The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What are these dozen other issues? His campaigns have almost exclusively been about race.

I very specifically avoided talking about this in my answer b/c I think it doesn't matter what the reality is. The perception is all that matters here. And personally I'm missing the value in having that specific discussion/argument with a non-trump voter over a hypothetical? But go nuts, I guess

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Nope, you're right. Explicitly asked for evidence and then ignored it entirely once given.

Sorry for not responding sooner.

I looked at the list of links you provided, and I don't agree that the actual policies are racist. I do agree that Trump's rhetoric and presentation is often racist.

I don't think that trying to prevent people from illegally entering the country, including terrorists, is racist. I don't think that merit based employment or merit based college admissions are racist.

With that being said, as a Libertarian, I think that anti-discrimination laws should be vigorously enforced, whereas the racists tend to look the other way and ignore them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Radii

I very specifically avoided talking about this in my answer b/c I think it doesn't matter what the reality is. The perception is all that matters here. And personally I'm missing the value in having that specific discussion/argument with a non-trump voter over a hypothetical? But go nuts, I guess

Doesn't sound like "those issue" really exist.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

With that being said, as a Libertarian, I think that anti-discrimination laws should be vigorously enforced, whereas the racists tend to look the other way and ignore them.

A libertarian who supports a massive government department to enforce illegal immigration and heaps of money to build a wall which requires enforcing eminent domain to take private property from citizens.

You sure you're a libertarian?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I looked at the list of links you provided, and I don't agree that the actual policies are racist. I do agree that Trump's rhetoric and presentation is often racist.

I don't think that trying to prevent people from illegally entering the country, including terrorists, is racist. I don't think that merit based employment or merit based college admissions are racist.

He's running on those policies for explicitly racist reasons.

It'd be like if a Democratic candidate said they were fully pro-choice because they think that black people would have more abortions. The Democrats would run away from that person in a heartbeat.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

His campaigns have almost exclusively been about race.

Exactly what I was talking about earlier with missing the point vis a vis Trump support. Let's go to the record on this; what polling data are you aware of that contradicts the ones I've repeatedly referenced indicating that issues of race were actually a pretty small component of Trump's appeal, and in fact for a significant number a largely irrelevant negative?

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Am I the only one who thinks that we're looking at attempts at full-blown armed uprisings if the Dems pack the court?

There'd be a lot of sound and fury but that's about it IMO. I don't think there's enough people who really care about almost anything to do that. Bluster, activism, protest, organization yes, but actual revolutionary activities require a significant segment of the population to be willing to die for it. We're way too attached to our standard of living to do so.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Exactly what I was talking about earlier with missing the point vis a vis Trump support. Let's go to the record on this; what polling data are you aware of that contradicts the ones I've repeatedly referenced indicating that issues of race were actually a pretty small component of Trump's appeal, and in fact for a significant number a largely irrelevant negative?

Do you think people are answering polls stating their number one issue is making sure black people don't move next door to them? Come on.

Listen to his speech or read the ads he puts out. His entire campaign is based on race. The idea that if the Democrats win, you'll have a black or hispanic neighbor in the suburbs.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He has no health care plan whatsoever which is particularly bad during a pandemic.

This is not fair. He has a plan to take healthcare away from millions.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What are these dozen other issues? His campaigns have almost exclusively been about race.

Government regulation, taxes, public vs private health care, court appointees, climate change (cyclical vs man-made), foreign aid, cybersecurity and digital policy, role of the military, immigration reform, just to name a few.

[cuervo72]

I never quite get the anti-regulation stance. Why do we have regulations? So the unscrupulous and/or powerful DON'T SCREW (or kill) PEOPLE!

It's like playing in a league with Chubby. You think you're fine, until he comes up with some angle that is shitty and ruins it for everyone else. So, you make a rule. That's regulations, right there. Because the world has Chubbys.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Exactly what I was talking about earlier with missing the point vis a vis Trump support. Let's go to the record on this; what polling data are you aware of that contradicts the ones I've repeatedly referenced indicating that issues of race were actually a pretty small component of Trump's appeal, and in fact for a significant number a largely irrelevant negative?

