User Tag List

Page 8 of 106 FirstFirst ... 5678910111858 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 1585

Thread: Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

  1. #106
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,184
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 903 Times in 637 Posts

    Blog Entries
    8
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    292126
    Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

    Apparently former Director Comey kept detailed notes about every meeting/phone call he had with the President and dispersed copies to his colleagues.

    Trump cleared the room, including Sessions and Pence, at the White House so there would be no witnesses when he asked Comey to stop investigating Michael Flynn over his Russian connections.

    The only reason House and Senate Republicans have tolerated the 3 ring circus at the White House was the hope that they could enact their conservative agenda - the remainder of Trump's term will be spent circling the wagons" around the White House, not enacting their agenda!

    Without the support of the Republicans in Congress, Trump's days are numbered!

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jgarden For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (May 17th, 2017),Rusha (May 17th, 2017)

  3. #107
    Old Timer DavidK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Michigan, US
    Posts
    490
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 218 Times in 152 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    53763
    Quote Originally Posted by kmoney View Post
    What does everyone think about Trump trying to weaken the Johnson Amendment related to churches endorsing political candidates?
    Good, bad, ugly?
    I haven't had a chance to read about it in detail. The article I've read so far left me confused. It quoted the executive order as telling the IRS to back down from non-profit churches that speak from a place of religious grounds about political issues but do not support a specific candidate. As far as I understood, that's what the Johnson Amendment already does. Non-profit churches under the amendment aren't forbidden from talking issues, just supporting individual candidates.

    So either I don't understand the Johnson Amendment, don't understand the executive order, or it's just for show to appeal to the evangelical supporters without actually changing much. Need to read up on it more.

    My congregation is committed to speaking what we feel the Lord is saying, and we're willing to give up tax exempt status if necessary. It was one of the specific choices we agreed on when we formed it. It's nice to be tax exempt, but I don't expect or count on any favors from Babylon. Seems a little silly to throw a fit if it wants to take away tax exemption.
    Maranatha!

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DavidK For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (May 17th, 2017),Rusha (May 17th, 2017)

  5. #108
    Over 4000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,943
    Thanks
    373
    Thanked 783 Times in 622 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    595161
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to quip For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (May 18th, 2017),Rusha (May 17th, 2017)

  7. #109
    Gold level Subscriber kmoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    A farm
    Posts
    9,996
    Thanks
    1,080
    Thanked 2,097 Times in 1,086 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1086762
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    Good if he is using this as a ploy to increase the tax base. Bad if he wants churches to be more involved in supporting political parties or candidates and ugly if a case involving a repeal of the Johnson Amendment ends up in the hands of the Supreme Court


    I have mixed feelings too. On the one hand, it seems like pastors are able to say so much related to politics but they aren't able to go that one extra step and verbalize what everyone knows they want to support anyway. On the other hand, I appreciate churches not being able to fully get involved.

    One interesting viewpoint I heard on this issue is that the Johnson rule actually should be seen as protection for pastors, not a restriction. A protection because if they can't endorse someone then they can't be politically pressured. They are insulated from political battles.

    Maybe another benefit to the removal of this rule is that we can see which pastors want to use their pulpit for political power and influence.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kmoney For Your Post:

    quip (May 17th, 2017),WizardofOz (May 17th, 2017)

  9. #110
    Gold level Subscriber kmoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    A farm
    Posts
    9,996
    Thanks
    1,080
    Thanked 2,097 Times in 1,086 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1086762
    Quote Originally Posted by drbrumley View Post
    What's your view on churches being tax-exempt?

  10. #111
    Gold level Subscriber kmoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    A farm
    Posts
    9,996
    Thanks
    1,080
    Thanked 2,097 Times in 1,086 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1086762
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidK View Post
    I haven't had a chance to read about it in detail. The article I've read so far left me confused. It quoted the executive order as telling the IRS to back down from non-profit churches that speak from a place of religious grounds about political issues but do not support a specific candidate. As far as I understood, that's what the Johnson Amendment already does. Non-profit churches under the amendment aren't forbidden from talking issues, just supporting individual candidates.

