[thepostman]

But it got him in the door. He obviously ran a good race but if he was just some unknown businessman using the same strategy it wouldn't of worked.

[Purple Haize]

But it got him in the door. He obviously ran a good race but if he was just some unknown businessman using the same strategy it wouldn't of worked.

Absolutely agree it got him in the door. But that doesn’t equate to having a base.

[Purple Haize]

The tomfoolery of Pelos now saying she may withhold the Articles from the Senate is baffling. If they were to have us believe that Trumps actions were so egregious that they could not wait until the next election and that they had to step in because they know what’s best for us and the Constitution why wouldn’t the EXPEDITE the Articles?

https://www.newsmax.com/alandershowitz/ ... id/946659/

[chris leedlelee]

I think you’re creating a false dichotomy here- this is not an either/or. You can be firmly pro-life and firmly against presidential misconduct, you don’t have to choose between the two. If Trump is removed from office, it doesn’t make Pelosi the president. If anything, it tells the Republican Party they need to put forward a better candidate.

In a two-party system such as ours, it is quite a dichotomous decision (Sorry Libertarians). The only time it is not a dichotomy is during primaries, and Trump primarily did win due to standing out amongst the myriad of "traditional" Republican candidates. Had Trump entered against one or two other big names, he likely wouldn't have won the primary.

[Purple Haize]

I think you’re creating a false dichotomy here- this is not an either/or. You can be firmly pro-life and firmly against presidential misconduct, you don’t have to choose between the two. If Trump is removed from office, it doesn’t make Pelosi the president. If anything, it tells the Republican Party they need to put forward a better candidate.

In a two-party system such as ours, it is quite a dichotomous decision (Sorry Libertarians). The only time it is not a dichotomy is during primaries, and Trump primarily did win due to standing out amongst the myriad of "traditional" Republican candidates. Had Trump entered against one or two other big names, he likely wouldn't have won the primary.

I don’t know about that last part. Beating 17 or however many was arguably probably tougher. They other candidates attacked him instead of each other. He ran an untraditional campaign and a lot of people found that refreshing. He did not back down when attacked, and a lot of Conservatives found that heartening in light of the way others had folded like a cheap suit in the face of attacks. What he did in the Primaries doesn’t get enough credit IMO

[stokesjokes]

I think you’re creating a false dichotomy here- this is not an either/or. You can be firmly pro-life and firmly against presidential misconduct, you don’t have to choose between the two. If Trump is removed from office, it doesn’t make Pelosi the president. If anything, it tells the Republican Party they need to put forward a better candidate.

In a two-party system such as ours, it is quite a dichotomous decision (Sorry Libertarians). The only time it is not a dichotomy is during primaries, and Trump primarily did win due to standing out amongst the myriad of "traditional" Republican candidates. Had Trump entered against one or two other big names, he likely wouldn't have won the primary.

I think you’re right (assuming utilitarian ethics, see previous post) that the choice on Election Day is dichotomous, but that’s not what the article is talking about. The article is about whether or not Trump should be removed from
office. You can support pro-life positions and support Trump being held accountable if you believe he did what he is charged with, that’s not dissonant.

And Purple, I think you’re right that Trump deserves credit, he was the perfect guy to feed off of those attacks. On the flip side, he got so much free publicity because of them too, since everyone was always talking about Trump instead of their own campaigns.

[chris leedlelee]

I think you’re right (assuming utilitarian ethics, see previous post) that the choice on Election Day is dichotomous, but that’s not what the article is talking about. The article is about whether or not Trump should be removed from
office. You can support pro-life positions and support Trump being held accountable if you believe he did what he is charged with, that’s not dissonant.

Is that a question of ethics then? Or a Constitutional question? Trump can't be impeached for being a big mean orange man. The issue with the CT article was that it appealed to emotion while operating under the thesis that Trump deserved to be impeached under the Constitution. The key with these specific articles of impeachment is that there were no "high crimes or misdemeanors" included in them. They only include "Abuse of Power" and "Contempt of Congress". Neither constitute a specific crime. Bribery was removed from the Articles of Impeachment due to their being scant evidence for such a charge.

