The Trump Administration 2017-

[RUAJedi2]

I trust Omarosa about as much as I would trust a water moccasin.

 

Also, she is the twit that once said "Every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump. It's everyone who's ever doubted Donald, who ever disagreed, who ever challenged him. It is the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the universe." [gag]

 

How the worm has turned.

[Ms. Spam]

I feel like we've entered a kind of alternate universe where it's all heels and wrestling has taken over the white house. but instead of pile drivers we get tweets because the GREAT ORANGE CHAMPION isn't so good at taking a chair to the head anymore. He just raises his belt and chants.

 

In other slightly bizarre news - Melania's parents are now US Citizens! YAY! Green cards for people who don't work for Sessions new ICE deportation force for illegal immigration! What can 70 year old people contribute?

[RUAJedi2]

In other slightly bizarre news - Melania's parents are now US Citizens! YAY! Green cards for people who don't work for Sessions new ICE deportation force for illegal immigration! What can 70 year old people contribute?

[bad Slavic accent]

Is rich white produce beautiful almost lifelike love doll for making America great again!

[/end bad accent]

[Metropolis]

That's racist!

[RUAJedi2]

No. Melania's native language is Slovene, a South Slavic language. My Slavic is not so good. Also, she is very white, and I (so far as my geneological research has determined) am of nearly pure northern European extraction. Judgy and hateful, yes, but not racist.

[Poe Dameron]

What can 70 year old people contribute?

What indeed? I'll take this as confirmation that you now oppose the current policy of chain migration.

 

 

 

Green cards for people who don't work for Sessions new ICE deportation force for illegal immigration!

 

Civics lesson for the day:

 

Sessions isn't in charge of ICE. They're under the Department of Homeland Security.

[Ms. Spam]

Eh, Sessions is defacto head of ICE - he may not be actually in charge but most of the edicts about what and how the department acts and focuses on is stuff he wants. He'll take all the Trump abuse over the Mueller Investigation if he can keep his baby project on immigration. Trump is basically being used by the GOP to distract while pet projects happen and then when they fail Trump will be the scapegoat. So thanks, but no thanks on the sarcastic civics lesson.

 

And Trump about his in-laws - it's basically him saying you can only come to the US if you can contribute to making us great but my 70 year old in-laws get a pass.

[Poe Dameron]

 

 

Eh, Sessions is defacto head of ICE - he may not be actually in charge but most of the edicts about what and how the department acts and focuses on is stuff he wants.

 

Can you give an example of Sessions making an edict to ICE?

 

 

 

And Trump about his in-laws - it's basically him saying you can only come to the US if you can contribute to making us great but my 70 year old in-laws get a pass.

 

Supplemental civics lesson of the day:

 

Chain migration is still on the books. There was no pass necessary.

[Guest]

No pass necessary, except from Trump's rhetoric, which seems to be Spam's point. But, really, this kind of thing is ridiculous. Even if there is a level of hypocrisy, and I'm not sure there is, you can want a policy change while still making use of the current policy. And Trump wasn't even the one using the policy, and to the best of my knowledge has rarely used specific cases to further his case.

[monkeygirl]

So if a singer offered a job to perform the national anthem at a KKK rally, you would say they should go ahead and do it because singing doesn't go against their principles. Especially a singer's?

 

This wasn't a case about a singer. It was a case about baking a cake. This isn't a court of law.

 

"You say designing that cake wouldn't go against the baker's principles, and yet it does."

 

He claims it does. You and him believing it does not make it so. Legally, courts decide but for the purposes of citizens discussing it on the internet, I can't shoe-horn this into a religious belief in any way. The religious objection to homosexuality is the act of homo SEX. ("Love the sinner", etc...) I cannot draw a straight line, no pun intended, from homosexual sex to a pastry. The baking of a pastry is not a sin in any religion I know of. What those who purchase it intend to use it for is irrelevant in my opinion. Can *you* draw that line for me and explain how baking a cake is akin to having same-sex relations?

 

"It is rather germane in that you brought up the Mormons and I pointed out that the laws precede the founding of that religion."

 

Oh, okay, that makes sense to me.

