The Trump Presidency – 2016

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

Yeah, I probably should have moved the Temple destruction to another paragraph.

The destruction of the Temple was a big deal for Christians at the time though. Recall the largest 'church' at the time was in Jerusalem. And it seems as though the Gospels know this (the I will demolish the temple and raise it in three days seems to be cognizant of it).

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.

That too.. the equivocating seen in the Gospels seems to be un-Pilate like. Of course he probably wasn't too fond of some guy making a ruckus among the moneychangers in the Temple. Nor some guy whose followers put palm branches before him (a sign of victory or triumph). Pilate may have thought this guy could be trouble for his own rule.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

this all gets into in depth historical criticism of the Gospel accounts of crucifixition

At which point we are no longer talking about what the gospel teaches (the original topic), but whether what the gospel teaches is reliable, which is a horse of a completely different color.

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

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?

Not Rome itself, but Pilate. And it's not about whether I mean to say this - there's been a lot written about why this might be, but it IS what the Bible says, which again was the point originally under discussion.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

there's been a lot written about why this might be, but it IS what the Bible says, which again was the point originally under discussion.

Different denominations read the Bible in different ways. The position I am stating is a common way to read the Bible in Mainline Protestantsm and Catholicism. And therefore reading Scripture is always under the lens of its historic character and in terms of the general themes that run throughout.

Hence, there are a lot of denominations who read Scripture and see the God of the Old Testament, the Prophets, and Jesus the Christ challenging the political underpinnings of society and see that they should follow that role.

[NobodyHere]

You stay classy Donald

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-...1-bill-signing

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

You stay classy Donald

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

The most jaw dropping part of this, to me, was when he insinuated that he was also a first responder but doesn't take credit for it.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Different denominations read the Bible in different ways. The position I am stating is a common way to read the Bible in Mainline Protestantsm and Catholicism. And therefore reading Scripture is always under the lens of its historic character and in terms of the general themes that run throughout.

If you take that to the point of adopting a view that is contrary to that presented in the Bible from the central elements of Jesus life (events leading up to his death in this case), my question is why use the Bible at all? We're not talking about issues such as whether Job was a real historical figure or an allegorical tale here. If I were to believe that the Bible lied about what Pilate said here, I sure wouldn't be able to trust it when it tells me that Jesus has the power to save me from my sins or that he rose from the dead. I would necessarily need to become an agnostic for reasons of basic rationality. This very debate we're having points up the importance of that, because we can have no confidence we're doing what Jesus would actually have us do if we can't trust the accounts of his life to be a reasonably accurate portrayal of his teachings.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

If you take that to the point of adopting a view that is contrary to that presented in the Bible from the central elements of Jesus life (events leading up to his death in this case), my question is why use the Bible at all? We're not talking about issues such as whether Job was a real historical figure or an allegorical tale here. If I were to believe that the Bible lied about what Pilate said here, I sure wouldn't be able to trust it when it tells me that Jesus has the power to save me from my sins or that he rose from the dead. I would necessarily need to become an agnostic for reasons of basic rationality.

Because we can realize that Biblical authors may exaggerate or twist the telling a bit to make a point. History wasn't about putting down the facts exactly back then - it was about making a moral point. The Gospels were to spread the Good News (which is what Gospel translate to). That doesn't mean we don't have faith about Jesus's salvic action or physical resurrection.

I mean we (well most Christians) don't necessarily believe in a literal 6 day Creation either, acknowledging it's mytho-poetic narrative. We don't believe the Earth is the center of the Universe. Most of us don't believe that God ordered genocide either, acknowledging the writers of Biblical text took some liberties with what they witness of God's actions in the world (Heck, John Calvin called Genesis "God's babytalk").

We can know certain things are true while also acknowledging that the accounts are exaggerated and created for proselytizing. That may not past the test of basic rationality for you, but I've never seen faith as all that rational - and that's the strength of it, especially in a world that worships hyper-rationality.

[RainMaker]

America First!

Trump aide submitted drafts of 2016 'America First' energy speech to UAE for edits, emails show - ABC News

[bbgunn]

So, um... when do we start attacking Russia for its repeated and apparently ongoing efforts to undermine our elections?

