wackatimesthree

quote:

---

But it's killed his own ability to build coalitions and get anything done in Congress. The TWS-afflicted think he's the victim. But in reality he's just alienated almost everyone around him. Classic drunk dialing syndrome.

---

It's amazing to me that—even after all of the corrupt profiteering he's done this term—MAGA still thinks he's unpopular in Washington because "he's an outsider who wants to drain the swamp."

He's BECOME the swamp. They don't like him because he's not interested in helping anyone else run the game but himself...not because he's against the game.

He does not play well with others. In any context.

It doesn't surprise me or upset me that Trump does things like this. We've all watched him drunk dial (and by "drunk," I mean drunk on his own ego) for well over 10 years now. It shouldn't surprise anyone.

But I guess I'll never not be surprised by how many grown supposed adults clap and cheer when he does it.

It reminds me that America is a big place with lots of people in it, and lots of them are incomprehensible to me, and more than I would care to be reminded of are emotionally stuck at around age 9.

quote:

---

SlowF*ckingPinhead will

---

He’ll have to get reinstated first.

BTW, I haven’t seen a single post from cubbies since he was banned.

Has anyone else?

quote:

---

I recognize that I'm a minority on this position. I'll keep working towards that end, even if it doesn't happen this side of Heaven. I'm happy to have these discussions, share my perspective, and continue working (and voting) towards what I believe is the best thing for this country.

---

Like I told the guy upthread, you'd be surprised at what I would agree with in this context, especially the older I get.

My thing is that those of you who have decided that you want a theocracy or some other form of government need to accept that that can't happen inside what we have now. It would require a whole new government re-set.

What you want is, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others," a la Animal Farm.

That can work. Iran is an example of a theocracy that works, more or less. I don't think it's a particularly stable form of government unless you're willing to really crank down on people to force cooperation, but it exists in the world so it has to be possible.

But it can't work inside what we have.

What we could do within our current framework is what Andrew Wilson advocates for, which is Christians attaining to positions of power/influence and promoting Christian ethics and ideals just like non-Christians promote their humanistic ideals. It's not illegal to advocate for a law as a member of Congress and when asked why you support it, to say, "Because I think it's what Jesus Christ would want me to support." That's perfectly legal right now.

It's also legal for the government to promote Christian values as long as it doesn't promote them in the name of Christianity. For example, if enough Christians were elected to office there's nothing stopping them from passing an initiative to promote traditional family structures and values, even in schools. They'd have to justify it on the basis of the outcomes being better (which they are) and not because "the Bible says so," but there's nothing stopping that right now.

But if you have to have them say, "Because the Bible says so," and allow Christianity to be taught in public schools while nothing else is allowed, yeah, you can't do that in America in 2026 under this system. And if it ever gets to the point that you can, it won't be this system any more.

The idea of a theocracy is appealing on the surface. Make abortion illegal, the only legal marriage is between a man and a woman, no transing allowed, you could even go so far as to criminalize same sex sexual conduct if you wanted to. Make any sex outside of marriage illegal. You could require every citizen to tithe to the church of their choice. You could outlaw hard liquor if you wanted to, all drugs. Make sure that government assistance was only provided for those who really needed it and require them to contribute toward it any way they were able. Close up nightclubs at 10:00 p.m. Outlaw gambling and pornography. Heavily incentivize marriage and having children and women staying home to raise them.

I assume that if the idea really is to officially name Jesus Christ as the guiding authority of the country, a lot of stuff that is legal now wouldn't be (or again, if not...I'm not sure I understand the point.)

But something tells me it wouldn't work exactly that way. It's interesting to me that everybody who believed at the time assumed that Jesus had come to overthrow Rome and liberate Israel and establish Himself as the ruler of that country, but He hadn't. That wasn't important to Him then and what WAS important to Him then depended upon an individual relationship between men and women and God, not a corporate declaration of piety and dedication that would be guaranteed to fail (the Old Testament was pretty much a few thousand years worth of proving that).

I think Jesus will establish His Kingdom on Earth when the time comes.

I don't think we will.

quote:

---

Id rather have free healthcare than a new war every 10 years.

---

Unfortunately, there's no such thing.

quote:

---

WaPo said all construction could end up exceeding $900 million.

---

Correct.

Just 3 orders of magnitude off.

quote:

---

Anyone who thinks it won't be used against them in the future is an idiot.

---

A big one.

quote:

---

The Washington Post reported last week that the ballroom is set to cost at least $900 billion.

---

No they didn't.

quote:

---

What it also doesn't do is pretend religious neutrality while functionally actively promoting secular humanism by allowing non-religious ideologies from having their say in the public marketplace of ideas while excluding Christians simply due to our religious status.

---

I'm just asking for clarification. Are you saying that the quote above does or does not impose limitations on adherents of other religions that would not be imposed on Christians?

For example, would Mooslims be barred from holding office, or to flip that around, would someone have to be a professing Christian in order to hold office?

If not, then I don't understand what you're advocating for other than an empty phrase.

quote:

---

Not to mention the fact that morons who come up with these retarded ideas always assume something that is never true, and that is this: they assume that our party will be in power forever.

---

It's actually even a little more stupid than that. The populist justification for these sorts of genius ideas are usually more based in a, "We must do unto them before they do unto us," narrative.

So not only would they pave the way for retribution when the "other team" gets in power, they actually start the fight and invite the retribution. All the while doing so by eroding the constitutional protection that stands between all of us and government tyranny.

The dumbest part being that the supposed reasoning for the action in the first place is because XYZ group that they want to exempt from equal treatment under the law is supposedly going to oppose American values.

So they just oppose American values first.

It's really genius level stuff.

quote:

---

One question: on what basis will "laws" be made?

---

I can't answer that question because I still don't know what you're talking about.