Study: racism and sexism predict support for Trump much more than economic dissatisfaction - Vox

A new paper by political scientists Brian Schaffner, Matthew MacWilliams, and Tatishe Nteta puts the blame back on the same factors people pointed to before the election: racism and sexism. And the research has a very telling chart to prove it, showing that voters’ measures of sexism and racism correlated much more closely with support for Trump than economic dissatisfaction after controlling for factors like partisanship and political ideology

Several polls found that Trump supporters were more likely to profess negative views of black people, Muslims, and Latinos, as well as concerns that immigrants threaten US values. One telling study, conducted by researchers at UC Santa Barbara and Stanford University shortly before the election, found that if people who strongly identified as white were told that nonwhite groups will outnumber white people in 2042, they became more likely to support Trump.

Another set of studies, conducted by researchers Carly Wayne, Nicholas Valentino, and Marzia Oceno, found that measures of benevolent sexism — meaning more traditional, chivalrous views of women and men’s proper roles in society — didn’t correlate closely with support for Trump. But measures of hostile sexism did, suggesting that sexism in support of Trump seems to be more about hostility toward women than old-fashioned views on gender roles.

As Schaffner, MacWilliams, and Nteta write in their paper, there’s growing evidence that 2016 was unique — in that racism and sexism played a more powerful role than recent presidential elections. “Specifically, we find no statistically significant relationship between either the racism or sexism scales and favorability ratings of either [Republican candidate] John McCain or Mitt Romney,” they write. “However, the pattern is quite strong for favorability ratings of Donald Trump.”

(Yes, I know this is racism and sexism - but a few of the studies named focused on racism)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Government regulation, taxes, public vs private health care, court appointees, climate change (cyclical vs man-made), foreign aid, cybersecurity and digital policy, role of the military, immigration reform, just to name a few.

He has absolutely no position on most of those issues. The only ones I see are taxes which he feels in short term people shouldn't pay so the stock market can go up while he is in office. And climate change I guess.

The rest of those issues have been a cluttered mess with no consistency.

I'd also add that Biden has actually supported the conservative position on most of those issues in his career. So the idea that he wouldn't be palatable to them likely means there is another factor at play.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Government regulation, taxes, public vs private health care, court appointees, climate change (cyclical vs man-made), foreign aid, cybersecurity and digital policy, role of the military, immigration reform, just to name a few.

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I never quite get the anti-regulation stance. Why do we have regulations? So the unscrupulous and/or powerful DON'T SCREW (or kill) PEOPLE!

It's like playing in a league with Chubby. You think you're fine, until he comes up with some angle that is shitty and ruins it for everyone else. So, you make a rule. That's regulations, right there. Because the world has Chubbys.

Besides in 2016, Trump ran on reigning in big business - ie, MORE REGULATION. Especially for those that outsource. Tariffs are more regulations as well.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

A libertarian who supports a massive government department to enforce illegal immigration and heaps of money to build a wall which requires enforcing eminent domain to take private property from citizens.

You sure you're a libertarian?

I'm not in agreement with all of the traditional libertarian positions, including open borders.

[larrymcg421]

I mean, let's imagine that instead of Trump and his dog whistle racism, we had David Duke as a candidate. And people still said they were voting for him because they agreed with him on those 12 issues. That still okay? You wouldn't judge those people? You'd be okay hanging out with them?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I never quite get the anti-regulation stance. Why do we have regulations?

It's not a question of having regulations, it's a question of how many are sufficient and how many are unnecessary. Hundreds? Thousands?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I mean, let's imagine that instead of Trump and his dog whistle racism, we had David Duke as a candidate. And people still said they were voting for him because they agreed with him on those 12 issues. That still okay? You wouldn't judge those people? You'd be okay hanging out with them?

I can't speak for others, but I for one would not want to hang out with folks who were OK voting for a convicted felon who was the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I'm not in agreement with all of the traditional libertarian positions, including open borders.

