Stanley goes to my church.

Always a little intimidating/amazing when you are sitting in adult forum and he's in the audience and they ask for questions/comments and he starts talking. It's like going to the park for a pickup game and LeBron just happens to be there and joins up.

I had the same experience with Bill Placher, a Presbyterian theologian. He was a great guy and an easy laugher, but he was also a Yale trained scholar with some of the most widely read books on Presbyterian thought and practice.

BuzzFeed has a reporter in the Manafort courtroom. Defense team said the judge needed to give clearer "no contact" order and special counsel lawyer said there were no conditions where they thought Manafort would comply with a no contact order. court in a brief recess, should get decision soon.

And Manafort's off to jail, bail revoked.

woohoo!

Guys, yesterday totally exonerated Trump. Weren't you listening?

I've become hard of hearing when Trump talks

Ah, the "I didn't know I couldn't do that" defense now being used for witness tampering. :popcorn:

If
(1) My last name isn't Trump;
(2) I'm within the jurisdiction of the United States or a country with liberal extradition to the United States; and
(3) I have helped anyone in the Trump family do or cover up anything illegal in the last 15 years

then I am getting an attorney and proactively going to the government to confess and negotiate cooperation. The threads of the investigation web are only going to get longer and you know that Donald Trump will not think twice about disavowing knowledge of you and leaving you to rot.

Yep I agree-showed that today when he said Cohen was no longer his personal attorney, setting up the distancing there. Manafort going to jail should be a clear sign that no one is safe from the Mueller investigation, and they better start making deals. Cohen already showing new willingness to work with authorities today.

Trump's tweet about Manafort:


Wow, what a tough sentence for Paul Manafort, who has represented Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other top political people and campaigns. Didn’t know Manafort was the head of the Mob. What about Comey and Crooked Hillary and all of the others? Very unfair!


Nothing like the sentencing you are going to be facing...

"What about" irrelevant people and things that will side track our idiot voters?

Also, honestly can't believe anyone is still talking about Hilary. Christ. Find a more relevant boogeyman.

LOL.

Seriously, simply just LOL.

we can bring this quote up when/if he gets sentenced then okay? :)

Kind of interesting to see the trouble they'd go through.

Prosecutors said Manafort used a method called "foldering" to covertly talk to people. It's not that complicated: He made an email account and shared the password. He wrote messages but saved them as drafts, never sending actual emails. Other guys open the draft, read it, delete.

— Marshall Cohen (@MarshallCohen) June 15, 2018

Judge says no to Cohen's request for a restraining order against Michael Avernatti-saying Cohen did not demonstrate "immediate, irreplacable injury" would take place without it.

Mueller's team got a second win today denying the Russians he's fighting to review grand jury instructions in the Russian troll farm indictment.

Government recovered over 700 pages of encrypted text messages from Cohen's phone. And the call logs. And reassembled 16 pages of shredded documents....and there is still another phone they are trying to get into

Looking like Sarah Sahders, Raj Shah, and Marc Short looking to resign by year's end

Use Signal, not WhatsApp if you're a dumb criminal.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...ama-jfk-reagan

Republican voters are demanding that President Trump run for re-election in 2020, the latest evidence that support among his backers is stronger than it was for nearly every recent president.

According to the latest Economist/YouGov poll, 68 percent of Republicans want Trump to run for re-election.

And Democratic pollster John Zogby said this week that only former President George W. Bush was more popular than Trump among his base going into his first mid-term election, and he had just launched a war against America’s 9/11 attackers.

So Republican ID is around 27/28% and out of that a third of them don't want Trump to run for reelection? That doesn't sound positive.

So many of these "X% of Republican love that thing that Trump just did" news stories completely ignore the fact that the number of people who identify as Republicans has dropped significantly because of Trumpism. "Way to go, Donald, you're polling well among people who haven't abandoned their lifelong Party identification because of you!"

Then trump said he was kidding and that reporters don't understand 'sarcasm.'


So now I'm confused. Was he kidding or was it sarcasm. Cause if it was sarcasm does he really mean that he wants his people slouching for him? Was that what he really meant?

The way I see it, there's a whole lot of missing the point going on with the Sessions thing.


I've listened to what he said several times, and he went on to talk about the family separations but that's not what he was referring to when quoting Romans 13. He was talking about it being illegal to cross the border illegally and saying people shouldn't do that, and those who do can and should be prosecuted. In other words, he was referring more to the general case and not the specific controversy about how to handle families.


Very true. Peter also wrote the same teaching, and if he thought it was appropriate to submit to a tyrant like Nero, that sort of includes everyone. Which is one reason why I think, for example, the American Revolutionary War was wholly unjustified.


Did he say the people could go ahead and disobey the Pharisees though? I read him saying exactly the opposite(Matthew 23:1-3), that they needed to obey them regardless of their hypocrisy and corruption. In regards to the Romans which would seem the more relevant case, he said only 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's'. I'm not aware of a single case in which Jesus said anything else about obedience to Rome, and Paul/Peter's words head the same way.

