Donald Trump

ryujin · Post by **ryujin** » Wed May 10, 2017 5:22 pm

Yea I pretty much agree with everything you just said Cash. Dude will probably resign. The Nixon of our time.

HJ_KG · Post by **HJ_KG** » Wed May 10, 2017 10:08 pm

Ryujin wrote:QUOTE (Ryujin @ May 10 2017, 01:22 PM) The Nixon of our time.

Saturday Night massacre
not to be confused with the
Bowling Green massacre

The firing of FBI director James Comey poses a question: Will the law answer to the president, or the president to the law?
Of course Comey should have been fired months ago, the right claims the left is being hypocritical in its complaints of the firing, but this is simplistic, yes Comey was a loose cannon, but removing him now is giving the look of guilt to trump and his administration so called. Will we ever know what happened with Russia? I can hope I suppose.

Terran · Post by **Terran** » Thu May 11, 2017 2:11 am

this whole Comey thing is so...

can't say i feel sorry for the guy. i say good riddance; hopefully he is pissed off enough to throw some dirt

ryujin · Post by **ryujin** » Thu May 11, 2017 3:20 am

Papsmear wrote:QUOTE (Papsmear @ May 6 2017, 08:33 AM) It seems to me his executive order to protect religious freedom was a positive move.
I'm not quite sure why some people think it's bad????????

Post by **zombywoof** » Thu May 11, 2017 4:24 am

https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/862479291875028992

Looks like there's a POTUS about to be deposed...

Broodwich · Post by **Broodwich** » Thu May 11, 2017 5:54 am

Papsmear wrote:QUOTE (Papsmear @ May 10 2017, 07:45 AM) Liberals avow acceptance of all yet you are not accepting of all.
In actual fact you are only accepting of things that align with your personal and political beliefs.
Because of this you come across as a hypocrite.

I believe there is a difference between ridicule of one's beliefs and actively enacting laws to suppress them

The former is exercising the first amendment, the latter is breaking it

Post by **Papsmear** » Thu May 11, 2017 3:17 pm

My understanding was the Executive Order for religious freedom was to protect everyone's right to worship without fear of persecution.
Not to use your religion to supress or deny other people their rights.
We shall see how this pans out.

ryujin · Post by **ryujin** » Thu May 11, 2017 4:44 pm

Papsmear wrote:QUOTE (Papsmear @ May 11 2017, 10:17 AM) My understanding was the Executive Order for religious freedom was to protect everyone's right to worship without fear of persecution.
Not to use your religion to supress or deny other people their rights.
We shall see how this pans out.

I hope you are right. I decided to look into it a little more, and this seemed like a decent op-ed about it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/opin ... order.html

Basically, it will get rid of the Johnson Amendment. It will allow Churches, who are tax exempt, to contribute money to campaigns. I'm already very unhappy about churches tax-exempt status (looking at you Joel Osteen), but now allowing them to affect politics too?

We are living in Dangerous times, and the U.S. Democracy, though never perfect in the slightest, looks to be taking a turn for the worst.

After badmouthing #44 for Executive Orders, how many has #45 done in less than half a year? If you aren't a little wary, you aren't paying attention.

ryujin · Post by **ryujin** » Thu May 11, 2017 4:49 pm

Well if Trump stops them for the rest of this year, he will be about on the same rate as Obama. Holy @#(! Roosevelt though. Over 3000! Doing more than 1 per day at times....

Post by **zombywoof** » Thu May 11, 2017 5:01 pm

Papsmear wrote:QUOTE (Papsmear @ May 11 2017, 08:17 AM) My understanding was the Executive Order for religious freedom was to protect everyone's right to worship without fear of persecution.
Not to use your religion to supress or deny other people their rights.
We shall see how this pans out.

It was to rescind the never-enforced Johnson amendment which prevented religious figures from endorsing candidates. The ACLU basically said "this is some theater, but doesn't do anything."

I tend to agree with the ACLU and also suggest that the Johnson amendment was a mistake: churches should be considered like any other corporation. They engage in mass marketing, they have dozens of employees, they provide an entertainment product... is there any reason they shouldn't be taxed like any other corporation? Or be permitted to engage in political speech like any other corporation? I say to hell with the Johnson amendment, what we need to do is tax the damn churches.