I didn't really see a call to arms there though. Looked like a boring outline of what to do in case they feel like uprising sometime in the future. Other than getting their asses kicked by real military people if they're wrong about divine intervention, I don't see a whole lot to be afraid of myself. Unless God really is on their side I guess.
@Balrog99. OK you forced me to read the document, which I really didn't want to . Having read it I fail to see how anyone could consider that consistent with the Oath of Office required of a State representative: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." If you think it is consistent, care to explain why?
It you deem the United States to be under the control of a domestic enemy then you're fully constitutional in resisting. It's right there in black and white. If that's what they believe then it's their duty to resist.
If you really believe that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one - I can't see any middle ground . The constitution is very specific about the basis of government it mandates. Even if you believed the US was controlled by a secret cabal (and there are plenty of people that do believe that), the appropriate response under the Constitution would be to eliminate the cabal and allow the Constitution to work as originally designed. The appropriate response would not be to "support and defend the Constitution" by setting up a theocracy led by a divinely-inspired leader, who wants to kill every male that doesn't accept their belief.
I didn't say I agreed with it. I said that by what is written in the Constitution they would be justified in resisting. They do think a 'cabal' is in control of the country. I don't know how many times I have to emphasize this. I grew up in a fundamentalist church. I know how they think. Most of those folks would give you the shirt off their backs though. You'd love my parents and they're as far right as can be. It's the weirdest thing in the world that most people I know are good people regardless of what side of the political spectrum they're on yet neither side can see that. Our differences are largely bullshit and for the most part could be figured out in a few days if the two parties really wanted to work together.
But they're not just resisting usurpers - they want to overthrow the Constitution. I believe strongly in compromise and shades of grey, but there's no room for that in this case. The document states as clearly as you could possibly imagine that a totally different system of government should be put in place to that required by the Constitution. It doesn't matter how divinely inspired they are or whether their belief in a particular God is correct or not - the action being called for is not consistent with the Oath of Office. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to those beliefs under the Constitution, but it does mean that a person with those beliefs should not seek and hold office.
Ok, here's my main beef with you on this. This is not a call to action. It's an outline. It's like bullet points on a presentation I give at my companies safety meeting. Almost as boring too. It's a list of thoughts. Nothing more. Furthermore, all of those points are justified from a fundamentalist religious point of view. If you're willing to say that should be grounds for prosecution then I say that Muslims should be put under that same scrutiny. I don't care if they're the 'minority' anymore if that's your logic. Every religion should be put under the microscope. Nearly all of them would fail the government vs. religion test too. Good luck in eradicating them...
I've not called anywhere for prosecution - just pointed out that this sort of belief is incompatible with the Oath of Office. I agree the same would also apply with Islamic fundamentalists, but that's not the point. If you don't believe in a system of government it's of course your right to say so (in the US at least), but you shouldn't swear to uphold a system of government you're working to bring down.
There has been for a long time discussions of a similar nature among British Muslims (I'm not aware of similar discussions in Christian groups, but Christian fundamentalism is far more prevalent in the US than the UK). Most accept the UK system of government and believe that this is compatible with their religion. There are a small minority though that believe that is not the case and that their God requires them to work towards setting up a theocracy.
The Constitution prohibits any religious test for running for office. Sorry, a democracy means that any majority can vote in whoever the Hell they want. Agreeing with you (or me) isn't a requirement. Or are we no longer a democracy?
Within one day @LadyRhian and I came up with a plan for hate speech that neither one of us particularly liked but could agree with at least as a start. Now I think I'm pretty conservative but my dad thinks I'm a liberal (seriously!). I can guarantee you knowing my dad that he and @LadyRhian would likely have come to the same compromise in perhaps a little more time. It's obvious to me that our two parties do not want to work together. If they did we would figure out that they're not needed and worse, contribute to the polarization that we're seeing now. Fuck the parties as far as I'm concerned. Good night all!
Racism and homophobia are opinions not crimes Healthcare and education are services, not rights Abortion is murder Taxation is theft There are no free launch Here is a photo of then"
A lot of people are insulting her and using "barbie memes" against her, not against her opinions. Probably because they envy her beauty (photo below ), any troughs about this case? What do you think about her tweet?