 

"Because many people's basic morals come from religious text, doctrine, or dogma. And everything has secular reasons as well. Once again, you cannot separate the two except to take the ones you like and discard the ones you don't."

 

Everything? I'm not sure I agree. Let me think about that. and yes, you CAN separate if you're drafting laws and policy-why wouldn't you be bale to?

 

 

[monkeygirl]

 

What can 70 year old people contribute?

What indeed? I'll take this as confirmation that you now oppose the current policy of chain migration.

 

 

 

Green cards for people who don't work for Sessions new ICE deportation force for illegal immigration!

 

Civics lesson for the day:

 

Sessions isn't in charge of ICE. They're under the Department of Homeland Security.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/joke

[Poe Dameron]

This wasn't a case about a singer. It was a case about baking a cake.

 

Do you feel like addressing why a singer has the option and a baker would not?

 

Would you have any issues with a singer refusing to perform at a gay wedding ceremony?

 

 

 

This isn't a court of law.

 

I didn't make a legal point in the last post. So...

 

 

 

He claims it does. You and him believing it does not make it so.

 

Is there any basis for doubt? He literally put his livelihood on the line when he turned the couple down.

 

 

 

I can't shoe-horn this into a religious belief in any way.

 

You don't believe there is a single religion being practiced in the country which includes prohibitions on profiting from a ceremony celebrating and endorsing a practice that the religion believes to be a sin?

 

I will inform you now that they are common.

 

 

 

Can *you* draw that line for me and explain how baking a cake is akin to having same-sex relations?

 

I can easily draw a straight line between participating in something and giving it a tacit endorsement and even culpability. "I was just following orders" does not completely absolve a person for their participation in something.

 

 

 

What those who purchase it intend to use it for is irrelevant in my opinion.

 

So, would it be irrelevant for a baker who is commissioned to bake an erotic cake? A pro-neo-Nazi cake? A cake with a Duke Blue Devil on it when the baker is a N. Carolina alumni?

 

Also, monkeygirl's personal opinion and interpretation of religious doctrine is irrelevant. Every faith and practitioner is different.

 

 

 

and yes, you CAN separate if you're drafting laws and policy-why wouldn't you be bale to?

 

Because the two are tied together.

 

 

 

https://www.merriam-...dictionary/joke

 

And yet she felt the need to defend the statement.

[Metropolis]

I seriously hope Omarosa makes a lot of money from this book, because her tapes are making HER look bad. It would be a wonder if anyone would ever hire her for anything. Maybe her husband can support both of them. All the best people though....

[Ms. Spam]

I care. HA! I meant to come back and respond to Poe but I don't want to get bogged down in meaningless-isms.

 

I read James Comey book but it was a library checkout so no money was given beyond what my tax dollars went to pay for purchasing said book for the library. I will not read Omarosa's book. Hillary's book on how she lost the election was sad. Tell all books now remind me of how we used to say on this very website that we cannot judge Obama until his presidency is over.

[James Madison]

'It seems silly until the government forces you to endorse something that goes against your principles."

 

Baking a cake doesn't go against anybody's principles. Especially a baker's.

 

"There were polygamy laws in the United States dating back before the birth of Joseph Smith. The Mormons were controversial because they went against those long-established laws and customs, not the other way around."

 

Your point was that legal polygamy is not a case of religious bias because it's secular in nature. Had nothing to do with the timing of laws. This has little bearing on why polygamy remains illegal in the USA in 2018.

 

 

'ideas become government policy one way or another and it's impossible to disentangle the two.'

 

Not really. When an idea for government policy is floated, you determine if it is something that came from religious text, doctrine or dogma. I don't see this as difficult-not sure why you do.

 

"Problem is, none of us can ever know for sure besides you, but you refuse to clarify."

 

Directed to Tank, but responding anyway. We *do* clarify, over and over. You refuse to accept any words that are not perfectly framed and weighted for a legal proceedings. Were just here to discuss and share ideas.

Baking a cake doesn't go against anybody's principles. Especially a baker's.

Says you, but you tread in dangerous and perilous waters by telling other people what does or doesnt go against their principles. Simply, there is not a damn rational basis for you to tell other people what they believe is against their principles.

