Trumps is thinking about firing Rod Rosenstien

[metis]

We see politics differently.

No, as you don't seem to understand what "politics" actually is, which simply defined as "making decisions for a group", regardless as to what that "group" may be. There's an old English joke that goes "If two Englishmen were stranded alone on a desert island, the first thing they'd do is to form a government".

The Roman church became a political ideology siding with rulers. All through history.

We're not talking about the CC, so why this red-herring? But what you say above did all too often happen, no doubt, but the Church also was often a check on the government much of the time, thus trying to give the political leaders a moral direction. IOW, it's a mixed-bag.

Politics is for the body.

As I said above, you really do not even understand what "politics" is. Heck, there's politics in our families, our educational systems, our economic systems, even our religious systems. There simply is nothing intrinsically wrong with politics, nor is it just "for the body".


BTW, you are totally inconsistent with what you have said because you endorse and defend Trump at almost every term, and yet he is in "politics" and your making statements based on your own "politics".

 

[metis]

You mention the “render on to Caesar” part of the quote, but don’t forget the second part - “render onto God that which belongs to God”. At that time and place in history this would be a very political statement, and a very controversial and dangerous one.

I agree, and what I believe Jesus was saying is "Pay your taxes but follow God more so than 'manna'". IOW, "Get your priorities in line".

 

[fantome profane]

I agree, and what I believe Jesus was saying is "Pay your taxes but follow God more so than 'manna'". IOW, "Get your priorities in line".

I think he was saying the Romans should take their stupid coins and get out and give Israel back to God.

But maybe that is just me.

 

[metis]

Presumption of innocence.

I'd rather put it in terms of "innocent unless proven guilty", so I agree with you on that point, but Trump has quite a record of violating the law since he has lost a number of lawsuits, including two in 2016 alone.

Now, whether he's guilty on the issues of collusion and/or obstruction of justice I simply don't know, but what I have said is that he has behaved as one who has something(s) to hide, which is probably why he wants these investigations stopped. If he is completely innocent, why would he want these investigations stopped [notice there's no "?" at the end of the sentence].

 

[metis]

I think he was saying the Romans should take their stupid coins and get out and give Israel back to God.

I'm quite sure he would have been more than happy if they did that, but his message wasn't to the Romans but to the man who had questioned whether he should as a Jew pay taxes to the Romans that were levied on that monetary exchange. This undoubtedly was controversial since paying that tax helped the Romans, who also were persecuting Jews.

 

[metis]

Yall Trump supporters shouting Trump can fire Mueller anytime oh yea?One of the Lawyers that supported Trump told him last week not to fire Mueller or there would be trouble. If Im wrong if he could easily fire Mueller then why doesnt he?Trump says himself Mueller is a pain and causing him grief and hes totally pissed off at Mueller so whats holding him back from firing him huh? Can you answer that?I dont think so.

Trump would have to fire Rosenstein first, then appoint someone that would then turn around and fire Mueller. Now, if that were to be done, then the issue of "obstruction of justice" comes more into play, not only for Trump but also his appointee.

If Trump wanted you to be this intermediary, would you be willing to do his bidding? Not I, because then I could be dragged into court as well and have to defend my actions.

Also, Trump has been warned by members of his own party that firing Mueller would likely turn the public more against him, including Republicans in and out of Congress.

IMO, I think Trump is eventually likely to try and fire Mueller because of his hatred for Mueller plus what's happening to himself and Donald Jr. and his son-in-law. If he does, then what's been happening thus far may appear to be like a cake-walk. Trump reacts more on emotion than rationale, so I expect him to likely explode at some point out of sheer desperation, and then it's "Katy, bar the door!".

 

[fantome profane]

his message wasn't to the Romans but to the man who had questioned

You are right of course. I misphrased that. I should have said he was saying to the Jews that the Roman occupation of Israel should end.

My main point here is i think the second part of that famous quote seems to get lost, people rarely consider the political implications. Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar and Render unto God that which is Gods. So the thing which is Caesar’s is the coin. That is simple. But what exactly is the thing that is God’s?

To a modern Christian, or even most non-Christians livings alongside modern Christianity, the thing that belongs to God may be something insubstantial like “prayer” or “devotion” or I don’t know what. But to a first century Jew the thing that belongs to God, the thing that needs to be given back to God is - Israel. The territory, the nation. Give the coin to Ceasar, and give the nation to God.