Don't think the libertarian's have agreement on open borders internally.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

It's not a question of having regulations, it's a question of how many are sufficient and how many are unnecessary. Hundreds? Thousands?

Chubbys never stop coming up with new angles.

[RainMaker]

The guy just forced a tech company to sell and has repeatedly threatened others if they don't allow his supporters on their platform. He imposed billions in tariffs and has threatened retaliatory actions against companies that choose to move abroad.

His stance on regulations seems to come down to who said what on Fox and Friends. There is no consistency.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't think the libertarian's have agreement on open borders internally.

Real libertarians do (which is an incredibly small percent of the population). The one's who cosplay because they want legal weed or looking for a justification for voting for a racist are not really libertarians.

A closed border enforced by a massive government agency that restricts voluntary association and freedom of choice is the antithesis of libertarian thought.

[Ben E Lou]

Well this is interesting...

The people pick the President; the President nominates the Justice. That is how it works.

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) September 21, 2020

[Ben E Lou]

Ah, ok, she clarified that some people are already voting in the upcoming election. Got it.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Sorry for not responding sooner.

I looked at the list of links you provided, and I don't agree that the actual policies are racist. I do agree that Trump's rhetoric and presentation is often racist.

I don't think that trying to prevent people from illegally entering the country, including terrorists, is racist. I don't think that merit based employment or merit based college admissions are racist.

With that being said, as a Libertarian, I think that anti-discrimination laws should be vigorously enforced, whereas the racists tend to look the other way and ignore them.

I am perfectly fine with amending my statement to: If you vote for Trump you are actively supporting a racist who is prioritizing legislation on limiting immigration, challenging the citizenship of existing immigrants, discrimination of Muslims, and rolling back affirmative action & anti-discrimination laws. Is that accurate?

[Ben E Lou]

Heh, looking at the comments to the initial post, I wasn't the only one who read it the way I did. Quite a few comments from the left and the right indicating they thought she was saying Trump should get to nominate.

[Edward64]

PSA. New definition of "racism" from Merriam-Webster (expected) and also from ADL (unexpected).

Webster
Racism | Definition of Racism by Merriam-Webster

1: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
b: a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles

ADL is below, smells of PC overreaction. I don't know if this means only white people can be racist but it's nonsensical in the sense that a bunch of asians aren't racist (even though we know they are by the earlier definition).

ADL
What is Racism? | ADL

Racism: The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.

[Ksyrup]

I know Daniel Dale and people like him have a bias/agenda as part of a job they have to do, but God bless this guy for faithfully reporting on Trump's comments and then dutifully explaining what an effing moron he is without just saying it in those terms.

Trump touts a "hydrosonic" missile, but says, "I call it super-duper. 'Cause super-duper is easier for people to understand than hydrosonic."

He appears to be referring to hypersonic missiles.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) September 21, 2020

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

PSA. New definition of "racism" from Merriam-Webster (expected) and also from ADL (unexpected).

Webster
Racism | Definition of Racism by Merriam-Webster



ADL is below, smells of PC overreaction. I don't know if this means only white people can be racist but it's nonsensical in the sense that a bunch of asians aren't racist (even though we know they are by the earlier definition).

ADL
What is Racism? | ADL

I'm literally laughing out loud at this turn of events on the ADL definition. How will you cope?!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm literally laughing out loud at this turn of events on the ADL definition. How will you cope?!

Be glad to have a one-on-one conversation with you if you promise not to revert to a potty mouth, toss out insults, or bring your gang in to overwhelm a conversation. Let me know.

If it helps, we can create a separate thread and ask no one else to participate?

[Butter]

Like, seriously who gives a fuck about the textbook definition of racism. Why is this constantly being brought up. CONSTANTLY. Give it a rest.

[Butter]

So if I could ask Ben and maybe anyone else here who is strongly pro-life... why does the concern that many people have around that seem to end at termination of pregnancies?