 

Your point was that legal polygamy is not a case of religious bias because it's secular in nature. Had nothing to do with the timing of laws. This has little bearing on why polygamy remains illegal in the USA in 2018.

 

Interesting point, tell me, what evidence exists today to support your inference polygamy remains illegal because of a desire to discriminate against Mormons?

 

There are rational reasons, unrelated to any animus towards Mormons, that justify a prohibition of ploygamy. One such justification is single marriage family unit can be better provided for financially, and this logically includes division of property, money, wealth, and assets post divorce. Divison of property, money, wealth, assets, and inheritance rights to those very things, is easier with a single marriage, especially in absence of a will.

 

Not really. When an idea for government policy is floated, you determine if it is something that came from religious text, doctrine or dogma. I don't see this as difficult-not sure why you do.

Ok, so, in my example, the law providing public assistance to the poor violates your rule above, since the law owes its existence to the Catholic legislator who proposed the law because Jesus, in the Bible, said help the poor.

 

While that example violates your rule above, the violation defies common sense. The rationale of policy...is something that came from religious text, doctrine, or dogma, leads to some absurd outcomes, like that in my example, which strongly suggests the rule you espouse is flawed.

 

Another example of laws that would violate your rule are those laws targeting slavery in the North, some of which were undoubtedly inspired by a religious belief slavery was a sin, an immoral act.

 

The better test is to ask what the law itself is doing, and what the law itself says, after all what constitutes as the law is what is written in the statute and what the statute says, and not what motivated the legislator to propose the legislation.

 

We *do* clarify, over and over. You refuse to accept any words that are not perfectly framed and weighted for a legal proceedings. Were just here to discuss and share ideas

Funny, because other posters have missed this clarification, a possible indication no clarification occurred. In fact, the clarification is conspicuously absent.

 

And theres no such thing as perfectly framed, and Im making no such demand. Instead, what Ive asked for is sensible in any dialogue, vague, ambiguous, and nebulous words and phrases need to be explained. Ideas cannot properly be discussed when those very ideas are shrouded in the obscuring clouds of vagueness and ambiguity.

 

As Socrates so famously opined,The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.

'It seems silly until the government forces you to endorse something that goes against your principles."

 

Baking a cake doesn't go against anybody's principles. Especially a baker's.

 

"There were polygamy laws in the United States dating back before the birth of Joseph Smith. The Mormons were controversial because they went against those long-established laws and customs, not the other way around."

 

Your point was that legal polygamy is not a case of religious bias because it's secular in nature. Had nothing to do with the timing of laws. This has little bearing on why polygamy remains illegal in the USA in 2018.

 

 

'ideas become government policy one way or another and it's impossible to disentangle the two.'

 

Not really. When an idea for government policy is floated, you determine if it is something that came from religious text, doctrine or dogma. I don't see this as difficult-not sure why you do.

 

"Problem is, none of us can ever know for sure besides you, but you refuse to clarify."

 

Directed to Tank, but responding anyway. We *do* clarify, over and over. You refuse to accept any words that are not perfectly framed and weighted for a legal proceedings. Were just here to discuss and share ideas.

Baking a cake doesn't go against anybody's principles. Especially a baker's.

Says you, but you tread in dangerous and perilous waters by telling other people what does or doesnt go against their principles. Simply, there is not a damn rational basis for you to tell other people what they believe is against their principles.

 

Your point was that legal polygamy is not a case of religious bias because it's secular in nature. Had nothing to do with the timing of laws. This has little bearing on why polygamy remains illegal in the USA in 2018.

 

Interesting point, tell me, what evidence exists today to support your inference polygamy remains illegal because of a desire to discriminate against Mormons?

 

There are rational reasons, unrelated to any animus towards Mormons, that justify a prohibition of ploygamy. One such justification is single marriage family unit can be better provided for financially, and this logically includes division of property, money, wealth, and assets post divorce. Divison of property, money, wealth, assets, and inheritance rights to those very things, is easier with a single marriage, especially in absence of a will.

 

Not really. When an idea for government policy is floated, you determine if it is something that came from religious text, doctrine or dogma. I don't see this as difficult-not sure why you do.

