Random Politics & Religion #24

I wasn't offended, just atempting to inform.

I think I will do just that in an attempt to illustrate a point of our theology.

An agitated Jewish boy rushes in to the Rabbi's office.

"Whats troubling you child?"

"Its about this contract Rebbe. We have a contract with god right?"

"Yes we do, what about it?"

"In crude terms it basically says 'here's the rules don't *** up,' right?"

"In crude terms, yes. Why?"

"What about all the goyim out there?"

"Oh they don't know the rules, they can *** up."

"I'm going to be a lawyer when I grow up, I'm NEVER going to be taken like this."

If you know the rules, you must follow the. If you don't you don't have to.

Remember we invented universal monotheism. Every two bit tribe had their own god and would bow before other tribes' gods. We didn't. And then the 1st diaspora. The "how can I sing the Lord's song in a strange land" part.

Universal, not tribal, and therefore god over all.

Our heaven is rather ill defined, think kinda basking in the glory of the light. Hell... hell is alone in the darkness.

Why would he deprive any one of his children the opportunity?

It gets around the riotous pagan and infant damnation parts rather well I think.

I don't know this user but please you are welcome here any time.

I believe in God because I don't believe in people. Simple as that. Plus a lot of the philosophers I read believe in God. So maybe I'm just trying to fit in with the philosophy "cool kids"

That's Donny.

Can't you see him out of his element?

The leakers in the white house are just too much.

See, here's the difference between a leaker and unclassifying information.

A leaker doesn't have the ability to legally unclassify information. The president does.

How can the President of the United States be a leaker when they have the ability to unclassify documents legally?

It's like saying a baker bakes cakes, and you have a problem with a baker baking cakes.

Isn't he leaking info that his allies entrusted to him? Don't they need to give approval for him to "leak" it?

It depends on who's information it was.

It also depends on how it was obtained. In this case, it was obtained by a joint effort of Israeli and American efforts.

Trump did nothing wrong, but whoever leaked that information to the NYTs, well, they broke the law.

How come you aren't condemning those people?

Because they are christian.

/s

Which is just? Knowing that our president is hurting our relationships with allied nations in favor of a neutral nation or us being ignorant of that fact while it is hidden from the white house?

I guess I simply just don't see a problem with transparency? Maybe when they start leaking information that does more harm than good for the public then it will be a concern.

It's impossible for the President to "leak" information. The head of the executive branch has ultimate power over what information is authorized to be released to anyone. The only restriction he has is FOIA which actually forces more information to be made public.

Awhile back I actually provided the regulation and legal authority that spells all this out. But hey since it doesn't agree with the liberals agenda they pretend it doesn't exist. Liberals like to pretend a lot of things don't they...

@Saevel, I think we all agree that he can legally leak whatever information he wants but we are moreso talking about the justification of it. In this instance, why would he give information about our allies to someone who simply isn't our ally? The focus isn't on the literal aspect but the action.

I also feel this instance it can still be called a "leak" because it wasn't necessarily our information to give. I don't think anyone is saying he should be jailed because of this.

I mean you know this is facts I don't like right?

I usually get my facts I don't like from forbes

But hey since it doesn't agree with the conservatives agenda they pretend it doesn't exist. Conservatives like to pretend a lot of things don't they...

Liberals have been pretending that there's evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. I thought you were the self-proclaimed arbiter of non-partisan thought, but apparently you're just playing sides like everyone else.

I'm pretty biased when it comes to government corruption. I believe that there will almost never be smoking guns but rather lots of little evidence that can be piece together. I don't think I've made up evidence but rather operate off of all of the information given. Given all of the information I accept that its a possibility.

I still consider myself pretty non-partisan, but I've mentioned several times that I lean a bit more left. I'm definitely not far left or right on any matter.

He's about as non-partisan as Hillary.

"I'm completely non-partisan while I endorse all aspects of one political ideologue and am intolerant of the others".

Someone who's truly non-partisan won't have an emotional attachment to a political religion and won't make value judgments based on a persons political identification. The litmus test is "would they act differently if the party was switched".

Out of curiosity, Eliroo, take this quiz. A lot of us took it a while back to see where we fall on the spectrum. Some of the questions have links to an expanded set of questions.

isidewith.com Political Quiz

These are business expenses associated with raising money for childrens cancer. Do you think throwing fundraisers comes at no cost, or did you just turn off your brain after the headline and the subsequent hit of dopamine from another "Drumpf is done" moment?

Mine

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/3236429347

Like I've said before, I'm a moderate centrist with very strong independence streaks. Individual freedom of choice and expression is important to me and I dislike anything that would artificially restrict those expressions regardless of it's political origin.

Yet to the leftists here I'm an evil conservative bigot!

How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business
Forbes, where the story broke

The reaction:
Eric Trump's charity is being investigated for alleged misuse of funds
AOL

New York attorney general looking at Eric Trump charity's payouts

Looking into a report that Eric Trump funneled over $1 million from his charity to his father's business
More than $1.2 million "has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization," Forbes reported
CNBC

New York AG's office investigating Eric Trump's charity
ABC News

Does this work?

I read the forbes article and concluded that, as did they. Did you turn off your brain after the headline and automatically assumed it was "facts I don't like" because it was anti-trump?

Read over it and they are super twisting ***to project an agenda.

Comes down to this, his son started a charity and used his families name and connections to boot strap it. Initially his family's foundation absorbed the lavish expenses Eric used to attract donors with the pitch line that the "Trumps were covering everything". Many years later his father, Donald, finds out how big the costs have escalated to with no receipts or paperwork, kinda necessary for business records, flips out and orders that the proper paperwork immediately be done and the charity billed like anyone else would be. Soon the actual costs of those expenses start to show, it's not that the costs suddenly magically escalated it's that for years Trumps been absorbing them and there was no record of them. They went from 0$ for lavish golf events their actual cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Eric neglected to inform the foundations donors about the changing financial situation.

The rest is just targeted character assassination. Trumps evil for directing his sons separate charity be treated like any other business. Trumps evil for having such a large business footprint that ordinary business activity has those companies as customers. So on and so forth.

That Sort of disagrees with you. Also:


From the looks of it, it looks like DJT just started billing for the event because they were donating and there was no payment.



^^^ I agree that statement may be reaching. I think Trump just wanted to make money back.

Anyway some more snippets:



Keep in mind that this is a forbes article not the "failing NY times"

If I didn't read it. It didn't happen !

Since the Trump Organization is private it is hard to tell what they spend money on.