Aren't there lots of issues that go on nowadays that are traditionally conservative positions and also seemingly anti-life positions? Or an I thinking about these things in the wrong way? I really want to believe that there are a lot of people bothered by things like the police murdering people of any color without cause or trial, or ICE performing unwanted hysterectomies on immigrants, or prioritizing the economy over lives of the COVID at-risk?

Not trying to be a jerk with this question, I'm honestly curious about the rationale.

[cuervo72]

Hydrosonic?

[Thomkal]

Cuervo wins the thread

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Be glad to have a one-on-one conversation with you if you promise not to revert to a potty mouth, toss out insults, or bring your gang in to overwhelm a conversation. Let me know.

If it helps, we can create a separate thread and ask no one else to participate?

Promise not to revert to a potty mouth?

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Promise not to revert to a potty mouth?

SI

If you did a search on cuss words in this thread, you'll find the vast majority of them come from the radical left.

The cuss words themselves don't matter to me but, when used during an intense discussion, they are an early warning/first sign (and this is typically when the "bros" show up to pile on) that the discussion is going downhill quickly. Many of the radical left here get agitated because of their inability to accept that good people have honest differences of opinion. The cuss words are inevitably replaced with "racist", "disingenuous", "troll" etc. and other personal attacks.

Think of it as a litmus test or commitment to not have the conversation eventually devolve into bitter acrimony.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Butter

Like, seriously who gives a fuck about the textbook definition of racism. Why is this constantly being brought up. CONSTANTLY. Give it a rest.

I would not normally respond to you but don't want other moderates to think I am ignoring this. Don't feel obligated to respond to me.

The simple answer is if you do not define terms, it significantly increases chance of misunderstanding & confusion. In my line of work, I define terms & conditions, key assumptions, deliverables, success criteria, milestones etc. The theory is the more "transparent" you are to the client and within the team, the better for the project. I have found this to be absolutely true with my clients ... admittedly it may not work as well in this forum with more partisan views.

This particular instance, I thought it significant enough to bring up because the ADL definition has radically changed and Webster has changed one of 3 definitions.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The simple answer is if you do not define terms, it significantly increases chance of misunderstanding & confusion.

I'm sure there are millions of Trump supporters in red states just saying to themselves "but I don't meet the ADL definition of a racist....."

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I looked at the list of links you provided, and I don't agree that the actual policies are racist. I do agree that Trump's rhetoric and presentation is often racist.

I don't think that trying to prevent people from illegally entering the country, including terrorists, is racist. I don't think that merit based employment or merit based college admissions are racist.

Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York, has said President Donald Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and instructed him to put together a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally”.

In an interview with Fox News, Mr Giuliani, currently the White House cyber security advisor, said the commission focused on “danger” imposed by the countries implicated in the executive order, not religion, which he called “perfectly legal, perfectly sensible”.

They come out and admit this shit. Trump literally says to someone "I want a muslim ban, tell me how to do it legally" - they come up with a way to limit as much muslim travel and immigration into the US without being blatantly unconstitutional, they go on fox news and explain it in exactly those words, then when people get all mad they just say "ah we never said that"

And since Mitch McConnell is in charge of the senate, good luck impeaching anyone for admitting to these things over and over and over and over.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'm sure there are millions of Trump supporters in red states just saying to themselves "but I don't meet the ADL definition of a racist....."

"... but am a bigot"

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

"... but am a bigot"

you spelled patriot wrong

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

you spelled patriot wrong

I'm not going to try read your mind or intentions (like the other post about a week ago). It seems way too open ended to me so I'll leave it as is unless you want to state your perspective plainly.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Hydrosonic?

Isnt this a Trump commercial in Michigan?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Butter

So if I could ask Ben and maybe anyone else here who is strongly pro-life... why does the concern that many people have around that seem to end at termination of pregnancies?

Aren't there lots of issues that go on nowadays that are traditionally conservative positions and also seemingly anti-life positions? Or an I thinking about these things in the wrong way? I really want to believe that there are a lot of people bothered by things like the police murdering people of any color without cause or trial, or ICE performing unwanted hysterectomies on immigrants, or prioritizing the economy over lives of the COVID at-risk?