Ok, so, in my example, the law providing public assistance to the poor violates your rule above, since the law owes its existence to the Catholic legislator who proposed the law because Jesus, in the Bible, said help the poor.

 

While that example violates your rule above, the violation defies common sense. The rationale of policy...is something that came from religious text, doctrine, or dogma, leads to some absurd outcomes, like that in my example, which strongly suggests the rule you espouse is flawed.

 

Another example of laws that would violate your rule are those laws targeting slavery in the North, some of which were undoubtedly inspired by a religious belief slavery was a sin, an immoral act.

 

The better test is to ask what the law itself is doing, and what the law itself says, after all what constitutes as the law is what is written in the statute and what the statute says, and not what motivated the legislator to propose the legislation.

 

We *do* clarify, over and over. You refuse to accept any words that are not perfectly framed and weighted for a legal proceedings. Were just here to discuss and share ideas

Funny, because other posters have missed this clarification, a possible indication no clarification occurred. In fact, the clarification is conspicuously absent.

 

And theres no such thing as perfectly framed, and Im making no such demand. Instead, what Ive asked for is sensible in any dialogue, vague, ambiguous, and nebulous words and phrases need to be explained. Ideas cannot properly be discussed when those very ideas are shrouded in the obscuring clouds of vagueness and ambiguity.

 

As Socrates so famously opined,The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.

[monkeygirl]

"Do you feel like addressing why a singer has the option and a baker would not?"

 

Not at this time. I prefer to stick to what's already happened rather than explore the hypotheticals.

 

"Is there any basis for doubt?"

 

Yes. I still don't see how baking a cake is equal to participating in gay sex.

 

"... you tread in dangerous and perilous waters by telling other people what does or doesnt go against their principles. Simply, there is not a damn rational basis for you to tell other people what they believe is against their principles."

 

There is in this case. The baker claims is goes against his Christian principles to bake this cake. The Bible is where those principles are enumerated and I've never seen a word about not baking a cake for a gay wedding reception in any version of any bible I read. I'd think any Christian would consider the bible a 'damn rational basis', wouldn't you?

 

'You don't believe there is a single religion being practiced in the country which includes prohibitions on profiting from a ceremony celebrating and endorsing a practice that the religion believes to be a sin?"

 

I've asked you nicely to not twist my words, Timmy and here we are AGAIN...I don't believe there is an organized religion in this country that declares the baking of a cake for a reception to be a sin. Baking a cake is not endorsing a practice.

 

"what evidence exists today to support your inference polygamy remains illegal because of a desire to discriminate against Mormons"

 

Let's see-it's illegal and it's practiced almost entirely by Mormons....Ease of division of property? SERIOUSLY? THIS is why you think polygamy is still illegal?

 

"Ok, so, in my example....'

 

 

yeah, going to stick to real-life here again, thanks.

[Guest]

This is in the running for the least productive debate in the history of Nightly. And that says a lot.

 

Poe, monkeygirl isn't going to get over her anti-Christian beliefs enough to have an honest debate.

 

monkeygirl, Poe has never been wrong about anything.

 

But, please, keep pounding your heads against the pavement.

[Guest]

One other point: a minority of Christians believe in Sola scriptura, and an even smaller minority would agree with your interpretation of it, monkeygirl. But, please, keep explaining things that you don't understand or care to learn about. It's better than the Marx Brothers.

[Poe Dameron]

Not at this time. I prefer to stick to what's already happened rather than explore the hypotheticals.

 

Now who's being legalistic?

 

 

 

Yes. I still don't see how baking a cake is equal to participating in gay sex.

 

You've moved the goalpost and built a strawman. No one said the two are equal or the same thing.

 

 

 

I've asked you nicely to not twist my words, Timmy and here we are AGAIN...I don't believe there is an organized religion in this country that declares the baking of a cake for a reception to be a sin. Baking a cake is not endorsing a practice.

 

I didn't twist your words. You seem adamant, and are repeating within this very same sentence, that there is no organized religion that disagrees with your personal interpretation that baking the cake is in keeping faith with their religion.