The issues in the John passage isn't that people aren't under the authority of their government, but that Jesus wasn't as the Son of God, that the standing enforcement of the Sabbath wasn't correct, etc.

Right, which is why I said what I said...."Actually, it's utterly piss-poor exegesis and application if you think, as Sessions does, that the immigrants coming in are not believers. That text has no application whatsoever to those outside the faith. None. Zero. Zip."




Not to mention the fact that trying to make a simplistic application of Paul's teaching on how a follower of Jesus should relate to a Roman military dictatorship into how an outsider should relate to a representative democracy inherently puts an unstudied person on extremely shaky theological ground.

I'm not sure that Christianity was designed with representative democracy in mind. Somewhere along the line we've convinced ourselves that it's the ideal form of Christian governance this side of the Kingdom...which most certainly will not look anything like the atomized individualism we've come to equate with the current model.

I think there's a reason (other than Marx's) that Christianity tends to flourish best in nations where it is a (persecuted?) minority rather than a political force.

I don't know how anyone can justify separating children from parents.

I get that the parents may have broken the law and they need to be "imprisoned" temporarily. Or they are asking for asylum and we can't process those cases quickly. I can also believe children could be separated for a short period of time. But we are talking weeks if not months.

So what's the solution? Not sure. Keeping the families together will create pseudo "shanty" towns in detention or prison facilities. There will be a sense of permanence (?) which I don't want to encourage.

Maybe the best way is change our asylum laws and not accept any at the border? Or give parents the choice, if you want your children back to withdraw whatever petition and leave. Don't blame us because you made a choice for this to happen and you are making a choice to continue it.

I do think it is weird that the people saying "God wants us to obey our government" are the same people who never shut up about needing weapons so that they can stand up to that government.

Also in light of the crying over Manafort being torn from his family today, it is even more comical.

Jeff Sessions is and always has been stupid.

I know its going to hurt but I'm okay with a trade war. We should impose tariffs on electronics too, that's where it'll really hurt China.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/he...cit-2018-03-23

It's the same people who will tell you all day long that God is sovereign over the whole created universe and nothing happens outside of his designs, but they also need to carry a gun with a round in the chamber to protect their families against bad guys at all times.

People like to say they believe one thing, but their actions tend to be better indicators of where they're actually at.

(Which is not to say that they don't aspire to believe more concretely than they actually do. I mean, I can hold onto the idea that God will provide for my needs like the Bible says, but if I thought God was telling me to quit my job and go into the mission field, I'd still probably have a bunch of sleepless nights over it.)

And then there are just those that carry a gun but tell you they are non-practicing. :)

If you're going to carry, you should be practicing. How do you expect to beat highly trained ninjas with your pistolero skills if you're not practicing?

(Note: I don't have a problem with concealed carry. I have a concealed carry license. I just don't think the theology works. There are lots of things professing Christians -- myself included -- do on a regular basis which directly conflicts with good theology. This is just an obvious one for me that falls into the "Don't shit on me and call it good theology" category. We're allowed to like guns without having to fall back on an intellectually vapid theological justification for it. I also like pork and shellfish.)

What's the end game here? I understand protecting certain industries and leveling unfair playing fields, but trade wars have never turned out positive.

I have to say it is bizarre to see Republicans abandon free trade. It's one of the areas I agreed with them on.

Free trade and the NFL for Kanye and Kim seems like a really bad deal.

Is it truly or even near free trade with China?

I think Trump's end game is to bluster and force some concessions (real or not) so he can say he was tough on China.

That's a good one, you got me.


I think I'm more of a NT vs OT guy.

Last year we exported $23 billion in agricultural products to China. This is REALLY stinging the ag markets. These countries retaliating are not dumb. They are putting the screws to Trump's voter base.

Ag has been slumping the past few years. Banks are starting to squeeze the industry credit wise. I'm not sure where this is headed, but if Trump doesn't have some brilliant deals up his ass, I'm starting to think I personally got out at the right time. For local communities that rely a lot on ag, it could be the death knell for them. The ironic thing is, they voted for this.

Because whether or not Trump policies would hurt them mattered less than whether Trump policies would ALSO hurt people they don't like.

My dad has diabetes. The Trump Administration is taking the position in court that preventing insurance companies from charging more or dropping coverage for folks with pre-existing conditions is unconstitutional.

So there are real-world ramifications for my dad, health-wise, under Trump.

But he also lives in Southern California and he and my mom both ate up the 'build the wall and make Mexico pay for it' campaign slogan.

I don't think either one of them has given any thought to what it's going to mean for Dad's health insurance in the next few years. Trump called Mexicans murderers and rapists and that was just fine with them. Also, he wasn't "Killary."

They're not unique examples of Trump's base.

Where does this idea even come from, that trade between countries has to be equal ?

I think some people get confused between equal trade and fair trade.