Not trying to be a jerk with this question, I'm honestly curious about the rationale.

Posting from my phone in bed, so abbreviated, but a quick set of points. I could write a fairly long treatise on this off the top of my head if you’re not careful.

When I was coming up in the faith in the later 80s and early 90s, we had a Pharisee problem in the Church—people who hold to maintaining outward piety and demanding it from others. (I am susceptible to this way of thinking. I have never smoked, been drunk, or gotten high, remained a virgin until I was married, do not gamble or look at porn, etc. That’s not to say that those aren’t good practices, but genuine devotion shouldn’t be replaced by with outward acts.) Nowadays we have a Sadducee problem. They were a lesser known sect that Jesus rebuked in Matthew 22, (late in the chapter, around verse 35-40ish,) saying that they did not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Similarly, many of politically-oriented folks who claim the name of Christ today are woefully lacking in both their personal study and understanding of the Bible, and they live in fear, which is ultimately a lack of understanding of the power of God. (Faith should be the opposite of fear, essentially.)

So, basically these Sadducee-like folks have co-opted and distorted what the pro life position should look like because they either don’t know the Bible very well, or they let their fears overrule their faith.

I posted this vid on FB a couple of months or so ago that heavily aligns with what a Biblical pro-life position *should* look like, with a few supporting Scriptures: https://www.facebook.com/benelou/vid...djiXTogA6WYWn2

More on that front is my currently-pinned Tweet: https://twitter.com/benelou/status/12946

Not to get too preachy, but the bottom line is that Jesus as portrayed in the Bible was the perfect and complete embodiment of both Grace AND Truth. Therefore, an authentic pro-life position (and any other) should be just that.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If you did a search on cuss words in this thread, you'll find the vast majority of them come from the radical left.

The cuss words themselves don't matter to me but, when used during an intense discussion, they are an early warning/first sign (and this is typically when the "bros" show up to pile on) that the discussion is going downhill quickly. Many of the radical left here get agitated because of their inability to accept that good people have honest differences of opinion. The cuss words are inevitably replaced with "racist", "disingenuous", "troll" etc. and other personal attacks.

Think of it as a litmus test or commitment to not have the conversation eventually devolve into bitter acrimony.

That's... ok. You know, I strongly disagree but I asked - you answered. Fair enough.

EDIT: I would say profanity directed at a person is quite personal (unless as an interjection like "WTF"). But if it's about an issue, it can be used as a barometer of how strongly someone feels about an issue - nothing more, nothing less. And much more being read into it than that and telling someone how to express it feels a lot like one of those terms I don't like very much: "tone policing".

SI

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I posted this vid on FB a couple of months or so ago that heavily aligns with what a Biblical pro-life position *should* look like, with a few supporting Scriptures: https://www.facebook.com/benelou/vid...djiXTogA6WYWn2

Though not a person of faith, that video comes really close to capturing my general position on abortion. Unfortunately, it really does not serve well as a wartime propaganda video which is what is required by both sides of this and most issues.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Posting from my phone in bed, so abbreviated, but a quick set of points. I could write a fairly long treatise on this off the top of my head if you’re not careful.

When I was coming up in the faith in the later 80s and early 90s, we had a Pharisee problem in the Church—people who hold to maintaining outward piety and demanding it from others. (I am susceptible to this way of thinking. I have never smoked, been drunk, or gotten high, remained a virgin until I was married, do not gamble or look at porn, etc. That’s not to say that those aren’t good practices, but genuine devotion shouldn’t be replaced by with outward acts.) Nowadays we have a Sadducee problem. They were a lesser known sect that Jesus rebuked in Matthew 22, (late in the chapter, around verse 35-40ish,) saying that they did not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Similarly, many of politically-oriented folks who claim the name of Christ today are woefully lacking in both their personal study and understanding of the Bible, and they live in fear, which is ultimately a lack of understanding of the power of God. (Faith should be the opposite of fear, essentially.)

So, basically these Sadducee-like folks have co-opted and distorted what the pro life position should look like because they either don’t know the Bible very well, or they let their fears overrule their faith.