[stokesjokes]

I think you’re right (assuming utilitarian ethics, see previous post) that the choice on Election Day is dichotomous, but that’s not what the article is talking about. The article is about whether or not Trump should be removed from
office. You can support pro-life positions and support Trump being held accountable if you believe he did what he is charged with, that’s not dissonant.

Is that a question of ethics then? Or a Constitutional question? Trump can't be impeached for being a big mean orange man. The issue with the CT article was that it appealed to emotion while operating under the thesis that Trump deserved to be impeached under the Constitution. The key with these specific articles of impeachment is that there were no "high crimes or misdemeanors" included in them. They only include "Abuse of Power" and "Contempt of Congress". Neither constitute a specific crime. Bribery was removed from the Articles of Impeachment due to their being scant evidence for such a charge.

I think the emotion of the CT article is reasonable if you believe Trump did what he is accused of. One of the interesting things I’ve noticed is there’s a wide split between people who are absolutely sure that they can point to a mountain of solid evidence that Trump is guilty and people who say there’s no evidence and it’s all a sham. I’ve never seen anything like it where the “facts” quoted by both sides are so incongruous.

Regarding the impeachment articles, here’s what I pulled up from Wikipedia: “Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[5] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[5] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachme ... prov=sfti1

[Purple Haize]

Obviously the CT authors missed this. Possibly the most rational and sane discourse on this whole charade

[chris leedlelee]

“Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[5] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[5] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense.

Hamilton also wrote, "In many cases [impeachment] will connect itself with the preexisting factions ... and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.", which seems to be the case here. If the standard above was a sole qualification for impeachment, Obama could have reasonably been impeached for: 1) The IRS Scandal 2)Benghazi 3) Fast and Furious etc. My contention is that what Trump did was certainly unethical, but also not impeachable. A more appropriate rebuke from the House, which could have possibly been bipartisan, would have been to censure the President. I'll go so far as to say even Clinton's impeachment was on shaky ground, as the only crime he committed was perjury. At least this was a clearly established and defined crime, however.

[Tnobes]

Just finished reading that and was going to post it here. Thought it was really well written. Pretty surprised CT put it out there.

Christianity today stopped being Christian long ago

[thepostman]

Have they? When did that happen? For the most part they aren't very controversial. So please explain. I'd love to hear your rational on that.

[Tnobes]

Can you name someone you know personally who is alt right?

[thepostman]

No but I also don't know anybody in antifa or the KKK. That doesn't mean those groups don't exist.

I'm not sure what that had to do with my question about CT.

[stokesjokes]

Just finished reading that and was going to post it here. Thought it was really well written. Pretty surprised CT put it out there.

Christianity today stopped being Christian long ago

What a baffling take

[Purple Haize]

Have they? When did that happen? For the most part they aren't very controversial. So please explain. I'd love to hear your rational on that.

Timing might have something to do with it. The EIC has had an interesting tenure

https://www.christianitytoday.org/media ... chief.html

[Purple Haize]

Take THAT Christianity Today.

It’s sad when a parody magazine has more credibility on an issue than an actual subject matter periodical

https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon ... -to-resign

[LU 57]

Take THAT Christianity Today.

It’s sad when a parody magazine has more credibility on an issue than an actual subject matter periodical

https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon ... -to-resign

Hilarious. Love the Babylon Bee.

[thepostman]

Take THAT Christianity Today.

It’s sad when a parody magazine has more credibility on an issue than an actual subject matter periodical

https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon ... -to-resign

Good stuff!

[TH Spangler]

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/why ... mp-234364/

[thepostman]

Babylon Bee continues the trend using satire to ruffle feathers on both sides of the aisle.

[Purple Haize]

See? That’s good old fashioned ribbing. And funny

[thepostman]

It's good stuff and they dish it out to both sides which I really appreciate. Haha

[Purple Haize]

It's good stuff and they dish it out to both sides which I really appreciate. Haha

I’m still in awe of how many people fell for the Trump Resort and Casino at Liberty University story. Epic

[thepostman]

Haha yeah. At this point if you don't know what the Babylon Bee is all about I'm not sure what to tell you.