So what? No "awards" for corporations doesn't mean they can't still combat global warming. What were the awards?
Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
- Status
Except the Trump administration has no interest in fighting climate change.
But the corporation that participated do have an interest, unless they were just doing it for the "honorary awards"
This thread is about what Trump does, not corporations.
Did Trump make this decision by himself?
Oh please....
I know, fake news doesn't stand up to simple questions
I am not a racist. I adore all other races. I favor them.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I thought you might like to see it not because I think you're a racist, but because in our conversation I'd mentioned to you something to the effect that the values of the magisterium, which you accept as your authority, will be consistently at odds with the values of a Trump doctrine.
Yes, exactly like that. Not racism.
A perfectly valid statistically based conclusion to draw. It doesn't matter that you would have characterized the statistics differently; statistics are what they are. You know that.
No.
I can't tell what that has to do with President Trump believing that he has always judged people based on merit, and never on race or sex or any other variable, other than performance and projected performance.
These people have no power and never will. Hitler was a political genius---there's no political genius here.
Then you should explain yourself, because many many people think that you are. Please link to pertinent First Amendment SCOTUS cases to help illustrate that your views are authoritative also. I'm thinking the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" is on point, for example.
Well that's why I mentioned it!
I got it. It wasn't about your intent, it's about what you actually, factually did. You said "man of parts." Nobody knows what "man of parts" means, so you are "making a production out of it."
I love that one.
Go back and read my actual post, instead of just your bad editing. There's a whole paragraph between the two sentences you quoted me on. As if I just wrote them continuously.
It isn't without moral weight, if your intention is for him to kill his wife! But barring that, this is not a moral matter.
Correct, and good show!
No, of being a "man of parts."
They're still never going to have power.
I did. I gave a counter analogy.
Not slow; blind. Got it.
You're talking about his morals. How else am I supposed to engage? Why else are you mentioning his morals?
So you judge his "rhetorical approach" to be immoral. That's one of the more bizarre opinions I've run across wrt to President Trump, to be honest. I've heard plenty of opinions that opine that his rhetorical approach is untraditional and unpresidential, but none so far besides yours, that it is literally immoral how he says what he says. Not what he says, but how he says it; that's immoral; is that what you're saying?
Yes. There are grave sins and and there are light sins, but they are all immoral, and we all commit immorality. And immorality is why we deserve to die forever in hellfire, and the single remedy that He offers us couldn't be simpler and is that we should believe HE IS RISEN.
Supra. Unless what you're suggesting is that President Trump is guilty of crimes, which is specifically what you've denied so far.
President Trump hasn't given any indication that he anything other than believes in and supports the right to religious liberty and freedom of religion and separation between religion and state; and in my judgment of the Church's teachings, these are the highest values in the public square, overarching all other morals that also extrapolate into, and have relevance in public policymaking. So long as he doesn't turn on the First Amendment for some reason, there's no serious difference between the Church's interests and the president's. The Church wants to be left alone, and wants to leave civil power alone, and if the feeling is mutual, then that's going to be fine. President Trump hasn't been indicating any hostility against any religion, going very far back in his life, and continuing to today. He's not a moral leader, most certainly by example, and for me personally also, because I've chosen to believe in the magisterium as the only legitimate authority in teaching morals, and not the president. But he believes in and supports the right to religious liberty, as does the Church. They are at the highest level in agreement.
I think I see your problem then. It was an entirely racist remark. Calling the judge Mexican. Why? He wasn't. Trump knew that. So why did he call him that? Hint: he was speaking to others. Now who is that going to resonate with and why? Who is the sort of person whose sympathy is won by that?
Painting the good as the exceptional. No, I think that's a long way from valid as points go.
I asked: You ever heard someone say something racist and then tell you they weren't racist?
That's remarkable. Happens all the time. Happens online a lot too. The woman who called Michele Obama a gorilla followed it with exactly that phrase.
Then I'll tell you. Sometimes people who are racist don't believe themselves to be. Or they don't want others to think it, even if on some level they know likely know they are. But if you pay attention to what they say or write long enough you can generally discover the truth.
I imagine there were people in Germany who dismissed Hitler the way you're dismissing the newest movement. And while I tend to agree with you that it can't happen here, understanding that many people thought the same thing about a Trump presidency...
Who are they and what makes them think that? I think they or you as their representative have to ask particular questions or make particular claims I can answer.
