The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Thomkal]

An article written in the Atlantic helps explain it. Not really "the" impeachment, but the House Judiciary Dems say the Constitution gives them the power to begin the impeachment process:


Why We're Moving Forward With Impeachment - The Atlantic

[JPhillips]

I really don't care much about impeachment, but there has to be extensive investigation into all of the ethical and criminal lapses with this admin. If an impeachment inquiry is how to get there, fine, but the investigations are much more important to me than an impeachment vote.

[PilotMan]

You know, the emails from the WH used to be about how America was being helped and improved, and under this guy, it's ALL about how trump himself is helping everyone. It's gone from American successes to praise for the American Hero who is everyone's savior. It's rather subtle, but very distinct.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I really don't care much about impeachment, but there has to be extensive investigation into all of the ethical and criminal lapses with this admin. If an impeachment inquiry is how to get there, fine, but the investigations are much more important to me than an impeachment vote.

Not sure I agree that its more important than impeachment, but yeah definitely has to be investigations into just about every Cabinet position, and none of them should be allowed to hold a govt. position/run for federal office ever again. The worse part will be when they all leave office and we start finding out some of the stuff they have been hiding.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Both of those issues, whose interpretations are highly questionable in the first place, collectively take up about 3-4 paragraphs worth of the New Testament if I recall.

I don't think this is a particularly strong point. I don't recall any treatises in the Bible about the Fairness Doctrine, global warming, privacy, or nuclear weapons either. I think trying to decide what political platforms are 'more Christian' is a very dangerous game. I think the NT is quite clear on essential matters, but those tend to be limited to core doctrines; i.e. what is a believer/disciple, how should a Christian live, those kinds of thing. Going beyond that dogmatically is very rarely justified IMO. Jesus spent basically zero time from what I recall engaging in political activism vis a vis the Romans, because, well, as he put it his kingdom was and is not of this world.

On the whole 'voting your pocketbook' thing, I guess I'm just weird. I've always felt I had a civic duty to vote for what was best for the whole country - and in recent decades, broadened that to what's best for humanity as a whole even if it's not best for the nation I live in. I've never cast a vote in the hopes that it would improve my personal bottom line. I always thought that was a very selfish approach and one that would merely justify the critiques leveled by Marx, Mussolini, etc.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Not sure I agree that its more important than impeachment, but yeah definitely has to be investigations into just about every Cabinet position, and none of them should be allowed to hold a govt. position/run for federal office ever again. The worse part will be when they all leave office and we start finding out some of the stuff they have been hiding.

I'm not sure I'll throw 100% of them under the bus. I think Mnuchin, Pompeo, Perry & some of the ones who've already left (Tillerson, Kelly, Mattis, Haley) might be alright. Zinke & Pruitt were probably the most corrupt outside of Trump himself, and I'm not sure how Acosta & Devos are still around.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't think this is a particularly strong point. I don't recall any treatises in the Bible about the Fairness Doctrine, global warming, privacy, or nuclear weapons either. I think trying to decide what political platforms are 'more Christian' is a very dangerous game. I think the NT is quite clear on essential matters, but those tend to be limited to core doctrines; i.e. what is a believer/disciple, how should a Christian live, those kinds of thing. Going beyond that dogmatically is very rarely justified IMO.

I don't think it's anywhere near that tough: Modern Democrats are pushing several core common policies that obviously conform to core Christian beliefs which are absolutely defined in the Bible (providing healthcare, helping the needy, forgiving debt and reducing military spending), and modern Republicans have zero core common policies or platforms that meet that same standard & many that directly contradict those same core values. The end.

If anybody can correct my view please do, if you can't the point seems rock solid.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Had to look it up. They do vote their pocketbooks too according to this link on Swedish voters.

Digging into the Pocketbook: Evidence on Economic Voting from Income Registry Data Matched to a Voter Survey

And yet, have voted for things we would consider "far left" (and then some). I think making the statement that voters in a democratic society are too self interested to vote for left policies to be not the case.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'm not sure I'll throw 100% of them under the bus. I think Mnuchin, Pompeo, Perry & some of the ones who've already left (Tillerson, Kelly, Mattis, Haley) might be alright. Zinke & Pruitt were probably the most corrupt outside of Trump himself, and I'm not sure how Acosta & Devos are still around.