The Constitution prohibits any religious test for running for office. Sorry, a democracy means that any majority can vote in whoever the Hell they want. Agreeing with you (or me) isn't a requirement. Or are we no longer a democracy?
I expect you're away for a good night's rest now. I'll just note though that you're not addressing the same issue as me. I agree absolutely that people in the US can believe whatever they want, vote for whatever they want and work peaceably to bring about whatever they want. What they should not be able to do, however, is swear an oath to uphold a system of government they are trying to destroy. I can see why some individuals might agree doing that is fine (taking the line that a promise to an infidel is not a promise), but I can't see why it should be acceptable to the existing system of government.
There is of course an issue about whether there should be an oath of office in the first place. There isn't an equivalent to that in the UK and if you're taking the position that you don't think there should be such an oath required under the US constitution, that's fine - I would certainly have some sympathy with that. However, if an oath is to be required then shouldn't it have at least the tiniest shred of meaning?
The Constitution prohibits any religious test for running for office. Sorry, a democracy means that any majority can vote in whoever the Hell they want. Agreeing with you (or me) isn't a requirement. Or are we no longer a democracy?
I expect you're away for a good night's rest now. I'll just note though that you're not addressing the same issue as me. I agree absolutely that people in the US can believe whatever they want, vote for whatever they want and work peaceably to bring about whatever they want. What they should not be able to do, however, is swear an oath to uphold a system of government they are trying to destroy. I can see why some individuals might agree doing that is fine (taking the line that a promise to an infidel is not a promise), but I can't see why it should be acceptable to the existing system of government.
There is of course an issue about whether there should be an oath of office in the first place. There isn't an equivalent to that in the UK and if you're taking the position that you don't think there should be such an oath required under the US constitution, that's fine - I would certainly have some sympathy with that. However, if an oath is to be required then shouldn't it have at least the tiniest shred of meaning?
Not if part of the oath is protecting against threats foreign and DOMESTIC. That makes it subjective and impossible to consistently prosecute against. Anybody who rises against the Federal Government likely believes they're acting against a domestic threat. Do you disagree?
Racism and homophobia are opinions not crimes Healthcare and education are services, not rights Abortion is murder Taxation is theft There are no free launch Here is a photo of then"
A lot of people are insulting her and using "barbie memes" against her, not against her opinions. Probably because they envy her beauty (photo below ), any troughs about this case? What do you think about her tweet?
She's easy on the eyes but not drop-dead gorgeous. I assume she thinks that some degree of 'theft' is allowable. Or does she think that government pays for itself somehow?
The Constitution prohibits any religious test for running for office. Sorry, a democracy means that any majority can vote in whoever the Hell they want. Agreeing with you (or me) isn't a requirement. Or are we no longer a democracy?
I expect you're away for a good night's rest now. I'll just note though that you're not addressing the same issue as me. I agree absolutely that people in the US can believe whatever they want, vote for whatever they want and work peaceably to bring about whatever they want. What they should not be able to do, however, is swear an oath to uphold a system of government they are trying to destroy. I can see why some individuals might agree doing that is fine (taking the line that a promise to an infidel is not a promise), but I can't see why it should be acceptable to the existing system of government.
There is of course an issue about whether there should be an oath of office in the first place. There isn't an equivalent to that in the UK and if you're taking the position that you don't think there should be such an oath required under the US constitution, that's fine - I would certainly have some sympathy with that. However, if an oath is to be required then shouldn't it have at least the tiniest shred of meaning?
Not if part of the oath is protecting against threats foreign and DOMESTIC. That makes it subjective and impossible to consistently prosecute against. Anybody who rises against the Federal Government likely believes they're acting against a domestic threat. Do you disagree?
Absolutely I disagree. I can't see how it could ever be possible for the Constitution to define someone as protecting it who was aiming to rip up the Constitution. There is a fundamental difference between: - someone who believes that government has been subverted and they need to replace the government in order to protect the Constitution - someone who believes the Constitution can never result in an appropriate government and should itself be replaced
Again though, I just don't think you're arguing the same point as me. I'm not suggesting anyone should be prosecuted in relation to this. I'm simply noting that I think it's wrong for people to swear to uphold a system of government they fundamentally disagree with.
