I had to read this op-ed. No fan of DT, however I am painfully aware that our news coverage of him is pretty much click-bait with little real substance. This photo is an example -- pictures can lie, they are but a moment in time.

I have to think that this op-ed is accurate -- there are some really horrendous things mentioned that are no credit to DT. And it would be too easily disproved if there were outright lies. (And yes, there is a whiff of BS, but nobody in politics can get by without a whiff of BS. NOBODY.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/opinion/the-trump-vision-for-america-abroad.html

I agree, don't make up your mind without proof, but give the horrendously slow process a chance to uncover it before dismissing the accusations. All indicators point to some collusion...who and how much are relative unknowns. Ignore speculations and wait is the best course right now, imo.

No, I don't accept either bowl. I never watch CNN, nor do I consider them more than a step above Fox. That's the nature of 24 hour "news"....it stops being news at all. My point was, their low standards don't erase the staggering implications of what little we do know or make the story "fake".

I can't accept that we shouldn't impeach a traitor (edit: should he be proven to be one) because his successor will be worse, but I do agree, president Pence is a horrifying thought.

But, America was absolutely not founded on biblical principals, clearly and undeniably.

I'll say it, only non religious people are fit for public office. Anyone else must either 1) illegally and immorally govern a varied population based on placing their own personal beliefs over man's law and other's beliefs and/or 2) is just giving their religion lip service and they don't really believe that God's will supersedes man's, so they're opportunistic liars and/or bat shit crazy.

I would downvote this for it's content, but exposing this horrendous, unAmerican mindset is worth the Upvote.

Thanks dag & transmopher.

Oh yeah, this 3rd Testament you advocate would be most useful. There are external references throughout the centuries that helps people understand it in better context. Matthew Henry for example - not perfect, but useful. But I'm afraid human nature would just twist and corrupt anything. Pretty soon a 4th Testament will be needed.

The big problem with religion is the defensiveness of its practitioners. When people outside of their religion points out the weird crap in their holy text (weird in the present, not so much during the time it was written), they go all up in arms and goes on the attack. Yet so many withing their rank uses bits and pieces of the text out of context to justify horrendous behavior. Where is the self-criticism? Where's the self-reflection? Where's the self-correction?

It's no wonder atheist wants religion out. But realistically, religion is not going out the door anytime soon. I can understand that want too, really, I want the bad crap out of religion just as much.

But I do see the goodness within and just trying my best to achieve the same goal from an opposite (?) vantage point. If we're all here fighting evil, I don't care in what name you do it for, I'm going to support you.

Today's terrorism problems have no better authority than Muslim leaders coming out and condemn and explain their religion to the world. Christians needs to preach compassion towards their neighbors rather than fear & loathing, it's what Jesus commands. That's peaceful, cross-faith discussions the religious leaders of all faiths lack so much of. But I just don't see much of that up top...

when radical right wingers,who lean towards an authoritarian,dogmatic way of approaching certain subjects,yet will attempt to disguise their bigotry,prejudice or hatred under the banner of "free speech",or nationalistic pride" and even sometimes "common sense" (because in THEIR world view,thats what it is to them:common sense).

they receive pushback,and rightly so,because you have to allow them to express their ideas in a public forum for the diseased and twisted philosophy to be exposed for the shit ideas they were in the first place.

but if you disagree with their philosophical viewpoint,and deal with that disagreement by shouting them down,calling them horrendous names,disrupt their chance to express those ideas you disagree with,and in some cases..engage in violence..you lose the moral high ground,and whatever solid argument you had to either destroy,or at least reveal their position for the shit idea you think it may be.will be automatically dismissed by those looking from the outside in.

because you have engaged in tactics that lessen what could have been an extremely important point by becoming the very thing you state you oppose.

you do not fight authoritarian fascism.....with authoritarian,and sometimes violent...fascism.it does not work,in fact the only thing it does it weaken your position and make you look like the very thing you are opposing.

in the free market of ideas,philosophies,ideas,viewpoints,political positions all need to be openly aired in this market to be either accepted as 'good' and "worthwhile" or "of substantial consideration",or be rejected for the shit ideas they are,but they need to be openly spoken and/or written in order for people to even consider those ideas.

