[QUOTE=jasong;431006]I know the post I'm responding to is about a week old, but what on Earth is a Christian supremacist?[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://atheism.about.com/od/christianismnationalism/p/ChristianSuprem.htm[/URL]
[QUOTE][B]What is Christian Supremacy?[/B]
In America, the notion of Christian Supremacy encompasses both a moral attitude and a political program. In the moral realm, Christian Supremacy is the idea that Christianity is superior to all other religions, and by extension, that Christians are superior to all non-Christians. Politically, Christian Supremacy is an agenda to get America’s political institutions to reflect this superiority by favoring Christians over non-Christians and Christianity over all other beliefs.
[/QUOTE]Similar to [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology"]Christian Dominionism. [/URL]
(Not to be confused with the Domino Theory.)
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology"][/URL] [QUOTE][B]Dominion Theology[/B] is a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocratic"]theocratic[/URL] ideology that seeks to implement a nation governed by conservative [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians"]Christians[/URL] ruling over the rest of society based on their [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_in_Christianity"]understanding of biblical law[/URL]. Dominion Theology is related to [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy"]theonomy[/URL], though it does not necessarily advocate [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Moses"]Mosaic law[/URL] as the basis of government.

Prominent adherents of Dominion Theology are otherwise theologically diverse, including the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism"]Calvinist[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism"]Christian Reconstructionism[/URL] and the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_Christianity"]charismatic[/URL]/[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism"]Pentecostal[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Now_theology"]Kingdom Now theology[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation"]New Apostolic Reformation[/URL].

The term Dominion Theology is applied primarily among non-mainstream [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestants"]Protestants[/URL] in the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States"]United States[/URL]. Some elements within the mainstream [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right"]Christian right[/URL] have been influenced by Dominion Theology authors. Indeed, some writers have applied the term "Dominionism" more broadly to the mainstream Christian right, implicitly arguing that that movement is founded upon a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology"]theology[/URL] that requires Christians to govern over non-Christians. Mainstream conservatives do not call themselves "Dominionists," and the usage has sparked considerable controversy.
[/QUOTE]

An interesting taxonomy and revisiting of gaffes and musings on a post gaffe news-cycle possibly as a consequence of[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense"] Chewbacca[/URL]'s [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field"]reality distortion field[/URL]:
[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-end-of-gaffes-donald-trump_us_5707bf61e4b03a9e75d422f5"]The Gaffe Is Dead! Long Live The Gaffe![/URL]
[QUOTE]The Post-Gaffe Era

It would be really nice if we could credit the decline of the gaffe to all the lessons learned about how useless and pedantic most of the body of gaffe-journalism really was. But it’s pretty clear that what’s killed gaffe-journalism is Trump, whose hallucinatory presence and constant stream of cuckoo-bananas balderdash have essentially made the gaffe entirely irrelevant.

What gaffes were really about was the inability of politicians to be perfect at all times, and the media’s ability to monetize these momentary lapses. When you consider the fact that every campaign has a rival it would eagerly prefer to see wounded, this was pretty good business for a while.

But Trump neatly inverts this entire idea. He doesn’t have momentary lapses. He is a constant, walking lapse of good sense, taste and judgment. He almost entirely eschews the idea of a scripted campaign. He rarely spins, because what’s to spin? If he’s facing criticism for something he says, he’ll either say it again, say something else, or say that he never said what he actually said in the first place.

This is, at best, spinning at a Pre-K level — the kid caught among the remains of a broken cookie jar, insisting he’s not to blame. Trump places no value in logic or consistency. He creates a welter of bullshit and hurls it at the world.[/QUOTE]

Is Hillary Clinton Above the Law?
 

[URL="https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/17/is-hillary-clinton-above-the-law/"]Secretary of State Clinton was harsh on subordinates[/URL] who were careless with classified information, but those rules apparently weren’t for her, a troubling double standard, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

[QUOTE]“Enough of the emails,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders in Brooklyn-ese, while turning to Secretary Hillary Clinton during their first debate on Oct. 13, 2015. Sanders won loud applause for what seemed a gentlemanly gesture in withholding criticism for her use of a private email server for classified information.

But when Sanders said “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails,” I had a flashback to a House hearing three decades ago on large liberties taken with the law during the Iran-Contra affair under President Ronald Reagan. Beginning his testimony, then-Secretary of State George Shultz made the mistake of saying, in effect, who cares about laws being violated: “The American people are tired of hearing about Iran-Contra.”

Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin, was quick to respond: “Mr. Secretary, I did not take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States until I got tired.”

Well, we intelligence professionals also took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. There was no “until we got tired” – or even “until we retired” in that oath. It has no expiration date. Congressman Obey’s persistence and tenacity offer a model for patriots.

It has been six months since Sanders’s magnanimous gesture let Clinton off the hook for playing fast and loose with laws passed to protect classified information. During subsequent debates, everything but the kitchen sink has been hurled at the candidates, but there has been little appetite for asking Secretary Clinton what she thought she was doing, and why she decided to ignore security safeguards. (The reason often given – because she liked her Blackberry so much – does not withstand close scrutiny.)
[/QUOTE]

So I live in NY and tomorrow is the big primary
and I still have my intellectual vote open.

My OP prediction was against one dem and one rep.
One quit, the other seems like teflon on steroids.

Is it possible for both conventions to go contested
past their first rounds and some two new candidate
choices get presented to the electorate? Or are we
likely to elect one or the other of the front runners?

This is and odd election cycle, to say the least.

[QUOTE=davar55;431888]So I live in NY and tomorrow is the big primary
and I still have my intellectual vote open.[/QUOTE]

Who are you going to vote for?

And in news from across the big pond, our entire government is getting the boot (google double dissolution) :P

[QUOTE=0PolarBearsHere;431953]And in news from across the big pond, our entire government is getting the boot (google double dissolution) :P[/QUOTE]
That is a remarkable process. I had very little idea of the operations of Australian government.

[QUOTE=kladner;431954]That is a remarkable process. I had very little idea of the operations of Australian government.[/QUOTE]

Neither do most Australians. :P


Back on the topic of US primaries, although trump easily won NY, it was only a smidgeon above the 60% he needs to get the required delegates to get the automatic nomination. I don't think he'll get there. The big concern that I see, is that if there is a contested convention, trump will say "pick me or I'll go independent". Which will either lead to trump becoming the republican candidate, and thus having a legitimate chance at becoming the Commander and Chief of the United States Defence Force (which to be honest, is a lot more scary to me than just being a figurehead), or him not getting the nomination, going independent, and then drawing 1) Trump lovers, 2) R-voters that like rights, but not politicians, 3) Unaligned, 4) A few democrats that think Trump is actually a democrat in disguise.

Trump will make New York slushies grape again.
[URL="http://gothamist.com/2016/04/19/donald_trump_calls_911_7-eleven_bec.php"]Donald Trump Calls 9/11 "7-Eleven" Because Never Forget Big Gulps[/URL]

[QUOTE=0PolarBearsHere;432015]The big concern that I see, is that if there is a contested convention, trump will say "pick me or I'll go independent".[/QUOTE]

I, personally, don't think Trump is as dumb as he acts.

It's a bit like how Ralph Nader made sure Albert Gore didn't become president.

Call of the Dildos: The Ted Cruz Story
 

You can't make [URL="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/04/13/1514818/-Call-of-the-Dildos-The-Ted-Cruz-Story"]this stuff[/URL] up! (ROFLMAO!!!)
[QUOTE]Getting attention today: The court case in which Republican now-presidential candidate Ted Cruz, then the Texas solicitor general, ferociously defended the state's law [URL="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/ted-cruz-dildo-ban-sex-devices-texas"]barring the sale of dildos[/URL].[/QUOTE][QUOTE]The brief insisted that Texas in order to protect "public morals" had "police-power interests" in "discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors." There was a "government" interest, it maintained, in "discouraging...[U][B]autonomous sex.[/B][/U][COLOR=Red][B]**[/B][/COLOR]" The brief compared the use of sex toys with "hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy," and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution. In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz's office declared, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship."[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Cruz lost, with a federal appeals court opining that the state had no legal business telling people what they could and couldn't do in their own bedrooms. (And no,

Cruz's [U][B]stance[/B][/U] that using a dildo was like hiring a prostitute did not fly.....[/QUOTE]Note: Undoubtedly a Wide Stance! :davar55: :devil:

[B][COLOR=Red]**[/COLOR][/B][COLOR=Red][COLOR=Black] What a creative way to refer to masturbation![/COLOR][/COLOR]