Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

02-19-2017 , 06:59 AM
Quote:
Trump’s three Mar-a-Lago trips since the inauguration have probably cost the federal treasury about $10 million
Quote:
In New York, the city is paying $500,000 a day to guard Trump Tower, according to police officials’ estimates, an amount that could reach $183 million a year.
Quote:
Judicial Watch estimated that Obama-related travel expenses totaled nearly $97 million over eight years.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.80bc84e44b61

so assuming trump continues going to mar-a-lago every weekend for 1 full year for an estimated $120 million, and while the 1 year nypd protection estimate is correct at $183 million, then trump could potentially spend about $300 million in taxpayer dollars during his first year on the job.

to put that in perspective: if obama spent $97 million on travel over 8 years, or roughly $12 million per year, then in order for him to match trump's first year spending total he would've needed to have been president for 25 years.
02-19-2017 , 07:06 AM
Did Hannity or any of the other Trump sycophants over at Fox News have a go at Obama over his travel costs? Be interesting to see if they bother mentioning this and how they try to justify it if they do.
02-19-2017 , 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by locknopair
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.80bc84e44b61

so assuming trump continues going to mar-a-lago every weekend for 1 full year for an estimated $120 million, and while the 1 year nypd protection estimate is correct at $183 million, then trump could potentially spend about $300 million in taxpayer dollars during his first year on the job.

to put that in perspective: if obama spent $97 million on travel over 8 years, or roughly $12 million per year, then in order for him to match trump's first year spending total he would've needed to have been president for 25 years.
Well Trump has moved on from calling mar-a-lago the winter white house, to now calling it "The Southern White House" (caps were his doing.) So yea, he's going there >50% of weekends for the rest of his presidency.
02-19-2017 , 07:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Csaba
Did Hannity or any of the other Trump sycophants over at Fox News have a go at Obama over his travel costs? Be interesting to see if they bother mentioning this and how they try to justify it if they do.
They will just say its totally different because he was playing golf with Prime minister Abe (and showing the entire club classified info re North Korea.)
02-19-2017 , 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Csaba
Did Hannity or any of the other Trump sycophants over at Fox News have a go at Obama over his travel costs?
Well yeah, but they had to make it up. $200m per day, seems legit.
02-19-2017 , 07:20 AM
Sweden's Aftonbladet has kindly produced a helpful article in English to explain to Trump what actually happened in Sweden on Friday night.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/...t-mr-president
02-19-2017 , 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
I literally just checked CNN to see if Yitzak (sp?) Rabin was just assassinated at a rally.

Let us all LOLOLOL @ me.
Your the trumpet!
02-19-2017 , 07:31 AM
Trump is hugely BIGLY rich. Why can't he offer to pick up his travel costs for his family since they are so expensive and he has so much money.
02-19-2017 , 07:42 AM
Grunching

Yes we need President Pence ASAP.
02-19-2017 , 07:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Not sure if this person is being ironic or horrible at history.
02-19-2017 , 07:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adios
Grunching

Yes we need President Pence ASAP.
Unexpected. I agree but what are your concerns with Trump?
02-19-2017 , 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by locknopair
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.80bc84e44b61

so assuming trump continues going to mar-a-lago every weekend for 1 full year for an estimated $120 million, and while the 1 year nypd protection estimate is correct at $183 million, then trump could potentially spend about $300 million in taxpayer dollars during his first year on the job.

to put that in perspective: if obama spent $97 million on travel over 8 years, or roughly $12 million per year, then in order for him to match trump's first year spending total he would've needed to have been president for 25 years.

And, the "best" part is, at least some portion of the money being spent on the Trump family goes right back into their pocket. So there is a direct financial incentive for them to fly on Trump planes and vacation at Trump properties as often as possible.
02-19-2017 , 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chips Ahoy
Unexpected. I agree but what are your concerns with Trump?
I like Pence more, he'd more effective in leading the Republicans. For one thing he''s a very committed pro life activist. More extreme than I am but I am pretty much opposed to late term abortions and I certainly know Pence is. I know Pence would nominate judges that aligned with his views on abortion. Ditto in undoing the radical environmental agenda. Republicans would be much more united behind Pence's leadership. I am just getting started btw.
02-19-2017 , 09:18 AM
And thus we see how the shift will happen. Not anti-Trump per se, but pro-Pence. Dissonance suppressed.
02-19-2017 , 09:20 AM
Not that this will matter, but late-term abortions are already illegal in almost every state:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-state/448098/
02-19-2017 , 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Csaba
Did Hannity or any of the other Trump sycophants over at Fox News have a go at Obama over his travel costs? Be interesting to see if they bother mentioning this and how they try to justify it if they do.
Lol of course they did. Every time they went to Hawaii talk radio shills would burst a blood vessel in anger. They probably went after Michelle even more, for her "lavish" vacations. How dare a black woman have security, and not travel like a poor person.