when you shut down any and all opportunities for a person to even SPEAK about these ideas,and using tactics that can only be considered "bullying' and "shaming".you shut own any and all conversation without the idea itself being challenged,and BOTH sides go to their respective corners still convinced of their own "righteousness",and nothing was actually addressed.

both the ultra left and the ultra right are guilty of this tactic,and in the end we all lose,but especially those players in their particular realm of ideologies.

because now they can sit happily and contentedly in their own little,tiny echo chamber bubble with their other,like-minded people,and congratulate themselves on their own righteousness.even though they were the ones who shut down all challenge,all criticism and all scrutiny.

if your ideas,and/or philosophies cannot withstand a modicum of scrutiny or criticism,then maybe those ideas were shit to begin with.

so shouting someone down,and being so disruptive as to make it impossible for that person to even begin to articulate their position,is not a "win".you did not strike a blow for equality or justice,because you pulled a fire alarm,or violently attacked a person you disagreed with.

you lost your moral high ground,and anybody who may have been on the fence,or was simply curious and wanted to hear a differing opinion.saw how you behaved when your ideas were challenged,and they outright dismissed you and your cause.

the only people you have left in your circle are the very same people who agree with you already.so enjoy the circle jerk of the self-righteous,but do not delude yourself for one second that you are "right",or have struck a blow for "justice" and "fairness".

i have been accused of being "anti-sjw", a 'closet bigot" and (this is my favorite) 'a cis-gender white privileged oppressor".

as if the goals i seek are not dissimilar as everybody elses:equality,fairness and justice.

but when i point out the wrong headed tactics of attacking innocent people just trying to listen to a persons opinions,which may possibly be:racist,bigoted and antithetical to a fair and just society.that is when i am attacked,and it is done so with the most arrogant of presumptions,with little or no evidence to back up their personal attacks upon me.

because i had the audacity to question the tactics of the protesters,and defended that speakers right to free speech.

you are free to express whatever little thought pops into your pretty little head,and i have the right ridicule you relentlessly.you are free to espouse your opinions and philisophical ideologies,but you are NOT free from offense.

because,ultimately,in the free market of ideas,if your ideas are shit.someone WILL call you out on them,and if you think the tactic of shouting people down,disrupting their lecture and/or attacking the attendees somehow makes you "right" or your cause "morally justified".it does not.it just makes you look exactly like the people you are disagreeing with,and not for nothing..it kinda make you look fucking stupid.

so let those people talk.
let them make their ill-thought arguments.
allow them to spew rhetoric and propaganda,and do what should be done in a free market of ideas.

destroy their argument,with logic,reason and a sense of fairness and justice that appeals to the majority of us.

and i mean,come on,let's be honest.there are certain portions of the population that are true believers.you are not going to change their minds but for those who are NOT fundamentalist,dogmatic thinkers,use your brains,talk to them,destroy those who propose ill-thought and bullshit arguments to reveal them for the sychophants they are.

don't be attacking them.
do not engage in violence,or disruptive behavior.
because then you lose any credibility before you have even begun.

that's my .02 anyways,take it for what it is worth.

Again that doesn't jibe with the text, or his exact words "For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"
That also contradicts the theory that his death ended the laws....."until heaven and earth pass away" clearly is a different thing from 'until I, Jesus, pass away'.
This is clear that the letter of the laws, not just the spirit of love, are the focus here, and anyone ignoring a single jot will be judged harshly.
In the old testament, those punishments are for failing to live by the specific, set forth rules as written, not failing to live up to some underlying, contradictory, unwritten, hidden message of love behind them.

That's not what the bible says. It's what 3rd parties have told people it says. It also clearly warns about those people....warns against listening to them, and tells you what happens to them....they are called the least, which I interpret to mean considered unworthy of heaven so are sent elsewhere.
It clearly, unambiguously, undeniably tells believers to murder infidels themselves, personally, with rocks. Any other interpretation ignores clearly written specific and detailed instructions in favor of insane mental gymnastics to think " You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God" somehow, inexplicably means 'love and tolerate them with respect and kindness' and not 'go murder them ASAP'.