Had cyberwarfare existed in the 1950s and or 1960s and the USSR did this, we would have been considering nuclear strikes. We almost went to war over the Bay of Pigs.

This is the most frustrating part of all of this.
Democrats - Trump obstructed justice and maybe colluded with Russia. Impeachment?
Republicans - Hoax, witch hunt. Mueller and his team of Dems. No obstruction, no collusion, total exoneration.
Russia - Ha ha, you stupid Americans. (keyboard clicks)

Don't get me wrong, there is evidence that Trump obstructed justice, and if so, we need to think about what to do about that. However, nobody seems to be discussing what to do about what, to me, amounts to a Russian attack on American soil. Are BOTH parties in bed with Putin?

NOTE: By attack I don't necessarily mean war.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

History wasn't about putting down the facts exactly back then - it was about making a moral point.

I agree with this. My church wouldn't be a fan of me saying this, but I don't have a need for a literal 6-day creation, I think a lot of the OT is phenomenological - meaning that it was written in a way that would have made sense to people at the time. Explaining things in a way that reflects what we know even now about astrodynamics would have made no sense to them. I've learned over the years a lot about how history was used in ancient times and I think you are right in terms of that.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

That doesn't mean we don't have faith about Jesus's salvic action or physical resurrection.

Why doesn't it? I mean in terms of faith not having to be rational, the reason I can't go there is that the Bible itself doesn't go there. Paul says if Jesus was not raised from the dead Christians above all people are to be pitied ... and he's right. We're a bunch of dupes worse than the most anti-religion portrayals on this forum if so. Where do you draw the line between what's believable and what isn't? Jesus himself, the way he used Scripture, the way he handle the temptation before his ministry … all of that points directly away from this. Repeatedly we see statements 'Do you not know?' relating to some concept that people were expected to have already mastered. And why was there that expectation? Because it had already been revealed in Scripture. The Bereans were characterized as noble because they didn't take what Paul said at face value, but search the Scriptures (in an age where people didn't have their own private copies of the Bible in most cases) to see if what he said was true. This is a theme that is hammered over and over again.

Originally Posted by Romans 10:9-15(ESV)

if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?

There are certain things which have to be true and knowable or the whole thing falls apart. If you're going to have your car serviced at a mechanic, and they lie to you about what hours the shop is open, falsify the estimate, etc., how confident are you going to be in their work? It's a credibility thing - whether we are looking at a reliable account or whether we aren't. The claims the Bible makes about Jesus are far more extravagant than any repair shop ever thought of claiming, so if it's not a reliable source ... How do you fulfill the Great Commission? You can't make disciples of all nations and teach them to observe everything Jesus commanded if you don't have a reliable record of what those commands actually were. This isn't the finer points of eschatology or quibbling over ways of observing the sacraments or what church hierarchy should be. This is baseline 'what does it mean to be a Christian' stuff, as fundamental as it gets. It's why the Westminster Confession begins with a chapter about Scripture, because it's the foundation - without it everything Christians say they know about God can't actually be known. How do we know Jesus didn't want us to go on a jihad against all unbelievers and slaughter the lot of them, go live on a mountaintop monastery shut off from the world, or anything in between? Without a standard you can just make up whatever you want and nobody's opinion is better than anyone else's.

The other thing is it leads to a lot of 'well I believe X, so I'll accept the parts of the Bible that support it and not the parts that don't'. From my POV our debate has strongly illustrated this. Why should we put credence in the account of Pilate questioning Jesus (and thus being concerned about him being called a King) but not in what he said aftewards? Whey believe he said 'render unto Caesar' at all? Why believe Paul was actually imprisoned or that he actually said anything he said about government? Why believe Jesus even had a placard above his head saying 'King of the Jews'? Maybe the authors made that up too and it never happened. Meanwhile virtually ever writer in the NT focuses, and some of them repeatedly, on the need to combat false teaching. How on earth can you do that, contend for the faith delivered once for all to the saints, if you can't even know what true and false teaching is and who really knows how much of the record of Jesus' life even really happened? How can you follow Jesus' example, as we are repeatedly enjoined to do, if you have no confidence in what he even said and did?

