So all the failed businesses, bankruptcies, and the allegedly fraudulent educational institution aren’t big red flags in the “actions” department for you?
So there are two reasons not to believe that claim. And even if it were true, it’s entirely possible that Trump likes having women around for reasons other than their skills and abilities. So the point could count against him also.
Knowingly killing civilians is one of the most obvious examples of a war crime. The only reason it might not be considered a war crime is because the US government is notorious for interpreting words differently than everyone else does in order to excuse immoral behavior.
Yeah, how well will the President of Mexico want to deal with someone who calls his people rapists? How well will the leader of Muslim nation want to deal with someone who discriminates against his people?
All of Trump’s supposed skills and assets are undermined by his personality, even though it seems like many of his supposed skills and assets are touted by him and conjured into existence through his blustering bullshit. He has said his own net worth varies day to day based on how much he personally values his brand because that is what he values most about him rather than actual financial assets and liabilities. He’s basically admitted that he’s just trying to maintain a cult of personality.
Truthfully, the only thing on PBS I’ve watched recently is Antiques Roadshow and it is clearly pushing a hoarders ideology. Kidding aside, I don’t listen to PBS NewsHour enough to tell you if it is slanted or not.
NPR has an intellectual slant which turns into a slight liberal bias, but I think that is just due to the makeup of the intelligentsia in this country. How much bias you see though depends on which program and segments though. All Things Considered segments swing wildly depending on who is on. Morning Edition on the other hand is rather non-ideological in its news reporting.
The impressive thing is that the person doing the gilding obviously stayed schtum about the awfulness. This is the one case I can think of where Comic Sans would have been an improvement.
Trump, however, probably would prefer to go with any of these:
22.16 : He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.
22.24: Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go.
This is a programme that doesn’t cross the Atlantic at all well. In the UK it’s widely seen as a satire on the materialistic greed of the middle classes, laughed at by the lower classes for their obsessive hoarding of junk, and by the upper classes because of their desire to sell it. The laugh track is removed before it reaches the US, to avoid utter incomprehension. It’s made by Marxists.
[edit - this is a spoof of the belief of UKIP that the BBC is run by Marxists and spends its time running down the sort of people who belong to UKIP. Also, I was referring to the iPlayer version, not the US version. And no, they don’t really remove a laugh track. I’ve added this because someone seems to have taken me seriously.]
I was referring to the US version of Antiques Roadshow which I find entertaining to watch with someone and try to guess how much some totally random object is worth. I love the stunned reactions some people have when they find out it is worth a lot more (or a lot less) then they thought.
I especially love it when the people not only assume something is worthless, but have treated it like it is. Like the guy who had a $1 million Diego Rivera painting hanging behind the door to his house.
I can’t stand the British version. It just feels wrong. No one is ever surprised by how much something is worth and they’re so damn pretentious about it. I remember one episode where a person named a half dozen people with titles who had owned this particular object before it got to her. It was a journal of no importance whatsoever worth all of $100. I had to turn it off.
I just have to share this favorite moment from Find, the Roadshow spinoff with the twin brothers. They had been looking at someone’s artwork, etchings I think. After evaluation, the pictures were laid on the floor, and when one of the brothers stepped forward to shake the fellow’s hand, he stepped directly on one of the pictures. You can see the other brother quickly notice this, and then the show immediately cuts, so we never get to see the owner’s reaction.
Here’s the thing, though: In attempting to validate himself to Christian voters, Trump chose an Old Testament verse which was specifically overruled by Jesus, who said no, not “an eye for an eye” — instead, “turn the other cheek.” Trump would no doubt find this weak, so he has taken a position which is pointedly anti-Christ. (Which is not to say his name adds up to 666. Everyone knows that was Nero, a tyrant emperor who built a ridiculously huge golden house and was known for his goofy hairstyle.)