Acosta resigned last month. I agree that Zinke and Pruitt were the most corrupt, but almost all of them ignored their ethics advisor and there should be a price to pay for that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'm not sure I'll throw 100% of them under the bus. I think Mnuchin, Pompeo, Perry & some of the ones who've already left (Tillerson, Kelly, Mattis, Haley) might be alright. Zinke & Pruitt were probably the most corrupt outside of Trump himself, and I'm not sure how Acosta & Devos are still around.

Wilbur Ross is quite likely the most corrupt of them all, but Elaine Chao is in the running.

Mnuchin isn't anywhere close to clean. In a normal admin he'd probably be run out of office already for his corruption.

Somehow Rick Perry became the ethically clean, competent, unobjectionable guy.

[Edward64]

Looks like the US strong armed Guatemala to do this. I guess it should work to reduce number of undocumented if implemented but sounds as if there is enough controversy in Guatemala.

I'm all for sending more aid to Guatemala to support this. In 2017, it was about $257M. Heck, send a couple billion in targeted aid to help them grow their economy, businesses/farms etc. to support this policy.

Trump seeks to reduce asylum claims by designating Guatemala “safe� - Vox

On Friday afternoon, the US and Guatemala signed an agreement that will direct Central American migrants who pass through Guatemala hoping to seek asylum in the United States to first apply for protection in Guatemala instead. Those who travel to the US without applying for asylum in Guatemala could be removed by US border officials to that country.

According to a new rule implemented by the Trump administration earlier this month, people seeking asylum at the US border will be turned away if they passed through another safe country — a “safe third country,” as they are called — before reaching the United States.
:
:
Trump celebrated the treaty as a victory on Friday, calling it a “landmark agreement” that will “put the coyotes and smugglers out of business.”

Morales was less optimistic, saying on social media on Friday that the deal will help Guatemala to escape “drastic sanctions.”
:
:
The pressure on Guatemala stems in part from the recent US-Mexico deal that sent 6,000 members of Mexico’s National Guard to that country’s southern border, shared with Guatemala. That deal, too, resulted in part from a threat of high tariffs on Mexican imports. According to Reuters, Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s foreign minister, called on other countries, including neighboring Guatemala, to do their part following Mexico entering that agreement.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Modern Democrats are pushing several core common policies that obviously conform to core Christian beliefs which are absolutely defined in the Bible (providing healthcare, helping the needy, forgiving debt and reducing military spending), and modern Republicans have zero core common policies or platforms that meet that same standard & many that directly contradict those same core values. The end.

I would only call one of those - helping the needy - a core Christian belief. Where are the others found in the Bible? And even then it's not an essential on the level of the things I was talking about. No question it's a clear teaching, but I don't see the other three you mentioned there. And with respect to helping the needy, the teaching is about how individual disciples should behave, or how believers as a whole should behave.

Contrasting with that, modern political policies such as those you describe are about taxing everybody, believer and unbeliever alike, in support of such an agenda. And that's where we get back into the part where Jesus didn't spend any time criticizing Roman authority because that wasn't what he was here to do. Peter and Paul instructed that we should submit to all authorities … and one of them they were talking about was Nero, generally considered one of the worst tyrants in ancient history. Paul wrote about the idea that it's not the church's place to judge those outside the church, something many believe should be kept in mind. Anytime you vote for a new law, you're voting to tell other people what they can and can't do. This concept is why there is a school of thought that holds that government should maximize economic and political liberty rather than focus on engineering specific societal results, so as to have a stance of humility and respect towards all people including those who don't hold Christian worldviews. The OT prophets talk a lot about economic justice (speaking to believers once again), while the OT also provides for a lot of things like extensive private property rights and so on.

Bottom line is that I think it's a very open question what Jesus would have thought of various modern political systems. Not a question that Christians should aim to be charitable and help others, esp. those less fortunate/widows/prisoners/etc., but private action and the broader political realm are two very different things.

[thesloppy]

I honestly don't know how (or why) I should argue against the suggestion that healing the sick, the forgiveness of debt and peace among men aren't clear Biblical principals.

Regardless, you gave me one point for the Democrats at the very least, and we can argue all day about how and why each particular Democratic principal fails your particular litmus test, while the counter for core Christian Republican values is still sitting squarely at zero. That's still the cogent point and it's not getting any weaker, no matter how much dust you kick around it.

[QuikSand]

The video is worth the time to watch through. I know nobody (white) really wants to stand up for Baltimore, and while that's symptomatic it's also understandable I suppose, but the way Trump speaks about minorities just drips with revulsion. I cannot stand this man. And the millions of people who just abide this make me sick.