I think the topic has more than been done to death, but if you do want to continue discussing it I suggest we do so through private messages to avoid boring (even more) everyone else.
Racism and homophobia are opinions not crimes I think there appeared to be a certain amount of agreement on this topic recently. Anything can be an opinion, but when opinions move to threats they could also reasonably be classed as a crime: "Same-sex relationships are against the Word of God" is an opinion "Gays are the work of the Devil and should be stoned" is a threat
Healthcare and education are services, not rights They are services, but that doesn't mean they're not also rights. They are included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which personally I think is a good thing.
Abortion is murder I think we've fully covered that topic in this thread recently.
Taxation is theft If you believe there should be no governments that makes sense. If you believe some form of government is necessary to help manage complex relationships between people it doesn't. Everyone who lives in a society is giving up some of their personal sovereignty in order to be able to live in a more predictable environment - taxation is just part of that trade-off. That position is clear in democracies with freedom of movement ("no taxation without representation"), though I agree that in a dictatorship without freedom of movement the argument breaks down.
There's no such thing as a free lunch (I think this is what you meant) I agree that benefits don't arise from nowhere, but that doesn't mean that providing them actually causes net costs elsewhere. One of my concerns about Trump's approach to trade is he's treating everything as a win/loss situation, while the classical view of trade is that everyone can benefit. The same logic can apply to social benefits or aid. I've often heard the argument for instance that you shouldn't provide direct food aid to countries, but instead advice and assistance on how to produce food (don't give a fish, but a fishing rod). Ignoring the humanitarian angle, part of the logic here is that you can gain more from helping others than the costs to you through facilitating future economic and diplomatic arrangements. A real world example of that would be the Marshall Plan after WWII. That cost the US an enormous amount of money - but they've arguably benefited many times over as a result of gaining allies and customers.
If the fallout continues there are also going to be increasingly nasty questions asked about the extent to which the US encouraged or sanctioned the operation - it's already clear the US passed information to Saudi Arabia about Khashoggi and knew in advance at least that some sort of action would be taken against him.
But... ********** do you guys have to have your filthy ******* fingers in EVERY dirty cookie jar?
Racism and homophobia are opinions not crimes Healthcare and education are services, not rights Abortion is murder Taxation is theft There are no free launch Here is a photo of then"
A lot of people are insulting her and using "barbie memes" against her, not against her opinions. Probably because they envy her beauty (photo below ), any troughs about this case? What do you think about her tweet?
She's easy on the eyes but not drop-dead gorgeous. I assume she thinks that some degree of 'theft' is allowable. Or does she think that government pays for itself somehow?
She is ancap, for her, the government should't exist and everything(including defense and justice) should be private
Racism and homophobia are opinions not crimes Healthcare and education are services, not rights Abortion is murder Taxation is theft There are no free launch Here is a photo of then"
A lot of people are insulting her and using "barbie memes" against her, not against her opinions. Probably because they envy her beauty (photo below ), any troughs about this case? What do you think about her tweet?
She's easy on the eyes but not drop-dead gorgeous. I assume she thinks that some degree of 'theft' is allowable. Or does she think that government pays for itself somehow?
She is ancap, for her, the government should't exist and everything(including defense and justice) should be private
She also believed that abortional should be illegal.
What would be the rationale for a private justice system to act on behalf of a foetus? If it does anyway, what gives it the right? If it takes it for itself, then it basically declares itself to be a government. Her beliefs are not logically consistent, whatever label she uses.
By the way, did she ever give an opinion on whether borders should exist?
Going from consistency to realism now: every human society has organized itself with some sort of government in the past. If you were to abolish government in order to have some sort of private justice and police system, just give it a few years and those private companies will become the new government.
Calling her a barbie is not an acceptable way to respond to her, regardless of her appearance. It shows there is still a misogny problem in society - no one calls Ben Shapiro something like that, and he is also reasonably good looking and often argues on the same level. It also shows that it is not restricted to the right - though that is where the denials of the problem are mostly coming from.
