This is... good? I think?

I'm confused.

Clovis has been on the "religion ruins everything" bandwagon for a while, can't remember anyone really arguing with that point of view either. Is anyone going to bat for religion being great? Maybe one of the trolls will take you up on it though.

for some reason i remember jon huntsman being reasonable (for a republican)

Yeah that was talked about a week ago or so on twitter--stone already admitted it a few days ago that they konw when wikileaks is gonna post things and what they are. Hell he admitted he hinted at it on TV during the campaign too. They're all just like yeah we know and **** you.

trump tweeted about huntsman before that he was a lightweight and weak and china ran all over him.

so perfect for amb to russia.

Oh **** no, go to SMP or SMPu for that ****.

Hope springs eternal. Seriously though, I just think this is something that is not getting anywhere near enough airtime in these discussions.

Maybe 2,500 years from now, students will be sitting around having a few beers and someone will say "hey guys, what about that time that a bunch of people, who were brought up to believe that the most important thing in their life is book of fairy tales and a pixie in the sky, elected that clown who almost destroyed the planet as the leader of the free world?"

Or, maybe, I'm being optimistic. 2500 years is a long time to rebuild though.

Why? You don't feel it's relevant in this thread?

Seriously, take it away from this place to the appropriate place.

Taibbi tells the media to slow way down on Trump-Russia connections reporting, curious what people here think. I think the caution he advocates is warranted. I think this jives with thoughts DVaut has previously posted here.

I feel this is the appropriate place. It is probably indisputable that a large part of the reason that Trump was elected was religion. If I had to put a line on how many of voters for Trump were atheists, I would take evens at <5% (even including his business cronies).

Saying "this is philosophical, take it elsewhere" is denying that at this juncture, the otherwise hypothetical discussion has very serious real-life implications.

It is not the appropriate place.

It's been fully discussed earlier itt.

I feel I have made a case for why I think it is the appropriate place, could you please provide your reasoning for why it isn't?

Maybe elsewhere, but not itt. I have read this whole thread.

Because no one else wants it here. Go to RGT.

I lead it. It was this thread.

I don't remember reading those posts, I guess they didn't stand out. Feel free to cite them.

Well, maybe it needs someone else to lead it then. No offense, but maybe someone who knows how to spell the past tense of "lead" might have more credibility.

I made a typo on my phone therefore I must know nothing about theism.

You sure your are not a trumpkin? You sound like one.

Lol. Another typo?

I think this is a reverse Nixon-goes-to-China situation where Trump had to pick someone who definitely doesn't have business ties to Russia.

Or else he just picked whichever Republican was willing to call him back.

On too the ignore list. Bi.

That people inside intelligence agencies consider Trump to be a once in a lifetime cataclysmic event that must be stopped?

No, that is not the reason you know nothing about theism. The posts of yours I have read fall into two categories - the one or two sentence rebuke where you think you are being smart but the person to whom you are responding usually ignores you, and the stream of consciousness essays strewn with grammatical errors and logical fallacies where the person to whom you are responding usually ignores you. Neither of those cases confers a huge amount of insight - if anything, the ones I've seen make you seem almost as bigoted as the people you are railing against.

No, I am not a trumpkin. I wasn't even political until that fascist clown and his band of merry men got elected. I hate him and everything he stands for. That doesn't mean that everyone else who hates him is automatically my BFF either, though.

That feeds into Taibbi's arguments about what happens if the media runs wild with this (like these people inside intelligence agencies might want) when there's no big bombshell at the end: