The Political Discussion Thread

[DigiFluid]

Anyway that's more political than I like to get on here, so I'll be off. I just popped in here to make a Nixon/Tropic Thunder gag.

[Gatefan1976]

[Annoyed]

Of course...........
Fire everyone investigating him, but it's totally unrelated....

Not what I mean. I'm thinking this might be the magician's trick of "look over here!" to draw attention away from whatever else might be coming onstage.

[Gatefan1976]

The only thing I can think of, from your perspective would be his continued breaking of his promises.
Wall -No
NAFTA - No
China - No
Paris - No.

What are -you- imagining would be the next thing on stage?

[Gatefan1976]

Digi is still watching the train wreck

[Annoyed]

The only thing I can think of, from your perspective would be his continued breaking of his promises.
Wall -No
NAFTA - No
China - No
Paris - No.

What are -you- imagining would be the next thing on stage?

I already bellyached about 3 of the 4 items on that list in the hot topics thread today, after seeing he might delay a decision on Paris.

As to what might be waiting in the wings, I don't know. This planet is crazier than I am when it comes to making crap up.

But doing this just doesn't make sense. He has to know he can't stop the investigation at this point, no matter who he fires. All this can possibly accomplish is to further infuriate his opponents/enemies. So why do it? Gotta be some rhyme or reason to it.

[Gatefan1976]

I already bellyached about 3 of the 4 items on that list in the hot topics thread today, after seeing he might delay a decision on Paris.

Right, I was trying to see it from your side

As to what might be waiting in the wings, I don't know. This planet is crazier than I am when it comes to making crap up.

But doing this just doesn't make sense. He has to know he can't stop the investigation at this point, no matter who he fires. All this can possibly accomplish is to further infuriate his opponents/enemies. So why do it? Gotta be some rhyme or reason to it.

Give me a suggestion, what do you think would drive him to do something so stupid?

[SGalisa]

Wow. Saw the news about Trump firing FBI director James B. Comey on another website.
Reactions ---- "Yayyyyy!! Finally!!!!!!!" and "It's ABOUT Time!!!"
Been reading the whole James Comey drama saga since September 2016. Actually, the saga starts before then, but took a hard smackup in October 2016. Then, the story went quiet. Tooooooooo quiet.
Trump doesn't reveal when he'll deliver the serpent's strike or how. He as much said that during the election debates / Q&A eliminations.

Oh this is sooooooooooo twisted. Chuckie Schumer might be high on the next hit list.. along with John McCain .. McConnell..

If everything I've been reading since last year is true, this is not even the tip of the iceberg.
Wait til the rest of the (political anti-Trump) gang start quaking and shaking. That's part of why the various protests have been going on to oust Trump as president---to stop him from doing this sort of (firing and *revealing* of the things kept hidden from the public view) thing --"drain the swamp" stuff.

Oh, and President Trump also just upset the Dems bunches more by siding with the Kurds, now. Obama and his former Admin team ain't gonna be a happy camper about that. Neither will the "Establishment" (Repubs)

not that I'm opposed to firing a corrupt cop, but...the LSOS fires Comey?
that's some major ingratitude lol

Not ingratitude. I read it was more about treason and insubordination on Comey's part. Obstruction of several investigations, too. Details to follow over the future..?

Hmm.............
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...13823505494016

I read down the list of comments on that twitter feed, and based on what's been in the news ever since last year (2016)---- it looks like the Dems and everyone else anti-Trump have sent their hordes of *minions* over to Trump's twitter account. Unless he's taking down names for some *unforeseen* (to the rest of us) reason, wonder if Trump will start blocking the replies.

As to what might be waiting in the wings, I don't know. This planet is crazier than I am when it comes to making crap up.

But doing this just doesn't make sense. He has to know he can't stop the investigation at this point, no matter who he fires. All this can possibly accomplish is to further infuriate his opponents/enemies. So why do it? Gotta be some rhyme or reason to it.

Give me a suggestion, what do you think would drive him to do something so stupid?

Oh!!!! Clue!!!! It's coming. . . to be revealed at a future date, that is..

[Gatefan1976]

[Annoyed]

Right, I was trying to see it from your side

Give me a suggestion, what do you think would drive him to do something so stupid?

Maybe he's made some misstep internationally that we don't know about? Or maybe he's trying to draw his supporters attention away from what he is backpeddling on? Killing that damn Paris deal was a big part of what he ran on. As was the illegal immigration issue. Maybe something along those lines?

[Gatefan1976]

Maybe he's made some misstep internationally that we don't know about? Or maybe he's trying to draw his supporters attention away from what he is backpeddling on? Killing that damn Paris deal was a big part of what he ran on. As was the illegal immigration issue. Maybe something along those lines?

Honestly, there is nothing I can think of that would rise to that level, even the arming of the Kurdish rebels would not raise any eyebrows on the republican side, but -this- is.
I'm just trying to get a sense of what you think it could possibly be besides trump getting worried about the person running the investigation on him finding something out trump did not want know.

