Priest craft

[Traveler]

I have posted previously that the secret of priest craft in a society is not just among the religious priests of that society but also it is expressed by Judges that rule, not according to the law but according to that which grants them power, wealth and influence.  Isaiah prophesies that one aspect of apostasy is the transgression of the law.  I submit that the judge’s ruling to get gain (power, wealth and influence) is a transgression of the law.   The Book of Mormon warns us of our day that when priest craft is established among a people by the power of the sword that such a society will be destroyed by G-d.

 

The Traveler

[Mike]

What ruling are you referring to?

Edited February 10, 2017 by Mike

[Guest Godless]

If you're referring to yesterday's Circuit 9 decision, I believe that it's not the judicial, but the executive branch of our current government that has been on a power trip of late. That (unanimous) decision was a necessary step to affirming the necessary power of checks and balances in our government. I expect we'll see more showdowns like this in the coming months, and I think it's only a matter of time before the legislative branch joins the fray. GOP congressional careers may depend on it, if yesterday's town halls in Tennessee and Utah are any indicator of things to come in our political landscape.

As far as how these recent events relate to the integrity of the law, it's hard to say. It seems that both sides of the political spectrum are trying to bend the law to the extreme in each direction. I haven't lost hope that our system of checks and balances will ultimately prevail and keep things from spiraling too far out of control, but it certainly seems that reason and legal objectivity are becoming more and more scarce in both our society and our government. 

[Mike]

So, as I understand it President Trump's administration claims the courts have no authority to question his security assessments. And the Court claims authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action. The Administration claims this puts us in grave danger; and the Court claims there is no evidence that anyone from the seven countries in question has committed terrorist acts in the United States. Which ever side is "right" I think I don't see how the Court ruling should be called an effort to gain power, wealth, and influence--or priestcraft. 

[Blackmarch]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

If you're referring to yesterday's Circuit 9 decision, I believe that it's not the judicial, but the executive branch of our current government that has been on a power trip of late. That (unanimous) decision was a necessary step to affirming the necessary power of checks and balances in our government. I expect we'll see more showdowns like this in the coming months, and I think it's only a matter of time before the legislative branch joins the fray. GOP congressional careers may depend on it, if yesterday's town halls in Tennessee and Utah are any indicator of things to come in our political landscape.

As far as how these recent events relate to the integrity of the law, it's hard to say. It seems that both sides of the political spectrum are trying to bend the law to the extreme in each direction. I haven't lost hope that our system of checks and balances will ultimately prevail and keep things from spiraling too far out of control, but it certainly seems that reason and legal objectivity are becoming more and more scarce in both our society and our government. 

The executive branch might be the shining star in that subject, but the judicial branch is not far behind it... Considering not only does a party want laws that favorbit, but it also would need to have the intrepretation of law on its side as well. I doubt those who ply and play the politics game would neglect such.

[Jojo Bags]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

If you're referring to yesterday's Circuit 9 decision, I believe that it's not the judicial, but the executive branch of our current government that has been on a power trip of late. That (unanimous) decision was a necessary step to affirming the necessary power of checks and balances in our government. I expect we'll see more showdowns like this in the coming months, and I think it's only a matter of time before the legislative branch joins the fray. GOP congressional careers may depend on it, if yesterday's town halls in Tennessee and Utah are any indicator of things to come in our political landscape.

As far as how these recent events relate to the integrity of the law, it's hard to say. It seems that both sides of the political spectrum are trying to bend the law to the extreme in each direction. I haven't lost hope that our system of checks and balances will ultimately prevail and keep things from spiraling too far out of control, but it certainly seems that reason and legal objectivity are becoming more and more scarce in both our society and our government. 

You can't possibly mean this.  The 9th Circuit Court is overturned 80% of the time because they create rights from a magic hat and is composed primarily of activist judges who lean so far to the left it's amazing they can even stand up.  Their decision was not even remotely based on the Constitution.  Pres. Trump is within the law to put a temporary freeze on certain classes of people from entering the country.  The judiciary of this country is decidedly leftist and they are all about control and power.  Look at the ruling on homosexual marriage.  It is not a right covered in the Constitution, but a group of activist judges made up that right out of thin air.  The same for the abomination of Obamacare.  There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government  to force a person to buy a product, yet that right was also created out of thin air.  Another abomination is the NDAA that allows for the indefinite detention without charge of someone simply suspected of terroristic activities.  I can go on and on.  This country is full of activist judges. 