Yashar Ali � on Twitter: "Drop everything you're doing and watch this....

cc: @VictorBlackwell… "

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The video is worth the time to watch through. I know nobody (white) really wants to stand up for Baltimore, and while that's symptomatic it's also understandable I suppose, but the way Trump speaks about minorities just drips with revulsion. I cannot stand this man. And the millions of people who just abide this make me sick.

Yashar Ali � on Twitter: "Drop everything you're doing and watch this....

cc: @VictorBlackwell… "

And shit like this why the GOP is considered the party of racists and it's not something that's going to go away when Trump leaves office unless something is actively done to take the party back. Sitting back and hoping dems show up to vote him out of office isn't going to be enough to get rid of the damage he's caused.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The video is worth the time to watch through. I know nobody (white) really wants to stand up for Baltimore, and while that's symptomatic it's also understandable I suppose, but the way Trump speaks about minorities just drips with revulsion. I cannot stand this man. And the millions of people who just abide this make me sick.

Yashar Ali � on Twitter: "Drop everything you're doing and watch this....

cc: @VictorBlackwell… "

*yawn*

And Trump dangles the keys again to get everyone's attention.

Why talk about something like the election security bill that the republicans refuse to pass when we can talk about yet another offensive tweet.

Trump has CNN wrapped all around his tiny finger.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

you gave me one point for the Democrats at the very least, and we can argue all day about how and why each particular Democratic principal fails your particular litmus test, while the counter for core Christian Republican values is still sitting squarely at zero. That's still the cogent point and it's not getting any weaker, no matter how much dust you kick around it

Referring to the first statement here, no actually I didn't. That's contradicted by what I wrote. As to why you should argue about it - um because you're the one who brought it up? The how's pretty simple - if you wished, you could cite passages that back up your point. Seems strange to me to bring up an assertion and then not want to defend it. Do as you like of course, but as for me I maintain that neither party owns biblical fidelity and core Christian values are, by their very nature, apolitical.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

*yawn*

And Trump dangles the keys again to get everyone's attention.

I was thinking this.

Many other things to talk about vs a Pavlovian reaction to Trump's stupid tweets by CNN and MSNBC (and by Fox).

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

*yawn*

And Trump dangles the keys again to get everyone's attention.

Why talk about something like the election security bill that the republicans refuse to pass when we can talk about yet another offensive tweet.

Trump has CNN wrapped all around his tiny finger.

1.) CNN has covered the election security bill with multiple articles.

2.) Why is it falling on Dem to impeach? Why aren't FOX viewers asking why these more important issues are being ignored or barely covered?

Republican voters put Trump in office and it seems like everyone thinks its the Dems job to undo the mess.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

*yawn*

And Trump dangles the keys again to get everyone's attention.

Why talk about something like the election security bill that the republicans refuse to pass when we can talk about yet another offensive tweet.

Trump has CNN wrapped all around his tiny finger.

The more racist Trump is the lower his poll numbers. He's not being a genius or distracting from more damaging issues. He may fire up 30-40% of voters, but he can't win doing that, and it's much more damaging that talking about legislation.

There are a lot of swing voters that worry about two things, the Dems being too far left and Trump being a terrible person. The more things like this dominate the news, the better for the Dems. It reminds all these voters about why they dislike Trump while simultaneously keeping any possible worries about the Dems out of the news.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Referring to the first statement here, no actually I didn't. That's contradicted by what I wrote. As to why you should argue about it - um because you're the one who brought it up? The how's pretty simple - if you wished, you could cite passages that back up your point. Seems strange to me to bring up an assertion and then not want to defend it. Do as you like of course, but as for me I maintain that neither party owns biblical fidelity and core Christian values are, by their very nature, apolitical.

You didn't explicitly say helping the needy qualified as a core Christian value? In a bubble I'm certainly willing to debate the greater point with just about anybody else, but in my experience you've got a history of making convoluted bad-faith arguments, purposely muddying the waters to the point of absurdity and are currently trying to slide away from suggestions that you can't remember seeing peace, forgiveness or healing in the Bible and extensive property rights and small government are obviously more important Christian values. I feel entirely comfortable leaving you alone on top of that particular mountain declaring yourself the winner.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The more racist Trump is the lower his poll numbers. He's not being a genius or distracting from more damaging issues. He may fire up 30-40% of voters, but he can't win doing that, and it's much more damaging that talking about legislation.