No, i have a moral imperative to NOT help either of the two evils. The rigged election theater has sold the lesser of two evil lies as a way to sucker otherwise smart voters into putting in one of their candidates time and time again. The lesser of two evil voting is how the system has gotten so broken and why we are stuck with 2 parties. I cannot believe anyone is still suckered by that lie/trick/slight of hand.
“Funny” how after such a circus of a “disruptive” election cycle the big money string pullers have their first choice candidate Hillary as the presumptive winner and none of the people expressing dismay in the established system on BOTH sides is going to amount to a hill of beans. Nothing is changed, business as usual. really? who could endorse that?
Only one candidate this cycle has pledged to fix the broken system and that is Sanders. Hillary is the embodiment of the broken system and a staunch support of it, so she’d never get my vote no matter what, she is my last choice. Trump is too insane to vote for. So yeah, I could never live with voting for either.
Not voting isn’t the answer because it is hard to separate the “don’t cares” from the “disenfranchised”, so if it comes down to those two i’ll be writing in Sanders. I want my vote to count against both evils and show that they can’t get my support as the defacto default by rigging the system.
Eye of a needle - Wikipedia and follow through also on footnote 2. There is a vast difference between the meaning Jesus implied and the aphorism as used rabinically.
Pardon?
Trump may have been inadvertently correct here since the Jewish understanding of the phrase is that damages require appropriate compensation judgements by the court system. IIRC Trump has a bit of a litigious past.
Hmmm. I suppose I should have said, any part of the Tanakh can or should only be taken at face value.
Between the four different methods of interpreting the Torah: peschat, remez, drush and sod; the endless rabbinical interpretations and commentary disagreeing on the meaning for every passage for every method of interpretation; the entire set of talmudic rules for investigation and determination meaning; the very existence of the Talmud; the instances where people in the Torah interpret things non-literally (Daniel reinterpreting the time in the prophecy of Jeremiah for instance); and the numerous instances of conflicting passages, the idea of reading a passage with no context, no commentary, no rabbinical help and taking just my interpretation of the plain meaning to be the truth is completely foreign to me.
Sometimes the text is pshat (what animals are permissible to eat, whom one may marry or have relations with) but even then there are depths to the text which require learning to use the various “owner/operator manuals” you refer to. Obviously other parts (how to slaughter) absolutely require RTFM.
As for the contrarian interpretations, theres the Pirkei Avot about those disagreements begin “for the sake of Heaven”. I personally enjoy the contrast between Rashi & RAMBAN regarding the law of the captive war bride. Rashi looks at the potential consequences for the husband from a very pshat POV but RAMBAN is looking at the situation as much from the woman’s situational POV and how the whole thing can impact the new family & community. Here both are “right” but that doesnt change the text of Deuteronomy one bit.
Pfft. A quarter at of mizvot are require interpretation and everyone thinks it is a different quarter.
I refuse interpretations that say one can’t eat poultry with dairy because somehow one might mistake a chicken for lamb, so we have to prevent accidental transgressions. It is far easier to mistake non-kosher meat for kosher meat or non-kosher fish for kosher fish, but how many religious vegetarian rabbis do you know?
Then there is the whole winged swarming things that go on four feet are prohibited. But insects clearly have six feet. Even locusts have six feet. Where are these flying swarming four legged things?
And the whole prohibition on wearing the other gender’s clothing. Who gets to wear socks? They aren’t gender-specific! They are just socks.
Don’t even get me started on what constitutes work.
Yes! Just imagine I wrote this in response instead.
I’m not going to criticize your kashrut. As for insects the original hebrew text says “on four” and Rashi on lev 11:20 makes it perfectly clear. Anyway I’m not Yemenite so dont have a tradition of knowing which are permitted and which arent.
I must say that I do find the ways Orthodox Israelis have managed to avoid doing work on Shabbat to be quite inventive. I would have loved to been around while someone debated whether or not having a device that could understand subtext like a shabbos goy which controlled your say… fan is permitted or not.