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

  The 9th Circuit Court is overturned 80% of the time

Wrong. I's much more complicated than that. 
http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/
 

11 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

  The judiciary of this country is decidedly leftist and they are all about control and power.  

Leftists ARE about control and power but the court system is not leftist. You only think it is because your personal view is skewed heavily towards the right so any ruling that doesn't agree 100% with your own views is automatically "leftist". It's the same, ironically with leftists. Who think that any court ruling that they don't agree with means the court system is "conservative". 

 

[my two cents]

FYI - snopes is run by a liberal couple so I wouldn't consider that website a reliable source

[Guest MormonGator]

18 minutes ago, my two cents said:

FYI - snopes is run by a liberal couple so I wouldn't consider that website a reliable source

It isn't. It's mostly apolitical. The guy was a registered republican for years and they have a history of blowing out the candles on both sides. In fact, I've seen liberals complain that Snopes is conservative because it defended Trump, Sarah Palin and George W Bush several times when rumors and slander came up against them. In other words, it's virtually 95% accurate. 

Sadly, one of the biggest problems in our culture today is we only believe news if it fits our pre conceived political bias. That's not how the real world is. 

This diagram is tongue in cheek, but it's also pretty legit. Both sides are very guilty of this. 

Edited February 11, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Jojo Bags said:

You can't possibly mean this.  The 9th Circuit Court is overturned 80% of the time because they create rights from a magic hat and is composed primarily of activist judges who lean so far to the left it's amazing they can even stand up.  

Do your homework. Richard Clifton is a Republican and was a (W) Bush appointee. Based on what I've read about him, he seems very middle-of-the-road politically. Maybe not the true conservative type that you'd like to see, but hardly a leftist activist judge.

I also don't know that I'd call Canby an "activist" judge either. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. And preferably something more than "A Democrat appointed him".

 

[Suzie]

12 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

Their decision was not even remotely based on the Constitution.

While we all agree that a 1952 law allows the President to discriminate anyone who is a threat  and can suspend their entry to the country, I'm not sure why we also forget that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 restricted that same power stating clearly that no person can be discriminated based on race, gender, nationality, place of birth or place of residence. We could argue all day if Mr. Trump is doing that or not (Giulani clearly stated that Mr. Trump called it a "Muslim ban". Not sure if the President denied the statement). I tend to think he is and so far, the courts seem to agree.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

21 hours ago, Godless said:

Do your homework. Richard Clifton is a Republican and was a (W) Bush appointee. Based on what I've read about him, he seems very middle-of-the-road politically. Maybe not the true conservative type that you'd like to see, but hardly a leftist activist judge.

In fairness to @Jojo Bags I do want to say that I see many people on the left (no, not you @Godless) say the same type of complaints. I've heard it personally dozens of times. "What? You support gun rights? But you are also pro-gay marriage! I thought you were a liberal!!!!!" They are right, I'm not a liberal. I'm also :: gasp :: a registered republican and a big Ron Paul guy. 

Liberal and conservative true believers share one thing in common: They have a very hard time tolerating free thought and dissent. That's why pro-life liberals are screamed at for being "anti woman" (and they are screamed at, believe me) even though they might agree with 99.9% of other liberal values. Same with pro gay marriage conservatives (like me! The wonderful Gator). People assume I'm some kind of radical because I'm pro-gay marriage yet also pro gun, pro death penalty, anti-tax etc. 

We say the same thing about the judiciary. Justice Kennedy is a flaming liberal radical because he's pro gay marriage. But he's also a nasty, mean, horrible conservative because he's in favor of gun rights. He also voted in favor of Bush in Bush v Gore so he's an awful person and against "enhanced interrogation" so he's a savior to all that is good- both sides can find reasons to hate him. Like Snopes, he's actually fair and balanced. 

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by MormonGator

[Jojo Bags]

21 hours ago, MormonGator said:

It isn't. It's mostly apolitical. The guy was a registered republican for years and they have a history of blowing out the candles on both sides. In fact, I've seen liberals complain that Snopes is conservative because it defended Trump, Sarah Palin and George W Bush several times when rumors and slander came up against them. In other words, it's virtually 95% accurate. 

Sadly, one of the biggest problems in our culture today is we only believe news if it fits our pre conceived political bias. That's not how the real world is. 

