Sharia protests

[decay]

How is Trump a racist or rapist? Usually to be named a rapist one needs to have been charged with the crime. Pretty hard to be a president with a felony charge

Accusations against a rich man are always funny.

your argument is that since he was elected, he must be innocent? are you fucking kidding me? and more to the point, would you say the same if hillary had won? somehow i doubt it.

if you aren't informed enough to be aware of the racism (muslim travel ban, mexican border wall) or the sexual assault that he *bragged about* ("grab them by the waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffles"), you really shouldn't be chiming in here, because you aren't going to have anything of value to contribute.

[z31maniac]

your argument is that since he was elected, he must be innocent? are you fucking kidding me? and more to the point, would you say the same if hillary had won? somehow i doubt it.

No. His argument is that since he wasn't charged in a court of law and found guilty, then he is presumed innocent. That's how it works in this country.

[BraveUlysses]

How is Trump a racist or rapist? Usually to be named a rapist one needs to have been charged with the crime. Pretty hard to be a president with a felony charge

Accusations against a rich man are always funny.

defending people who brag about sexual assault is so fucking cringy

[marshallnoise]

Says the Clinton defender.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[mrsleeve]

No. His argument is that since he wasn't charged in a court of law and found guilty, then he is presumed innocent. That's how it works in this country.

Factually correct and from a legality perspective as well

Again ding ding winner winner chicken dinner

[BraveUlysses]

No. His argument is that since he wasn't charged in a court of law and found guilty, then he is presumed innocent. That's how it works in this country.

*holds breath while i wait for sleeve and everyone else in here called hillary a criminal to admit she's not a criminal because she wasn't ever charged*










*dies of asphyxiation*

[mrsleeve]

Thing about argument is Hillary has ADMITTED to breaking laws...... so you were going where with that exctaly

[decay]

No. His argument is that since he wasn't charged in a court of law and found guilty, then he is presumed innocent. That's how it works in this country.

you're sort of ignoring the part where he bragged about doing it.

sleeve, is that not exactly the same kind of admission of guilt?

[marshallnoise]

you're sort of ignoring the part where he bragged about doing it.

Does that really matter? We have no idea if the interactions were consensual either. Just typical left-wing smear tactics.

[decay]

right. drumpf's words out of his own mouth are a left-wing smear tactic. but for hillary, it's an admission of guilt.

no bias going on here, at all!

[marshallnoise]

Given what that quote from the Treaty of Tripoli says, I would say it has a pretty broad context.

Did you read it? Even left-leaning Wikipedia shows very clearly what the intent was.

Article 11

Article 11 has been and is a point of contention in popular culture disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States. Some religious spokesmen claim that—despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English—the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty.[10] Some historians have argued that the phrase specifically refers to the government and not the culture, that it only speaks of the founding and not what America became or might become.[12]



Article 11


Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,
"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[13] The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with only scant public dissent, most notably from William Cobbett.[14]

Just eight years later in 1805, the Treaty of Peace and Amity was signed and it superseded the Treaty of Tripoli. Guess wasn't included or doubled down?

[decay]

[quote]Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States.{/quote]

as you are quoting this as a supporting argument (and hooray for you for finally providing one), please explain how you get from this quote to "America is a Christian nation".

[marshallnoise]

right. drumpf's words out of his own mouth are a left-wing smear tactic. but for hillary, it's an admission of guilt.

no bias going on here, at all!

Come on, he wasn't even speaking about someone specifically. It was probably all bull-shit, dick measuring talk.

I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffles. You can do anything.

Incredibly distasteful. No question there. But that's not an admission of anything other than a guy with a massive, over-inflated sense of self.

[marshallnoise]

[QUOTE=decay;4793240]

Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States.{/quote]

as you are quoting this as a supporting argument (and hooray for you for finally providing one), please explain how you get from this quote to "America is a Christian nation".

Its people are Christian, not the government. You do realize that the government is not the same thing as the general public. This whole concept is in the post you were celebrating that I "finally" posted. Did you even read it?

[decay]

what's distasteful is you being an apologist for a person who is describing how he commits sexual assault.