ContraBardus

Regular Member
  • Content count

    4,911
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

ContraBardus last won the day on May 20

ContraBardus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,962 Wow

About ContraBardus

  • Rank
    Rationalist

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Gainesville, Fla.
  • Interests
    At the moment, not dying, video games, books, movies, and getting well enough to get another job so I'm not stuck at home all day.
  • More About Me
    I don't like stuff that sucks.

    My dog is awesome.

    Sometimes I cook stuff.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Shilling, someone I know can lift a curse
  1. Not really. Like I said, formal hostilities are required for treason. We don't have that with Russia. It also doesn't work retroactively, so Trump couldn't be charged with treason for what he's already done if formal hostilities were declared now. Whatever he or anyone around him might have done wrong in colluding with Russia, it's not treason. It is possible that what is going on right now could lead to Russia being declared a hostile state, but until it is treason is off the table, and even then only what happened after the fact would matter in regard to the charge.
  2. Not treason. Treason requires an enemy state to be involved. It's a very specific charge that usually involves an active war. It requires formal declaration of hostilities. Russia is not currently an enemy state, nor are we at war with them. Treason is a frequently misused term that gets thrown around a lot.
  3. I think a lot of people in this thread are taking more from this than they should. It's being overused for the sake of confirmation bias. This does not vindicate those being investigated. I've not seen any real evidence the investigation itself is being driven by the media. It also doesn't help the investigation any, but doesn't nullify it either. It sounds to me that CNN was exaggerating and embellishing the story for ratings and to push a political agenda, which is shitty. It also doesn't mean that the entirety of it is false. I would remind that while the media might not be trustworthy, they aren't the ones investigating this. This is more about the information we have been given about this sourced from that particular media outlet rather than what is going on with the investigations themselves. I've always said I don't really trust the media in general. What it sounds like is that it does provide some credibility that Trump himself was less involved than the Liberals want to hear, so they are ignoring it. Those on the Right are going to try to use this as proof that the entirety of the allegations are false and aren't going to shut up about it. I would not be surprised if this doesn't go all the way to Trump. That doesn't put the people "working for him" in the clear though. Most of them are out for themselves and their own interests and have no real loyalty to him. He's gathered a group of self interested officials around himself all looking to forward their own agendas, most of which conveniently align with his own. They'll all turn on each other the moment it benefits them individually. I have no problem believing some of this group may have "helped him out" in ways he's unaware of. Kushner being one of the big ones, and that may be a problem for Trump's Whitehouse, and his brand, in the future. The Donald won't hesitate to throw him under the bus if something gets dug up. I doubt Ivanka is going to stick with him if that happens either, as she seems to be trying to use her position to gather political capital and build relationships for her own political future. She's basically acting as First Lady for all intents and purposes. She'll drop him like a hot potato the moment he becomes hot enough to burn her future. Interestingly, he seems to be doing the same thing, and using his position to further his future interests, which seem to be less political in nature, which may be what ends up getting him into hot water. I'd be worried if I was him, as he seems to be getting set up to take the brunt of this. However, there is evidence that Russia did hack quite a bit during the election. Putin himself has all but openly admitted it. He's much better at bullshitting and skirting around it about it than Trump is, but is too proud of himself to not make allusions to it. It is also worth pointing out that this doesn't clear Trump of the obstruction investigation. As I've said before, that is actually an entirely separate issue legally speaking that has nothing to do with whether he is innocent or guilty of the allegations. It doesn't matter if his hands are completely clean. Interfering with the investigation itself is a crime, it doesn't matter why he did it. That isn't the same as saying he'll be caught or convicted of anything as a result, but he did bring the investigation on himself regardless of his actual involvement with the Russia thing. It doesn't prove he had nothing to do with it either, and the investigation may still find evidence of that. I'm not holding my breath on that, but this does not vindicate him. It just doesn't look good in regard to tying the Russian thing to him directly. I predict a few heads will roll for this Russian collusion thing down the line, but that it won't be Trump's head. By "heads roll" I mean people will lose their jobs and maybe get a slap on the wrist for stuff the rest of us would get sent to prison for the rest of our lives over. If [and this is a really big if] Trump does get brought down, I suspect it will involve obstruction and not anything directly related to the Russia issue. It also probably won't happen unless the Dems get enough control of Congress over the next four years to force it, which I also wouldn't hold my breath for.
