Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
But I guess my opening with "Bush screwed up initially" completely nulls "...But was on the right track towards the end." In his book.So you think that the $T's spent and the idiotic mistakes that caused such carnage, misery and destruction in the first 5 years of his George of Arabia adventure is all somehow mitigated by a Hail Mary at the end? Bush Iraq apologists ignore that Bush himself negotiated the planned withdrawal of US forces before Obama took office. Obama failed to renegotiate them.
So you identified that, notwithstanding the claim your author made that no one had vetted the order, it was actually vetted by the team at the DOJ responsible for deciding if orders are properly drafted and lawful on their face.Given so many of your complaints about Benghazi and other things that occurred during the Obama Administration, you should be far more concerned that the order wasn't vetted enough. The difference here is that it's a quasi-Republican President who bypassed any analysis and planning in advance, not - heaven forfend - a wascally Democrat. Those "Obama administration holdover officials" weren't political appointees, but professionals and experts who were excluded from the process. You are such an apologist
One might expect you to change your opinion when confronted by a fact like that, wouldn't that be consistent with making arguments based on facts? Instead, you complain that the process isn't thorough enough?
That what was really needed was to get the pre-approval of a bunch of Obama administration holdover officials?
.
I find any writer that attributes actions to agents of the President, as if that person were in control, to be over the borderline on conspiracy theory style beliefs. There's absolutely no evidence, or even any plausible version of reality where it's Bannon in control. This is a tried and true liberal tactic, to ascribe power to mysterious, nebulous or scary behind the scenes figures. Anybody remember the diatribes about President Cheney?Deny, ignore now, repent later? What agencies reviewed the announcement beforehand for potential legal and constitutional problems? AFAIK, this was the extent of the DOJ's prior analysis:
A Justice Department spokesman told The Huffington Post on Monday that that Office of Legal Counsel has traditionally answered the “narrow question” of whether executive orders are lawful on their face and properly drafted. The spokesman said that continues to be the case in the first 10 days of the Trump administration.
“OLC has continued to serve this traditional role in the present administration, and to date has approved the signed orders with respect to form and legality,” the spokesman said.
But here’s the key part of the statement: “OLC’s legal review has been conducted without the involvement of Department of Justice leadership, and OLC’s legal review does not address the broader policy issues inherent in any executive order.”
In other words, the Office of Legal Counsel approved the language and basic legality of the executive orders, but did not look at the broader potential impact and potential complications. And DOJ leadership, which in this case means acting Attorney General Sally Yates and others, were not involved in the process at all.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night's ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries-- is creating what is known as a "shock event." Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order. When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night's Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one's interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won't like. I don't know what Bannon is up to-- although I have some guesses-- but because I know Bannon's ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle-- and my friends range pretty widely-- who will benefit from whatever it is. If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event. A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union. If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln's strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power. Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it.
Sounds like you have done a lot more homework on Christian theology and ecumenics than you have on Mormon history, for which you demonstrate no such tentativeness in your fatwa.You don't see yourself in those comments?
Its not about legality, it is about morality, what is in the best long-term interests of the nation, and about empathy for all the people who will be affected.And also legality, as well as Constitutionality. Don't expect Seriati to question any of that, only to question those who question him.
Christians worship Jesus who they say was God. Jews do not. It is probably correct to say that from the Christian point of view it's the same God but from the Jewish point of view it isn't. It's like if I invent a religion based on the premise that I'm the Avatar of Zeus - this does not compel Zeus's existing followers to agree that they worship the same God as my followers.Not being a Christian or scholar of Christianity I wade into this discussion with some hesitancy. If I'm woefully wrong, set me straight.
Chaos, rallies, diplomatic meetings between other countries, Iraq rethinking its ties to the US, markets fearing further destabilizing actions by Trump all mean nothing to you if you can't count the bodies. RL is right; you've always been an apologist.QuoteLol, less than 150 people actually impacted so far, and this is causing "global chaos"! I'd say there's a lot of fools out there.
Your ignorance is astounding
I feel bad for you. Please enlighten, if you understand what's happening well enough to present an argument.
