BNR32FAN said:

You’re going to pretend that you can’t understand a simple distance and time calculation?

Click to expand...

I don't think she is pretending. Mention any distance over 3000 miles and her eyes glaze over.

jacks said:

No need to worry, it doesn't say a thing about which denomination you belong to.

Click to expand...

If you recall, the first followers and Apostles of Jesus were not of any denomination. They weren't even Christians as we know it. Were they saved? Of course. Salvation is not tied to the religion.

Phil G said:

No wonder you can’t get your head around a globe earth. You can’t even get your head around distance and speed!

Click to expand...

No I don’t believe that’s the case. I’ve seen her exhibit more than a high enough level of intelligence to comprehend such a middle school math problem. It’s just denial.

Dan Perez said:

REALLY. and then. how many PRIESTS . WILL BE in. the MILLENNNIAL KINGDOM ??

THERE at least be 13. , can you name them. ??

WHAT kind of sacrifices ?? be careful. ??

dan p

Click to expand...

Hi, there are going to be many priests. In fact the bible talks about a kingdom of priests in the new kingdom 1Peter 2:9,
In the new covenant we are to offer ourselves as living sacrifices which means we are to do good, proclaiming the Gospel and do the Will of God etc, Romans 12:1, Heb 13:15,16

stevevw said:

God works in mysterious ways.

Click to expand...

God's ways are "past finding out," we have in Romans 11:33.

I knew I did not know what passing people were thinking. But I could assume and then talk to what someone thought or might think. And sometimes a person would talk back while I was yet speaking, and I would answer

stevevw said:

I think if we start getting into the hot topics of the day thats when it starts to evoke politics. Or attract dissenters who are looking for a fight. I think its the big questions in life that people relate to. They are looking for answers.

Click to expand...

My opinion >

In the United States, Christian activists have given us a "list" of things that are wrong, and we are being urged to speak out against and make laws against these things.

But adultery is not on the list.

Smoking isn't really getting attention, even with all the ruin coming from this.

And then we can get into what has caused the public "list" of things to be possible, the way we are seeing now in the United States. The people doing these things were brought up as children in American households. If what they are doing is really wrong . . . what made them able to get into the stuff?

Well . . . if something is wrong, it is against how God desires for us to love. God desires for us to become all-loving in sensitive submissive sharing with our Heavenly Father and our Groom Jesus and each other. But things said to be wrong can have people broken and weak so they can not relate well intimately and love any and all people like our example Jesus.

What are they weak about? Pleasure. And their weakness for pleasure makes them also weak so they can suffer emotionally and be nasty and angry reacting, versus how our Creator's love all-loving can make us creative for how to love any person, at all, and enjoy discovering this.

What helps children to grow up weak and not knowing how to love?

arguing and complaining

unforgiveness

beauty discrimination

picking and choosing who is worth loving, who deserves to be loved

self-righteous criticizing

And so they are deeply weak, desperate to feel something nicer than their own conceited and selfish nature. And so their desperation for pleasure takes them with others to do what is not loving. They did not have examples at home, and now they are with others like themselves who get them nowhere good.

And a point could be how such kids were brought up in even Bible-claiming families . . . where also there could be >

worry

hurry

workaholism

Not learning how to rest in Jesus in His love with His almighty immunity against any and all lusts and fear and personality torment.

So, instead of trying to politically stop the *end*-products of how even church culture families have been bringing up children . . . deal with the stuff at home which has helped to produce kids who do not know how to love. With Jesus alone . . . this is possible >

"'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:29)

So, as I "preach" now . . . I give attention to how we ourselves can get real correction with God and then we can help anyone to do better > by our >

example > 1 Peter 5:3

all-loving prayer > 1 Timothy 2:1-4

obeying God, doing what He personally has us doing with Him > Genesis 22:18

all which His word says for us to do . . . how He in us has us doing what He knows He means by His word > Isaiah 55:11, Philippians 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:13

ThatRobGuy said:

I've considered the congressional aspect you mentioned, but I don't think it solves the problem (at least in terms of a replacement), and I'll tell you why...


1) It's still going to be employed in a partisan fashion. No Democratic partisan congress is going to make a motion to pardon a well known Republican figure, and no Republican controlled congress is ever going to make a motion to pardon a well known Democratic figure.

Click to expand...