    So either I don't understand the Johnson Amendment, don't understand the executive order, or it's just for show to appeal to the evangelical supporters without actually changing much. Need to read up on it more.
    My understanding is that he directed the IRS to use great discretion in targeting churches that endorse candidates. I agree that if it was what you read would be confusing.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to kmoney For Your Post:

    DavidK (May 18th, 2017)

  12. #112
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    7,129
    Thanks
    162
    Thanked 934 Times in 651 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    281390
    Quote Originally Posted by kmoney View Post
    What's your view on churches being tax-exempt?
    Well, being everyone should be tax exempt, doesn't bother me...just don't like the strings attached to it though from a secular government
    Contrary to what many Americans seem to think, the document we now call "the Constitution" and the Declaration of Independence are not pretty much the same thing or "connected in spirit," or "two sides of the same coin." The two documents were written by two different groups of people at two different times to accomplish two totally different goals.

  13. #113
    Gold level Subscriber kmoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    A farm
    Posts
    9,996
    Thanks
    1,080
    Thanked 2,097 Times in 1,086 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1086762
    Quote Originally Posted by drbrumley View Post
    Well, being everyone should be tax exempt, doesn't bother me...
    Well yeah, you'd get rid of all taxes but I meant given our system what is your view of it.

  14. #114
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    7,129
    Thanks
    162
    Thanked 934 Times in 651 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    281390
    Quote Originally Posted by kmoney View Post
    Well yeah, you'd get rid of all taxes but I meant given our system what is your view of it.
    just don't like the strings attached to it though from a secular government
    Contrary to what many Americans seem to think, the document we now call "the Constitution" and the Declaration of Independence are not pretty much the same thing or "connected in spirit," or "two sides of the same coin." The two documents were written by two different groups of people at two different times to accomplish two totally different goals.

  15. #115
    Over 3000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3,853
    Thanks
    682
    Thanked 944 Times in 538 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    918727
    Roger Stone: Saudi Arabia Should 'Pay for 9/11,' and Trump's Award 'Makes Me Want to Puke'


    President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia has left one person deeply unimpressed—his former campaign adviser Roger Stone.

    As the president spoke of a successful visit to the kingdom, describing his first day there as "tremendous,” Stone took to social media to lash out at the fist stop on Trump’s first foreign trip since taking office.

    In a tweet on Saturday Stone said: “Instead of meeting with the Saudis ‪@realDonaldTrump should be demanding they pay for the attack on America on 9/11 which they financed.”

    He also shared a picture of Trump bowing his head as King Salman bin Abdulaziz awarded him the Order of Abdulaziz, writing: “Candidly this makes me want to puke ‪#JaredsIdea.”



    Story

    Was Trump right when he criticized Saudi Arabia for their 9/11 ties or is he right now to embrace them?
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

  16. #116
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    7,129
    Thanks
    162
    Thanked 934 Times in 651 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    281390
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    Roger Stone: Saudi Arabia Should 'Pay for 9/11,' and Trump's Award 'Makes Me Want to Puke'


    President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia has left one person deeply unimpressed—his former campaign adviser Roger Stone.

    As the president spoke of a successful visit to the kingdom, describing his first day there as "tremendous,” Stone took to social media to lash out at the fist stop on Trump’s first foreign trip since taking office.

    In a tweet on Saturday Stone said: “Instead of meeting with the Saudis ‪@realDonaldTrump should be demanding they pay for the attack on America on 9/11 which they financed.”

    He also shared a picture of Trump bowing his head as King Salman bin Abdulaziz awarded him the Order of Abdulaziz, writing: “Candidly this makes me want to puke ‪#JaredsIdea.”



    Story

    Was Trump right when he criticized Saudi Arabia for their 9/11 ties or is he right now to embrace them?
    I am actually disgusted by it.
    Contrary to what many Americans seem to think, the document we now call "the Constitution" and the Declaration of Independence are not pretty much the same thing or "connected in spirit," or "two sides of the same coin." The two documents were written by two different groups of people at two different times to accomplish two totally different goals.

  17. #117
    Over 3000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3,853
    Thanks
    682
    Thanked 944 Times in 538 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    918727
    Quote Originally Posted by drbrumley View Post
    I am actually disgusted by it.
    By him now embracing them?
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

  18. #118
    Gold level Subscriber kmoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    A farm
    Posts
    9,996
    Thanks
    1,080
    Thanked 2,097 Times in 1,086 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1086762
    Was Trump's speech today good, bad, ugly? From what I've seen it was actually pretty good.


    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN18H00U

    President Donald Trump urged Arab and Islamic leaders on Sunday to unite and do their share to defeat Islamist extremists, making an impassioned plea to "drive out" terrorists while toning down his own harsh rhetoric about Muslims.

    Trump singled out Iran as a key source of funding and support for militant groups. His words aligned with the views of his Saudi Arabian hosts and sent a tough message to Tehran the day after Hassan Rouhani won a second term as Iran's president.

    The U.S. president did not use his signature term "radical Islamic terrorism" in the speech, a signal that he heeded advice to employ a more moderate tone in the region after using the phrase repeatedly as a presidential candidate.

    "Terrorism has spread all across the world. But the path to peace begins right here, on this ancient soil, in this sacred land," Trump told leaders from about 50 Muslim-majority countries representing more than a billion people.

    "A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and drive out the extremists. Drive them out! Drive them out of your places of worship, drive them out of your communities, drive them out of your holy land and drive them out of this earth."

    The president's first speech abroad provided an opportunity to show his strength and resolve, in contrast to his struggle to contain a mushrooming scandal at home after his firing of former FBI Director James Comey nearly two weeks ago.

    He portrayed the conflict as one between good and evil, not between civilizations, and made clear in a forceful tone that Washington would partner with the Middle East but expected more action in return.

    "There is still much work to be done. That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism, and the Islamists, and Islamic terror of all kinds," he said in his speech.

    The advance excerpts of the speech had him saying "Islamist extremism." A White House official blamed Trump's fatigue for the switch. "Just an exhausted guy," she told reporters.

    The term "Islamist extremism" refers to Islamism as a political movement rather than Islam as a religion, a distinction that the Republican president had frequently criticized the administration of his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, for making.




    The one irony/double-standard I can see is that Trump and Saudi Arabia are talking about Iran being a global exporter of terrorism and I've seen quite a bit about how extremism is being propagated by Saudi Arabia. It's just Sunni instead of Shiite.

  19. #119
    Over 3000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3,853
    Thanks
    682
    Thanked 944 Times in 538 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    918727
    Quote Originally Posted by kmoney View Post
    Was Trump's speech today good, bad, ugly? From what I've seen it was actually pretty good.


    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN18H00U

    President Donald Trump urged Arab and Islamic leaders on Sunday to unite and do their share to defeat Islamist extremists, making an impassioned plea to "drive out" terrorists while toning down his own harsh rhetoric about Muslims.

    Trump singled out Iran as a key source of funding and support for militant groups. His words aligned with the views of his Saudi Arabian hosts and sent a tough message to Tehran the day after Hassan Rouhani won a second term as Iran's president.

    The U.S. president did not use his signature term "radical Islamic terrorism" in the speech, a signal that he heeded advice to employ a more moderate tone in the region after using the phrase repeatedly as a presidential candidate.

    "Terrorism has spread all across the world. But the path to peace begins right here, on this ancient soil, in this sacred land," Trump told leaders from about 50 Muslim-majority countries representing more than a billion people.

    "A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and drive out the extremists. Drive them out! Drive them out of your places of worship, drive them out of your communities, drive them out of your holy land and drive them out of this earth."

    The president's first speech abroad provided an opportunity to show his strength and resolve, in contrast to his struggle to contain a mushrooming scandal at home after his firing of former FBI Director James Comey nearly two weeks ago.

    He portrayed the conflict as one between good and evil, not between civilizations, and made clear in a forceful tone that Washington would partner with the Middle East but expected more action in return.

    "There is still much work to be done. That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism, and the Islamists, and Islamic terror of all kinds," he said in his speech.

    The advance excerpts of the speech had him saying "Islamist extremism." A White House official blamed Trump's fatigue for the switch. "Just an exhausted guy," she told reporters.

    The term "Islamist extremism" refers to Islamism as a political movement rather than Islam as a religion, a distinction that the Republican president had frequently criticized the administration of his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, for making.




    The one irony/double-standard I can see is that Trump and Saudi Arabia are talking about Iran being a global exporter of terrorism and I've seen quite a bit about how extremism is being propagated by Saudi Arabia. It's just Sunni instead of Shiite.
    If he went to Saudi Arabia and somewhat called them out on harboring terrorist factions, I'd call that a good thing.

    I look forward to listening to the speech in its entirety.
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

  20. #120
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    7,129
    Thanks
    162
    Thanked 934 Times in 651 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    281390
    Donald of Arabia: A Disgusting Spectacle
    Contrary to what many Americans seem to think, the document we now call "the Constitution" and the Declaration of Independence are not pretty much the same thing or "connected in spirit," or "two sides of the same coin." The two documents were written by two different groups of people at two different times to accomplish two totally different goals.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us