Bottom line is you literally can't make a Biblical argument of any kind without cutting out the ground on which you stand under this kind of approach. Intellectually, I give a lot more credence to those who say the whole thing is a bunch of hooey and only a moron would believe that nonsense. I disagree with them and think they're wrong but it's a very logically defensible position. The 'take this and leave that' approach - and I know it's often not intended but it can end no other way - always reminds me of the Francis Shaeffer line that modern man has his feet firmly planted in mid-air.

[Edward64]

Interesting tangent that we have taken in the Trump Presidency thread. You both are closer to how I interpret the Bible vs many of my other friends/acquaintances taking it literally.

Two questions to both of you.

(1) In John 14 Jesus says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me" for salvation. How do you interpret this in (your) "proper context"?

Is Jesus "the only" way or is there room for the aborigines, Africans, Chinese etc. who have not had the opportunity to be saved (or have not had many/proper/sufficient opportunities to learn about Jesus)?

(2) What are your thoughts on Purgatory in addition to Heaven & Hell?

Purgatory - Wikipedia

The Catholic Church holds that "all who die in God's grace and friendship but still imperfectly purified" undergo the process of purification which the Church calls purgatory, "so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven". It has formulated this doctrine by reference to biblical verses that speak of purifying fire (1 Corinthians 3:15 and 1 Peter 1:7) and to the mention by Jesus of forgiveness in the age to come (Matthew 12:32). It bases its teaching also on the practice of praying for the dead in use within the Church ever since the Church began and which is mentioned even earlier in 2 Macc 12:46.[5][6]

According to Jacques Le Goff, the conception of purgatory as a physical place came into existence in Western Europe towards the end of the twelfth century.[7] According to him, the conception involves the idea of a purgatorial fire, which he suggests "is expiatory and purifying not punitive like hell fire".[8] At the Second Council of Lyon in 1247, strong Eastern Orthodox opposition to the idea of a third place in the afterlife containing fire was one of the differences that prevented reunification with the Catholic Church. That council's teaching on purgatory made no mention of these notions,[9] which are absent also in the declarations by the Councils of Florence and Trent at which especially the Catholic Church formulated its doctrine on purgatory.[10] Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have declared that the term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence.[11][12]

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by bbgunn

So, um... when do we start attacking Russia for its repeated and apparently ongoing efforts to undermine our elections?

Had cyberwarfare existed in the 1950s and or 1960s and the USSR did this, we would have been considering nuclear strikes. We almost went to war over the Bay of Pigs.

This is the most frustrating part of all of this.
Democrats - Trump obstructed justice and maybe colluded with Russia. Impeachment?
Republicans - Hoax, witch hunt. Mueller and his team of Dems. No obstruction, no collusion, total exoneration.
Russia - Ha ha, you stupid Americans. (keyboard clicks)

Don't get me wrong, there is evidence that Trump obstructed justice, and if so, we need to think about what to do about that. However, nobody seems to be discussing what to do about what, to me, amounts to a Russian attack on American soil. Are BOTH parties in bed with Putin?

NOTE: By attack I don't necessarily mean war.

It's worse than that. Dems have passed some bills on election security and McConnell won't even let them be debated. Coats recently took some steps to combat Russian interference, and Trump pushed him out.

The Dems aren't beating the drum loud enough, IMO, but the GOP surely seems like they are actively working to make sure the Russians, and others, can help them in 2020.

[Warhammer]

Purgatory came about from teachings about praying for the souls of the dead. The line of reasoning is if the souls went to hell, no amount of prayer would save their soul. If they went straight to heaven, your prayer would not do anything because their soul has already received its eternal reward. Therefore, there must be a place of holding for some time (purgatory). Here your prayers may be heard to reduce the amount of time the soul is in purgatory.

This also provided an answer for many who were concerned that they had not gone to confession, omitted sins during confession, committed a venal sin since last confession, etc., and died with a venal sin on their soul. Obviously, with a mortal sin on your soul you would go to hell. With a venal sin on your soul at death, what happened? Again, purgatory fills the gap, you will have some atonement there, but you would not go to hell. If you look at old prayer books, there were lists of time that your stay in purgatory would be reduced for each prayer. I believe these also held if you said the prayer for someone's soul (it would reduce their time in purgatory).