Racism and homophobia are opinions not crimes Healthcare and education are services, not rights Abortion is murder Taxation is theft There are no free launch Here is a photo of then"
A lot of people are insulting her and using "barbie memes" against her, not against her opinions. Probably because they envy her beauty (photo below ), any troughs about this case? What do you think about her tweet?
She's easy on the eyes but not drop-dead gorgeous. I assume she thinks that some degree of 'theft' is allowable. Or does she think that government pays for itself somehow?
She is ancap, for her, the government should't exist and everything(including defense and justice) should be private
She also believed that abortional should be illegal.
What would be the rationale for a private justice system to act on behalf of a foetus? If it does anyway, what gives it the right? If it takes it for itself, then it basically declares itself to be a government. Her beliefs are not logically consistent, whatever label she uses.
By the way, did she ever give an opinion on whether borders should exist?
Going from consistency to realism now: every human society has organized itself with some sort of government in the past. If you were to abolish government in order to have some sort of private justice and police system, just give it a few years and those private companies will become the new government.
Calling her a barbie is not an acceptable way to respond to her, regardless of her appearance. It shows there is still a misogny problem in society - no one calls Ben Shapiro something like that, and he is also reasonably good looking and often argues on the same level. It also shows that it is not restricted to the right - though that is where the denials of the problem are mostly coming from.
About abortion, i agree that will be pretty hard to prohibit without state but with a state the same happens. For example, on Europe if USA prohibits it, anyone can visit Canada and have an abortion on Canada. Same on south hemisphere. Argentina din't legalized? Uruguay legalized and anyone can take a boat and easily visit Uruguay from Buenos Aires.
About borders, the problem is welfare state. Free immigration with rights of self defense, gun ownership, discrimination and no welfare state is completely different than actual imigration,
About every human society having an government, depends your definition of government. Teutons managed to defeat the roman empire on Teutoburg forest battle and they are mostly tribal.On Wild West, there are a lot of examples of private law enforcement for example Pinkerton who still exists today as a detective agency.
About calling her Barbie, most people who are insulting her are woman(probably with envy),
Calling her a barbie is not an acceptable way to respond to her, regardless of her appearance. It shows there is still a misogny problem in society - no one calls Ben Shapiro something like that, and he is also reasonably good looking and often argues on the same level. It also shows that it is not restricted to the right - though that is where the denials of the problem are mostly coming from.
I was gonna like your comment, until I reached that part. The one thing Trump is right about is that decorum is unnecessary. When someone thinks saying a naughty word is worse than invading a country for their oil, something is seriously messed up with them. It's like when Jeff Flake was confronted by women who was sexual assault survivors to try to change his mind on confirming Kavanaugh, and the conservative sphere responded by calling them "hysterical". Yeah, guess what. When you abuse people, they tend to get upset - it is more human to be hysterical or use naughty words than it is to calmly explain in an eloquent 3 pages essay exactly why you find it offensive that they might appoint someone who likely did to Dr Ford what has happened to them. Another great example is Hillary backing out of calling half of the Trump supporters deplorable and Beto halfway backing out of calling Cruz a liar. No, don't do that! They are what they are, call them by their names - or you WILL lose votes. There were a point in time where being uncivil WOULD cost you votes, because politicians were supposed to be polished. Those times are passed. The reason it died is because if you see a polished politician these days, your gut reaction is "Establishment!* This [not nice person] will sell me out to the corporations!". And 99 out of 100 times, you gut reaction would be correct. So, ironically, it was the "polite" people that killed decorum.
Personally, I never understood decorum, because I really really really do not understand why I am supposed to pretend the emperor is clothed when everyone can see plain as day that he is naked.
* To honest here, what was your gut reaction when you saw Joe Kennedy? Was it "Hmm, this looks a person who will selflessly serve the country and look out for my interests? I better make him the Democratic presidential candidate, because he is so much better suited than Sanders!"
@DraceICN It is not about decorum per se; I would have no problem personally with people attacking her as ignorant, hypocritical or to be honest even calling her some mean names insulting her intelligence. It is the "Barbie" insult in particular I object too, as it used a) only for women (with no clear male analogue) and b) reinforces the old beauty vs brains trope, which really needs to go away.