Given that Democratic partisan presidents aren't much in the habit of pardoning well known Republican figures*, and vice versa, I don't see how this is particularly different. And before anyone says "well, what about Biden's preemptive pardons of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger?" Well, (1) those pardons were not specific to them, but applied to the the entire January 6 Select Committee, and (2) both had effectively exited the Republican Party by that point (they endorsed Kamala Harris!), so I would say they no longer count as "well known Republican figures".

ThatRobGuy said:

2) If it's a collaborative solution (where a president has to do it with the approval of congress), it's going to be viewed as obstructionist when the congress is not on the same team as the Pres, and viewed as a farcical formality ("rubber stamp") when congress is on the same side as the Pres.

Click to expand...

I don't think it would be as much of a rubber stamp as people think it is. There's a reason why Presidents normally wait until the end of their terms to issue controversial pardons: Doing so is unpopular and one should try to do it at a time when it is unlikely to rebound either upon you or your party. But people in congress have much less luxury in regards to this. They have to worry about their next elections, particularly if they live in a swing state or swing district. Trump doesn't care if he takes heat for the current pardons he's doing or for the inevitable end-of-term-preemptive-pardons-of-every-member-of-his-family-and-staff that he's almost certainly going to issue just like Biden did. But if a congressman votes for those pardons, then they're going to have to explain to the voters next election "yeah, so here's why I did that." That demands greater accountability. Yes, I'm sure partisan politics will make congress much more subservient to what the President wants if the President is of their party, but there's still limits to that. As we've seen, even Trump has limits in getting the entire Republican congress to go along with something.

ThatRobGuy said:

So all of the same challenges and perceptions of partisan bias will still be in full swing (just with extra steps)

Click to expand...

it would, at least, appear to stop the particularly egregious pardons.

ThatRobGuy said:

Now, I have heard an option that I've heard described that I've liked (though I don't know how practical it is) that still has a multi-branch collaboration element.

There's a pardon board (similar to a parole board) comprised of 7 members.
3 appointed by the Senate Majority leader
3 appointed by the Senate Minority leader
1 appointed by the Senate Parliamentarian

(and each of those positions has to be confirmed through the same process as cabinet appointments)

The president has the power to send pardon referrals to that panel, but it needs a 4-3 vote in favor to "pass".

Click to expand...

This seems like it has multiple problems. The Senate Parliamentarian seems a position so far removed from anything like this that suddenly making them a kingmaker on something like this is problematic given it has nothing to do with their actual job;one might as well give the power to a bailiff of the Supreme Court. Further, the Senate Parliamentarian serves at the pleasure of the Senate Majority leader, who can just remove them at any time, meaning this functionally is a 4/3 in favor of the Senate majority.

ThatRobGuy said:

Ultimately, this is a sticky wicket because of the fact that the founders (despite having many awesome ideas about checks and balances), didn't have a great solution or remediation element to the fact that the judicial branch has an outsized amount of power compared to the other 2.

And the judicial branch is the only one for which there's no rigid tangible standard by which to "un-do" what they do. (outside the branch itself)

Click to expand...

But it isn't the "judicial branch" that actually convicts people. It's the jury, taken from the general public. I suppose someone could say a jury becomes part of the judicial branch, but it's on such a temporary basis I find that questionable. In any event, this might be an argument against removing any ability to ever pardon a guilty person, but again that's not the argument. The suggestion is to remove the pardoning power from the President and leave it to Congress, subject to the President's veto power. Congress, as far as I understand, already has that power (and if it doesn't, the same amendment process removing it from the President can give it to them).

And there are indeed ways to undo what the judicial branch does from outside. Some of them are roundabout (bringing in new judges to undo a decision, or in the case of convictions amending the law), but they're there.

In contrast, there is nothing that can presently undo a pardon. Nothing. Once the President issues it, it's done. There is some question as to whether preemptive pardons are constitutional (they haven't been tested in court, in large part because I think prior to Biden only one preemptive pardon had ever been issued, namely Ford's pardon of Nixon, who subsequent Presidents didn't have interest in going after), but even if we restrict ourselves to pardons of crimes convicted, once it's done it's done. No one can undo that pardon--not another branch, not even a different President. Even if a President gets impeached over corrupt pardons and kicked out of office, the pardons stick. Heck, if the impeachment process starts and it's certain the President will be kicked out, they can go on a pardoning spree before Congress can actually do their vote to kick them out. It strikes me as very odd in a system of checks and balance to give a power that cannot be stopped or undone and is completely under the control of just one person who can do it at any time. So having pardons be passed like regular laws would actually be fixing the checks and balances system by having such an undoable power require two branches (Congress could do it by themselves if they have a veto proof majority).