You will hear zero about Trump's vacations or expenses, because Republicans are immune for some strange reason. Obama was one of the hardest working Presidents we've ever had, but if you watch Fox you'd think all he did was play golf all day. GWB was one of our laziest Presidents, took far more vacation than Obama and spent much of his time playing cowboy on his ranch. Not a peep from the right.
02-19-2017 , 10:00 AM
"undoing the radical environmental agenda" is a truly noble cause. What the world really needs right now is more pollution!
02-19-2017 , 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive
He's made wildly inaccurate interpretations and assessments of Quranic scripture. Like, the sophomoric stuff you'd find on hate sites. It's always a way to bolster a weak argument. Saying something even as broad as 'the middle east is ****ed' or 'Wahhabism is ****ed' is still way too complex, especially when you can just say 'Islam is ****ed'. But the latter is never really supported.

The drawing of the prophet is the best example imo. People will point to this as an example of Islam being insane, but there's nothing in the Quran about it, and there's nothing in at least the 1st 600 years of Islam about it. Aside from the Abrahamic tradition concerning idolatry, nobody gave a ****. Also, the modern stance applies to all the prophets, like Jesus and Moses, not just Muhammad.

I don't recall Harris touching on the drawing specifically, but he's made similar 'mistakes'. It's just lazy and weak-ass thinking. If you want to make the claim, 'Islam is in bad shape, they've let the lunatics take over the asylum,' then fine, you'd have some fertile ground, but it seems easier for them to just say Islam is all lunatics from the 1st day. Geopolitics is hard, broadbrushing an entire major religion is easy.

I'm a 'hardcore' atheist myself and I believe that gives me the freedom to explore religions with a lack of bias, so it's especially disappointing to see Harris et al get infected with various biases. I guess that's where I split from the so-called new atheists. They take the idea that not all religions are created equal but make the mistake that this somehow means they can clarify and quantify the differences.

Some food for thought about making 'Islam is _____' statements:
Not going to continue this derail but this post is really terrible and clearly not based on much experience with Harris or religious interpretation.

I'll just say this, there is no passage in the bible about abortion.
02-19-2017 , 10:08 AM
I'm an atheist too. There is some pretty horrific stuff in the bible regarding women, that much I do know. I've found that in life you can't judge an entire religion based on the actions of a few. Hell, Evangelical Christianity would have to be judged to be totally morally bankrupt if you looked at who voted for who in the last election. But that doesn't change the fact that there are some Christians out there doing good work helping people, even if I disagree with them on many issues (like abortion, probably.)

There are billions of Muslims in the world, and the vast majority are totally peaceful people that cook food, go to work, go bowling, and take care of their kids.
02-19-2017 , 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
I'm an atheist too. There is some pretty horrific stuff in the bible regarding women, that much I do know. I've found that in life you can't judge an entire religion based on the actions of a few. Hell, Evangelical Christianity would have to be judged to be totally morally bankrupt if you looked at who voted for who in the last election. But that doesn't change the fact that there are some Christians out there doing good work helping people, even if I disagree with them on many issues (like abortion, probably.)

There are billions of Muslims in the world, and the vast majority are totally peaceful people that cook food, go to work, go bowling, and take care of their kids.
Literally nobody sane disagrees with this, including Harris and Hitchens. It doesn't speak to the point of the debate we are having though. The point opponents of Islam make is that it's general tenants are socially regressive. Terrorism obviously is not one of those tenants, but female repression, homophobia, and sectarianism are.
02-19-2017 , 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33
Lol of course they did. Every time they went to Hawaii talk radio shills would burst a blood vessel in anger. They probably went after Michelle even more, for her "lavish" vacations. How dare a black woman have security, and not travel like a poor person.

You will hear zero about Trump's vacations or expenses, because Republicans are immune for some strange reason. Obama was one of the hardest working Presidents we've ever had, but if you watch Fox you'd think all he did was play golf all day. GWB was one of our laziest Presidents, took far more vacation than Obama and spent much of his time playing cowboy on his ranch. Not a peep from the right.
Thought as much.