Apparently my last link included a reference to the article I originally read which led me to the Arnold story. It appears that even though it's referenced, you can't access the article from that link. Anyway, here's a direct link to the Mike Pence - Rabbi story...
Apparently my last link included a reference to the article I originally read which led me to the Arnold story. It appears that even though it's referenced, you can't access the article from that link. Anyway, here's a direct link to the Mike Pence - Rabbi story...
I mean, what Pence did with this "rabbi" is basically the Evangelical position on Israel in a nutshell. They support them wholeheartedly so they can be in place in the Holy Land for the end of the world, where they can then either accept Jesus or be destroyed.
Apparently my last link included a reference to the article I originally read which led me to the Arnold story. It appears that even though it's referenced, you can't access the article from that link. Anyway, here's a direct link to the Mike Pence - Rabbi story...
I mean, what Pence did with this "rabbi" is basically the Evangelical position on Israel in a nutshell. They support them wholeheartedly so they can be in place in the Holy Land for the end of the world, where they can then either accept Jesus or be destroyed.
Exactly. Apparently all of the 'secret' knowledge that was preached to me back in the day isn't so secret after all. Kudos to you @jjstraka34 for knowing about this!
@LadyRhian Thank you for indulging me. Your stance seems a lot more thoughtful than I had orginially thought. You made some really good points.
On the topic of that weird Old Testament manifesto: I find it pretty hilarious that someone is basing the need for a theocracy on a text that spends over half of its time showing why theocracy would never work. Whoops.
I'm literally two minutes in and pissed off already.
There's a twit at the beginning claiming what a great job what he'd done, when he's just purging blacks from voter rolls.
Vote anyways.
We have to run up the numbers such that it is a blowout, we can overcome their voter suppression.
In addition, if there is any cheating by the GOP, we can push for investigations after the election is over (many groups are also taking the GOP to court on voter suppression issues as we speak). But if we don't vote, we are giving up without even fighting - and what the GOP really, really want, is for us to not vote.
I'm literally two minutes in and pissed off already.
There's a twit at the beginning claiming what a great job what he'd done, when he's just purging blacks from voter rolls.
Vote anyways.
We have to run up the numbers such that it is a blowout, we can overcome their voter suppression.
In addition, if there is any cheating by the GOP, we can push for investigations after the election is over (many groups are also taking the GOP to court on voter suppression issues as we speak). But if we don't vote, we are giving up without even fighting - and what the GOP really, really want, is for us to not vote.
Paul Weyrich, the man at the forefront of getting the religious right and Republicans in lockstep with each other decades ago, admitted as much near the onset of the movement. There is audio of him flat-out saying less people voting is good for the GOP.
Within one day @LadyRhian and I came up with a plan for hate speech that neither one of us particularly liked but could agree with at least as a start. Now I think I'm pretty conservative but my dad thinks I'm a liberal (seriously!). I can guarantee you knowing my dad that he and @LadyRhian would likely have come to the same compromise in perhaps a little more time. It's obvious to me that our two parties do not want to work together. If they did we would figure out that they're not needed and worse, contribute to the polarization that we're seeing now. Fuck the parties as far as I'm concerned. Good night all!
Um, I'm not in a party. I am an actual registered independent. Just wanted to put that out there. No party tells me who to vote for. I make my own choices on who is less of a butthole and go on from there.
@LadyRhian Thank you for indulging me. Your stance seems a lot more thoughtful than I had orginially thought. You made some really good points.
On the topic of that weird Old Testament manifesto: I find it pretty hilarious that someone is basing the need for a theocracy on a text that spends over half of its time showing why theocracy would never work. Whoops.
You're welcome. Trust me when I say I have thought about a lot of my positions. You can't reach my age and not have thought about this stuff, or I don't think you can have. I'm 51 right now.
@LadyRhian You've mentioned your age before, but I still keep forgetting. As someone who has had a lot of older friends and interacts with your age group (I'm really not very far behind), you talk more like a late twenty something, and it throws me off.
