politics thread

[Stymietee]

So there’s the difference between trump and his supporters verses the left. America first! She’s in the U.S brother

Seriously, and from the bottom of my heart I truly mean no disrespect, but are you able to understand what you're reading? I ask simply because, what you wrote has zero relationship to what you're responding to.

BTW: everyone who disagrees with you isn't on what you call "the left."

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

He didn't close it because he either didn't know what the fuck he was talking about when making that pledge or he said it to garner a certain voting bloc. Kinda like saying "I'll drain the swamp" and then not doing it.

Not knowing how to do it and purposely doing the opposite of what you are promising are 2 different things. I mean President Trump is STILL defending that piece of shit Manafort. He simply does not get the difference between Right vs Wrong and yeah that's a bit different than failing to close Gitmo.

 

[Rowdy]

Seriously, and from the bottom of my heart I truly mean no disrespect, but are you able to understand what you're reading? I ask simply because, what you wrote has zero relationship to what you're responding to.

BTW: everyone who disagrees with you isn't on what you call "the left."

I understand just fine.

 

[Stymietee]

Not in the constitution

Made clear in the constitution.

 

[Stymietee]

I understand just fine.

Good, then you're trolling, got it!

 

[j_y19]

Not knowing how to do it and purposely doing the opposite of what you are promising are 2 different things. I mean President Trump is STILL defending that piece of shit Manafort. He simply does not get the difference between Right vs Wrong and yeah that's a bit different than failing to close Gitmo.

And there is the problem I have. When I asked you why now, if your response was because he is the one in office now and I am putting a stake in the ground going forward that all elected politicians who do not live up to their campaign commitments should be subject to a wide sweeping and open ended congressional investigation and let the evidence lead where it may, then I am 100% behind you. But if you pick out just one to do this to, well.........

 

[Stymietee]

Guys and lady, seriously, I'm honestly trying to get some understanding on a lot of subject matter from the perspective of others. Some of you aren't making this easy at all. The insistence upon defending the indefensible is astounding. The excuse making, such as, "wanting to overturn the election" has worn out its welcome after getting an awful start to begin with, since it can't possibly be true two years after the election. The supposition that Trump is disliked has merit, but being disliked isn't new to political debates considering how completely divided the country happens to be and as a result, so are we. Maybe there are people who dislike him and are motivated by such personal feeling to get him removed, but my experience here tells me that the "regulars" here aren't motivated by sentiment alone.

I understand the inclination to defend this guy as well, he was duly elected and there's a desire to see him through, no matter the cost. The question isn't why, but rather, is it possible to disassociate from that desire and evaluate him on his own merit? It's possible that this is a case of familiarity breeding contempt where the historical Trump is seen through the eyes of those familiar with his lifetime shenanigans versus the fairly newly minted current Trump who sells the slogans that strikes new eyes and ears as something different, atypically undaunted by group and worth both supporting and defending.

Two things can be true at the same time and it's apparent that nobody's going to budge from their clear positions. As in all things time will prove the wisdom of these positions. I hope that as this chapter in history unfolds, we here can deal with its revelations in a manner that does more good than harm.

 

[skinsdad62]

Made clear in the constitution.

Not in the constitution period. It fact it was written to prevent a Church of England situation and does not preclude expressing religious beliefs

 

[skinsdad62]

Guys and lady, seriously, I'm honestly trying to get some understanding on a lot of subject matter from the perspective of others. Some of you aren't making this easy at all. The insistence upon defending the indefensible is astounding. The excuse making, such as, "wanting to overturn the election" has worn out its welcome after getting an awful start to begin with, since it can't possibly be true two years after the election. The supposition that Trump is disliked has merit, but being disliked isn't new to political debates considering how completely divided the country happens to be and as a result, so are we. Maybe there are people who dislike him and are motivated by such personal feeling to get him removed, but my experience here tells me that the "regulars" here aren't motivated by sentiment alone.

I understand the inclination to defend this guy as well, he was duly elected and there's a desire to see him through, no matter the cost. The question isn't why, but rather, is it possible to disassociate from that desire and evaluate him on his own merit? It's possible that this is a case of familiarity breeding contempt where the historical Trump is seen through the eyes of those familiar with his lifetime shenanigans versus the fairly newly minted current Trump who sells the slogans that strikes new eyes and ears as something different, atypically undaunted by group and worth both supporting and defending.

Two things can be true at the same time and it's apparent that nobody's going to budge from their clear positions. As in all things time will prove the wisdom of these positions. I hope that as this chapter in history unfolds, we here can deal with its revelations in a manner that does more good than harm.