I think Lincoln was a martyr, AND the bastards that murdered him believed their cause to be justifiable. So the dichotomy you present is stupid as it is irrelevant. I doubt all the 200 people that painted their faces black and then showed up to murder Joseph and his brother while they were in jail, all had the same motivation. I think that both of your questions are stupid and poisonous. Would it make a bit if difference if those that planned and covered the JFK assassination believed their killing was justified?Stupid, hmmph. What cause did Joseph Smith die for that would justify him being considered a martyr? Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I could give a *censored* about Smith or whether Mormons are Christians. What I do care about is your pompous posturing that paints people and movements in severe lights in order to derogate and dismiss them. You most recently did that with Kwaanza celebrators and all you managed to do was come across as racist and mean-spirited. You calling me stupid is also par for the course and goes along with lambasting me for being obtuse when I don't accede to your often baseless arguments. I don't expect you to change, but that won't stop me from challenging you when you insist on being treated as an authority when you're just babbling.
So you're saying that Smith committed no crimes and was the victim of persistent persecution in multiple states? Did he die a martyr or did the mob kill him for what they believed to be justifiable cause?QuoteMeanwhile, I'm citing Mamoides...You can't even get the name right, and you still can't even spell my name right. Blame your phone if you want, but it's a symptom of your carelessness with detail that leads me to question your statements sometimes.
I'm not on the cell phone anymore. Got internet, since I'm teaching a few workshops.
Yes, my misspelling of Maimoides as Mamoides is an excellent excuse for your citing of 19th century genocide propaganda as a straw man to discredit me. You're a regular Oskar Schindler.
Meanwhile, I'm citing Mamoides...You can't even get the name right, and you still can't even spell my name right. Blame your phone if you want, but it's a symptom of your carelessness with detail that leads me to question your statements sometimes.
So Obama is the one who got this whole ball rolling.
It could have been any or all of the above, Drake. But my guess is that he simply didn't realize how his edict would be implemented or what the effect would be: AKA unintended consequences.Don't forget that Trump said many times that telegraphing what you're going to do only lets the enemy know ahead of time what to avoid. He really nailed them this time, didn't he? Imagine how much less successful the ban would have been if he had waited 24 hours to have time so the airports would know what the rules and procedures were going to be. BAD and SAD to do that!
This is what happens when an inexperienced person is elected President. He does stuff, the result is chaos, and people are needlessly hurt. Expect more of this in the coming months.
Are these all carefully calculated? Did Trump let it hit everyone hard, so he could back off and seem more reasonable? This is a tactic of anchoring in negotiation. Adjusting the framing of the discussion to a starting point of your choosing. Was the chaos and protest reaction desired for some reason? To portray the opposition as unruly? To make America First as visible as possible, making the hard choices to make America safe again? To undermine Republicans like John McCain and reduce their political clout?All of these options suggest careful planning, even if done in secret. The simpler and more likely explanation is that this was yet another action by a man who sees himself as the Supreme Leader more than the head of the nation's democracy. Note that even his Cabinet team (need to know) and senior Republicans in Congress (national security) didn't know about these things ahead of time. He (apparently) even said that the public protests in the US and pushback from governments in other countries were signs that the ban was successful.
How many times was Joseph Smith arrested for illegal banking, fraud, threats or conspiracy to kill someone, perjury, fleeing a state to avoid trial, inciting to riot or treason? Who are you to insist that Mormons are Christians, except by your being a member of that faith?QuoteAs for Westboro Baptists, who are you to decide whose religious faith is genuine?
Who are YOU to decide that the Westboro Baptist Church is a "faith," as opposed to a scheme founded by an ex-civil rights lawyer, DISBARRED FOR FRAUD AND PERJURY, to outrage communities into violating the first amendment, and then suing them with a law firm owned by the "church"?
Look it up, and look up "inductive logic" while you're at it, and tell me what facts in that story lead you to believe that the Wesboro Baptist Church is any more of a real religion than the reality of the court stories that this sweet same-sex couple just happened to want the actual services of that fundamentalist homophobic baker ...
Half the Jews I know disagree that Christians worship the same God as them.I know no Jews that believe that. I'm sure I can find a source online from some time in history or some place in the world who might have said that Christians don't worship the same God, but that's nothing like "half the Jews [you] know", is it?