[Gatefan1976]

Well............
The only misstep, or potential misstep I can think of would be one in South Korea. They voted in a leftist leader, one who is not all that fond of trump for treating S.K. as basically a US military base, then saying SK should pay for THAAD.

Would that upset the republican side?

[SGalisa]

But SCg's point was why is it ok for us to go out and show support, campaign, meddle in Other countries politics, but not for other countries to meddle in ours?

Exactly. That's exactly how I read that whole Obama phone call to Macron vs. Putin's speech support for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton issue.

But SCg's point was why is it ok for us to go out and show support, campaign, meddle in Other countries politics, but not for other countries to meddle in ours?

Because there's a difference between hacking and bribing, and uttering verbal support.

No.. I agree with what garhkal said. The Russian hacking into Hillary Clinton's emails was a separate issue from Putin voicing support for Trump as the next USA President.

You have an issue with Muslim women wearing their hijabs? Yet, are okay with Indians wearing a turban? Christians a cross? Jews -- damn it, how is that little hat called?

I only have issues with people *forcing* other people to wear hijabs and burkas (or whatever cultural / religious fashion) against their will. If someone wants to dress up like a Muslim, no problem. Just don't make other people do it on a continuous / *forced* basis.

Regarding designated clothing in the workplace with a uniform label ---- "Uniforms" are usually designed to protect the person from messing up their own clothes at work or on the job/job-site. Those are acceptable, as long as they aren't forced on folks (not in jail) to be forced into wearing 24/7 in public.

OK going from memory but from when I was in the AOG they had a dress code but ultimately it was ignored but women were encouraged to dress modestly. But half the time this was totally ignored by everyone.

What the hell does "dress modestly" even mean as far as women's fashion is concerned? The only time I ever saw leaders get freaked out was one of our assistant home fellowship leaders who always wore skirts or dresses that were considered too short.

I think it would mean "don't dress to show off or draw attention to your physical feminine attributes."

Like wearing a skin-tight cat-suit..? I think I've actually seen a few of those in Church..

Immodest makes me think more along the lines of those raunchy photo shoots that the Daily Mail has on their news' website sidebar. Things like see-thru outfits with nothing underneath, and boobs flopping out and beyond their cleavage boundaries... can't even say guys like that.. cause there are some gals who stare at that sort of stuff, too..!
Conservative clothing is not restrictive. It should be comfortable but not overly revealing of one's "private" zones..

Sidenote---- Danskin clothing is often form-fitting, but usually presentable enough for public attire =)
I like some of the soft Danskin materials, because they don't itch or cause nasty reactions with my (super-sensitive) skin.
Modal and bamboo cloth materials are also very comfortable. I like the bamboo pants, but boot cut -- not the super stuck, leotards tight fit.

[Gatefan1976]

Exactly. That's exactly how I read that whole Obama phone call to Macron vs. Putin's speech support for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton issue.

It has nothing to do with speech, who cares if Putin congratulated trump.

No.. I agree with what garhkal said. The Russian hacking into Hillary Clinton's emails was a separate issue from Putin voicing support for Trump as the next USA President.

Correct, but no one cares about the congratulations, they care about the hacking part.

I only have issues with people *forcing* other people to wear hijabs and burkas (or whatever cultural / religious fashion) against their will. If someone wants to dress up like a Muslim, no problem. Just don't make other people do it on a continuous / *forced* basis.

Look to your own book, has -plenty- to say on what women can wear besides what fibres can be used.

Regarding designated clothing in the workplace with a uniform label ---- "Uniforms" are usually designed to protect the person from messing up their own clothes at work or on the job/job-site. Those are acceptable, as long as they aren't forced on folks (not in jail) to be forced into wearing 24/7 in public.

sure.

Like wearing a skin-tight cat-suit..? I think I've actually seen a few of those in Church..

God would not be -ing

Immodest makes me think more along the lines of those raunchy photo shoots that the Daily Mail has on their news' website sidebar. Things like see-thru outfits with nothing underneath, and boobs flopping out and beyond their cleavage boundaries... can't even say guys like that.. cause there are some gals who stare at that sort of stuff, too..!
Conservative clothing is not restrictive. It should be comfortable but not overly revealing of one's "private" zones..

Do you wear trousers?
Trousers are -men's- clothing, to wear them is a is a disservice to god.

Sidenote---- Danskin clothing is often form-fitting, but usually presentable enough for public attire =)
I like some of the soft Danskin materials, because they don't itch or cause nasty reactions with my (super-sensitive) skin.
Modal and bamboo cloth materials are also very comfortable. I like the bamboo pants, but boot cut -- not the super stuck, leotards tight fit.

I see you wear pant's, -also- men's clothing.
You are an Abomination unto the LORD

[Coco Pops]

This whole gongshow is like an episode of Game of Thrones, except every character is Cersei: supremely confident, breathtakingly incompetent, completely aloof, and ready to burn everything down when things don't go their way.

But I like Cersei she's hot