When I said it would be "interesting" I actually meant that it would be incredibly depressing.
02-19-2017 , 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clovis8
Terrorism obviously is not one of those tenants, but female repression, homophobia, and sectarianism are.
Doctrinally, this is equally true of Christianity, Judaism and more, so the tenets of a religion's primary and secondary texts are only part of the picture. It's worth noting that cultures primarily espousing those faiths didn't shed those attitudes to the extent that they have because some other culture advised them to. So that's probably not how primarily Islamic cultures are going to do it.
02-19-2017 , 10:28 AM
Quote:
During the rein of 'Umar, women participated in law making. 'Umar made a proposal of a certain regulation concerning marriage. A woman in the mosque stood up and said, "'Umar, you can't do that." 'Umar did not tell her, "Shut up, you are a woman, you have nothing to do with politics, etc." He asked, "Why?" She made her argument on the basis of Quran. In front of everybody, he stood up and said, "The woman is right and 'Umar is wrong," and he withdrew his proposal. That was the spirit in the early days of Islam.

In the most authentic collection of Hadith, Hadith Bukhari, a section is devoted to the participation of women, not only in public affairs, but in the battlefield, too, and not only as logistical support. Women carried arms, and when there was great danger to the Muslims, they volunteered to participate even in the battlefield.

The problems presented here are not the problems of Islam. They are problems of a lack of commitment, lack of application, or misapplication of Islamic teachings by Muslims themselves. The topics I have tried to cover here represent and exemplify the big gap that exists between the true teachings of Islam as derived from its original sources and its projected image in the West and the way some Muslims behave in the disregard of those noble teachings.

There's no question that the Western media has played an important role in perpetuating these misconceptions. But in fairness, we should not blame the media alone. Western culture, in writings about other religions, in particular Islam, have distorted images. From books, novels, even in the academic circle, and sermons from the pulpit in places of worship, these kinds of prejudices are perpetuated.
Quote:
The issue of women in Islam, is topic of great misunderstanding and distortion due partly to a lack of understanding, but also partly due to misbehavior of some Muslims which has been taken to represent the teachings of Islam. We speak here about what Islam teaches, and that is that standard according to which Muslims are to be judged. As such, my basis and source is the Quran--the words of Allah, and the sayings of the Prophet, his deeds and his confirmation. Islamic laws are derived from these sources. To facilitate our discussion we can discuss the position of women from a spiritual, economic, social, and political standpoint.

From the spiritual aspect, there are seven points to remember:

According to the Quran, men and women have the same spirit, there is no superiority in the spiritual sense between men and women. [Noble Quran 4:1, 7:189, 42:11]

The Quran makes it clear that all human beings (and the phraseology doesn't apply to men or women alone, but to both) have what you might call a human; He

"breathed some of My spirit into divine touch. When God created him"(or her in this sense). [Noble Quran 15:29 See also 32:9]

Some of His spirit here means not in the incarnational sense, but the pure, innate spiritual nature that God has endowed her or him with.

The Quran indicates again that one of the most honored positions of human, is that God created the human, and as I referred to Surah 17 earlier, it means both sexes, as His trustee and representative on earth. There are many references in the Quran that reaffirm this.

Nowhere in the Quran do we find any trace of any notion of blaming Eve for the first mistake or for eating from the forbidden tree. Nowhere, even though the Quran speaks about Adam, Eve, and the forbidden tree, but in a totally different spirit. The story is narrated in 7:19-27, and it speaks about both of them doing this, both of them are told that both of them disobeyed, both of them discovered the consequences of their disobedience, both of them seek repentance and both of them are forgiven. Nowhere in the Quran does it say woman is to be blamed for the fall of man. Furthermore, when the Quran speaks about the suffering of women during the period of pregnancy and childbirth, nowhere does it connect it with the concept of original sin, because there is no concept of original sin in Islam. The suffering is presented not as a reason to remind woman of the fall of man, but as a reason to adore and love woman or the mother. In the Quran, especially 31:14, 46:15, it makes it quite clear God has commanded upon mankind to be kind to parents and mentions,

"His mother bore him in difficulty or suffering upon suffering." [Noble Quran 31:14, 46:15]

The Quran makes it clear again to remove any notion of superiority and I refer you again to 49:13. I must caution you that there are some mistaken translations, but if you go to the original Arabic, there is no question of gender being involved.

In terms of moral, spiritual duties, acts of worship, the requirements of men and women are the same, except in some cases when women have certain concessions because of their feminine nature, or their health or the health of their babies.

The Quran explicitly, in more than one verse, 3:195, 4:124, specified that whoever does good deeds, and is a believer and then specifies "male or female" God will give them an abundant reward.

In the area of economic rights, we have to remember that in Europe until the 19th century, women did not have the right to own their own property. When they were married, either it would transfer to the husband or she would not be able to dispense of it without permission of her husband. In Britain, perhaps the first country to give women some property rights, laws were passed in the 1860's known as "Married Women Property Act." More than 1300 years earlier, that right was clearly established in Islamic law.