ThatRobGuy said:

Plus, the branch is unique in that the "Supremacy Clause" doesn't fully apply.

A state level judge technically has the power to say "I deem this federal law to be unconstitutional, so this state won't be enforcing it for the time being"


No such dynamic exists in the other two branches.

Click to expand...

And then that judge can be overruled by a higher court. However, even if we grant this as a problem, how does the President have unilateral power to pardon solve it? The pardon power isn't about constitutional violations, but convictions. It's like saying "the justice system is too harsh on drug crimes so we should limit their power by increasing speed limits to make it harder to arrest people for speeding."

rambot said:

Sorry. I can't hear you all the way down there at 23rd place United States. You may need to explain yourself a bit more....


LOL! Do you know how far from Christian Scandanavian countries are?

Listen I absolutely have joy and peace in my faith. I'm blessed with happiness too. But Americans are sad because their CULTURE is makes them sad. American Christians can ONLY get happiness in their faith (though I think a lot also have a false sense of superiority that gives them a lot of job too...as with some on the left as well).

The PROFOUND hyper individuality and the severe discoupling of connection and communities. The distrust sown through the media...left and right... The politicians and talking heads that ACTIVELY BENEFIT.

Watched an interesting short videos on how oligarchies need to sow chaos to ensure their survival. I don't know (or really care) enough to know if that is an actual feature of oligarchies but I'm pretty sure that how the US functions and there are a LOT of people stirring up chaos if you ask me (and others).

Click to expand...

My culture is based upon the Scriptures and the teachings of the LORD God. There are not any ethnic or national cultures in all the world which faithfully follow the Lord Jesus Christ.

Fantine said:

The preponderance of evidence is with me.

Click to expand...

IMO, what you believe is evidence is actually stuff from a progressive liberal left wing point of view which also has extreme anti-Trump biases.

rambot said:

On other topics you already claim he isn't guilty of what he's been proven guilty of in a court of law.

Why would anyone further this discussion here?

Click to expand...

Perhaps, one day, liberals will accept the reality of weaponized lawfare.

Valletta said:

Trump had money before he became president, Nancy Pelosi made her fortune while she was in the government.

Click to expand...

I'll allow that you haven't read any media or watched any TV since the election so I'll class that as a statement based on ignorance of what Trump has been doing. Allow me to fill in the gaps in your knowledge.

From here: Trump Jumps 118 Spots On The Forbes 400 List Thanks To Presidency

'His primary vehicle for enrichment: cryptocurrency, an asset class full of hype and vulnerable to regulators. Teaming up with his three sons, Trump announced a crypto venture in September 2024 named World Liberty Financial, which initially struggled to gain traction. Then he won the White House.

His primary vehicle for enrichment: cryptocurrency, an asset class full of hype and vulnerable to regulators. Teaming up with his three sons, Trump announced a crypto venture in September 2024 named World Liberty Financial, which initially struggled to gain traction. Then he won the White House.

In office, Trump rolled back regulatory enforcement of crypto and signed legislation favorable to the industry, ensuring he would personally benefit from conflicts of interest. His memecoins, initially tied up for three months, now unlock daily, freeing tens of millions per week. World Liberty Financial, meanwhile, has continued selling tokens, including to opaque buyers, generating an estimated $1.4 billion so far. A Trump family entity receives a roughly 75% cut of those sales, amounting to more than $1 billion.'

Now you know. Yeah, I was just as shocked as you must be now.

Animal Farm

Yes, my son cooks noodles.

MYSON

Definitions are always good before you start a discussion, so can you tell us what definition you are using for life?

Valletta said:

Trump had money before he became president, Nancy Pelosi made her fortune while she was in the government. My taxpayer dollars are being spend to fund illegals, illegals millions who were brought in just so one party could seize control of our government.

Click to expand...

Your one party has control of our government right now.

zippy2006 said:

If you read his article you will learn why he says that.

Click to expand...

I read the article. I added it for background, context. I think it informs. But I never said I agreed with his “GIRM say nothing either for or against” statement.

probinson said:

Then why include all the language about "responding" to and "neutralizing" Texas?

Click to expand...

Because they wanted to state the reason for the change.

Since January 20....