Comments
Within one day @LadyRhian and I came up with a plan for hate speech that neither one of us particularly liked but could agree with at least as a start. Now I think I'm pretty conservative but my dad thinks I'm a liberal (seriously!). I can guarantee you knowing my dad that he and @LadyRhian would likely have come to the same compromise in perhaps a little more time. It's obvious to me that our two parties do not want to work together. If they did we would figure out that they're not needed and worse, contribute to the polarization that we're seeing now. Fuck the parties as far as I'm concerned. Good night all!
https://twitter.com/verasLibertatem/status/1051286590650241029
Translation :
Racism and homophobia are opinions not crimes
Healthcare and education are services, not rights
Abortion is murder
Taxation is theft
There are no free launch
Here is a photo of then"
A lot of people are insulting her and using "barbie memes" against her, not against her opinions. Probably because they envy her beauty (photo below ), any troughs about this case? What do you think about her tweet?
There is of course an issue about whether there should be an oath of office in the first place. There isn't an equivalent to that in the UK and if you're taking the position that you don't think there should be such an oath required under the US constitution, that's fine - I would certainly have some sympathy with that. However, if an oath is to be required then shouldn't it have at least the tiniest shred of meaning?
- someone who believes that government has been subverted and they need to replace the government in order to protect the Constitution
- someone who believes the Constitution can never result in an appropriate government and should itself be replaced
Again though, I just don't think you're arguing the same point as me. I'm not suggesting anyone should be prosecuted in relation to this. I'm simply noting that I think it's wrong for people to swear to uphold a system of government they fundamentally disagree with.
I think the topic has more than been done to death, but if you do want to continue discussing it I suggest we do so through private messages to avoid boring (even more) everyone else.
Racism and homophobia are opinions not crimes
I think there appeared to be a certain amount of agreement on this topic recently. Anything can be an opinion, but when opinions move to threats they could also reasonably be classed as a crime:
"Same-sex relationships are against the Word of God" is an opinion
"Gays are the work of the Devil and should be stoned" is a threat
Healthcare and education are services, not rights
They are services, but that doesn't mean they're not also rights. They are included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which personally I think is a good thing.
Abortion is murder
I think we've fully covered that topic in this thread recently.
Taxation is theft
If you believe there should be no governments that makes sense. If you believe some form of government is necessary to help manage complex relationships between people it doesn't. Everyone who lives in a society is giving up some of their personal sovereignty in order to be able to live in a more predictable environment - taxation is just part of that trade-off. That position is clear in democracies with freedom of movement ("no taxation without representation"), though I agree that in a dictatorship without freedom of movement the argument breaks down.
There's no such thing as a free lunch (I think this is what you meant)
I agree that benefits don't arise from nowhere, but that doesn't mean that providing them actually causes net costs elsewhere. One of my concerns about Trump's approach to trade is he's treating everything as a win/loss situation, while the classical view of trade is that everyone can benefit. The same logic can apply to social benefits or aid. I've often heard the argument for instance that you shouldn't provide direct food aid to countries, but instead advice and assistance on how to produce food (don't give a fish, but a fishing rod). Ignoring the humanitarian angle, part of the logic here is that you can gain more from helping others than the costs to you through facilitating future economic and diplomatic arrangements. A real world example of that would be the Marshall Plan after WWII. That cost the US an enormous amount of money - but they've arguably benefited many times over as a result of gaining allies and customers.
What would be the rationale for a private justice system to act on behalf of a foetus? If it does anyway, what gives it the right? If it takes it for itself, then it basically declares itself to be a government. Her beliefs are not logically consistent, whatever label she uses.
By the way, did she ever give an opinion on whether borders should exist?
Going from consistency to realism now: every human society has organized itself with some sort of government in the past. If you were to abolish government in order to have some sort of private justice and police system, just give it a few years and those private companies will become the new government.
Calling her a barbie is not an acceptable way to respond to her, regardless of her appearance. It shows there is still a misogny problem in society - no one calls Ben Shapiro something like that, and he is also reasonably good looking and often argues on the same level. It also shows that it is not restricted to the right - though that is where the denials of the problem are mostly coming from.
