NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I'm really ok with this. Considering the fact that we have something called the 1st amendment that should prevent a president from infusing their religious beliefs in government, a candidate's religion or lack thereof should be completely irrelevant. The First Amendment doesn't prevent the President from having religious beliefs, acting on those religious beliefs, or advocating for policy based on those religious beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Michelle Bachmann thinks we should start converting Jews to Christianity since the times foretold in Revelation are near (by the way, hi Israel, this is why the evangelicals have been so nice to you -- essentially fattening the calf before the Apocalypse), but she poured water for other candidates, so she's cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All-for-Joffrey Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 The First Amendment doesn't prevent the President from having religious beliefs, acting on those religious beliefs, or advocating for policy based on those religious beliefs. I didn't say the event violated the first amendment. It obviously doesn't. I said it should be an irrelevant criteria. If you're advocating for a policy based on your religious beliefs, there's a strong chance it will be a policy aimed at imposing your beliefs on others. (See: Kasich's calls for a propaganda bureau to spread Judaeo-Christian values). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I said quasi illegal because if a political party essentially makes it's candidates adhere to one religion then it's a defacto litmus test. It's obviously not illegal, but it beings to rub right next to what could be seen as such.So Nestor, I'm asking you since you're a lawyer. Would it be illegal if a state was completely controlled by one party and that party openly said it's candidate would only and always be a Christian? I'm genuinely curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 The problem of course being that Republicans can never cut the spending they'd need to cut to actually balance the budget--that being Social Security and Medicare--because Americans won't stand for it. So when they are in power, Republicans slash everything they can get away with, cut taxes, then use deficit spending to fund everything else. I think I said this earlier, but it goes beyond that. The two goals are lower taxes and getting rid of programs they don't like. The rest is used to justify these positions and these two goals never connect.Tax cuts are good. That tax cuts can cause deficits is irrelevant because the GOP doesn't care about deficits, they care about cutting taxes.Military or SS for the already old is good, welfare is bad. Deficits are bad only when they are an excuse to cut welfare and not when you would have to cut the military or SS. Then deficits are AOK.Balancing the budget never enters into it because tax cuts (ie - revenue) and spending don't connect. Taxes should be low, spending on X should be high, spending on Y should be zero and that's all they care about when it comes to this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkess Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 The First Amendment doesn't prevent the President from having religious beliefs, acting on those religious beliefs, or advocating for policy based on those religious beliefs. Depends what you mean by advocating for policy based on religious beliefs. Basing policy on religious beliefs--nope. You can't justify a policy by pointing to a Bible verse or a commandment from God or something. There has to be a secular basis for law/policy. But a politician's religious beliefs could certainly influence which policies they personally find most important to push.At least that's my understanding of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Trump would certainly implement a national database of Muslims.Trump is basically a Nazi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Depends what you mean by advocating for policy based on religious beliefs. Basing policy on religious beliefs--nope. You can't justify a policy by pointing to a Bible verse or a commandment from God or something. There has to be a secular basis for law/policy. But a politician's religious beliefs could certainly influence which policies they personally find most important to push.At least that's my understanding of it.I agree, but unfortunately I think the law does not agree with either of us. As far as I know, there's no constitutional requirement that laws make sense, or serve a legitimate purpose. They can't serve to establish a religion, but that doesn't mean they can't be silly anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Trump would certainly implement a national database of Muslims.Trump is basically a Nazi.I'll drop this editorial here. Inflammatory as it sounds, at what point should the Grand GOP be reclassified as a hate group? Because it is looking almost certain that narrative of 2016 is going to be 'real Americans' vs 'others' who are out to kill, steal from, and otherwise harm all those real Americans.Muslim registries. Christianity tests for immigration. Mass deportation. Overturning gains made by LBGT. There has often been an undercurrent of hatred in the right's campaigning but it isn't even subtle thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 edit: Ok, is it possible not to double post on this forum right now?Oh well, while I am here. Edwards wins the Louisiana governor race Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Here, a Trump rally in which Trump supporters beat and kick a supposed Black Lives Matter protester, while Trump himself shouts "Get him the hell out of here!" to the gleeful, baying mob of bloodthirsty idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 edit: Ok, is it possible not to double post on this forum right now?Oh well, while I am here. Edwards wins the Louisiana governor raceExciting! This means Louisiana will likely accept the Medicaid expansion, and that's not something successive Republican administrations are likely to undo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Here, a Trump rally in which Trump supporters beat and kick a supposed Black Lives Matter protester, while Trump himself shouts "Get him the hell out of here!" to the gleeful, baying mob of bloodthirsty idiots. After his "Fox & Friends" interviewer referred to the incident as the man being "roughed up," Trump said, "I don't know. Rough up? Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing."The Republican front-runner repeatedly called his heckler "obnoxious.""The man that was — I don't know, you say 'roughed up' — he was so obnoxious and so loud. He was screaming. I had 10,000 people in the room yesterday — 10,000 people. And this guy started screaming by himself," Trump recalled."I have lot of fans and they were not happy about it. And this was a very obnoxious guy, who was a troublemaker who was looking to make trouble," he continued.http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-protester-roughed-up-2015-11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Looks like Cruz is pushing down Carson in Iowa.Carson loses his hold on Iowa’s conservatives http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ben-carson-ted-cruz-iowa-conservatives-216124 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Here, a Trump rally in which Trump supporters beat and kick a supposed Black Lives Matter protester, while Trump himself shouts "Get him the hell out of here!" to the gleeful, baying mob of bloodthirsty idiots.Would you have preferred Trump walk away with his tail between his legs, like Bernie Sanders did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Would you have preferred Trump walk away with his tail between his legs, like Bernie Sanders did?Yes, it is totally better that someone got beaten and kicked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Yes, it is totally better that someone got beaten and kicked.If only the students in the Dartmouth library had shown the same fortitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkess Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I agree, but unfortunately I think the law does not agree with either of us. As far as I know, there's no constitutional requirement that laws make sense, or serve a legitimate purpose. They can't serve to establish a religion, but that doesn't mean they can't be silly anyway.Right, but if it's explicitly stated that the law is based on a religious dictate that would be considered establishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Would you have preferred Trump walk away with his tail between his legs, like Bernie Sanders did?Yes. Despite the horrible, terribly unmanly way you talk about "tail between his legs," it is preferable to a far-right wing authoritarian piece of shit sicing an angry mob to commit violence against someone exercising their constitutional right to free speech, yes.Any other stupid questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Any other stupid questions?Yes:1.Why are BLM protestors so obnoxious? 2. Why is it so goddamn funny when Trump throws them out of his events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.022a4ba4f4aa53526e0290eedde6f808.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.