2016 campaign, Trump pledged to defend religious liberty, stand up for unborn life and appoint conservative jurists to the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts. And he has done exactly what he promised. The pro-abortion lobby NARAL complains that Trump has been “relentless” on these fronts, declaring his administration “the worst . . . that we’ve ever seen.” That is more important to most Christian conservatives than what the president may have done with a porn actress more than 10 years ago.
Trump’s election came as religious liberty was under unprecedented attack. The Obama administration was trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious conscience and facilitate payment for abortifacient drugs and other contraceptives. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, President Barack Obama’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court that churches and universities could lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton promised to escalate those attacks. In 2015, she declared at the Women in the World Summit that “religious beliefs . . . have to be changed” — perhaps the most radical threat to religious liberty ever delivered by a major presidential candidate. Had Clinton won, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist, giving the Supreme Court a liberal judicial-activist majority.
The impact would have been immediate, as the court prepares to decide two cases crucial to religious liberty. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, the court will decide whether the state of California can compel pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise access to abortion to their clients, in violation of their conscience. Those cases are being heard not by five liberals, but five conservatives, including Justice Neil M.Gorsuch — because Trump kept his promise to “appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.”
The president is moving at record pace to fill the federal appeals courts with young conservative judges who will protect life and religious freedom for decades. He also fulfilled his promise to defend the Little Sisters from government bullying, by expanding the religious and conscience exemption to the Obamacare contraception mandate to cover both nonprofit and for-profit organizations. www.washingtonpost.com You highlight the trouble in calling these issues. For you, it’s about “protecting their ability to discriminate against gays.” For me, it’s about religious liberty, and if I were to punch up the emotion to your level, it would be to “force religious people to violate their conscience by government fiat.” This is very important in cases like the Masterpiece Cakeshop, where they will readily sell premade cakes, but will not custom build a celebratory message for a gay wedding. I think the entire lack of nuance here underlies the point: you’ve given up compromise, and the religious must go to people that aren’t activists against their rights. I’ll take a Trump that is personally abhorrent simply because he’s not crusading to force school districts to put anatomical males into female locker rooms. I can actually put my input in the local school district. Or make universities apply reduced standards for conviction and expulsion for rape accusations under Title IX. It’s definitely a disconnect, and I don’t know how much of that is willful malice against religion, against due process, and against state rights and local control. The only thing that makes sense is that some of the latter is in the mix. Forcing nuns to fully subsidize contraception is one of the stupider results from the black-and-white approach. Interesting how people who can’t compromise with their religion to not be complete assholes to gay customers are very flexible when it’s about voting for a guy who cheated his pregnant wife with a pornstar. But nevermind. So, anyway, does the whole thing work with islam with practitioners discriminating against, say, non muslim people, or have christian nuts the monopoly of being jerks under the protection of the constitution? Because, let me tell you, it’s a very, very slippery slope. And one wouldn’t want to be accused of double standard and using the constitution to justify biggotery and intolerance. I think that the point here is that this is not a video game. We're not in a Tom Clancy novel or a Farcry universe here. This is real life. Trump does make compromises to the vast white & mexican constituencies that elected him by campaigning to change the job market in such a way that things are better for most people. I understand that this upsets people who didn't vote for him. That's a bummer but what can ya do. That being said, I wish that the trade deficit that America has with other countries were a little smaller. It does seem like what the president is doing is renegotiating the trade contracts that he has with other countries in order to try & trim things down a bit. That's not such a bad idea in & of itself as long as the US economy does do well. Brazil & Peru are following the US right now & are trying to reform their own economies there so I guess what I'm saying is that there are changes that are going on right now. Specifically, Brazil is cutting the national interest rates in an effort to shake up the banking system a bit & see what comes out https://www.wsj.com/articles/brazils-central-bank-cuts-rate-again-sees-additional-easing-as-appropriate-1521675795https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-mixed-race-brazil-sperm-imports-from-u-s-whites-are-booming-1521711000
what campaigns to change the job market by trump are you referring to? (i.e. I have no idea what you're talking about and it seems more like a non-sequitur and/or faulty premise)
|
On March 24 2018 09:31 NewSunshine wrote:
The reason the religion thing has experienced such friction is because it's a business, not someone's personal relationship or venture. Serving a gay person/couple who is just going about their business isn't doing anything to persecute you as a religious person, they're simply offering money in exchange for a service. I find it hard to buy the idea that refusing to serve gay people on the premise of your religion's backward view on gay people is anything but discrimination. Their money is the same as anyone else's, and who they choose to love is their business.
On the other hand, while I wouldn't be sad if it came to a court decision, I'm also all for that couple simply taking their business elsewhere, and letting the court of public opinion deal with a cake-maker that refuses to acknowledge gay rights. But maybe they didn't have the luxury of choice. Either way, I don't think it's a wise decision to let anyone freely deny service to gay people under the vague blanket of religious protection. It would be, how you say, a slippery slope.
I find that universal rejection of ones civil rights just because it applies to all aspects of their lives is foolhardy. You can believe what you want about religion as long as you never intend to work a job and have it influence your life. No. Absolutely not. There’s a trade off involved, since it makes no sense for an ER nurse to refuse service to some religion, or for an artist in business for himself to be forced to create a morally reprehensible piece. That’s the trade-off that people like you are so careful to ignore.
In fact, he relentlessly acknowledged anyone’s rights to buy any product he made in his store, save for one custom service of art not yet made. It sounds like you’re preferring alternative facts to govern your argument, instead of plainly dealing in freedom of conscience objections not covered by your simplistic interpretations. It sounds like you’d be stunned to hear the Supreme Court even took the case, not even acknowledging how controversial are these lines. You can have your rights, as long as you leave those at the door of your business. Sheesh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