Evangelicals have never once lived up to your theory of what they believe, they can't even follow the basic golden rule. The respect they demand for their beliefs is never returned to others, in my experience.
Evangelicals in practice usually take the entirety of the Bible as a message telling them they should go out and force others to love their version of God and the righteous, not all people, and without a hint of humility, and that they must accept the grace of their version of God or else are deserving of hatred and damnation.


Edit: As I read it, Jesus said follow every letter of the old laws, but instructed people that he without sin should cast the first stone (that would have been him, wouldn't it?). The old laws said he who casts no stones is committing a horrendous sin and should themselves be stoned to death. Believers somehow don't see the contradiction, while I see nothing but.

How can this be? His daddy could have bought those 'degrees' and positions for him, simple.

It would seem he can read, but likely at best at a 3rd grade level. His tweets bear that out, replete with misspelled words, horrendous grammar, and never words or concepts above 3rd grade comprehension levels.

Please site your reference for this data, as it seems unlikely to be correct....at least I hope it's not. The NASA stat in particular is almost certainly false....I've known many (my uncle ran the moon rock program for a while) and I've never met one with reading issues of any kind. Dyslexia is a disqualifying disability in aerospace...mix up one value and things go bad fast and hard.

@MilkmanDan
Well, I believe words will never hurt me (unless I let them).

My parents both work for Stanford, and there, and at many other decent colleges, being exposed to new ideas and people is certainly an integral part of the educational experience. That doesn't mean you have to become a SJW, it means you learn how to discuss topics with those you disagree with, not just live in an echo chamber.

I think many today are so sheltered and deep in a bubble that they do make it to colleges having never had their beliefs challenged in any meaningful way. That they can graduate with the same flaws is horrendous, IMO.

Oh no, sir. I KNOW he lied repeatedly, he wrote a book about how to get ahead by lying.
On the other side, as you put it (and you missed me screaming for months that there aren't only two horrendous choices) was a normal, underhanded, misdirecting politician.

Email cover-up? Really? What crime was she covering, now that we have seen them all....none. Was she transparent about it, no, but as evidence that Trump is at least as bad on that front if not worse....tax returns is all I need say.
Pay for play, after Devos blatantly bought a cabinet position you would actually blindly make that claim with no evidence? Let me guess, you're afraid of the fish people Alex Jones told you about too. Is she corrupt, yes, is she corrupt compared to a man that's screwed over every business partner he's ever had and the taxpayer by intentionally bankrupting his companies repeatedly by hiring and massively overpaying other Trump companies, using that method to steal all funds and assets and build up massive debt, then declaring bankruptcy, stiffing his partners and creditors, and walking away (or in a few cases doing it over before being forced to leave), no. By comparison she's above reproach. Clinton may fit the definition of corrupt, but the word barely covers the insane backstabbing, admitted and repeated bribery (remember he claimed to have bought numerous politicians by bribing them, he thinks it's how government works), and theft from his partners that Trump is proud of.

So yes, tissue paper thin glass snow globe......

Actually, it was created because a horrendously racist senator that advocated lynching from the Senate floor was maligning a Jr. senator for considering the annexation of the Philippines. The Jr. Senator heard, rushed to the floor, and accused the Sr Senator of telling "willful, malicious, and deliberate lies", and the Sr, Tillman, rose and attacked the younger Jr Senator violently ending in a brawl on the Senate floor.

..so technically, it was created to protect senators from the lies of racists....but it's now being used to protect and hide the racists' lies and actions.

Another rule that's a rule, when a law is routinely not enforced, it becomes legally invalid. This rule has been used once in over 100 years, and consistently ignored for the remainder of it's existence....so if the rules of the Senate are law, and I think they qualify, this one is no longer valid.

What exactly does "Rule 19" say?

@newtboy 's description:
"This means that now republicans have ended free speech in the senate, and any time they feel they have been insulted, they'll end the debate and silence the offenders. I find that treasonous, as it directly and horrendously effects how the senate works (or doesn't) and means the party in power can now enforce their un-American idea that they are the only one's allowed to speak."

