Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#9,451
#9,451
Darth_Shiveman said:
Must have gotten you confused with another. Could've sworn you against the establisment clause being relevent to the issue of the 10 commandments in front of court houses a few pages back. My bad.



Here is where you're projecting again (and not looking at the politics involved). I vehemently disagree with his methods, but it's obvious that Sanders was looking for an answer that would indicate bigotry against muslims. Sanders didn't care about his answers in regards to his personal beliefs on salvation. He was grasping at straws to get Vought to admit some personal bias against muslims in hopes of blocking a Trump appointee. Sanders cares much more about making Trump and his appointees look like bigots than he does about their religious beliefs.

Vought didn't deny his faith at all and he still has a good chance to be confirmed since the Senate has a slight Republican Majority. Sanders' dumbassery might even give Vought some backlash votes in his favor.



The last line was just an observation. When it's your beliefs, you get just as swept up in the outrage and demanding resignations as the PC crowd. It's just coming from a different spectrum.

As for violating the constitution...like I said befoere it's not so cut and dry there. Even Fox News, of all places, is calling what Sanders did "pushing the limits of Article VI." You can interpret it that way if you want (I know you LOVE doing that), but it won't change the facts in this case. It would be very, very difficult to prove in any meaningful legal scenario that Sanders' actions actually violated the constitution.
Click to expand...

What answer could Vought have given to that question that would have kept Sanders from saying he is unfit for the position?
 
#9,452
#9,452
Bassmaster_Vol said:
What answer could Vought have given to that question that would have kept Sanders from saying he is unfit for the position?
Click to expand...

lol Sanders would have found a reason to call him unfit for any answer most likely. IDK how this question is relevent or how it answers anything I've brought up in my past few posts.

A perfect answer, IMO, would've been something along the lines of "My personal relationship with God and views on salvation will not stop me from doing my best to serve Americans of all races, creeds, and religions. Fruthermore, I find it despicable that you would bring a person's faith into this matter at all, senator. The question at hand is whether I'm fit to serve as a competent Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, not whether I believe my neighbor is going to heaven or not."
 
#9,453
#9,453
Darth_Shiveman said:
lol Sanders would have found a reason to call him unfit for any answer most likely. IDK how this question is relevent or how it answers anything I've brought up in my past few posts.

A perfect answer, IMO, would've been something along the lines of "My personal relationship with God and views on salvation will not stop me from doing my best to serve Americans of all races, creeds, and religions. Fruthermore, I find it despicable that you would bring a person's faith into this matter at all, senator. The question at hand is whether I'm fit to serve as a competent Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, not whether I believe my neighbor is going to heaven or not."
Click to expand...

You're answer would have been great, but Bernie wouldn't allow him to speak long enough to give that answer.

You are right that he was looking for any reason because he's a corrupt politician, but, Vought did say that he believes that all men are created in the image of God and should be treated with respect no matter their belief. This was not accepted by Bernie. He wanted an answer to the question "are Muslims who deny the Christian faith condemned as you wrote in your article?" That's a yes or no answer. He answers yes, he stands with his faith, the faith of Christians for 2,000 years, and Bernie says he is unfit. The only answer that he could have given that would have kept Bernie from saying that (tho he would have probably tried anyway) is no. And had he said that, he would have denied his faith. Whether you want to admit it or not, try as you may to avoid it, it was a test with a yes or no question. He answers yes, he's unfit according to Bernie. He answers no, he denies his faith. If that isn't a religious test I dont think there could ever be one. That is clear. Frankly I wish he would've given your answer.
 
#9,454
#9,454
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Whether you want to admit it or not, try as you may to avoid it, it was a test with a yes or no question. He answers yes, he's unfit according to Bernie. He answers no, he denies his faith. If that isn't a religious test I dont think there could ever be one.
Click to expand...

This is the core of this issue of consitutionality. I do think he was cutting it close. I think it might even be one of those cases where he's kind of breaking the spirit of the law without violating the letter of the law itself. However, it's not nearly as black and white as you'd like to make it. You're thinking emotionally, not logically here.

Whether it's a yes/no question has absolutely no bearing on the case. To prove Sanders acted unconstitutionally, you'd have to prove that his line of questioning in a confirmation hearing (something that, historically speaking, amounted to a formality) fits the meaning of the word "test" as the writers meant it, whether the question had any probative value, and whether his answer ultimately would have made a difference in his being appointed or not. The answer to number two is clear, IMO: the questions, as he asked them, had no value. The answers to questions to #1 and #3 are much, much tougher to argue. It's probably impossible to make anything other than a hypothetical argument that Vought answering "As a Christian, I believe only Christians go to heaven" would change the outcome of his appointment whatsoever.