There are a lot of swing voters that worry about two things, the Dems being too far left and Trump being a terrible person. The more things like this dominate the news, the better for the Dems. It reminds all these voters about why they dislike Trump while simultaneously keeping any possible worries about the Dems out of the news.

Trump's poll numbers have been pretty consistent.

How Popular Is Donald Trump? | FiveThirtyEight

And you say that swing voters worry that the Dems are being too far left. Well Trump is trying to make sure that worry stays in people's minds by promoting politicians such as Omar(who is anti-semitic) and AOC(who is a socialist and whose chief of staff wore a shirt featuring a Nazi collaborater).

[thesloppy]

How/why is Omar anti-Semitic?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

core Christian values are, by their very nature, apolitical.

I think Jesus would be pretty shocked by such a statement. Hell, most denominations would be. The Gospel is highly political - maybe not partisan, but it imagines a reordering of society. He and many apostles (including Paul) were crucified for a reason (it's a Roman punishment for treason). It is why many Christian saints throughout history have gotten in trouble with the authorities. We are called to act for justice in the world and that shit is super political.

As part of the other debate, we also are, of course ascribing our views of Church/State separation on books written when that didn't exist. Faith and governance were one and remained as such only until the last few centuries. So if someone was saying the faith needed changing, they were also saying the way people led needed changing (Jesus and the early Christians spoke out against the ruling authorities in their locations - I mean John the Baptist got himself killed for speaking out against King Herod too much).

edit: Now if you want to discuss how Christians should advocate political change or what political change they should advance, that's a different story, but to claim the Gospel is apolitical is laughable.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Trump's poll numbers have been pretty consistent.

How Popular Is Donald Trump? | FiveThirtyEight

And you say that swing voters worry that the Dems are being too far left. Well Trump is trying to make sure that worry stays in people's minds by promoting politicians such as Omar(who is anti-semitic) and AOC(who is a socialist and whose chief of staff wore a shirt featuring a Nazi collaborater).

They have been, but when they've dipped it's been after his statements, like, "on both sides." He would do a lot better if he hammered on policy in relation to Dems, but send them back and no human would live in Baltimore or the western suburbs won't help him.

He got 46% of the vote last time. Some of those people have died, so he has to get new voters just to get to his old vote total. Add in the fact that it's unlikely that 46% would win again and he has to expand. Playing only to his base is a losing strategy, and that's what racist and sexist comments do.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

They have been, but when they've dipped it's been after his statements, like, "on both sides." He would do a lot better if he hammered on policy in relation to Dems, but send them back and no human would live in Baltimore or the western suburbs won't help him.

He got 46% of the vote last time. Some of those people have died, so he has to get new voters just to get to his old vote total. Add in the fact that it's unlikely that 46% would win again and he has to expand. Playing only to his base is a losing strategy, and that's what racist and sexist comments do.

You're 100% correct. His polling has dropped since the beginning of his barrage of racist comments. Pre-comments he had some adjusted polls coming in around the 44% range which would be the highest he's polled at since his first 2 months in office. The more recent polls have been averaging in the 40% range.

Does he have a better play with the hole he's dug over the first 2+ years though? He's going to win the deep red states by a landslide, but he's made no adjustments since the midterms so I'm not sure if he has anything better than drive home us vs them as much as he can and hope for an electoral college miracle. He's an incumbent that has severely limited the number of paths he has to winning in 2020.

The fact that he's not letting up shows this is a calculated plan by his campaign. I'm not ruling out the possibility that they're just trying to keep it close enough for Russia to bail them out.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think Jesus would be pretty shocked by such a statement. Hell, most denominations would be. The Gospel is highly political - maybe not partisan, but it imagines a reordering of society. He and many apostles (including Paul) were crucified for a reason (it's a Roman punishment for treason). It is why many Christian saints throughout history have gotten in trouble with the authorities. We are called to act for justice in the world and that shit is super political.

Is the distinction that Jesus was not political but disciples in NT were?

Interesting discussion topic.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Is the distinction that Jesus was not political but disciples in NT were?

Interesting discussion topic.