I posted this vid on FB a couple of months or so ago that heavily aligns with what a Biblical pro-life position *should* look like, with a few supporting Scriptures: https://www.facebook.com/benelou/vid...djiXTogA6WYWn2

More on that front is my currently-pinned Tweet: https://twitter.com/benelou/status/12946

Not to get too preachy, but the bottom line is that Jesus as portrayed in the Bible was the perfect and complete embodiment of both Grace AND Truth. Therefore, an authentic pro-life position (and any other) should be just that.

I watched the video and found it interesting. Never heard "from the womb to the tomb" before.

I don't agree with the anti-abortion position, but I understand where it comes from and respect it. I do wish people had more actual compassion for their fellow human and the video does address that, but I just wonder how many really listen? Thanks for responding.

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Posting from my phone in bed, so abbreviated, but a quick set of points. I could write a fairly long treatise on this off the top of my head if you’re not careful.

When I was coming up in the faith in the later 80s and early 90s, we had a Pharisee problem in the Church—people who hold to maintaining outward piety and demanding it from others. (I am susceptible to this way of thinking. I have never smoked, been drunk, or gotten high, remained a virgin until I was married, do not gamble or look at porn, etc. That’s not to say that those aren’t good practices, but genuine devotion shouldn’t be replaced by with outward acts.) Nowadays we have a Sadducee problem. They were a lesser known sect that Jesus rebuked in Matthew 22, (late in the chapter, around verse 35-40ish,) saying that they did not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Similarly, many of politically-oriented folks who claim the name of Christ today are woefully lacking in both their personal study and understanding of the Bible, and they live in fear, which is ultimately a lack of understanding of the power of God. (Faith should be the opposite of fear, essentially.)

So, basically these Sadducee-like folks have co-opted and distorted what the pro life position should look like because they either don’t know the Bible very well, or they let their fears overrule their faith.

I posted this vid on FB a couple of months or so ago that heavily aligns with what a Biblical pro-life position *should* look like, with a few supporting Scriptures: https://www.facebook.com/benelou/vid...djiXTogA6WYWn2

More on that front is my currently-pinned Tweet: https://twitter.com/benelou/status/12946

Not to get too preachy, but the bottom line is that Jesus as portrayed in the Bible was the perfect and complete embodiment of both Grace AND Truth. Therefore, an authentic pro-life position (and any other) should be just that.

How about separation of church and state? Keep your so-called morals out of government when they don’t represent anything close to the majority. Or do you just pick and choose parts of the constitution to follow like you do with that little book of fantasy stories of yours?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

How about separation of church and state? Keep your so-called morals out of government when they don’t represent anything close to the majority. Or do you just pick and choose parts of the constitution to follow like you do with that little book of fantasy stories of yours?

Well that escalated quickly...

---

Though Ben, I do think you are being a little unfair to the Sadducees. The main difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees was the oral Torah. The Sadducees believed that ONLY the books of the Torah should be followed. The Pharisees believed the oral Torah was also part of the faith. So that's when Jesus goes off on the Pharisees for following laws that they made. The Sadducees were more like fundamentalists - but doing so also personally benefited them since they were the Temple priests.

Anyways, I read Jesus's rebuke of the Sadducees going against their interpretation of Scripture - Scripture isn't a dead treatise to follow all the way to the letter, but it's a living faith with a living God.

So the Sadducees knew the Torah very, very well. They just walled it off and didn't understand what the Torah was for.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

How about separation of church and state? Keep your so-called morals out of government when they don’t represent anything close to the majority. Or do you just pick and choose parts of the constitution to follow like you do with that little book of fantasy stories of yours?

Ben was responding to a question directed at him. He was not trying to push his faith on anyone. You may have read it as such but I don't remember Ben having this "track record" so give it a break. Cancel culture is strong, it is.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Ben was responding to a question directed at him. He was not trying to push his faith on anyone.

+1, of course.

BillyMadison is an extreme ass though, this is his thing, sadly.