The way our county's current president talks about trade imbalances demonstrates that he simply doesn't grasp the concept. He talks about another country with whom he thinks (often inaccurately) we have a trade deficit as if they are simply stealing money from us. "Bad deal." I honestly don't think he understand that Americans are actually, you know, "getting stuff" from this trade with that country. We are choosing to buy their stuff because we want it, and we'd rather have the stuff than the money we paid for it.

It's embarrassing (I know, take a number) but I think his entire concept of trade is about "winning" and he does not register the notion that cheap products made elsewhere can be great for American businesses and consumers.

By hurt China - I presume you mean 'shaft the US companies' ? .... China will hurt, but it'll smack the US in the teeth and give a huge advantage to Asian tech companies like Samsung ... this is a trade war the US can't win, America is already waning slowly as an economic force - heading into something like this will likely accelerate that as it draws other countries further together economically and weakens the US influence.

PS - I'm also wondering how these tariffs will be tracked, for instance if a German good is made using some components from China will it be taxed on import to the US because of that, how will they be able to tell where the components were made etc. ... or is it just where they are imported from which matters? ... if so then I expect there will be a fantastic amount of shipping to a country before sale and some passing through of corporations to avoid some of this, if they attempt to detect such things then its a LOT of paperwork and checking.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...ion/705121002/


Losing the farm to own the libs.

Funny how that works.

I was reading the below article. For right or for wrong, it struck me poorly as I read about the Palestinian wants.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/a...s-past-n883436

You've lost the war and are losing support. Israel and some other arab countries are moving past your problem. Its unlikely you will get better deals in the future.


Yeah, like not having done it in the previous two decades have helped? Maybe since Oslo in mid 90's.


True with Trump. Was this true with Obama or with Clinton? Were there opportunities squandered because the Palestinians refused to accept reality, and played poker (which they've lost over and over again).


Yeah right. You and what army? Get real.


I'm sure that's true but one big reason for the wall were the attacks on Israeli civilians and the need for security. It reduced the attacks. You brought that on yourselves.


Yup, it sucks. It's not right but that's what happens when you've been "conquered" and don't have a lot of power. Join the Native American club.


Because you should accept reality and move on with building a country, imperfect as it it, and trying to live and place nice with a country that you cannot beat.


Let's do without the hyperbole's. It doesn't help the cause or negotiations.

*****

No, I don't think I got everything right. But I do think the Palestinians are not dealing in reality. Accept that you've lost, your former friends are getting tired of your cause (they have other things to worry about now), and it ain't going to get better unless there is a miracle.

Suck it up, make peace, get your own "real" country and grow. Oh, if Gaza strip doesn't want to come along, there's not much you can do about it. If they do, great. A non-contiguous country of your own is better than not.

Israel is in a more precarious position than you realize.


They can't continue with the status quo for long. Their current leadership has also cast lots with the conservatives and evangelicals in the US risking losing the bipartisan support they've enjoyed for decades. Like a house with termites, they look good now, but inside the foundation is slowly falling apart.

Making peace with the Palestinians is about self preservation for a Jewish, democratic nation.

Damn that's a high horse you are shouting down from. And to drop that as some sort of random "see, that's how it is" tidbit that

The proposed plan is quite simply not even close to being viable in terms of habitation space and natural ressources. If you create a cohesive palestine state (and anything else makes no sense to anybody) and resettle the people from Gaza into the West Bank for example, you might as well leave it like now. Or drop some bombs and save everybody the trouble of a humanitarian crisis of the highest order.
Even right now more than 50% of people living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are still considered refugess living in conditions somewhere between camp/slum. Some of them for decades. And that's not even considering the over 2 mio palestinian refugess living in Jordan or the 500k in Lebanon and Syria (many of those now having been displaced all over the globe).

But very Trump of you to basically say "loser should just shut up and accept the deal the winner is gracious enough to offer". Even talking about this as if there was 1 clearly defined war between Palestine and Israel that is the sole reason for this seems pretty way out there and produced a winner and a looser who now refuses to accept gracious.
Nevermind that I personally wouldn't want to live in a world where the only 'reality' is determined by who has the power and who hasn't. We as humanity also tried that and it didn't work out all that well.

I am not in the slightest a "fan" of the palestine authorities, much less in the Gaza strip, nor am i entirely unsympathetic to the issues that Israel faces. But to me it sounds like you really have no concept of how collective memory and trauma work and haven't really bothered to get a grip on the actual realities of the people living in those areas today. You make it sound like those are people that kinda chose to get radicalized on some sort of whim or because someone made an eloquent speech once. The snippy commentary about the Native population of your own country shows pretty clearly that you lack basic comprehension in this regard.

You spend 4+ paragraphs telling me I suck. I guess that's fine and it'll just devolve into the other discussion topic if I bother to respond.

I don't disagree with some of your statements but I won't even bother rebutting on the others. Our history is we don't have good discussions.

Instead of the one-way sniping, we can try to have a productive conversation.

I've shown you (played my cards) on my position - what do you think are realistic solutions/options and let me react to them.