  4. Right, you don't give a shit, which is why you replied in such a passive aggressive manner...twice. Makes total sense. Doesn't seem much like I'm the one with the wounded pride here to be honest.
  5. You're assuming a lot. For starters, what makes you think that pointing that out was only, or even mainly, for your benefit? I didn't agree with you, I clarified something you failed to clarify. How you used the word "character" is where you screwed up to begin with. Your wording was strange and implies, whether you intended it to or not, that Pilate was entirely fictional. Anyone not familiar with evidence of Pilate's existence outside of the Bible (which isn't widely known) would not reasonably assume that you only meant that how he was used in the context of that story is the fictional part. Don't bitch at me because I clarified something you failed to after you posted it.
  6. They know exactly what they are doing. That's why they're dodging town halls and trying to get as much of this done behind closed doors as they can.
  7. The sentiment behind this I can get behind even if I don't agree with the Libertarian extreme that it's somehow extortion and a legalized organized crime. I can only take that as hyperbole, even if I know BO probably means it literally. The ACA is crap and needs to go away and be replaced by something else. That doesn't mean I think that what the Republicans are trying to do is better. It's not, but that doesn't make the ACA better than it is either. I'm not against Universal Health Care in theory, but it doesn't need to be single payer to work. That's an extreme that we don't really need to provide UHC. SP and UHC are not the same thing, it's just one possible system and there are systems that would retain a healthy private insurance market while still providing UHC to those who need it and keep costs reasonable.
  8. Pontius Pilate isn't a character and actually existed. Unlike Jesus there is contemporary evidence and writings that refer to him. According to known evidence, the events attributed to him in the Bible were unlike him and are not how he would have handled a situation like that at all.
  9. The best sounding excuse I've heard for this is that rainbows happened and people saw them before then, but this particular time God assigned significance to them. The passage doesn't say that it was the first rainbow ever, just that God pointed it out and told Noah that from then on it would be a sign to remind him of the covenant. Another is that the conditions for a human to observe a rainbow just didn't occur before then. They could have at any time, but just never did for whatever reason. Rain happened and all, but it was just always too overcast when it did or something along those lines. This is a stupid excuse for a lot of reasons, but it sounds like it could be plausible if you don't think about it too hard. Your question is fine, this area is pretty much anything goes, but you won't see many religious or bible focused topics in this area of the forum. It's not breaking any rules or anything, but this isn't really the best section to post this kind of question. You'll probably get more and better replies putting this kind of query elsewhere. This is the off topic section and is mostly politics and random daily life stuff that has little to nothing to do with religion or the bible. Your question here is more a "General Theological Issues" or "Science vs Religion" kind of topic depending on whether you're more interested in the physics of it or the theological implications.
  10. I agree with this, but "suspect" is kind of a broad and nebulous term. For example, a lot of what I hear from Fox and MSNBC is suspect. However, that doesn't mean that neither is capable of giving factual information. They both often do. That's the rub about this really. Sources often give facts and provide evidence that can be verified, but deliberately omit other facts and evidence that don't agree with the ideology they are biased towards. You can't trust anyone, but hearing every side of something can often give a better picture of what is actually going on. This is why I still check sources like CNN, Fox, Breirbart, and MSNBC. Same goes for publications. I don't agree with this guy when he says you should get a newspaper. You can get the same information online from several papers, all of which will have just as much of a slant towards an ideology as network news sources. I can't trust anyone, so I go to everyone, and that generally lets me suss out some level of fact from the mass of media outlets trying to drag me into their respective ideological camps. Seriously, we need to undo the Telecommunications Act and break up these mega media outlets. It would do so much to alleviate this problem we're currently dealing with in media. [Which isn't the same thing as saying it would solve it all.]
  11. I value evidence and citations. I was also already doing what he suggested at the end there to begin with. Well, except for reading his book.