Aufan59

Economic indicators indicate how capital is doing, not people, as now the top 10% own 70% of the wealth (aka capital) in the US. The economy doing good is another way of saying that capital is earning more capital. Kraft Heinz and Exxon Mobil have record profits as we pay more for food and fuel. Their increased profits are part of the positive economic indicators. Their names are indicators how capital accumulates. It is not that ‘some’ people are struggling - most people are struggling - as most people aren’t capital holders benefiting from economic indicators. I think in short, economics does not trickle down.

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,"

I’m agreeing with you. A ‘good economy’ doesn’t necessarily benefit those on the low end. The poor - those without capital -won’t see most of the benefits of a booming economy without some intervention. If the goal is to enrich the less fortunate, it needs to be done through redistribution efforts, whether through tax law, social programs or other means.

I tend to agree, but they will struggle in any economy. Capital will always tend to accumulate at the top. The only way lower income levels will improve is through policy - some sort of redistribution.

The biggest mistake of these students was not considering themselves a “small business”. Loans to “small businesses” easily forgiven without political resistance.

I presumed a misunderstanding, I had no idea such people existed.

There already is a right to worship Satan. No imagination necessary. To cut through the fluff, do you not agree that we have a constitutional right to worship Satan?

Freedom of religion is not bound by the founders understanding of religion. It is only bound by human imagination, by definition. Mormonism hadn’t even been invented at the time of the founding, for example. If by Satanism you mean The Satanic Temple, it certainly is within the scope of what the founders would have considered a religion. It relies on logical reasoning rather than the supernatural, which is not a long walk away from deism. But I’m curious, what manners of belief are not protected by the first amendment?

I find this point interesting, especially in the context about the Satanic Temple. There are thousands of religions, and we can agree between 0 and 1 of them are true. The rest, 99.9+% are made up, only limited by human imagination. All beliefs are protected, what manner of belief is not protected?

I completely agree with this sentiment. The right to my bodily autonomy should not be put up to vote. Those who think this should be voted on are missing that rights shouldn’t be by choice of the majority. I think they also would lose their mind if other laws were passed that required giving up bodily autonomy, like forced blood, organ or marrow donations.

It was based on you saying if you haven’t heard of Christianity, you are an atheist: There is far more to religion and belief systems than this. How does tax exemption make religions beholden to the government? If they don’t want to follow non-profit rules, and become political for example, they are more than welcome to do so. They just need to pay taxes.

Considering you think a person is either Christian or atheist, I think your mindset on religion is a way too narrow. There are a very wide ranging beliefs that people can have. You nor the government should be able to tell me if my beliefs or religion are sincere. The government is purposefully vague in defining religion, and religion generally falls under the bigger non-profit umbrella for tax exempt status.

It is a very serious religion. First of all, why does that matter? Second of all who are you to judge another’s religion as not serious? What if I said Christianity can’t be serious, as it’s based on Mary not wanting to admit to Joseph that she laid with another man. A whole religion based on the cover up of an affair can’t be serious, can it? The Satanic Temple is serious and necessary, as the evils of Christian theocracy is preventing people from getting medical care. The Satanic Temple is a counter balance to Christian evil, with tenants of bodily autonomy that Christian evil is trying to strip from us. They are not a mockery, they are necessary. The Satanic Temple boils down to…If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

Almost every religion is “made up”. There are thousands of religions and only 1 can be true, thus the others were “made up”. This is not a valid reason to claim someone’s religion is invalid.

Do you even know their beliefs? It is clearly a counterbalance, not a mockery. If Christians can do something due to their beliefs, then other religions can and should as well. That is the counterbalance. Regardless, why would it matter if it were simply a mockery? Why would this make their religion invalid?

There are thousands of religions, and only one true one, Christianity. Thus 99.9%+ are made up, so religion is only limited by what can be imagined. They are not a mockery of Christianity. They are a counterbalance to those who think Christianity should be the state religion. And the theists can’t simply dismiss the religion as imaginary, as Satan is a critical character in their beliefs too.

The smart thing about the Satanic Temple is that it uses Christian mythology, so Christians can’t simply dismiss it as being fake or imaginary. They actually are a very compelling religion.

It got a lot wrong, hence it being amended hundreds of years later.

One equal vote per person regardless of where you live seems very fair to me.

I disagree. For large metropolitan areas to have less influence, one vote in a metropolitan area must be worth significantly less than a vote elsewhere. In senate voting, this can be as high as 70:1. Not a great system.

Yes, the founding was an even smaller minority rule. It isn’t necessarily good design when a few people can dictate bad policy on the rest.

Republicans have been minority rules for decades. They have won a single presidential popular vote of the last 8 yet the system, not good policy, keeps them relevant.

So my argument doesn’t apply to you. You do not believe god is the all powerful creator of everything. Just created some stuff.

Yes, because god created man and knew exactly how they would behave. Does god not get credit for his creation? Or only the good parts?

The point about god being evil is not a religious one. It is about the belief of an all powerful god. I definitely like and agree with the peaceful teachings of Jesus, but the whole god thing completely subverts the message.