Donald John Trump

No. He just believes he has God-Like powers.

 

The Australian quotes are from a far-right site than believes among other things that Climate Change is a 'pseudo-science' and a 'leftist wealth redistribution scam'
Just the average impartial far-right conspiracy theory view of the world.

 

I agree. All political opponents of Trump should give him exactly the same support the Republicans gave to Obama.

 

As stated by lwd when they do not contradict US law, not at all, but Sharia law severely restricts women's rights in a large number of ways and has components, as did old Christian practices where torture, mutilation and even ritual murder are permissible based upon a 'religious' finding that has no court of appeal. Worse Islam seems to be backsliding into a stricter interpretation on a ever widening front.

We cherish the separation of Church and State, it is a founding principle of our nation, but the concept of Sharia Law is that there can be no such separation. Like it or not we do live in a era of militant Islam, and yes most Muslim's are peaceful and non-violent, but then again during the Crusades, so too were most Christians. Revolutions rarely begin as vast movements, but with small cadres of uncompromising individuals who shun the old order and will burn everything down to get their dreamed of paradise.

 

That's not completely accurate. Sweeping it under the rug and simply transferring priest accused or suspected of it is implicit condoning of it.

They are hardly "God-like" and you are forgetting that some limitations have been imposed since that law was made. Furthermore the executive branch is subject to oversight by both of the other branches of government as the above limitations as well as recent court actions demonstrate.

 

So sayeth the many who never fails to link any crime committed by a Muslim to all Islam. In the UK and Ireland if you make a reference to Priest/Vicar and an altar boy everyone knows what you really mean. It is even an old music-hall trope. Its been like that for as long as I can remember.

 

There are a number of parts of Sharia law that are quite objectionable and indeed run counter to the laws of most of what western civilization would consider reasonable. The imposition of Sharia law would be quite objectionable to the majority population in most of the world. That doesn't mean that parts of it can't be a basis for resolving civil disputes. I'm not sure that it's backsliding either. We are seeing proponents of imposing a strict interpretation of such law becoming more vocal but is it happening? I'm not even sure which measure I would use to determine that.

I don't think the Crusades are a very good analog to militant Islam. Initially they were a reaction to the Islamic invasions of Christian territory. Indeed the ones that took place in Islamic areas were also in areas that had been taken by force from Christian governments. Those Crusades were fundamentally defensive in nature. Now some of the latter Crusades were a bit more aggressive in nature but those were usually undertaken vs pagans or even other Christians.

They may not begin as vast movements but the successful ones usually occur in areas where a large portion of the populace is unhappy with current conditions. I don't see anywhere near that level of discontent in the West.

 

The author is associate professor at RMIT University Steve Kates. He is an economist as most of the others there.
It is a Australian weblog covering economics, geopolitics, and social commentary - not a bunch of truthers.

 

Wrong and Wrong.
As to the Church being a governmental institution ... ever heard of the Vatican?
As for them owing anyone "information or favors" I suggest you take a look at their governing documents and professed philosophy.

 

The court action is still ongoing. In the end, most likely the Supreme Court will have to decide.

Where can I find more about those limitations?

 

Who knows

 

Which is irrelevant to my point. I.e. the presidents actions are subject to oversight of the courts.

Look for any reasonable account of the arguments why his actions may be in excess of his authority. They've been mentioned quite widely.

 

Even assuming it is true, it is not their government so still owns them nothing.
Obviously only the Polish government can be their government.

 

Just a bunch of experts whos scientific opinions are formed by their politics. Like (the few) Geologist who believe in the Earth being 3000 years old. We call that the cart before the horse.
Hey seeing as you love 'democracy' and 'letting the people speak' can you give us the result of any of the polls that show how accredited scientist voted when asked if Climate Change was real?

 

Just shows how the media will always look for a negative in any story when wanting to talk someone down.





[SIZE=10pt]President Trump invited the Pope for lunch on his mega yacht, the Pope accepted and during lunch, a puff of wind blew the Pontiff's hat off and right into the water.

It blew off about 50 feet, then the wind died down and it just floated on top of the water.

The crew and the secret service were scrambling to launch a boat to retrieve it, when Trump waved them off, saying "Never mind, boys, I'll get it."