"Whatever men earn, they have a share of that and whatever women earn, they have a share in that." [Noble Quran 4:32]

Secondly, there is no restriction in Islamic law that says a woman cannot work or have a profession, that her only place is in the home. In fact, by definition, in a truly Islamic society, there must be women physicians, women nurses, women teachers, because it's preferable also to separate teenagers in the volatile years in high school education. And if she chooses to work, or if she's married with the consent of her husband, she's entitled to equal pay, not for equal work, but for work of equal worth.

Thirdly, when it comes to financial security, Islamic law is more tilted in many respects towards women. These are seven examples:

During the period of engagement, a woman is to be on the receiving side of gifts.

At the time of marriage, it is the duty of the husband, not the bride's family. He is supposed to pay for a marital gift. The Quran called it a gift, and it is exclusively the right of the woman. She doesn't have to spend it on the household, she doesn't have to give it to her father or anyone else.

If the woman happened to own any property prior to marriage, she retains that property after marriage. It remains under her control. Also, in most Muslim countries, the woman keeps her own last name, and her own identity.

If the woman has any earnings during her marital life, by way of investments of her property or as a result of work, she doesn't have to spend one penny of that income on the household, it is entirely hers.

The full maintenance and support of a married woman is the entire responsibility of her husband, even though she might be richer than he is. She doesn't have to spend a penny.

At the time of divorce, there are certain guarantees during the waiting period and even beyond for a woman's support.

If the widow or divorcee has children, she's entitled to child support.

In return for these listed securities, it is clear why the Islamic laws pertaining to inheritance give men a higher share. From the social standpoint, as a daughter we find that credit goes to Islam for stopping the barbaric practice of pre-Islamic Arabs of female infanticide. These ignorant people used to bury female daughters alive. The Quran forbade the practice, making it a crime. Surah 81 Additionally, the Quran condemned the chauvinistic attitudes of some people who used to greet the birth of a boy with gladness, but sadness in the case of a girl.

The duty, not the right, the duty of education, as the Prophet said, is a duty on every Muslim, male and female.

As far as treatment of daughters is concerned, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Anyone who has two daughters, and did not bury them, did not insult them and brought them up properly, he and I will be like this," holding his two fingers close together. Another version adds, "And also did not favor his sons over daughters." One time the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was seated. A companion was sitting with him. The companion's son came. He kissed his son and put him on his lap. Then his daughter came, and he just sat her by his side. The Prophet told the man, "You did not do Justice," meaning he should have treated the daughter equally, kissed her and put her in his lap also. Indeed, whenever the Prophet's daughter Fatimah came to him, in front of everyone, he stood up, kissed her and let her sit in his favorite place where he'd been sitting.

From the marital standpoint, the Quran clearly indicates in Surahs 30:20 and 42:11 that marriage is not just an inevitable evil, marriage is not somebody getting married to his master or slave, but rather to his partner.

"Among His Signs is this, that he created for you mates from among yourselves, that they may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): Verily in that are signs for those who reflect." [Noble Quran 30:21]

There are numerous verses in the Quran to the same effect.

Secondly, the approval and consent of the girl to marriage is a prerequisite for the validity of marriage in Islam. She has the right to say yes or no.

Husbands' and wives' duties are mutual responsibilities. They might not be identical duties, but the totality of rights and responsibilities are balanced. The Quran says:

"Women have the same rights (in relation to their husbands) as are expected in all decency from them, while men stand a step above them." [Noble Quran 2:228]

This only specifies the degree of responsibility, not privilege, in man's role as provider, protector, maintainer, and leader of the family. The same Surah speaks about divorce, about consultation between husband and wife, even in the case of divorce. When there are family disputes, first the Quran appeals to reason and the consideration of positive aspects of one's spouse,

"Dwell with your wives in kindness for even if you hate them, you might be hating someone in whom God has placed so much good." [Noble Quran 4:19]

If that appeal does not succeed, and problems between the husband and wife continue, there are measures that can be applied. Some of these measures are done privately between husband and wife. Some of them might appear harsh, but there are qualifications to restrict excessive or abusive use of these measures. These measures are considered an attempt to save a marriage rather than break a family apart. If the situation does not improve, even with the limitation and prevention of excesses, the next step is a family council. One arbiter from his family and one from her family should sit together with the couple and try to resolve the problems.
http://www.islamswomen.com/articles/...ave_rights.php

Seems more progressive than Christianity to be honest. I think you're confusing what some Muslim people and governments/cultures are doing from what Islam actually teaches. Culture and religion are two different things.
02-19-2017 , 10:29 AM
possibly habbening

      
m