Now later on, this wound up leading to the sale of indulgences, but the initial teaching makes sense.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Why doesn't it? I mean in terms of faith not having to be rational, the reason I can't go there is that the Bible itself doesn't go there. Paul says if Jesus was not raised from the dead Christians above all people are to be pitied ... and he's right. We're a bunch of dupes worse than the most anti-religion portrayals on this forum if so. Where do you draw the line between what's believable and what isn't? Jesus himself, the way he used Scripture, the way he handle the temptation before his ministry … all of that points directly away from this. Repeatedly we see statements 'Do you not know?' relating to some concept that people were expected to have already mastered. And why was there that expectation? Because it had already been revealed in Scripture. The Bereans were characterized as noble because they didn't take what Paul said at face value, but search the Scriptures (in an age where people didn't have their own private copies of the Bible in most cases) to see if what he said was true. This is a theme that is hammered over and over again.

Who cares if people think we're dupes? Why does that matter? Jesus and Paul and the Bereans all went back to Scripture while they were radically redefining it. The New Testament is nothing if not a reinterpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures - and a reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of Jesus's ministry. Jesus says "Do you not know" but he also says "You have heard X, but I say to you".

And we do not follow the Hebrew mitzvah anymore. If we were to hold Scripture in the way that some would hold it, we should keep kosher and all the rest - but Paul indicates that this is a reinterpretation.

The reinterpretation of Scripture based on what the Spirit is telling us does not mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. It means you read Scripture in light of when it was written and in light of what God is saying today.

It's a credibility thing - whether we are looking at a reliable account or whether we aren't. The claims the Bible makes about Jesus are far more extravagant than any repair shop ever thought of claiming, so if it's not a reliable source ... How do you fulfill the Great Commission? You can't make disciples of all nations and teach them to observe everything Jesus commanded if you don't have a reliable record of what those commands actually were. This isn't the finer points of eschatology or quibbling over ways of observing the sacraments or what church hierarchy should be. This is baseline 'what does it mean to be a Christian' stuff, as fundamental as it gets. It's why the Westminster Confession begins with a chapter about Scripture, because it's the foundation - without it everything Christians say they know about God can't actually be known.

Many a Christian tradition claims the foundation is actually the Church. Or at least the Church is equally a tradition as Scripture. As pointed out before, the Eastern Orthodox put the Church above Scripture as the Church determined what Scripture was.

If you acknowledge (and you do) that the writers were trying to put the best spin on the story of Jesus that they could, then you have to realize that some of it just isn't true in the sense a history of World War II is true. Some of it is exaggerated or turned for a specific reason. One can know that and also deeply know that Jesus died, rose, and will come again.

To stake one's faith on a (purposely) biased account seems to be putting your feet in shifting sand.

And when something in Gospel hits against things we know is unlikely due to other historical forces, I think we are strong enough in our faith to know that it does not harm it to acknowledge that. My faith is not based on Pilate's exact conversation with Jesus or which of the powers & principalities of this world was directly responsible for Christ's death by capital punishment, it is based on my encounter with the Living God and through the community of faith and also, yes, through Scripture. But Scripture does not have to be perfect for me to believe. I trust Christ is risen because I have felt it to be so.

If people want to say it is hooey, let them say it. If they feel it is logically defensible - it is. I make no claims on logic defensibility of my faith. I know it to be true because I feel it deep in my soul. It's not logical, but it is true - at least to me.

Originally Posted by Edward64

(1) In John 14 Jesus says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me" for salvation. How do you interpret this in (your) "proper context"?

Is Jesus "the only" way or is there room for the aborigines, Africans, Chinese etc. who have not had the opportunity to be saved (or have not had many/proper/sufficient opportunities to learn about Jesus)?

I see it as Jesus is the Way and is God and opens up the channel to God. Other people may not have heard of Jesus, or may have even rejected Him, but Jesus has opened the Way for all, and through that way all are saved.

As a Universalist, I don't see a blocking issue with Jesus saying He's the Way.

(2) What are your thoughts on Purgatory in addition to Heaven & Hell?

Purgatory is an interesting concept. It is also a result of trying to over rationalize things. People wondered how can flawed and sinful people stand in the presense of a perfect and flawless God and so created a way of cleansing foks so they can be perfected to be in the presense of such a God. I do think that in the end of the age we get cleansed of our sins. I don't think it's a purgatorial working however. It's more a cleansing fire... and if Hellfire is anything, it's that.

I believe Heaven is God's realm and also as Revelation says, at the end, Heaven and Earth will come together and create a new Heavens and a new Earth and God will live with His people.

The concept of us hanging out in clouds is nonsense to me. I am more in the camp of the soul sleep (when we die, we sleep until the end of the age and at that time, we are resurrected to live in the New Earth with God).

[Lathum]

Not trying to be the dick here, but does all this religious talk really belong in this thread?

[Kodos]

That's what I was thinking too.

[albionmoonlight]

No. This is wonderful. I am so happy just thinking about how Trump would react if he knew that there was a thread that was supposed to be about him but then people got bored of him and started talking about something else.

[ISiddiqui]

Well it stems from the question does Religion belong in politics. All of this is attempting to answer that question by getting to core things to get to the politics.

It is also curious because the Conservative leaning person is saying it doesn't and the Liberal leaning person is saying it does.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Just trying to take a break from the far-left echo chamber (and save some souls !!)

[JPhillips]

If you define politics as the distribution of power and resources, I'm not sure how Christianity could be anything other than political.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Not trying to be the dick here, but does all this religious talk really belong in this thread?

Thanks Lathum so I didn't have to be the dick. I certainly don't mind when religion or something distantly related to his Presidency comes up and gets talked about a bit, but it seems like this is becoming more the religion thread than the Trump thread. Might be nice to others to swing this off to its own thread where those who are interested can give it full attention.

[lungs]

All we need to do is bump the Jesus Is Love thread back to the top

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Edward64

far-left echo chamber

LOL

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Not trying to be the dick here, but does all this religious talk really belong in this thread?

Yeah ffs. CoSign.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well it stems from the question does Religion belong in politics. All of this is attempting to answer that question by getting to core things to get to the politics.

It is also curious because the Conservative leaning person is saying it doesn't and the Liberal leaning person is saying it does.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So maybe a separate thread titled "does religion belong in politics?"

[ISiddiqui]

Doesn't the overwhelming Evangelical support for Trump (and some Democrats taking up a pro-religion mantle - Buttigieg and Booker the most prominent) not allow for conversations on that in the context of current day issues?

I mean you could start talking about Trump and leading us off in a different conversational direction.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Doesn't the overwhelming Evangelical support for Trump (and some Democrats taking up a pro-religion mantle - Buttigieg and Booker the most prominent) not allow for conversations on that in the context of current day issues?

I mean you could start talking about Trump and leading us off in a different conversational direction.

What started as that seems to have spun off in to something far different. Just wanted to point out seems like it has taken enough of a life of its own for a separate thread.

[QuikSand]

It has been an interesting week to be in Maryland politics. Baltimore is trying to figure out how to turn this odd attack into a marketing campaign... somehow suggesting that the real way to #resist is to...uhhh...come visit Baltimore and buy stuff or something.

[JPhillips]

I've never understood the "Start a new thread!" or "There's too many threads!" complaints. Scroll by and don't read if you're not interested. There's so few of us here, I don't see the point in enforcing rules to the point where more people might leave.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've never understood the "Start a new thread!" or "There's too many threads!" complaints. Scroll by and don't read if you're not interested. There's so few of us here, I don't see the point in enforcing rules to the point where more people might leave.

Why even have threads then? By your logic just make everything one long conversation and people can scroll by what they aren’t interested in. Threads organize the topics and allow users to decided based on the title if they are interested in reading it.

In this instance I enjoy the thoughts of the posters involved on the thread topic, so by skipping through the religious posts I may miss something interesting that’s about the topic.

I doubt we would lose any members over a new thread being started.

[Lathum]

And now we are guilty.

[Brian Swartz]

I'm fine with it being moved into a different thread if that's what people want. On the other hand, unless there are more wrinkles added I expect it to wrap up soon so …

yeah, whatever people want to do.