He is never viewed under his own merits . The excuse making argument holds no water . No president has been subjected to this kind of scrutiny period . And we gave evidence of the DOJ and the FBI under Obama trying to do exactly that , overturn an election because they didn’t like the result

 

[gkekoa]

I used to be one, and you're right about it being the beginning of lent, but that doesn't explain what ash is symbolic of, which is repentance. I'm not against practicing religion of any kind, I am against the sheer ignorance and hypocrisy associated with doing so and failing to live it, outside of those days set aside to practice it.

What do you mean failing to live it? If we win, you say we are failing to live it? Christ would say sinning is human but go and sin no more.

Those days are simply symbolic. Everyday, we should strive to be more like Him. Everyday, we should repent.

You may be against other people who don’t share the same spiritual journey as you do...how very bigoted of you.

 

[gkekoa]

It's not a shot at you, but rather at the absolutely inane shit that you post. However, if you choose to associate yourself with it, I won't argue with you.



I'm not a sinner, I don't do made up shit!

Sin is defined as an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

What you don’t consider to be sin does not matter. You don’t create “divine law.” You may not care that you sin, but you absolutely do sin according to divine law as we know it.

 

[gkekoa]

Kids are supposed to be innocent and free from this sort of indoctrination. They are his/her parents so I guess, just like the argument about border wall being a means to protect the country, religion and all of the damage that it's done is OK huh?

What damage has religion done in this country?

 

[j_y19]

What damage has religion done in this country?

One might consider religion as the root of the 9/11 attacks, no?

 

[gkekoa]

We're supposed to have a clear separation of the two, and there's not one person who can say...that's true!

Are we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

There is your text. Show me a law that establishes a national religion. Any government official that interferes with the free exercise thereof is in violation of another person’s rights. So, forcing a child to wash off the ash is a violation of the free exercise of religion. If free exercise interrupts class, you may have a point, but this is not the case.

 

[skinsdad62]

Howard Schultz introduces Democratic voters to reality:


“There is nothing free in America. These proposals about Medicare for All, free college, and a government job for everybody, that is not free”


"That means that taxes for everyone is going to have to go up"

 

[Stymietee]

Not in the constitution period. It fact it was written to prevent a Church of England situation and does not preclude expressing religious beliefs

You're right those EXACT words aren't there, however, if you get a chance to read Jefferson's clarifying letter that sheds light on intent. The intent has been held constitutionally enforceable almost since its inception. Here's the letter.

Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S ...
https://usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html


...and this might help as well.


Is "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution?
The World's Largest Education Resourceseparation-of-church-and-state-myth-249688

 

[Stymietee]

Are we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

There is your text. Show me a law that establishes a national religion. Any government official that interferes with the free exercise thereof is in violation of another person’s rights. So, forcing a child to wash off the ash is a violation of the free exercise of religion. If free exercise interrupts class, you may have a point, but this is not the case.

See my just posted response to @dad. Oh and that's FEDERAL Government

 

[gkekoa]

I suspect that you are referring to Hamas as a terrorist organization and that's partially fair. What makes it unfair is the assumption that terrorism is a one way street with respect to all involved, including this country. I hope that you are aware of the fact that the label "terrorist" isn't solely for the United States to place upon others, others rightfully place that tag on us too!

It is completely fair, not partially.

Oh, you are right. The word terrorist is not a one way street. You are free to call everybody you want a terrorist and free to deal with them in whatever manner you want, just like every country is capable doing. Let other countries refer to us as terrorists and deal with us in whatever manner they want, just like we will. Just understand there are repercussions for doing so.

 

[gkekoa]

I didn't use shithead for Obama because it simply didn't apply. But I've been plenty critical of both in the past.

And I have acknowledged repeatedly that Hillary is a crooked witch and the worst candidate I have ever voted for.

https://sportshoop.la/threads/in-sh...as-their-parents.274685/page-29#post-12778246

Not a fan of Hillary, made that perfectly clear over the years.

https://sportshoop.la/threads/trump-vs-oprah.252225/page-2#post-12591940


I agree that Obama was divisive
https://sportshoop.la/threads/witho...rats-have-really.276349/page-10#post-12905068

Yeah and I also said Obama should have released his transcripts

https://sportshoop.la/threads/in-sh...as-their-parents.274685/page-29#post-12778246

Using the word “shithead absolutely applies according to others. You see...it is called an opinion and usually involves bias. I have called Obama names and I have called Trump names...at least it shows a bit less bias in my case.

You didn’t throw a hissy fit over the transcripts like you are the taxes though. That is where your hypocrisy sets in.

 

[Stymietee]

What do you mean failing to live it? If we win, you say we are failing to live it? Christ would say sinning is human but go and sin no more.

Those days are simply symbolic. Everyday, we should strive to be more like Him. Everyday, we should repent.

You may be against other people who don’t share the same spiritual journey as you do...how very bigoted of you.

How very bigoted of you to call me bigoted!