(As a sidenote: I would have loved to hear him take it as far as possible and say something along the lines of "Well, IMO, only the members of the 2nd Presbyterian Church of Belview, Virginia down on the frontage road, will make it to heaven. But I still think everybody else deserves to live in a country with a properly balanced budget, too." just to take the piss out of Sanders)

Anyway as it stands, Sanders is unable to decide whether Vought is confirmed by himself or not. He can say that, in his opinion, he's unfit, and refuse to vote for him, but he cannot make the ultimate call. It's up to the Senate to confirm or not confirm him. All Vought needs is a simple majority to get his confirmation. So whether Sanders thinks he's unfit or not has little bearing.
 
Last edited:
#9,455
#9,455
We have sadly moved into a time, where we are easily offended at everything. Too many complaining, protesting, or boycotting this or that! Christians and non-Christians, conservatives and liberals, men, women and children, gay or straight, red and yellow, black and white, we are all precious in His sight! But ...... we all need to put our big-boy panties on, and not be so easily offended when things aren't as we think they should be!

Bernie Sanders had no business grilling Russell Vought the way he did over his religious beliefs. I, too, believe that all Muslims are bound for hell, unless they turn to Jesus. However, that would not prevent me from doing my job, or even being friends with a Muslim, or anyone of a different faith, race, or sexual persuasion!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,460
#9,460
Darth_Shiveman said:
I just wish we had meaningful term limits for congress and many other political positions so we could keep a lot of the career types out.
Click to expand...

Term limits is the way to go. Especially since they used to only go two terms before retiring. There's absolutely no reason a politician should be in office for 40+ years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#9,461
#9,461
Its so the states with long standing reps can have more power, its inherently built for corruption. Our forefathers screwed that one up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,463
#9,463
I'm all for term limits!


Somebody take a picture. VN agrees on a political topic!

tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#9,464
#9,464
Darth_Shiveman said:
I just wish we had meaningful term limits for congress and many other political positions so we could keep a lot of the career types out.
Click to expand...

That is one thing we can agree on. I used to think the electorate was the ultimate form of term limit but once these politicians get in office it's hard to get them out. They have so much money (bribe money imo) that it makes it nearly impossible to challenge them.
 
#9,465
#9,465
InVOLuntary said:
That is one thing we can agree on. I used to think the electorate was the ultimate form of term limit but once these politicians get in office it's hard to get them out. They have so much money (bribe money imo) that it makes it nearly impossible to challenge them.
Click to expand...

Do away with the pension and healthcare package. If we also were to limit their time in Washington to June through August and prioritize what they have to accomplish (i.e . Budget, Foriegn trade agreements, treaties, etc.) Then they wouldn't have time to stick their fingers into all the other parts of our lives that they have no business in. Each member of Congress is paid at least $174,000 per year. Who wouldn't want that job?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#9,467
#9,467
Today is what happens when the MSM says Trump and the GOP are literally Hitler
 
Last edited:
#9,471
#9,471
Listening to democrats talking about how bad guns are...

Maybe guns are bad, (I dont think they are) but in America there are SO MANY of them. A bad person that is driven to kill WILL find a way to obtain one regardless of the law. And when that person uses a gun, you better hope a law abiding citizen can legally have one as well to fight back.

Jmo
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#9,472
#9,472
Catbone said:
Listening to democrats talking about how bad guns are...

Maybe guns are bad, (I dont think they are) but in America there are SO MANY of them. A bad person that is driven to kill WILL find a way to obtain one regardless of the law. And when that person uses a gun, you better hope a law abiding citizen can legally have one as well to fight back.

Jmo
Click to expand...

A person with the intent to kill will try and kill with whatever instrument they can use. Be it gun, knife, or rock. This thing is though even in countries with extremely strict gun laws guns can still be found but knives are used regularly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,473
#9,473
InVOLuntary said:
Is the guy being interviewed wearing a Vol hat?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/1...l-practice-shooting-multiple-people-shot.html

Edit: Evidently it was live and it's not there anymore. Looked like a Power T hat to me.
Click to expand...

Yep, I saw him being interviewed live. Was absolutely a Tennessee Volunteers cap.

He's one of our congressmen from East Tennessee. Not living in East Tennessee, I didn't recognize him, so can't tell you which. He was there at the practice, was relating what he saw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,474
#9,474
Rishvol said:
A person with the intent to kill will try and kill with whatever instrument they can use. Be it gun, knife, or rock. This thing is though even in countries with extremely strict gun laws guns can still be found but knives are used regularly.
Click to expand...

I feel like the USA has more guns in general compared to most other countries which makes it easier to obtain, legally or not. No idea if thats true or not though.
 
#9,475
#9,475
Catbone said:
I feel like the USA has more guns in general compared to most other countries which makes it easier to obtain, legally or not. No idea if thats true or not though.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it's true but I was just trying to state the obvious
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top