[Thomkal]

So Lindsay Graham actual said this to reporters-“I think most people know the truth which is that Mr Trump was in fact a first responder on 9/11,” Graham says. “He’s a hero.”

[JPhillips]

Previously redacted Nixon tapes have been released.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-nixon/595102/

Reagan jokes with Nixon about "monkeys" from African countries that don't wear shoes.

[NobodyHere]

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by bbgunn

So, um... when do we start attacking Russia for its repeated and apparently ongoing efforts to undermine our elections?

Had cyberwarfare existed in the 1950s and or 1960s and the USSR did this, we would have been considering nuclear strikes. We almost went to war over the Bay of Pigs.

This is the most frustrating part of all of this.
Democrats - Trump obstructed justice and maybe colluded with Russia. Impeachment?
Republicans - Hoax, witch hunt. Mueller and his team of Dems. No obstruction, no collusion, total exoneration.
Russia - Ha ha, you stupid Americans. (keyboard clicks)

Don't get me wrong, there is evidence that Trump obstructed justice, and if so, we need to think about what to do about that. However, nobody seems to be discussing what to do about what, to me, amounts to a Russian attack on American soil. Are BOTH parties in bed with Putin?

NOTE: By attack I don't necessarily mean war.

Honestly, Russia is so far ahead of the game in cyber-warfare. I would be comfortable in saying that they are about as dominant in this aspect of geopolitics as the US is in raw military power. They have been waging a war for years, and I think they are comfortably winning, in the US and in Europe.

I don't think US parties are actually in bed with Russia, but they are tied in a game of opposition politics which relies on attacking the other side more than it does actually getting anything done, which is easy to exploit for a nation like Russia. They do it masterfully I think, playing on greed/social issues... whatever it takes. They way they have come back from the When all is said and done it might be what people find most interesting about our time period in a few hundred years' time (if there are any people left).

[JPhillips]

MOAR TARIFFS!

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

MOAR TARIFFS!

I was wondering why the S&P plunged 50 points in an hour.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

MOAR TARIFFS!

We got them on the ropes now (I hope).

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So Lindsay Graham actual said this to reporters-“I think most people know the truth which is that Mr Trump was in fact a first responder on 9/11,” Graham says. “He’s a hero.”

You've been hoaxed.(seriously)

[NobodyHere]

I wonder what Trump has on him.

Anyone remember when Trump gave away Lindsey's private cell phone number?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

You've been hoaxed.(seriously)

?

[SirFozzie]

AnαstαsÃ*α on Twitter: "For anyone who fell for the Jim Jordan quote regarding Trump and 9/11, here's another fake quote from Lindsey Graham regarding Trump and 9/11.

The account holder admits they're not real. As the saying goes, "Don't believe everything on Al Gore's internet."… https://t.co/UxEAZc7DFq"

[Thomkal]

ah thanks, I usually try to check to see if they are legit or not, must not have there.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

We got them on the ropes now (I hope).

lol

I doubt it.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

We got them on the ropes now (I hope).

Trump's Former Chief Economic Adviser Says China Trade War Has Backfired: 'Everyone Loses'

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

We got them on the ropes now (I hope).

Of turning the country into the socialist society that the right pretends to hate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.fbff79edee49

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Of turning the country into the socialist society that the right pretends to hate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.fbff79edee49

Sorry, have to wait till Google fixes the incognito mode exploit. But obviously not all the Right, don't see a big public uproar over social security.

But looking at the link title, I'm all for supporting/subsidizing American companies (in this case I suspect its smaller businesses/farms etc.) in this seemingly, protracted etc. trade war. Its for the greater good and the end will justify the means (assuming we get a good "end").

I'm thinking the Chinese thinks they can wait out Trump and anticipate a friendlier Democratic administration (vs. the Premier for life). Trump knowing this has to turn up the screws to make something happen.

[NobodyHere]

Personally I wish I could opt out of social security

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

But looking at the link title, I'm all for supporting/subsidizing American companies (in this case I suspect its smaller businesses/farms etc.) in this seemingly, protracted etc. trade war. Its for the greater good and the end will justify the means (assuming we get a good "end").

Wouldn't that be nice?



EWG Farm Subsidy Database || Subsidy Concentrations for Subtotal, Farming Subsidies in the United States