This diagram is tongue in cheek, but it's also pretty legit. Both sides are very guilty of this. 

All of the mainstream media is controlled by the Gadiantons, no matter if they are from the socialist left or the socialist right.  There will always be elements of deliberate falsehood and manipulation in any news coming from them.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

All of the mainstream media is controlled by the Gadiantons, no matter if they are from the socialist left or the socialist right.  There will always be elements of deliberate falsehood and manipulation in any news coming from them.

So you are safely in the democrat camp. Got it. 

[Jojo Bags]

Just now, MormonGator said:

So you are safely in the democrat camp. Got it. 

Heaven forbid  I value my eternal soul, which is why I'm not with the Republicans, either.

[Guest MormonGator]

31 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

Heaven forbid  I value my eternal soul, which is why I'm not with the Republicans, either.

I heard a funny joke once. St. Peter is leading a tour of recently deceased republicans and democrats around Heaven. He says, "Everyone be quiet as we pass this room." After passing it, someone says "So, what's up with that?" St. Peter turns and says-"That's @Jojo Bags room. He thinks he's the only one up here."

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest]

To form an opinion on the 9th Circuit's decision, you might want to look at it first.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

One part, I outright disagree with.

Another part I partially disagree with.

Another part I believe is completely political, which I disagree with, but they have the legal right to do so.

Other parts, I have to admit, they made good arguments.

Given that, I'm not sure what the legal responsibility of the court would be.

No, this has nothing to do with priestcraft.

The major part of this that I found the most distressing was actually the claim made by the Trump team.  They claimed that the courts had no business reviewing his EO in the first place.  That is pretty shocking.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

On 2/10/2017 at 11:04 PM, Godless said:

Do your homework. Richard Clifton is a Republican and was a (W) Bush appointee. Based on what I've read about him, he seems very middle-of-the-road politically. Maybe not the true conservative type that you'd like to see, but hardly a leftist activist judge.

I also don't know that I'd call Canby an "activist" judge either. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. And preferably something more than "A Democrat appointed him".

 

I see how that works.

It doesn't matter who appointed Clifton.  He's coming out of the leftist pool of the liberal Pacific Coast and reflect the same sentiments.  He was a Republican in Hawaii where Republican doesn't mean the same as in the contiguous states so much so that Hawaiian Democrats loved him and got him endorsed by 2 democrat senators for the judicial bench.

None of the 3 judges on the travel restriction case are Constitutionalists.  Majority of the rest of the judges of the 9th Circuit are  not Constitutionalists.

Therefore, if you want to shop for a judge to promote the progressive agenda that can't win by the Democratic process, go to the 9th Circuit.

[anatess2]

On 2/11/2017 at 11:15 PM, Carborendum said:

The major part of this that I found the most distressing was actually the claim made by the Trump team.  They claimed that the courts had no business reviewing his EO in the first place.  That is pretty shocking.

That is not the claim of the Trump team.  Rather, they claimed that THIS PARTICULAR EO had a solid Constitutional basis as the power was granted specifically to the Executive by the Legislative and was done by previous Presidents without any Constitutional challenge.  This particular executive authority invoked by this EO cannot be usurped by the judicial branch, let alone 3 judges of an appellate court.  To open this can of worms is to set precedent where the Executive Branch cannot execute the terms of war without having the Courts tie America's hands behind its back by taking away the power of its President who is the commanding chief of the US Armed Forces.  You want to wage war on America, no need to go declare war with your foot soldiers... just go sue the President!

The courts pursue justice for a person or a group of people who are hurt by something.  They don't pursue justice for a person or a group of people thinking some other people are going to be hurt by something which is the basis of Robard's stay as he avoided the reference to the Law that is the Constutitional basis of the EO.

P.S.  The reason Harry Reid, a Mormon, struck down the Filibuster with the Nuclear Option is so that Obama's court nominations for the appellate courts can go without challenge.  This is one of the main reasons Trump won the election - to counter the increasingly progressive federal court system.

Here's Judge Napolitano's excellent explanation on the Constitutionality of the EO:

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

In any case, this Trump Hate has gone too far and it is LITERALLY putting the USA at the hands of its enemies.  This is not Trump's doing.  This is the doing of the Trump opposition.

There is a very easy way for me to see the strength of the US to fight its enemies.  I just have to pay close attention to which way the Philippine government is leaning - towards Russia/China or towards the US.  After Trump got elected, the Philippines reset their foreign policy to express strong allied status with the USA.  After Robard's court challenge, the Philippines played nice with Russia again.