Was Jesus not going around proclaiming a completely new social order? Was he not crucified for pissing off the authorities? Mind, saying religious authorities and political authorities are separate was not really a distinction made back then - as saying Jesus is Lord was a direct counter to the Roman Empire, for which saying Caesar is Lord was a common allegiance of affirmation (and of course, as Jesus said, you cannot serve two masters). And of course the Sanhedrin (the assembly of rabbis) was able to sit in judgement by leave of the Roman Governor of the province of Judea.

I will also point out that the disciples were the ones who wrote the Biblical books, so I'd argue their actions seem to indicate what they felt Jesus's words were and the Gospels narrative should be seen through that lens. (also should be noted that Gospels - and Acts of the Apostles, which was basically Luke pt. 2 - were the last books of the Bible to written, aside from Revelation)

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Is the distinction that Jesus was not political but disciples in NT were?

Interesting discussion topic.

As ISiddiqui noted faith and government were the same thing for the Romans. The Caesars & Pharoahs of those times would claim to be literally descendants/mediators of the Gods and that divinity gave them the obvious right to rule, and by suggesting & representing an entirely different (and exclusive) faith Jesus was also necessarily suggesting & representing a different government. How could he not be political?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

The Gospel is highly political - maybe not partisan, but it imagines a reordering of society. He and many apostles (including Paul) were crucified for a reason (it's a Roman punishment for treason).

The accusation against Jesus is that he was King of the Jews. He said that his kingdom was not of this world, and that if it was, his servants would fight. I don't know how you get more clearly apolitical than that. Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. Then you have, as referenced, Paul in Romans 13 saying Christians should obey all authorities and Peter saying the same thing about Nero in I Peter 2.

We do have situations like Peter and John disobeying the Sanhedrin in the Book of Acts, but even there they treated them all with utmost respect. "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20). Only in cases where someone was instructed to break a clear command do you see this.

Acts also tells us that the common people were afraid to associate with the apostles and other believers. They lived communally and apart from nonbelievers - the consistent pattern of the NT is not as I read it seeking a reordering of society, but calling out a holy people (i.e., the church) from society to live a distinct life. II Corinthians 6:14-18 hits this nail on the head with instructions not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, that a Christian has nothing in common with one who is not, come out from among them and be separate, etc. Superficial reform of the unbelieving larger society I see nowhere.

.02

[Edward64]

FWIW. Lots of differing opinions out there.

The Politics of Jesus - Life, Hope & Truth

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The accusation against Jesus is that he was King of the Jews. He said that his kingdom was not of this world, and that if it was, his servants would fight. I don't know how you get more clearly apolitical than that. Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. Then you have, as referenced, Paul in Romans 13 saying Christians should obey all authorities and Peter saying the same thing about Nero in I Peter 2.

Yes, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's! What is not God's?! What does that leave for Caesar? Coins with his face that claim he is divine? The world belongs to God. Jesus is Lord means Caesar is not.

Jesus says when he talks of His kingdom not being from this world that it comes from somewhere else. It comes from the Creator of the world and it will fix the corruption and brokenness of this world.

Paul literally spent multiple times in jail. I doubt he was obeying authorities there. Especially when he was told not to proselytize.

Acts also tells us that the common people were afraid to associate with the apostles and other believers. They lived communally and apart from nonbelievers - the consistent pattern of the NT is not as I read it seeking a reordering of society, but calling out a holy people (i.e., the church) from society to live a distinct life. II Corinthians 6:14-18 hits this nail on the head with instructions not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, that a Christian has nothing in common with one who is not, come out from among them and be separate, etc. Superficial reform of the unbelieving larger society I see nowhere.

And where are these communities getting their members? And where are these communities living? They aren't going out in the wastes and wilds, but are in the cities of Rome!! Paul writes to churches in Corinth and Rome - two big cities in the Roman Empire. Taking from that society and refusing to bow down to the Roman cult - which was required by law, btw.

They were considered such a threat, that Roman emperors Nero and Domitian initiated persecution against them and later, Valerian tried to wipe them out (executing Bishops along the way). You don't do that for minor sects that just are not challenging the status quo.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yes, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's! What is not God's?! What does that leave for Caesar? Coins with his face that claim he is divine? The world belongs to God. Jesus is Lord means Caesar is not.

Jesus says when he talks of His kingdom not being from this world that it comes from somewhere else. It comes from the Creator of the world and it will fix the corruption and brokenness of this world.

Obviously not a scholar. Some articles say this is in reference to the future world. For now, give to Caesar that belongs to him.