You can find correlation and causality between all sorts of things, but it's perhaps most telling which things you choose to find those relationships. If you don't think there is a relationship between left-handedeness (from sinister, ultimately from latin "sinestra", sin, meaning sinful or evil), prove it.
Are you implying that there's NO CAUSALITY between Khomeini's fatwas and the threats against Salman Rushdie, his publishers and translators?
Are you implying that there's correlation or causation between left-handedness and crimes committed by left-handed people?
If not, then you're being intentionally obtuse and arguing in bad faith. Which is something I'd expect from Al Wessex, but your Kassandra persona had for a time left behind...
Thank you Ms Konway.Wrong about my intention, as usual. I'll let you try to figure out why I wrote that. If you can't come up with anything, I might be willing to help you out.
That's exactly the flavor of obtuse that got Trump elected.
Kasandra equated Khomeini's goat jumpers and DEASH corpse humpers with "left handed people." Like the Alt-right, Kasandra obfuscates any attempt to distinguish Islam generally from Islamists whose theology and politics justifies murder, rape, and slavery. This is another example of hating your opposition more than one fears DAESH, and more than one loves America.
Let me know if you think of some intention that sounds good.
"I will agree that you are no expert on anything..."I am an expert on a few things, but try not to act as if my opinions on things I am not an expert on carry any special weight. For the record, we both know you don't mean it when you say "that's why I'm asking". Your opinions are set in stone and may well be hard-wired. If it were otherwise, you would have changed your views on a wide range of issues on which you have been proven completely wrong in the past.
Well that's why I'm asking. Although technically I am an expert at chess, by rating. That's below a master though so it's not really anything to brag about.
"These are all synonyms. Every religion and many sects within a religion have special names for God."Nobody said "every religion worships the same gods". Religions that worship a different god or many gods make perfect sense, since cultures the world over make up their own spiritual superstitions that become religions over time. We were talking about Christians and Muslims, but can add Jews into the group whose religious faith is based on the singular God of the OT.
Every religion? Well I brought up Hindus so that goes against your use of the singular for God and it also goes against capitalizing the word. Obviously not every religion worships the same gods. And like I said, I've got no problem with that. My problem is with people constantly saying that we all worship the same God. That's fine if it's true but whether it's true or not is certainly debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------Obama imposed bans based on UN resolutions and people charged with violating democratic laws in their home countries, but never for nothing other than coming from a particular country. FWIW, I saw a chart of the relationship between the countries Trump banned people from and acts of terrorism committed by people from those countries in the US. Turns out there were 0, but it was also noted that Trump owns 0 hotels or other business holdings in the banned countries. Then there was another set of countries with large Muslim populations whose citizens or immigrants to the US have committed terrorist acts in the US. Trump has business holdings in all of them. Cherry, what do you think is driving Trump's decisions on which countries to ban?
Another thing to debate is whether or not not it's even legal for Trump to do this. Supposedly it's against some 1965 law that bans discrimination in immigration based on country of origin which seems odd based on Jimmy Carter banning Iranians during the hostage crisis but apparently that's different. We also have vastly different allotments for immigrants from different countries so I'm wondering how there is not some discrimination involved in that too.
Thank you Ms Konway.Wrong about my intention, as usual. I'll let you try to figure out why I wrote that. If you can't come up with anything, I might be willing to help you out.
That's exactly the flavor of obtuse that got Trump elected.
Kasandra equated Khomeini's goat jumpers and DEASH corpse humpers with "left handed people." Like the Alt-right, Kasandra obfuscates any attempt to distinguish Islam generally from Islamists whose theology and politics justifies murder, rape, and slavery. This is another example of hating your opposition more than one fears DAESH, and more than one loves America.
Just as a side note, is Allah really the same God as that of the Jews and Christians? If so, why would he tell Muslims to impose a tax on allowing Christians and Jews to live among them, or tell the Muslims to convert the Jews and Christians by force if necessary?Why would he tell Christians in Spain to force Jews to convert to Christianity? Why would white Christians in this country persecute blacks if the same God ruled over all who worshiped him? Why do you insist on making bogus arguments to support your prejudices? Why not just come out and say that you don't care if Muslims are persecuted or killed because they are Muslims because some of them have done heinous acts like what Christians have done?