I agree that it seems to have been used to stifle free speech in this instance. But it doesn't seem like it could be used that way "any time" -- only when the the content being read/spoken is a quote from previous senate sessions?

The reason that I think the full story is important is that the best way to put the kibosh on this would be to turn the tables and have Warren et al. use it on Republicans to demonstrate that it is a bullshit "rule". That sort of violates the whole "they go low, we go high" thing, but a disfunctional, ineffective legislature might be preferable to an actively evil/corrupt legislature. And more importantly, (ab)using the rule is likely the best way to get it removed ASAP so this shit can't happen again.

--edit--
OK, I guess that the "impugn" part is the key, rather than specifically referring to any previous senate session statements. But that just makes it more bullshit, because "impugn" (synonyms include "challenge", "criticize", etc.) is way to broad to be enforceable. I suggest that the moment any senator refers to anybody, dems should "take offense" and invoke Rule 19 themselves.

Unheard of, yes, and no dissent, curious, but an indicator that it's a political ploy by the heads of those 17 agencies, not to me, because many of them (most famously the head of the FBI) are firmly and unapologetically Trump supporters. They would not produce or agree with such damming conclusions about their guy, imo, without clear evidence. It is more than unfortunate that we won't see that evidence, if it exists, during this administration. I expect it to stay classified by presidential order so he can deny it's existence.

I do agree, what we've seen in the redacted public report is far from proof, and the intelligence community as a whole has a terrible record of lies and misdirection. I think the recent need for public attention and political involvement has only made that worse. With such a horrendous reputation, it behooves them to make public their proof as quickly as possible.....leak it?

I'm not at all sure if you're referring to me in your description.
I thought I explained well why a respected reporter working for a propaganda site is both making themselves suspect and lending veracity to the propaganda machine, and that you mostly agreed.
I also mentioned Maddow specifically as being willing to fudge the news for her bias....BUT it bears mention that here she did NOT say what the narrator said she said, she said "we are about to find out if Russia MAYBE has something on our president." That's arguing that, if Trump does what Russia wants, it MIGHT be because they blackmailed him into it...or might not. If he goes against Russia on something serious like securing our allies borders from an expansionist Russia that indicates they MIGHT not be blackmailing him. This guy totally exaggerated and misstated her statement to feign outrage, he's a complete bombastic liar....sorry @enoch. That's not to say she doesn't also exaggerate and omit.

As to the troops on the border, that's what Russia did, and claimed it was just defensive until after they took Crimea and part of Ukraine proper.
As to the treaty with Russia, we also have a treaty with the Ukraine (and so did Russia) that, in return for their nuclear disarmament, we would guarantee their borders and come to their aid militarily if anyone attacked them....and we completely failed to stand up when Russia invaded TWICE. Of course now our allies want our troops ON the border, if American troops aren't killed, we don't care if Russia invades them, and they want us to keep our word, so we need our troops in harm's way to force us to live up to our responsibilities since we've horrendously failed to do so incredibly recently and now look even less likely to oppose Russian expansion.

james o'keefe and project veritas are reknowned in their deceptions and their so-called 'gotcha" shenanigans.

and when i say "shenanigans",i mean clever editing to create a false premise that suits a political agenda.in this case:republicans.

o'keefe is not the first to kneel at the altar of political money,and suck the cock of his masters,simply to buy his way into the powered elites outhouse,located on the very edge of the property.(oooh i am being sassy today).

we can look back at the tea party and literally watch dick army,former congressman turned lobbyist (shocker right there),single handedly change the direction of an entire movement to serve the needs and desires of HIS masters,by the creation of "americans for prosperity".

i am not kidding.
go check it out.
when the original tea party started their message was very similar to the occupy wall street movement in 2011,but dick army and his merry band of fuckheads,manipulated the leadership from outrage against:big banks,wall street and the horrendous malfeasance of rumsfelds department of defense (still looking for that 1 trillion dollars of tax payer money)..

to...

big government and the democrats.

it was quite impressive in its simplicity and brilliance.
reprehensible and grotesque,but impressive.

we can even look at the private organization of the DNC,and how they openly attempted to undermine bernie sanders campaign.a man who was running on THEIR ticket for fuck sakes!

i seem to be on a kick today in regards to people who sell their integrity for cash.for access.for influence.

it appears john carpenters "they live" was not just a simple,cheesy,sci-fi movie but rather a documentary.