I do remember reading and enjoying "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus" which does state Jesus was all political. However, I remember reading reviews of his book essentially saying he overstated things or took things out of context etc.

I don't really know. I can be convinced otherwise but lean towards Jesus himself (vs. his followers afterwards) tried to stay out of politics.

Paul literally spent multiple times in jail. I doubt he was obeying authorities there. Especially when he was told not to proselytize.

And where are these communities getting their members? And where are these communities living? They aren't going out in the wastes and wilds, but are in the cities of Rome!! Paul writes to churches in Corinth and Rome - two big cities in the Roman Empire. Taking from that society and refusing to bow down to the Roman cult - which was required by law, btw.

They were considered such a threat, that Roman emperors Nero and Domitian initiated persecution against them and later, Valerian tried to wipe them out (executing Bishops along the way). You don't do that for minor sects that just are not challenging the status quo.

... but not his disciples after he was crucified. And hence, my query whether a distinction should be made between Jesus' sayings/teaching and what happened after his death.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Obviously not a scholar. Some articles say this is in reference to the future world. For now, give to Caesar that belongs to him.

I don't really know. I can be convinced otherwise but lean towards Jesus himself (vs. his followers afterwards) tried to stay out of politics.

And yet, Jesus gets crucified, because he does not give Caesar everything of his day. He does not accept moneychangers at the Temple. He does not accept the religious laws that are enforced by those the Emperor has allowed to exercise authority. Pilate is concerned that he is referred to as a King... and even though Jesus tells him My kingdom is from somewhere else, the Romans still nail "King of the Jews" to his cross - as if to show this person they considered seditious was getting his by the state.

And if most of His followers (who were there when He was alive - well aside from Paul) are trying to change their society after His death, then maybe He touched on the issue a time or two...

edit: I think the ancient setting throws people off here. Consider this, the US Government allows the Southern Baptist Convention to enforce religious laws in the Southeast US and issue punishments for their violation (but the death penalty is reserved for the Governors of those States). And then this guy starts going around saying this is bullshit and deliberately starts violating religious laws even though those are the laws of the land. And hangs out with the people in violation of the SBC's legal pronouncements. Those would be, of course, political acts! It is standing against laws considered unjust. (And then add in the US Government in this case considers itself a divinely led rule and its President is descended from God and the person instead asks allegiance to Him over the President)

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Acosta resigned last month. I agree that Zinke and Pruitt were the most corrupt, but almost all of them ignored their ethics advisor and there should be a price to pay for that.

Wikipedia lied to me?!? Seriously I must've missed the Acosta news during a busy month, my bad. Interesting Scalia's son is the acting head - hopefully he has the same intellect & backbone his dad did.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Wilbur Ross is quite likely the most corrupt of them all, but Elaine Chao is in the running.

Mnuchin isn't anywhere close to clean. In a normal admin he'd probably be run out of office already for his corruption.

Somehow Rick Perry became the ethically clean, competent, unobjectionable guy.

I may be grading Mnuchin on a curve, but for a handpicked Trump friendly Wall Street guy he at least seems competent & willing to hide any corruption.

Yeah, Perry falls in the category with Pence, Ben Carson, even Jeff Sessions where I disagree ideologically with them, but I think they shouldn't be allowed to hold office because they're dumb, not because they're corrupt.

[thesloppy]

Ironically, even if you want to believe that Christian and Biblical values are necessarily individual and entirely apolitical doesn't the Democratic party obviously also represent THAT particular belief better than the modern GOP?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Wikipedia lied to me?!? Seriously I must've missed the Acosta news during a busy month, my bad. Interesting Scalia's son is the acting head - hopefully he has the same intellect & backbone his dad did.
I may be grading Mnuchin on a curve, but for a handpicked Trump friendly Wall Street guy he at least seems competent & willing to hide any corruption.

Yeah, Perry falls in the category with Pence, Ben Carson, even Jeff Sessions where I disagree ideologically with them, but I think they shouldn't be allowed to hold office because they're dumb, not because they're corrupt.

Mnuchin is nowhere near the worst, but in normal times his actions would be scandals that could force him from office.

Carson is also corrupt. He's been caught a couple of times with lavish spending of federal funds. Again, in normal times he might have been forced to resign, but in this circus he fits right in.

[Thomkal]

Dan Coats out as the Director of National Intelligence. Thankfully we don't get Nunes as a replacement, but instead a Republican congressman from Texas, John Ratcliffe. Amongst other reasons he liked what he said to Mueller during his hearing.