Half the Jews I know disagree that Christians worship the same God as them. I don't think most Christians worship the God of the Westboro Baptists.Nonsense. You seem to know a lot of Jewish people who believe things that I've never heard any Jew ever say. As for Westboro Baptists, who are you to decide whose religious faith is genuine? Are you forgetting that many Christians don't believe that Mormons are really Christians?
I'm no expert on it by any means but supposedly the only word for god or God in Arabic is Allah. In Arabic are they saying something like "there is no allah but Allah" the way we would say there is no god but God? I thought they were using Allah as a proper name like Elohim, El-Shaddai, Yahweh, Jehovah and Adonai.These are all synonyms. Every religion and many sects within a religion have special names for God. I will agree that you are no expert on anything, except your own opinions which you believe without fear of contradiction.
I tentatively support this.Let's include lefties in that list, by which I mean left-handed people. We all know how many of them have committed grave crimes and indecent acts in our history. We can't keep turning a blind eye to what they are.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37086579
If someone thinks Khomeini was a holy man, that America is the great Satan, that Daesh is the new Califate, that Muslims that convert to other beliefs should die, or that gays and Blasphemers must be punished, I don't want them in. Regardless of whether such persons already have allegiance to AQ or DAESH, they pose a threat the moment they set foot on our soil.
Now I have tens of thousands of dollars extra to pay for actual healthcare instead of almost certainly useless health insurance.Do you actually have those "tens of thousands of dollars" or are you just talking about how much you think you saved that you spent on other things? Don't forget that about 50% of people over the age of 50 have almost no money saved up for any catastrophic or chronic illness.
Whatever replaces Obamacare will be fine by me even if nothing replaces it.Cherry, what will people who lose their health insurance do when they get sick?
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. It is the policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended (the “Act”). In the meantime, pending such repeal, it is imperative for the executive branch to ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented, take all actions consistent with law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the Act, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.
Sec. 2. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.
Sec. 3. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Act, shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs.
Sec. 4. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the head of each department or agency with responsibilities relating to healthcare or health insurance shall encourage the development of a free and open market in interstate commerce for the offering of healthcare services and health insurance, with the goal of achieving and preserving maximum options for patients and consumers.
Sec. 5. To the extent that carrying out the directives in this order would require revision of regulations issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, the heads of agencies shall comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable statutes in considering or promulgating such regulatory revisions.
So, would you say that Bush II was a better President than Obama? If so, explain why.Class. Intelligence. Dignity. The man was presidential. Whether or not one agrees with him, at the very least he seemed a person who would consider things carefully and who might even listen to your position. He might do something differently than you'd want, but it isn't because he hasn't thought about it or about the other side of things.
I'm more inclined to think he might go the way of Woodrow Wilson. Of course, the thing that would be interesting, is to see what his Presidential Library releases in the next 30+ years.
I'm more inclined to think to think that history may not be so kind to Mr. Obama once more of the story of what happened behind closed doors comes out. Well, if it ever does. Considering the Republicans still have no idea what Obama was doing on the night of the Benghazi attack, and not for lack of trying.
TIMES: Can you understand why eastern Europeans fear Putin and Russia?
TRUMP: Sure. Oh sure, I know that. I mean, I understand what’s going on, I said a long time ago — that Nato had problems. Number one it was obsolete, because it was, you know, designed many, many years ago. Number two — the countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to pay. I took such heat, when I said Nato was obsolete. It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right — and now — it was on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, they have a whole division devoted now to terror, which is good.
And the other thing is the countries aren’t paying their fair share so we’re supposed to protect countries but a lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States. With that being said, Nato is very important to me."
...
TIMES: Do you have any models — are there heroes that you steer by — people you look up to from the past?
TRUMP: Well, I don’t like heroes, I don’t like the concept of heroes, the concept of heroes is never great, but certainly you can respect certain people and certainly there are certain people — but I’ve learnt a lot from my father — my father was a builder in Brooklyn and Queens — he did houses and housing and I learnt a lot about negotiation from my father — although I also think negotiation is a natural trait, I don’t think you can, you either have it or you don’t, you get better at it but basically, the people that I know who are great negotiators or great salesmen or great politicians, it’s very natural, very natural...
