Chump for President

[roguetoaster]

Bill O'Reilly=fake news. Wait, that one is true already.

Also, the Patriots only pull off magical wins after something bad happens to this country. Seems fishy, Trump should really have Pence investigate the rigging of the Superbowl in 2002/2017 instead of some sort of wild goose chase.

[Massive Lee]

"Any negative polls are fake news."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-negative-polls-fake-news-twitter-cnn-abc-nbc-a7564951.html

[nando]

little Kim won't tolerate bad poll news. You never saw that.

[Massive Lee]

Turning the US into a theocracy, law after law. Who cares the constitution when you have the Bible? And it is not related to Ted Cruze claiming a few months ago that he was "Christian first, and American second".

The article was originally from the Washington Post.

Introducing the new Christian Sharia law.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2017/02/05/rampell-sharia-law-may-coming-america-christians-bringing/97526056/

"The Ku Klux Klan, with its long history of violence, is the most infamous — and oldest — of American hate groups. Although black Americans have typically been the Klan's primary target, it also has attacked Jews, immigrants, gays and lesbians and, until recently, Catholics."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/ku-klux-klan

[marshallnoise]

Hyperbole much? Talk about fake news.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[Wschnitz]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828575949268606977

IDK how people have not jumped ship off the Trump Cruise yet, its obviously headed for an iceberg.

Hyperbole much? Talk about fake news.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

You mean like trump promising to remove the Johnson Amendment? Yeah, Fake news: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7559421.html

[roguetoaster]

I'm not sure if your average Trump fan could parse that tweet.

[BraveUlysses]

child to child communication

[marshallnoise]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828575949268606977

IDK how people have not jumped ship off the Trump Cruise yet, its obviously headed for an iceberg.



You mean like trump promising to remove the Johnson Amendment? Yeah, Fake news: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7559421.html

Yes, because allowing churches and other religious institutions under 501c3 status to speak from the pew is so horrible and will automatically lead to a theocracy. Are you fucking crazy? What a massive cognitive leap it takes to get there.

[nando]

How would you feel about a Scientology SuperPAC?

What's crazy is involving religious kooks in the government. But that never stopped the current GOP.. Despite the explicit intentions of our founding documents.

[BraveUlysses]

Because it was already compiled, it was already vetted, it was ready....... Why go though that whole process over to get the same results. Waste of time, and resources.

You know I'd like to think a constitutionalist like yourself would be opposed to overly broad, restrictive governmental actions like this but somehow I'm not surprised in the least.

[marshallnoise]

How would you feel about a Scientology SuperPAC?

What's crazy is involving religious kooks in the government. But that never stopped the current GOP.. Despite the explicit intentions of our founding documents.

Our Founding Fathers simply did not want a "Church of the United States of America" like England had "The Church of England" which was nothing but a political football. They never intended on banning religion from the government or public life or banning politicians from being religious.

More importantly, the left constantly bandies about religious folks, so long as you are from the correct religion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoGQt0cejxM

FYI, Scientology already has a SuperPac: Hollywood.

[marshallnoise]

You know I'd like to think a constitutionalist like yourself would be opposed to overly broad, restrictive governmental actions like this but somehow I'm not surprised in the least.

A law was passed to explicitly give the executive branch the power to do exactly what Trump did. That is constitutional, by definition. You are confusing yourself.

[Wschnitz]

“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”

-Founding Father James Madison, 1819

No, If you ever actually researched anything Marshall you would see most of them were pretty adamant that no group whatsoever have any majority input on politics, including groups such as Repbulicans/Democrats forming, religious groups gaining excessive control through support of candidates, and otherwise.

I'm sick of you twisting the words of history to your benefit, and doing it so terribly that it comes out obvious you have not even read the material you are 'paraphrasing'.






On the topic of trump, how many executive orders does he get before someone grows some balls and tells him NO. That he has to do it the way you are supposed to, through due process, and introduce well thought out and planned bills.

[mbonder]

There will be court battles, that's how all of this will be decided.

On another front, I have to disagree a little with Wschnitz about your statement about the formation of political parties. Most framers saw them as an unfortunate reality. Washington probably held the line the longest by attempting to fill his cabinet with the best men regardless of their affiliations, but even this broke down in the middle of his second term after Jefferson and then Hamilton left the cabinet and he appointed solidly Federalist men to replace them. Guys like Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, Monroe, Livingston, all participated in the formation of the original two party system, the Federalist and Republicans.

I do however, agree that they saw the inclusion of religious institutions (or any institutions for that matter, foreign or domestic) as a threat to the existence of government, thus the separation of church and state. That doesn't mean, however, that the idea of personal religion was looked down upon, as many people viewed religious devotion (and still do) as one of the main characteristics required for someone who should represent them in government.