[JPhillips]

I don't want to glorify Coats, after all he's the guy that "investigated" the Clintons by shooting watermelons in his back yard, but at this point, he at least seemed to put loyalty to the nation above loyalty to Trump. Ratcliffe is completely unqualified and likely to roll back the election protections being pushed by Coats.

The GOP is quite openly opening the doors to foreign assistance in the 2020 election and this just fits the pattern.

[cuervo72]

Nobody circles the wagons like the rejected-as-owner of the Buffalo Bills.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Dan Coats out as the Director of National Intelligence. Thankfully we don't get Nunes as a replacement, but instead a Republican congressman from Texas, John Ratcliffe. Amongst other reasons he liked what he said to Mueller during his hearing.

Ratcliffe is your crazy uncle that pedals conspiracy theories in your emails/Facebook.

[Thomkal]

Nunes was apparently offered the job but turned it down, but he would want an Intel job like CIA Director if Trump gets re-elected. Reason #infinity for Trump not to be reelected

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Jesus gets crucified, because he does not give Caesar everything of his day. He does not accept moneychangers at the Temple. He does not accept the religious laws that are enforced by those the Emperor has allowed to exercise authority. Pilate is concerned that he is referred to as a King... and even though Jesus tells him My kingdom is from somewhere else, the Romans still nail "King of the Jews" to his cross - as if to show this person they considered seditious was getting his by the state.

I think we've been talking past each other on most of the things we've been saying. After considering how to hopefully respond productively to your points, I've concluded that this might be a good example of it.

From the perspective above, how do you explain Pilate's reaction to Jesus? Based on what you've said here, you'd think Pilate would have taken one look at the situation and basically said 'Crucify this traitor, the only problem is that you didn't bring him to me sooner!'. Instead he actually says:

Originally Posted by Luke 23:14-16(ESV)

You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him. Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him.

Multiple times Pilate argues that Jesus hasn't committed a capital crime, which is a completely ridiculous thing for him to say if in fact Jesus is considered a threat to Roman power and authority. He proclaims 'Why? What evil has he done '(v. 22) which demonstrates that he didn't buy the trumped-up charges brought by the Sanhedrin. One of the criminals crucified with Jesus even backed that up, declaring that 'this man has done nothing wrong' in contrast with the two of them (v. 41). The King of the Jews appellation seems clearly to be a mocking derision kind of thing, both in the immediate context (vv. 35-38) in which they were mocking Jesus at the time, and also the larger one in which the Romans did not at all, in any way, make a determination that Jesus was seditious. He was crucified to satisfy the Jews according to the biblical account, not because he was considered a threat to Rome.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

*yawn*

And Trump dangles the keys again to get everyone's attention.

Why talk about something like the election security bill that the republicans refuse to pass when we can talk about yet another offensive tweet.

Trump has CNN wrapped all around his tiny finger.

Kind of a big deal when a President trashes a city he took an oath to protect and insinuates black people aren't human beings.

[albionmoonlight]

500 - Internal Server Error

Immigration officers detain a U.S. Citizen who was carrying her U.S. Passport and detain her for 32 hours because she gave "inconsistent information" when questioned.

She is nine years old.

You either work to vote out this administration or you don't.

I'm pretty much over the pseudo-intellectual analysis like "Of course the warrentless detention of United States Citizen children on the basis of their race is problematic, but I'm not sure that paragraph 3 on page 7 of Julian Castro's tax plan speaks to me, personally, so really, both sides are just as bad here."

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

500 - Internal Server Error

Immigration officers detain a U.S. Citizen who was carrying her U.S. Passport and detain her for 32 hours because she gave "inconsistent information" when questioned.

She is nine years old.

You either work to vote out this administration or you don't.

I'm pretty much over the pseudo-intellectual analysis like "Of course the warrentless detention of United States Citizen children on the basis of their race is problematic, but I'm not sure that paragraph 3 on page 7 of Julian Castro's tax plan speaks to me, personally, so really, both sides are just as bad here."

My son is 9. Thinking of him being in a situation like this makes me want to puke. Granted, would never happen because he is a white, upper middle class kid. This is a problem

[panerd]

Didn't we talk about this already when it happened 4 months ago? Not that it isn't a sad story or that Trump isn't an asshole but not sure what the need is to post old stories out of the blue.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by panerd

Didn't we talk about this already when it happened 4 months ago? Not that it isn't a sad story or that Trump isn't an asshole but not sure what the need is to post old stories out of the blue.