[Mike]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

In any case, this Trump Hate has gone too far and it is LITERALLY putting the USA at the hands of its enemies.  This is not Trump's doing.  This is the doing of the Trump opposition.

There is a very easy way for me to see the strength of the US to fight its enemies.  I just have to pay close attention to which way the Philippine government is leaning - towards Russia/China or towards the US.  After Trump got elected, the Philippines reset their foreign policy to express strong allied status with the USA.  After Robard's court challenge, the Philippines played nice with Russia again.

It sounds a little bit odd to me that President Duterte's position from one month to the next should be considered any sort of means of gauging the U.S. strength to fight its enemies. Moreover, while I'm not a hater, I think it's inaccurate to say that what you think of as 'Trump Hate' is literally putting the U.S. in its enemies' hands. I also disagree that it is the doing of Trump opposition. In my opinion, President Trump is very much responsible for the current state of opposition in our country. I think he fans the metaphorical flame--and I personally think that's the kind of candidate he was and the kind of leader he is. 

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, Mike said:

It sounds a little bit odd to me that President Duterte's position from one month to the next should be considered any sort of means of gauging the U.S. strength to fight its enemies. Moreover, while I'm not a hater, I think it's inaccurate to say that what you think of as 'Trump Hate' is literally putting the U.S. in its enemies' hands. I also disagree that it is the doing of Trump opposition. In my opinion, President Trump is very much responsible for the current state of opposition in our country. I think he fans the metaphorical flame--and I personally think that's the kind of candidate he was and the kind of leader he is. 

There is nothing odd about the Philippines having to adjust to the foreign policy of the countries that are the movers and shakers of the Pacific theater.  The Philippine Military, as crazy efficient as they are, will not last more than a day under the onslaught of either the US, Russia, or China.  So you might think, why would these guys bother with a little country like the Philippines?  The same reason that Magellan ended up in the Philippines.  It is the entrance to Asia.

It is completely accurate to say that Trump Hate is putting the US in its enemies hands.  It is intellectually dishonest to believe that Judge Robards ruled against the Executive Order on non-political grounds.

President Trump has not done A SINGLE THING that deserved the kind of vicious vitriol that is occupying the mainstream news cycle 24/7.  Candidate Trump was called every name on the book and treated like a joke the very first day he announced his candidacy.  He was on the Apprentice for years without getting called a racist, sexist, bigot.  He became that simply because he rode those escalators and said he is joining the Republican primaries.  Looking at the shenanigans of the left on the Senate floor - Jeff Sessions, for example served in the US Senate for 2 decades without controversy until he got picked for AG at which time he became a white supremacist that falls just shy of lynching a black man on the street.

If you think Trump is fanning this divisiveness in our culture then you have no hope of ever becoming a UNITED States again.  Because to do that, you first have to realize what the problem really is.

[Mike]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

There is nothing odd about the Philippines having to adjust to the foreign policy of the countries that are the movers and shakers of the Pacific theater.  The Philippine Military, as crazy efficient as they are, will not last more than a day under the onslaught of either the US, Russia, or China.  So you might think, why would these guys bother with a little country like the Philippines?  The same reason that Magellan ended up in the Philippines.  It is the entrance to Asia.

I didn't say there is anything odd about adjusting foreign policy and I certainly malign the value of your people. I said it sounds odd to me that it should be considered any sort of means of gauging the U.S. strength to fight its enemies.

Quote

It is completely accurate to say that Trump Hate is putting the US in its enemies hands.  It is intellectually dishonest to believe that Judge Robards ruled against the Executive Order on non-political grounds.

I know you think it's accurate to say, and you know that I think it's inaccurate to say. So, I won't be redundant. Since I said nothing about Judge  Robards' ruling (although I disagree with your assessment) I'll  pass on that sentence. 

Quote

President Trump has not done A SINGLE THING that deserved the kind of vicious vitriol that is occupying the mainstream news cycle 24/7.  Candidate Trump was called every name on the book and treated like a joke the very first day he announced his candidacy.  He was on the Apprentice for years without getting called a racist, sexist, bigot.