"i have come here to kick ass,and chew bubble gum.and i am all out of bubble gum".
rowdy randy piper (rip)

@ChaosEngine
agreed.
context matters and i think being a decent human being plays a large role in that dynamic.

people tend to attempt to break down complex ideas and/or ideologies into more easily digestible morsels.this "twitter speak",in my opinion,is largely responsible for the decay of human interactions.

we all are biased.
we all hold prejudices,and preconceptions based on our learned experiences.
which are subjective.

we see the world through the lens of our own subjectivity and even the most open minded and non-judgemental person,when trying to sympathize/empathize with another person, will use their own subjective understandings in order to understand that person.

this tactic,which we all employ,will almost always fall short of true understanding.

so we rely on words,metaphors,allegory etc etc in order to communicate fairly complex emotions and experiences.

what brendon o'neill is pointing out,is that when we start to restrict words as acceptable and unacceptable,we infantilize our interactions.

words are inert.
they are simply symbols representing a thing,action or emotion.
it is WE who apply the deeper meanings by way of our subjective lens.

i am not trying to make something simple complicated,but bear with me.
a rock will always be a rock,but a cunt has a totally different meaning here in the states than in britain.(love you brits,and cunt is a brilliant word).

the problems of culture,region,nationality or race all play a role in not only how we communicate but how that communication is received ...and interpreted.

so misunderstandings can happen quite easily,and then when we consider that the persons intent is by far the greatest metric to judge the veracity of the words being spoken,and just how difficult it is to discern that intent....this is where nuance and context play such a major role,but we need to have as many tools in our language box to express oftentimes very difficult concepts,multi-layered emotions and complicated ideologies.

and,unfortunately,there are attempts to legislate speech.

of course well intentioned,and reasonable sounding,but like any legislation dealing with the subjective nature of humans,has the possibility of abuse.

case in point:http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

a new canadian addendum to their human rights statute.on the surface this is a fairly benign addition to canadas already existing human rights laws,but there is the possibility of abuse.

a psychology professor from university of toronto was critical of this new addendum,and has created a flurry of controversy in regards to his criticism.

which you can check out here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

now he was protested,received death threats,there was even violence and a new internet star was born affectionately labeled "smugglypuff".

see:http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/smugglypuff

i agree that free speech cannot be viewed with an absolutist mindset.absolutist thinking leads to stagnation and a self-righteous fundamentalism,so we NEED the free flow of ideas...even BAD ideas..even offensive and racist..because this brings all those feelings/thoughts/ideologies into the market of ideas to be either absorbed or ridiculed and ultimately ostracized for the shit philosophy they represent.

i WANT to know who the racists are.
i want to know who is bigoted or prejudiced.
i want to know who is holding on to stupid ideas,or promoting fascism dressed up as nationalistic pride.

and the only way to shine a light on these horrendous and detrimental ideas is to allow those who hold them openly state who and what they are...so we can criticize/challenge and in some cases..ridicule.

we should be free to say whatever we wish,but we are not free from challenge or criticism.
we can say whatever pops into our pretty little head,but we are not free from consequences.
we are also not free from offense.

i know this is long,and i hope you stayed with me,and if you did,thanks man.i know i tend to ramble.

but we can use the banning of gorillaman as a small microcosm of what we are talking about here.

i felt that we,as a community,could take gorilla to task for his poor choice in verbiage "nigger prince" and i attempted to make the case by using his history,dark humor and bad taste to add context to his poor choice of wording.

bareboards felt it was a matter for the administrators to deal with.i am not saying her choice was wrong.just that we approached the problem from different perspectives.

now gorilla decided to become the human torch and flame out.which threw my approach right out the window.

but the point i am making in that case,is that bad ideas,bad philosophies,bigotry and racism will ALWAYS reveal themselves if we allow that process to ultimately expose bad ideas/shit person.

the free flow of ideas is the proverbial rope that ultimately hangs all shit ideas.

thanks for hanging kids.
love you all!