I had no idea this happened 4 months ago. The fact that it wasn't a bigger story is telling with how despicable this administration is that a story like this barely moves the needle.

Any other time this would be a monster story.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Multiple times Pilate argues that Jesus hasn't committed a capital crime, which is a completely ridiculous thing for him to say if in fact Jesus is considered a threat to Roman power and authority. He proclaims 'Why? What evil has he done '(v. 22) which demonstrates that he didn't buy the trumped-up charges brought by the Sanhedrin. One of the criminals crucified with Jesus even backed that up, declaring that 'this man has done nothing wrong' in contrast with the two of them (v. 41). The King of the Jews appellation seems clearly to be a mocking derision kind of thing, both in the immediate context (vv. 35-38) in which they were mocking Jesus at the time, and also the larger one in which the Romans did not at all, in any way, make a determination that Jesus was seditious. He was crucified to satisfy the Jews according to the biblical account, not because he was considered a threat to Rome.

But yet, Rome crucifies him in a manner of death for the rebellious. Do you mean to say that the same Rome, which the greatest military might in the known world, that utterly destroys the Temple 40 years after the dealt of Jesus, would be in fear of a small crowd of the Sanhedrin wanting a prophet killed?

Through separate historical writings (Josephus and Philo) we know that Pilate was a brutal Governor who in 36 AD brutally suppressed a Samaritan movement. The Gospel account shows a very different Pilate than other historical sources show. So quite a number of scholars think the Gospel writers in the late 1st Century AD were trying to minimize Rome's authority here (especially Luke) to help mitigate Roman persecution at the time.

Here is a Professor from Yale Divinity School speaking to that:

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tool...rucified-jesus

Recall that before the Gospels are written, the letters of Paul speak to Jesus being above every Earthly ruler, every knee should bow, above all the powers and principalities of this world. Christians in AD 50-70 are claiming Jesus above Rome. And Rome... well, strikes back. The Temple is destroyed in 70 AD and the Gospels are written a little after that.

There is the other interesting thing - about Barabbas. His name is Jesus Barabbas (some translations take out the Jesus part of his name because it's inconvenient). Barabbas, of course, translates into "Son of the Father" - Bar Abba. So Pilate offers up to the crowd Jesus Son of Joseph (& Mary) or Jesus Son of the Father. Of course there is no historical evidence apart from the Gospels that Roman Governors ever offered up a pardon on Passover. An interesting addition to the text. There is a theory that the choice specified in the Gospels was a fiction - Pilate offering to release Jesus... or Jesus.

Of course this all gets into in depth historical criticism of the Gospel accounts of crucifixition. But we do believe that all the 12 Apostles (after Matthias was selected to replace Judas) were martyred aside from John. And quite a few were crucified (and some upside down as their request). And I'm not sure the Jewish communities were striking fear into Emperor Nero to get him to crucify Christian leaders.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Recall that before the Gospels are written, the letters of Paul speak to Jesus being above every Earthly ruler, every knee should bow, above all the powers and principalities of this world. Christians in AD 50-70 are claiming Jesus above Rome. And Rome... well, strikes back. The Temple is destroyed in 70 AD and the Gospels are written a little after that.

FYI... the Christians.(and there was more than one group of them) were a very small and fringe subset of Jewish society. Rome destroyed the temple because of repeated Jewish rebellions over several decades. Jewish authorities actually managed to wrest control of Israel away for about 3-4 years in the 60s AD, but that was only because Rome was havjng its own issues (Nero) and it takes time to get the news and then get around to responding with a military force. The Christians really had very little to do with this, although I am.certain there were Christians among the Jewish rebels.

By and large, Rome allowed the religions of their vanquished peoples to remain, rather than imposing their own religion. They also generally allow the local authorities to govern themselves, within reason. Bigger issues like taxation for Rome, sedition (active sedition like the Jewish rebellion, not a random prophet in the Gallilee region type of sedition), and crimes against Roman citizens were more the purview of the Roman governors. They left the rest to the locals
From what I have read, Pilate didn't give a rat's butt for the fate of Jesus. He simply accepted that the local Jewish authorities wanted him killed and did so, since he had no dog in the fight and it's easier to acquiesce to such a simple request by a group he has to do business with.