I got a letter from somebody, their congressman, they said what you’ve done is amazing because you were never a politician and you beat all the politicians. He said they added it up — when I was three months into the campaign, they added it up — I had three months of experience and the 17 guys I was running against, the Republicans, had 236 years – ya know when you add 20 years and 30 years — so I was three months they were 236 years — so it’s sort of a funny article but I believe it’s like hitting a baseball or being a good golfer — natural ability, to me, is much more important to me than experience and experience is a great thing — I think it’s a great thing — but I learnt a lot from my father in terms of leadership.
Even taking it completely in context, Obama is telling a large portion of the Democrat party, the millions of them who are proud atheists and love art if it involves excrement on various religious symbols, and who also are all about making fun of all religious figures, that the future must not belong to them. How do they feel about that?I stopped reading your post after I forced myself to get that far. But thanks for revealing your real thoughts about Democrats. To think that you once (and maybe still) think of yourself as the fearsome Libdisemboweler, but you're just a cartoon hero in Sick Comics.
If they listen to Obama, are they supposed to just shut up now? What if they don't?
The defense of Obama asserting that he was telling everyone who insults any religion that they have no future rings hollow because though it's true enough that is exactly what he said, that doesn't represent the values of his party at all which is very much anti-religion.
Is your bubble really THAT small that this is the first you've heard of it?It's not my bubble, but one that contains facts and honesty. Yes, it's pretty small.
Can anyone other than Lassandra tell me that the phrase "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" isn't blood curdling? Doesn't sound like a justification for murdering blasphemers? I don't think he meant us to take it that way, but dann. Way to scare white Christians.Perfect example of people holding Obama to account for their own willful misinterpretations and biases. A plurality of Republicans still think he's a Muslim and a similar number "blame" him for stores saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. And don't forget how many people are convinced that Hillary is running a slave trade through a pizzaria. Yes, of course the pair of them are just as bad as Bush II, of course they are.
It's sad that you think that someone should need to ask permission to add up the facts at their disposal and think original thoughts.I would be more charitable if I thought you did that, but your "original thoughts" are often nothing more than thoughtless insults.
Think of how long the Democrats blamed (still do) Bush Jr. for our woes. They believe they are correct about Obama and Hillary just as we/I do about Bush.'Splain me exactly what they "blame" Obama and Hillary for? Bush *censored*ed things up royally and left his successor an economic disaster and a rising wave of global terrorism, all of which Obama had to fight to get the US out of. He wasn't a magician, so he didn't solve every problem he was faced with, but he leaves an economy that has been growing steadily throughout his term in office, no current US involvement in any war, 7 years of continuous job growth (and the lowest unemployment rate in decades), health care for more Americans than ever before. There is no equivalency between the negative outcomes of Bush's and Obama's times in office.
The only reason I was talking about Hillary/Sanders is I would like for my party to rally (and IMO come to its senses) and start gaining ground moving forward.
Like trickle-down intelligence?I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
I also fond it deplorable that you shame me for adapting my positions based on facts and admitting my error when the facts prove me wrong. You should be so honorable.You epitimize "ask for forgiveness rather than ask for permission". In other words, you are happy to throw out utter nonsense and will sometimes thank someone for correcting you.
End of day, how can Bernie convince people that Hillary stands for something, when Hillary herself won't say it when she has the opportunity?Tone deaf, as usual.
That highlight doesn't help your case, just confirms that you believe you know better why people did something than they do.Well, that's just your opinion, eh? Restating my own just "confirms" what I didn't say or mean?
When you consider she outspent him ten to one, and had her campaign managed by professionals while he ran his out of his back pocket, just getting close would have been a stunning victory.Technically, but he got $B in free airtime that she didn't.
So you compare a Jew marrying a Gentile Christisn to bestiality?I wonder about your state of mind, Pete, I really do.
Everything is a bigger deal after you lose.Lots of things can't happen here until they do.