By August, Trump estimated that he had collected at least $1.5 billion since the election, more than all the money raised to support his 2024 campaign over two years, including funds raised by supportive independent super PACs. The tally is now approaching $2 billion, two people familiar with the effort—who, like others, were not authorized to speak publicly—told us.

Trump has kept careful track of the money coming in, regularly calling O’Rourke late at night for updates. He monitors who is giving, who is not, and the role of lobbyists who bundle donations, those familiar with his efforts told us. At times, the actual donation amount is less important to the president than the percentage of the donor’s overall assets. He thanks the most generous benefactors at swanky events at the White House and his clubs.

....and tonight, the POTUS is throwing a Black Tie Dinner for a Saudi Prince...who earlier today pledged up to 1 Trillion dollars in US investments [nevermind the Trump family projects in Saudi Arabia].

Posing as true events, either current or historical.

Landon Caeli said:

IMO, any kind of AI use that *controls* human behavior is an abomination. AI should never be used that way, it should only be used to assist humans. Exclusively. So I create this thread for people to share every possible way we can think of that AI should NOT be used.

I am openly stating here, that I think there should be laws restricting the use of AI that controls, or attempts to control any human being.

Click to expand...

Login to view embedded media
Ever hear of AI powered "Slaughter Bots?"

rambot said:

It's not fair to try to have a discussion with other people if you refuse to abide by reality.

Click to expand...

"Fair" is a four letter word.

Hentenza said:

Raiding private businesses without probable cause can be oppression. The 4th amendment protects ALL against unreasonable searches.

I do.

This is irrelevant to our convo.

The 4th amendment should work the same way.

Again, what does an illegal look like? Is the color of their skin sufficient probable cause?

I am not attacking ICE but I expect for them to work within the legal constitutional framework.

Click to expand...

No you expect them to be constrained and prevented from ever thinking that the law needs to be enforced


Presence in the US without authorization is a civil offense

Re-entry after deportation is criminal. Entering through a non designated point of entry is criminal

Even if your argument is merely civil offenses, the civil penalty for unauthorized presence is deportation. Deporting for civil offenses is not unreasonable, criminal acts involve jail time and imprisonment. ICE is deporting, not imprisoning unless there is also concurrent criminal offenses.

Here illegally? Expect to be civilly deported. The government is even offering a free plane ticket and a thousand dollars for those who choose to self deport

Keeping ICE from enforcing the law does nothing to elevate Latino dignity. It even lowers it by giving the perception that as a group of people, they are exempt from the law. No society functions like that just because you call it racist

Apple Sky said:

You may as well be talking double dutch to me.



I thought he mean''''''''t people on here, I'm not a mind reader.

Click to expand...

You’re going to pretend that you can’t understand a simple distance and time calculation?

Gene2memE said:

Meanwhile, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Texas' new congressional maps, finding they were "racially gerrymandered".

Federal court blocks new Texas congressional map for 2026

The decision is a major blow for Republicans, in Texas and nationally, who pushed through the mid-decade redistricting at the behest of President Donald Trump. Attorney General Ken Paxton said he would appeal.

www.texastribune.org

Click to expand...

Hrm, I thought an attempt to argue this--that it was racially gerrymandered--was dismissed by a court, as I said in my prior post. Maybe this is an appeal or possibly a different case than the one I was thinking of.

ChubbyCherub said:

Furthermore, is this why Catholics confess to priests?

Click to expand...

Sort of. The Priest stands in as a representative of the faithful so James 5:16 is fulfilled.

Also, at Mass the following prayer is recited by all, which also fulfills James 5:16

I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

RocksInMyHead said:

The thing is that it has happened.

Click to expand...

It sure has.

RocksInMyHead said:

It may or may not be reversed, but Texas did go through congressional redistricting in 2025.

Click to expand...

Indeed they did. But if it's reversed, there is no longer anything to neutralize.

RocksInMyHead said:

I don't disagree, but the way that the California law was written, the only ways to reverse it prior to 2030 are to find it unconstitutional or pass another law to roll it back.

Click to expand...

Then why include all the language about "responding" to and "neutralizing" Texas? There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The sprit of the law was very clearly to "neutralize" Texas' gerrymandered maps. But if Texas doesn't have gerrymandered maps, there is nothing to "neutralize". Again, IANAL but that seems pretty significant to me. If the intent of the law was to institute gerrymandered maps no matter what, then all the other language about Texas was completely unnecessary and superfluous.