Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
So, you actually want a Christian test? Yet you also claim to believe it the sanctity of the constitution. In back to back posts no less. Can anyone else point out the inconsistency in these 2 arguments?
Trump!!!
- Thread starter snek
- Start date
So, you actually want a Christian test? Yet you also claim to believe it the sanctity of the constitution. In back to back posts no less. Can anyone else point out the inconsistency in these 2 arguments?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Trump just publically admitted that part of his support is based on Obama bashing.
This isn't a revelation but it's not often you see a candidate admit that simply acknowledging anything positive in the opposition is enough to lose support. The state of the Republican party?
This isn't a revelation but it's not often you see a candidate admit that simply acknowledging anything positive in the opposition is enough to lose support. The state of the Republican party?
Sarcasm? Oh, no, we don't get that here.
Are you serious? Does the ability to quote the Bible or explain the Trinity disprove someone's Islamic faith? As I see it, that only shows that the person has a certain degree of knowledge of Christianity. Furthermore, the inability to quote the Bible or explain the Trinity certainly doesn't establish one's Islamic faith.
Sorry, a religious ban is whackado. Not only is it stupid from a policy standpoint, it's laughably unenforceable and arbitrary.
Actually, that would make more sense than a religious ban. It would be unjust, but it would at least be objective and could be enforced.
Perhaps on a case by case basis.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Without a doubt this next Presidential campaign will be the most classless election cycle in recent memory. Is it any wonder why we hate our leaders?
When the Dems have a candidate who is a stinker, this is what they say about all candidates so they can still feel good about pulling the "D" lever once again.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Right. OK, Trump is the pinnacle of class. Is that better? Whatever makes you comfortable in your support for him. Oh that's right, you don't support him.
BTW- I'm on record on this board that my favored candidate is John Kasich. He's socially moderate but fiscally conservative. He's the closest thing to Reagan in this field. Unfortunately, he's not willing to make this election a tabloid affair which is where many on the right seem to want it. Facts be damned.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
"Facts be damned" is right:
Let's pledge to throw our support behind Kasich. OK? Forget these crappy candidates like HRC, Trump and Cruz.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Not sure, I'm more concerned about the National Debt. Kasich has demonstrated an ability to balance a budget. Nobody else in the field has demonstrated that to my knowledge.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Yeah, the primaries right now are all flash and no substance from an outsider's point of view. Politicians always have to move towards the Left/Right in the primary but these primaries are hitting absurd levels. It seems that the only people talking policy details are Kasich and Bernie Sanders and the latter is truly a socialist. What does it say when the socialist appears to be the most rational. The Republicans are running sooooo far to the right that the moderate is the rational candidate.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Its the most interesting. Fascinating even.
Bill Clinton is a rapist. How do you imagine this cycle being more classless than his?
What I find remarkable here is that a guy who's pro-life and opposes gay marriage is considered a social moderate. Essentially not acting like an jackass on abortion and gay marriage makes one a moderate nowadays.
It's sad. The GOP has a chance to attract guys like you (the educated urban voter), which would alter the electoral map in a meaningful way for the first time in 20 years. They don't have to significantly change their ideology. All they have to do is not act like jerks and offer serious policy solutions, and they still can't do it.
Last edited:
It's because these guys talk a good game, and then stab us in the back when they get into office. Can you not see that? That is why establishment politicians are on the outs with the right. Trump's supporters are much more afraid of the current political class than they are of what he would do as POTUS. It really is that simple. This is Perot Part Deux. Voters are willing to throw a grenade in the WH because blowing it up is what they want to get their message across. This may end up splitting the GOP, but the GOP establishment has brought this on themselves because they will not do what they say they will do after elected. The Iran deal and the latest budget are only the most recent examples.
Quite frankly, Trump supporters look at guys like you who think Kasich would be a good choice as suckers because they have been there already.
Quite frankly, Trump supporters look at guys like you who think Kasich would be a good choice as suckers because they have been there already.
I can point out that the fact that The Constitution of The United States concerns itself with rights of the citizens of this country. It don't say jack about immigrants. You seem to have missed that little distinction.
With regards to refugees coming to this country seeking asylum, religion *must* be considered by US law.
Last edited:
John Kasich balanced the federal budget. Trump has been in bankruptcy court four times. Who has stabbed whom in the back?
The problem with your ilk isn't policy. It's the inability to look at context and the separation of powers. For example, is Chris Christie a sellout, or is he a conservative in a liberal state doing the best he can? The latter is much closer to the truth. Is the GOP Congress a bunch of RINOs for not being able to repeal Obamacare, or are they just having to deal with a Democratic president who isn't willing to sign into law a veto of his core legislative priority? And is that really a big shock? Democrats took the Senate in 1986. Do you think Reagan would have signed a law increasing taxes back to 78 percent? No chance.
And they gave us an 8 year Democratic Presidency and put 2 liberals on the Supreme Court. Gotta be proud.
But they're too dumb to understand that they don't actually blow anything up. They just elect Democrats.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
My characterization of Kasich as a social moderate is that he takes a rational approach to how his own views impact others. For example, he's personally against gay marriage but has no problems with attending a gay wedding or gays being married. It's OK to disagree with something yet acknowledge that others don't have to live by your views. With abortion, he's supported reasonable limitations unlike some legislation coming out of places like Texas.
I think Reagan had a unique way of being a true conservative but was able to separate his own views from the impact on others.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I think Obama said it best in last night's Town Hall on guns that could be applied to all issues. I'm paraphrasing but essentially he said that the goal is to make incremental improvement with each administration. He pointed to the decrease in violent crime rate over multiple decades and the safety of automobiles. In both cases small changes were made in legislation and criminal justice that slowly improved the situation. Phil Elliot and his ilk have lost sight that with our 2 party system and thousands of lobbying groups nothing changes overnight. In the end, every politician has to make concessions to move the ball a few yards.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Portions of the Constitution relate to "citizens" while other parts relate to "persons". For example, the second sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, anyone who comes into the US or otherwise becomes subject to its jurisdiction is entitled to due process and equal protection. This would not apply to people seeking permission to come into the jurisdiction of the US (i.e. applicants for asylum) but it would apply to anyone already here, even if they snuck in.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I'm not as concerned with treating the worlds citizens as US citizens but would vehemently argue that we have a set of ideals that our country is founded on and that includes that we respect the freedom of all religions. What Phil Elliot proposes of a "Christian Test" would essentially be an endorsement by our government that of single faith which is fundamentally against what our country was founded upon.
I agree, but you really don't even have to reach this argument. Even if you were completely OK with a religious test in theory, nobody can come up with a remotely effective way to implement one. Though I wouldn't support either, a racial or ethnic restriction could at least be practically and objectively enforced. With this religious test nonsense, we're talking about making decisions based on who can and cannot quote the Bible and explain Christian theology. I'm not trying to bust Phil's balls, because I don't think it's possible to come up with a dramatically better method. However, the absurdity of his suggestion should tell a sensible person that a religious test is fundamentally flawed and unworkable.
Frankly, it's scary that Trump's moronic ramblings are even becoming a serious topic of discussion.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I couldn't agree more.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-ULM *
Sat, Sep 21 • 7:00 PM on ESPN+/SECN+
Recent Threads
Prediction Results Threads
2024 Schedules