Conservatives and religious liberty advocates argue that freedom of religion allows denial of services (a position that even Kasandra seems ok with) where the service provided I would bexrepugnant to the person's religious beliefs. Say a Lubavitcher Rabbi marrying a Jew to an unconcerned Gentile. Or a Nation of Islam chapel that rents out to the public being forced to host marrying a black man to a white woman. Or a fundamentalist Christian DJ being forced to entertain at a same sex wedding. Or an LDS fertility specialist being forced to help a barren single mother conceive.If you grope for a far-fetched and absurd example to either be a proxy for or a contradiction for a more reasoned scenario, you'll always be able to find one. What about a fake Lubavitcher marrying a Muslim transgender woman posing as a fundamentalist Christian bestialist? Raises all sorts of difficult questions...
Note the highlighted portion. You've done far more than your share of imputing motives and thoughts onto people who you don't like (aka liberals, democrats) with great confidence that you know more about those things than they do. Those were my opinions, if you'll allow them.QuoteI thought I could think for myself, but I guess you know better. I suppose I should just take what you say as fact instead of risking thinking differently.QuoteAs for voting for Trump I can think of a few reasons that resonated, one of which you said:
No you can't. Nothing you've ever said, leads to any ability to believe you understand why other rational thinking people would reach different logical conclusions than yourself.
Enough, you know better than me.
Get off your soap box, you weren't thinking for yourself where I criticized you. You were "thinking" for the pool of "Trump voters" and ascribing them motivations that you made up. They've told everyone repeatedly why they think Trump is better for the country than Hillary, or in come cases just think he's good for the country period. If you want to argue about their motivations start by accurately stating them.
One funny thing to wonder about is if that is why the left hates Russia so much now while they idolized Castro, precisely because the Russians have given up on communism.. Well, if Castro developed nuclear weapons, built up a huge army and invaded neighboring countries "the left" might not have much tolerance for him, either. You should try to look past your biases for actual equivalence so you could.... ah, never mind.
Yes, I said that millions were obviously Trump hyperbole but I also think it's a whole lot more than what we're led to believe. Maybe if the Democrats started losing elections because of voter fraud it would become more of an issue.Cherry, if you believed that people are inherently honest, would it be hypocritical if you became skeptical after you are mugged?
If I remember correctly, the Democrats talked about big game about the integrity of our elections and how great they were and how we needed to respect the results and not try to delegitimize the winner... until they lost. Now all of a sudden our elections are totally rigged, influenced, hacked, and the winner is a puppet whose strings are pulled by Putin.
My mistake, I thought you was him.QuoteFWIW, I suspected that
I'll be sure to pass the message along to "Mr. For Whatever It's Worth" in the event I find him.
Obama fell for him just like Bush Jr did, and now Trump. Anyone that pretends that it's somehow different for Obama has no sense of irony when he likes djq's crude shot about a mouth full of testicle.?? When and how did either Obama or Bush II do that?
I'd be interested to see Kasandra or Greg D answer the following question string, and will be pleasantly astonished if they answer the challenge.I've already said that I distinguish between personal service and commodities. My daughter is a musician who is hired to perform at all sorts of occasions, but has to choose which ones she can do (availability), wants to do (what music, how long to prepare, where she has to travel), and how much she is paid. The permutations of those factors is almost endless, but you can add to that whether she wants to play for the people hiring her. I admire her willingness to put that last among her considerations as she has never turned down a gig because of who hired her, though she could.
1 do you think a musical band that performs for money has a right to refuse to perform at the Trump Inauguration?
2. Would the same band have the right to say no to a same sex wedding?
3. What about a decorator? Trump inauguration vs same sex wedding?
4. What about a printer? Trump inauguration vs same sex wedding?
5. Caterer. Trump inauguration vs same sex wedding?
If at any point you say a business could refuse the inauguration but not the wedding, is your argument --
*Results-driven (freedom of conscience is limited to persons with politically correct consciences),
Or
* class driven (businesses that cater to high end events get celebrity privileges not available to lowly proles who serve at weddings )
FWIW, I suspected thatAnd don't call me afaik, either.
AFAIK is this guy also known as "As far as I know."
.