It may ultimately be that we will have to agree to disagree, and it may be because neither of us is capable of seeing what the other sees. It appears to me that although you and I have probably watched the same videos and live presentations of Candidate Trump from the moment he stood in the first debate all the way through his "tweets" and his inauguration and until today, because of our predispositions we hear or don't hear what the other does. For me almost everything he has said with few exceptions has been the same kind of vicious vitriol that you decry. If it's on the mainstream new cycle 24/17 it's because it was recorded--in other words it's because he said it. Candidate Trump called others every name in the book both before and after others called him names. If he was treated as a joke it was no different than the jokes that were made by him about every other candidate during the campaign (not to mention by and about other candidates in previous campaigns) and by him about everyone who disagreed with him. His behavior and personality on the Apprentice for years was every bit as much a basis for jokes and his absence of credibility as a Presidential candidate in the eyes and ears of those of us who deplore that kind of behavior as it was a basis for supporting him in the eyes and ears of those of us who adore that kind of behavior. 

Quote

If you think Trump is fanning this divisiveness in our culture then you have no hope of ever becoming a UNITED States again.  Because to do that, you first have to realize what the problem really is.

Well, actually I have quite a bit of hope, but it may surprise you where my hope comes from. Before I tell you the source I'll respond that I sense the meaning you attach to the phrase "UNITED States again" is akin to the sense most supporters of Donald Trump seem to attach to the phrase "great again". The truth and reality are that this country has had only a few times when it was UNITED in that sense. I doubt the need to rehearse all the dark times and experiences of disunity this country has endured. But endured is the operative word here, and I have every reason to hope that it will continue to endure. Why? Well, my hope comes from you, actually. The two of us committed to one another the bonds of the beginnings of a friendship despite our differing political views. I won't sacrifice that commitment. I won't stoop to the tactics I see coming from Donald Trump (even though you see loftier ones) nor to the tactics used by so many of his political enemies. I believe you'll treat me the same, as you have to this point. And I'll stand by you despite our differences. I'm just idealistic enough to hope that's enough and that there are millions of Americans (and not-yet Americans) like you and me (in spite of what's on the news cycle). You see, what the problem *is* in my opinion isn't even that Donald Trump is or isn't that kind of human being--the problem is the rest of us who choose to follow his example (and to be fair the example of so many others who are just as foolish as he is) to hate him or to hate his opponents.  

So, I'll continue to criticize Donald Trump's behavior and judgment where I see it deserves criticism. You'll continue to criticize his opponent's behavior and judgement. And united we'll continue to stand.  Hahaha, or so I hope. 

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, Mike said:

I didn't say there is anything odd about adjusting foreign policy and I certainly malign the value of your people. I said it sounds odd to me that it should be considered any sort of means of gauging the U.S. strength to fight its enemies.

It is considered because the Philippines' safety relies on the strength of the US.  If the US is not strong, the Philippines will be raided.  Now, we prefer not to have to deal with Russia nor China because the Philippines is more in-line with the US ideals of Democracy.  But if the US ends up in a war with Russia/China, our only hope of being bypassed for Guam is if Russia/China does not see us as a launching pad of US military operations.  And war with Russia/China (who has absolute control of North Korea) becomes more imminent the weaker the US becomes.

So, this is the flow - Weaker US -> War imminent -> Philippines need to distance from the US and be nice to Russia -> Russia bypasses the Phils for Guam.  Philippines may be saved from the ravages of war.  Of course, the Philippines rely on our long history with the US to never have to consider that the US will wage war against us to strike at Russia.

 

17 minutes ago, Mike said:

It may ultimately be that we will have to agree to disagree, and it may be because neither of us is capable of seeing what the other sees. It appears to me that although you and I have probably watched the same videos and live presentations of Candidate Trump from the moment he stood in the first debate all the way through his "tweets" and his inauguration and until today, because of our predispositions we hear or don't hear what the other does. For me almost everything he has said with few exceptions has been the same kind of vicious vitriol that you decry. If it's on the mainstream new cycle 24/17 it's because it was recorded--in other words it's because he said it. Candidate Trump called others every name in the book both before and after others called him names. If he was treated as a joke it was no different than the jokes that were made by him about every other candidate during the campaign (not to mention by and about other candidates in previous campaigns) and by him about everyone who disagreed with him. His behavior and personality on the Apprentice for years was every bit as much a basis for jokes and his absence of credibility as a Presidential candidate in the eyes and ears of those of us who deplore that kind of behavior as it was a basis for supporting him in the eyes and ears of those of us who adore that kind of behavior. 