About borders, the problem is welfare state. Free immigration with rights of self defense, gun ownership, discrimination and no welfare state is completely different than actual imigration,
About every human society having an government, depends your definition of government. Teutons managed to defeat the roman empire on Teutoburg forest battle and they are mostly tribal.On Wild West, there are a lot of examples of private law enforcement for example Pinkerton who still exists today as a detective agency.
About calling her Barbie, most people who are insulting her are woman(probably with envy),
Personally, I never understood decorum, because I really really really do not understand why I am supposed to pretend the emperor is clothed when everyone can see plain as day that he is naked.
* To honest here, what was your gut reaction when you saw Joe Kennedy? Was it "Hmm, this looks a person who will selflessly serve the country and look out for my interests? I better make him the Democratic presidential candidate, because he is so much better suited than Sanders!"
Edit:
When Iran sounds more civil and makes compelling arguments to counter US measures, you know you have a problem.
Amen, Arnold! Couldn't have said it better myself...
Edit: I didn't notice the Mike Pence -Rabbi tag along post there. I guess I'll leave it since there's some good information there about evangelicals.
Apparently my last link included a reference to the article I originally read which led me to the Arnold story. It appears that even though it's referenced, you can't access the article from that link. Anyway, here's a direct link to the Mike Pence - Rabbi story...
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/01/opinions/mike-pence-and-the-rabbi-dantonio-eisner/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
@LadyRhian Thank you for indulging me. Your stance seems a lot more thoughtful than I had orginially thought. You made some really good points.
On the topic of that weird Old Testament manifesto: I find it pretty hilarious that someone is basing the need for a theocracy on a text that spends over half of its time showing why theocracy would never work. Whoops.
https://www.riggedthefilm.com
I'm literally two minutes in and pissed off already.
There's a twit at the beginning claiming what a great job what he'd done, when he's just purging blacks from voter rolls.
Vote anyways.
We have to run up the numbers such that it is a blowout, we can overcome their voter suppression.
In addition, if there is any cheating by the GOP, we can push for investigations after the election is over (many groups are also taking the GOP to court on voter suppression issues as we speak). But if we don't vote, we are giving up without even fighting - and what the GOP really, really want, is for us to not vote.
I just saw this on Facebook and UGH.
https://www.facebook.com/USdems/videos/254251848610066/
Apparently, Donald Trump is the Messiah now. Pardon me while I vomit in a bucket somewhere...
Trump Has Quietly Cut Legal Aid for Migrant Kids Separated from Parents
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3a798/trump-has-quietly-cut-legal-aid-for-migrant-kids-separated-from-parents?fbclid=IwAR3k_7Te-hEzPBtguKRcKpAlQN5gf5AU2iRNo8ydn-KY4Cm0q6lFxh4WWG0&site=vice&utm_campaign=qvnyzq&utm_source=stylizedembed_vice.comJudge rules against GOP, says more than 3,000 in Georgia should be allowed to vote
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/11/02/georgia-voting-judge-rules-against-brian-kemp-allows-3-000-vote/1860958002/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatodaycomnation-topstories&fbclid=IwAR0mdwXD3w7Nvd1PdlNPws7VyoXo296mRXcgBZ0FmK1ktm0Gq2ApgdnFVEELoad of manure dumped at Democratic Party HQ in Ohio
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/29/load-manure-dumped-democratic-party-hq-ohio/92962798/Looks like the other party is really losing their crap. Ah well, I say donate it to somewhere that will use it to grow flowers. Out of hate bring beauty.
U.S. Budget Deficit Swells to $898 Billion, Topping Forecast
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast?fbclid=IwAR0wG6KALByNYXsAf_v1iOn6CkLDRnO_xjP1oW0yda5eeY8yQN2Fx3gOJvwMitch McConnell Calls to Cut Social Security, Medicare
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-calls-to-cut-social-security-medicare/ar-BBOtGyE?ocid=sf&fbclid=IwAR2NIDrmnasWehED5yiVUqr1qNIDf7DSZ-KEC94CmOF3lb0TYxC7hTGIBPAhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/03/trump-emoluments-case-ruling-financial-records-tax-returns