That is a very political statement, and a very dangerous one.

 

[Shad]

I'd rather put it in terms of "innocent unless proven guilty", so I agree with you on that point, but Trump has quite a record of violating the law since he has lost a number of lawsuits, including two in 2016 alone.

It means the same thing in the end.

Yes Trump has been busted with lawsuits. He openly bragged about using loopholes. He openly bragged about "buying" politicians.

Now, whether he's guilty on the issues of collusion and/or obstruction of justice I simply don't know, but what I have said is that he has behaved as one who has something(s) to hide, which is probably why he wants these investigations stopped. If he is completely innocent, why would he want these investigations stopped [notice there's no "?" at the end of the sentence].

Speculation.

Already answered that question outside the assumption of guilt.

Adding a ? or not is irrelevant as your sentence is still a question hence the use of "why".

 

[Shad]

Trump is the last to be ruled out considering he appaears to be the common connection.

Sure that is possible. He will always be a suspect in a part of the public eye, in my opinion, regardless of the case at hand failing to bring charges against him down the road (speculation)

 

[metis]

Speculation.

Already answered that question outside the assumption of guilt.

Adding a ? or not is irrelevant as your sentence is still a question hence the use of "why".

Not on my part as I've said that I don't actually know if he's guilty of obstruction or collusion but just that his behavior seems to imply that he well might be. After all, "If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, ...".

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Sure that is possible. He will always be a suspect in a part of the public eye, in my opinion, regardless of the case at hand failing to bring charges against him down the road (speculation)

Oh, please. If people from the Hillary campaign had met with Russian officials promising dirt on Trump, had Russian hackers 100% backing Hillary's campaign, and you also had Hillary going out of her way not to say a single bad thing about Russia or Putin you would be chanting "lock her up".

 

[Shad]

Oh, please. If people from the Hillary campaign had met with Russian officials promising dirt on Trump, had Russian hackers 100% backing Hillary's campaign, and you also had Hillary going out of her way not to say a single bad thing about Russia or Putin you would be chanting "lock her up".

Hyperbole and projection. Try again son.

 

[Shad]

Not on my part as I've said that I don't actually know if he's guilty of obstruction or collusion but just that his behavior seems to imply that he well might be. After all, "If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, ...".

This is still speculation. Have you considered that people accused of X may not just bend over backwards and take it without a word?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is still speculation. Have you considered that people accused of X may not just bend over backwards and take it without a word?

There is nothing wrong with a reasonable defense. Unfortunately Trump sounds like a five year old when describing his "enemies" on Twitter. He is not putting up a reasonable defense, he is putting up an irrational one.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Hyperbole and projection. Try again son.

They were chanting "lock her up" because she put emails on the wrong server.

 

[metis]

This is still speculation. Have you considered that people accused of X may not just bend over backwards and take it without a word?

How can it be "speculation" when I haven't speculated guilt nor innocence? Yes, I have a feeling which it more likely is, being based on his conduct and some others around him, but my "feelings" are different that saying or implying that I actually "know" if he's guilty or not.

 

[Shad]

How can it be "speculation" when I haven't speculated guilt nor innocence? Yes, I have a feeling which it more likely is, being based on his conduct and some others around him, but my "feelings" are different that saying or implying that I actually "know" if he's guilty or not.

"After all, "If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck" That is the speculation I am talking about.

 

[Shad]

They were chanting "lock her up" because she put emails on the wrong server.

There was more than that but believe what you want.

Do note you have changed the perceptive from me to "they" which is the projection I am talking about.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

There was more than that but believe what you want.

Do note you have changed the perceptive from me to "they" which is the projection I am talking about.

People on Fox News think Hillary should be thrown in jail for the Uranium One non-controversy, for crying out loud. There are Republicans who are currently pushing for an investigation where there is absolutely zero evidence of any wrongdoing, or even any evidence of Clinton being involved in the approval of Uranium One's contract. I'm not making this up.

 

[metis]

"After all, "If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck" That is the speculation I am talking about.

And how does that saying finish off, Shad?

I think it should be abundantly clear by the other things I've said whereas I'm not assuming guilt for Trump on the issues of collusion and obstruction, so why are you being so obtuse? Seems to me that you are trying to put words in my mouth that simply aren't there.