Well, actually I have quite a bit of hope, but it may surprise you where my hope comes from. Before I tell you the source I'll respond that I sense the meaning you attach to the phrase "UNITED States again" is akin to the sense most supporters of Donald Trump seem to attach to the phrase "great again". The truth and reality are that this country has had only a few times when it was UNITED in that sense. I doubt the need to rehearse all the dark times and experiences of disunity this country has endured. But endured is the operative word here, and I have every reason to hope that it will continue to endure. Why? Well, my hope comes from you, actually. The two of us committed to one another the bonds of the beginnings of a friendship despite our differing political views. I won't sacrifice that commitment. I won't stoop to the tactics I see coming from Donald Trump (even though you see loftier ones) nor to the tactics used by so many of his political enemies. I believe you'll treat me the same, as you have to this point. And I'll stand by you despite our differences. I'm just idealistic enough to hope that's enough and that there are millions of Americans (and not-yet Americans) like you and me (in spite of what's on the news cycle). You see, what the problem *is* in my opinion isn't even that Donald Trump is or isn't that kind of human being--the problem is the rest of us who choose to follow his example (and to be fair the example of so many others who are just as foolish as he is) to hate him or to hate his opponents.  

So, I'll continue to criticize Donald Trump's behavior and judgment where I see it deserves criticism. You'll continue to criticize his opponent's behavior and judgement. And united we'll continue to stand.  Hahaha, or so I hope. 

Okay, let's test this with one question.  Do you believe that Trump mocked a reporter's (Kovaleski) disability?

[Mike]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

It is considered because the Philippines' safety relies on the strength of the US.  If the US is not strong, the Philippines will be raided.  Now, we prefer not to have to deal with Russia nor China because the Philippines is more in-line with the US ideals of Democracy.  But if the US ends up in a war with Russia/China, our only hope of being bypassed for Guam is if Russia/China does not see us as a launching pad of US military operations.  And war with Russia/China (who has absolute control of North Korea) becomes more imminent the weaker the US becomes.

So, this is the flow - Weaker US -> War imminent -> Philippines need to distance from the US and be nice to Russia -> Russia bypasses the Phils for Guam.  Philippines may be saved from the ravages of war.  Of course, the Philippines rely on our long history with the US to never have to consider that the US will wage war against us to strike at Russia.

Do you allow that you might be conflating "strength" with "willingness"?  You might also be conflating President Duarte's opinion of the U.S. with reality, i.e. what the U.S. is sufficiently powerful (strong) to do, and what the U.S. deems is (in it's own national security interests) willing to do with or without regard to President Duarte. Seems to me that since your (Phillipino citizens) concern is that neither Russia nor China in an aggressive mode not see you as a launching pad of U.S. military operations there are many other factors you ought to consider, but I don't think U.S. strength (which is a given in my opinion) is high on that list.

Quote

Okay, let's test this with one question.  Do you believe that Trump mocked a reporter's (Kovaleski) disability?

Well, this one question certainly raises a boat load of additional questions in *my* mind. I'm having a hard time, for example, comprehending the difference between scornfully and contemptuously imitating (mocking) a person with a disability and scornfully and contemptuously imitating the person's disability. I'm well aware of a piece FOX News assembled showing Donald Trump scornfully and contemptuously imitating various people. His gesticulations are quite similar with each person he imitated. And yet in the last video segment which shows him doing it with regard to Mr. Kovaleski the gesticulations appeared to me to be more intense--actually to the point of misrepresenting Mr. Kovaleski in an overly exaggerated manner much like the typical stereotypes of people with disabilities.Although I'm no expert in clinical analysis of planned intent. in terms of hurting people and understanding the results of thoughtless acts, I'm as competent as the next objective observer in drawing the conclusion that Donald Trump is a lot like an immature school child who repeatedly takes little thought at the expense of others before scornfully and contemptuously imitating them in order to get a laugh and convince other more fortunate people to follow him. I'm comfortable supposing that if [for the purpose of learning how people react and thereby learning to think before I act] I imitated Donald Trump's gesticulations (without mentioning him) most people would criticize me for mocking others with disabilities.

But I haven't answered your question have I? Since I'm being tested (and even though I'm wary of the indictment I might receive) I will say that Trump's behavior with regard to the reporter looked like a duck and quacked like a duck, it also smelled metaphorically like a duck. Yes, I believe he did.

Still want to be my friend?