The Donald climbed over the side of the yacht, walked on the water to the hat, picked it up, walked back on the water, climbed back into the yacht, and handed the Pope his hat.

The crew was speechless, the security team, and the Pope's entourage were speechless.

No one knew what to say, not even the Pope.

That afternoon, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN all covered the story. Their banner headlines read,[/SIZE]





[SIZE=10pt]"DONALD TRUMP CAN'T SWIM"![/SIZE]

 

Is this "Fake News" or "Alternative Facts?"

Trump seems to be the type that can walk on water when he has a script and the cameras are on. But, take away the script and turn the cameras off, and he will wet himself with a water pistol.

 

There is more similarities than you give it credit. The Crusades was militant Christianity at its utmost. A Byzantine Roman Emperor petitions the west for for a few thousand troops to defend the frontier and a Roman Pope turns this into a Christian 'Jihad' against Islam. Every Soldier of Christ was given absolution for all venal acts done in their lives, both before and during the Crusade. Its not a harem of virgin's but sounds oftly familiar.

Can you name a Muslim country that has not endured fundamentalist violence in the last 20 years? If so they probably funded acts in those countries that had them. Google list of terrorist organizations, there are scores of them and their numbers dwarf the more traditional Communist/Socialist terror groups.

Have you forgotten the riots generated by European Muslims over the works of Salmon Rushdee, or the Charlie Ebdoe attack? All because westerners exorcised their rights in their own countries. Yes some aspects of Sharia Law might have some merit in some situations, but apparently not all the Muslims in Europe got the memo 'not at the expense of the laws in the lands they emigrated to'.

 

Here's some fake "under reported news". British mother distressed that her daughter's murder in Australia was added to that pathetic list the White House produced of terrorist incidents. Some of the other incidents have pages of Google links covering the alleged under reporting.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nAo2KAp8KAs

Liked those Euro videos Takao.

I'm not a Twitter follower but somebody pointed me in the direction of a parody account where Trump is tweeting in the style of a medical king called 'Donaeld The Unready'

https://mobile.twitter.com/donaeldunready

 

On 23 August 2016, Muslim man Smail Ayad dragged out of bed young woman Mia Ayliffe-Chung, and massacred her with his knife, screaming Allahu Akbar repeatedly.
Then he massacred charity worker Thomas Jackson, stabbing him 20 times in the head, neck and torso.
Then wounded 12 police officers.

At that time it was widely believed it was a jihadi-style terror attack. Later it was proved it wasn't.

So it's obviously a mistake made by some bureaucrat compiling the list, who didn't check the facts properly.
But the fact is the murders made a great impression in Australia, and then as usual were quickly forgotten. Not everyone got the news it was the usual crime of passion.

That woman could have contacted the American embassy, could have asked them for a correction. Instead she chose to speak to the yellow press about her righteous indignation, accusing Trump directly of racism, xenophobia and hate.

By doing that she picked a side in a conflict between two political group in the US. She used the body of her daughter as a disposable banner in a conflict, a political war which is not hers. Of which most likely she knows nothing about.

According to one list in 2016 there here were 2477 attacks all around the world, in which 21240 people were killed and 26682 injured. All committed by jihadist, or islamic militants, or inspired by them.
Only the number of victims of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL is 1,455+ killed, 3,505+ injured.

ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram committed horrible crimes, including genocide, body mutilations, sexual slavery, mass rape, terrorism.
Just a few days ago: ISIS amputate the hands of two boys aged ten and 12 who refused to execute two civilians in front of their families in Mosul, ISIS Chops Boy's Arm Off With Sword For Stealing As Islamic State Religious Police Enforces Sharia Law In Syria.
Women who are captured by Isis and kept as slaves endure more than just sexual violence.

Her case, included or not changes nothing. But where was that female sob when all the jihadist crimes were committed. Did she protest publicly then?

What is going on in the US is politics as usual, no different as it was ten years ago, or a hundred years ago. And no different from what is going on in other countries.
Lots of emotions but in a sense it's not real, it's mostly entertainment, it should be treated as entertainment.
The genocide, sexual slavery, terrorism are not.

 

If Trump didn't have a history of not letting the facts stand in the way of his statements you might have a point. Not much of one though. Presidents have the resources to get the facts, especially in cases like this. The fact that he didn't shows how little importance he attaches to reality.