See, you can't say nobody knows what it means and then say you know what it means. I knew and I used it. You say you know but apparently think the rest of TOL isn't as well read or exposed as we are. I didn't make that assumption.
I don't believe that's the problem.
That's silly. If you understand that leaving the gun accessible can have foreseeable, negative consequences, but you do it anyway you have a level of moral responsibility. And that remains the point with Trumps incendiary rhetoric. The easy proof is all around us at present, the emboldened racism in the public square.
He offers himself as one. He knows more than generals, etc.
On the actual point. You're saying that if I note your best friend is a thief your response to that would be, "I don't get my personal habits from my friend"? Because I'm not talking about your habit in that case any more than I was speaking to your morality in the other.
Because it goes to his character, his actions, and the consequences that attend them.
I believe he has willfully contributed to a destabilizing of the Republic, spread contempt for its institutions, and given comfort and support to elements within it that have no real allegiance to its well being. So yes.
Rhetorical approach would be the kind and quality of his rhetoric, not his delivery. I'm talking about content.
.
dodge
New member
You do understand that the Sheriff was convicted for upholding the law he was sworn to uphold ?
Liberals are such hypocrites and people are waking up to their hypocrisy.
He defied a judge's lawful order. That's like a private deciding what order he's going to follow on the battlefield. He didn't do his job.
The criminal charge grew out of a lawsuit filed a decade ago charging that the sheriff’s office regularly violated the rights of Latinos, stopping people based on racial profiling, detaining them based solely on the suspicion that they were in the country illegally, and turning them over to the immigration authorities. - NY Times, July 31, 2017
The hypocrite would be someone touting law and order and supporting the actions that don't uphold that idea. Just throwing that word at liberals doesn't have the force of either reason or law, dodge.
dodge
New member
The judges "lawful" order violated (ignored) the federal immigration laws ! The sheriff followed the law that the left wants ignored. The reason the left wants the immigration laws ignored is to build up their voter base, which make them not only STUPID UN lawful idiots but also glaring hypocrites.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
There's a massive difference, starting with the Pope's "bridges not walls" approach to the treatment of immigrants.
But I'll leave you to believe what you want to believe.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You don't understand why he was convicted.
It's no surprise that Trump pardoned Arpaio, seeing how alike the two of them are. Neither appear to have much respect for the rule of law if the rule of law doesn't align with what they want to do, and they're both attention-seeking carnival hucksters.
Arpaio got off easy, considering how his tenure was riddled with abuses of power.
dodge
New member
Sure I do Arpaio got convicted because he made the left lunatics mad because he enforced the law.
Translated they both want those sworn to enforce the law to actually enforce the law.
Arapio got exactly what he deserved which was a pardon.
Everyone knows it is all about the demon rats building up their voter base. IF the folks walking in from Mexico were conservatives the wall would have been built years ago.
Arpaio admitted to breaking the law, dodge. His defense was that he and his deputies didn't realize they were doing it, that the one judge's orders weren't altogether clear.
The trier of fact responded to Arpaio's defense by holding that he,"willfully violated the order by failing to do anything to ensure his subordinates' compliance and by directing them to continue to detain persons for whom no criminal charges could be filed."
From an Atlantic article on the topic:
In her 14-page ruling, Bolton...wrote that “testimony shows that Defendant knew of the order and what the order meant in regards to the [Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office] policy of detaining persons who did not have state charges for turnover to [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] for civil immigration violations. Despite this knowledge, Defendant broadcast to the world and to his subordinates that he would and they should continue ‘what he had always been doing.’”
And there's this disturbing side bar on Joe's tactics and respect for the chain of command:
In May 2014, a deputy on Arpaio’s immigration-sweep team who’d been arrested on drug charges hung himself on his pool table, leaving behind a video-taped suicide note in which he threatened to expose the sheriff’s office. Deputies department wide, including those on the immigration-sweep team, had made thousands of audio and video recordings of traffic stops and never turned them over to plaintiffs in the Melendres case. When investigators searched the dead deputy’s home, they found some of these recordings and, along with drugs and illegal weapons, hundreds of stolen IDs, Mexican passports, licenses, Social Security cards, all believed to have been confiscated during traffic stops and deliberately hidden. Judge Snow asked Arpaio to turn over the tapes, as well as those from recorded interactions with deputies across the department, and to gather them quietly to avoid tempting deputies to destroy or lose evidence. Instead, Arpaio’s office sent out a mass email alerting supervisors.
- Status