 

It's hard to see how you don't realize that you're literally trying to speak for every single one of the 300 million citizens of the United States.

 

 

 

Let's see-it's illegal and it's practiced almost entirely by Mormons....Ease of division of property? SERIOUSLY? THIS is why you think polygamy is still illegal?

 

I rather like Mormons and I wouldn't legalize polygamy either. While in theory it shouldn't be a problem, in practice it's highly problematic and subject to abuse of women.

 

 

 

yeah, going to stick to real-life here again, thanks.

 

I hear arguments like James Madison's example all the time in favor of such things. Here's one I found from John Kerry in like 30 seconds of Googling.

 

''As a Christian, as a Catholic, I think hard about those responsibilities that are moral and how you translate them into public life," the Massachusetts senator said at a rally yesterday in support of Mayor Bob Baines, a Democrat running for reelection.

 

''There is not anywhere in the three-year ministry of Jesus Christ, anything that remotely suggests -- not one miracle, not one parable, not one utterance -- that says you ought to cut children's healthcare or take money from the poorest people in our nation to give it to the wealthiest people in our nation," he said.

 

For that matter, I hear them on the right quite often as well.

[Marc DuQuesne]

Let's see-it's illegal and it's practiced almost entirely by Mormons....Ease of division of property? SERIOUSLY? THIS is why you think polygamy is still illegal?

There are more Muslim polygamists in the US now than Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (50,000-100,000 Muslims practicing polygamy, FLDS has less than 10,000 members). The mainstream Mormons gave that up a long time ago. The Muslim ones get winked at. Not helping your point. That isn't one of the "hypothetical" scenarios you are so ****ing scared of. How do you feel about that?

[monkeygirl]

'But, please, keep explaining things that you don't understand or care to learn about.

 

what are you referring to?

[monkeygirl]

'Now who's being legalistic?'

 

You are. Exploring hypothetical situations is to establish legal precedents, isn't it?

 

'You've moved the goalpost and built a strawman. No one said the two are equal or the same thing.'

 

I didn't realize I've been so productive! It's been claimed here that baking a cake is the same as endorsing something that goes against this baker's principles or religious beliefs of both. I maintain the baking of a cake is not the same as endorsing something like a gay union-(the basis of what Christian religions object to is the act of sex with toe same-sex humans.)

 

"...you're literally trying to speak for every single one of the 300 million citizens of the United States." Are they all HERE?? I'm not literally speaking for anyone-even myself-because I'm not speaking; I am typing.

 

'I hear arguments like James Madison's example all the time in favor of such things'

 

okay...? Good for you?

[monkeygirl]

This is in the running for the least productive debate in the history of Nightly. And that says a lot.

 

Poe, monkeygirl isn't going to get over her anti-Christian beliefs enough to have an honest debate.

 

monkeygirl, Poe has never been wrong about anything.

 

But, please, keep pounding your heads against the pavement.

Don't like it? Don't read it. Pretty simple solution.

[Ms. Spam]

 

Let's see-it's illegal and it's practiced almost entirely by Mormons....Ease of division of property? SERIOUSLY? THIS is why you think polygamy is still illegal?

There are more Muslim polygamists in the US now than Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (50,000-100,000 Muslims practicing polygamy, FLDS has less than 10,000 members). The mainstream Mormons gave that up a long time ago. The Muslim ones get winked at. Not helping your point. That isn't one of the "hypothetical" scenarios you are so ****ing scared of. How do you feel about that?

 

DAMN!

[monkeygirl]

 

Let's see-it's illegal and it's practiced almost entirely by Mormons....Ease of division of property? SERIOUSLY? THIS is why you think polygamy is still illegal?

There are more Muslim polygamists in the US now than Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (50,000-100,000 Muslims practicing polygamy, FLDS has less than 10,000 members). The mainstream Mormons gave that up a long time ago. The Muslim ones get winked at. Not helping your point. That isn't one of the "hypothetical" scenarios you are so ****ing scared of. How do you feel about that?

 

It appears the demographics are changing. It still doesn't explain why polygamy remains illegal.

 

Why do you think I'm '****ing scared' of hypothetical situations? That's an awfully strange thing to just assume. I only wish to stay on topic