This sounds like a great idea!

[Ashock]

This was many years ago and Trump was just a guy, albeit a rich guy. So what? Besides, you seem to be mistaking banter with actions. Look at his actions and compare to those of Kennedy and Clinton. See, actions are more important than words. If you think his words are so terrible, then according to that mindframe, Kennedy and Clinton should have been executed, because the way they treated and acted towards women was significantly worse than what Trump said. Instead they are liberal icons. But that's just your 0.00001% addition to the hypocrisy of the left. Relax, you've done your duty for the day.

Ashock, the difference is that this action of Trump was known before he was elected.....so during the election campaign.
(of course in a completely different time where anything you see is on the internet 3 seconds later).

Kennedy or Clinton could have been a worse person than Trump, but this is about image. People vote for Trump even though they know what kind of person he is. Clinton and Kennedy were a lot more respectable (at least what was known by the public).

So the issue is not with what kind of person Trump is, but with the fact that people actually vote for him while fully understanding that Trump is such a person.

By appointing Kellyanne Conway and Nikki Haley Trump has more than made up for whatever verbal indiscretion he might have committed against a woman. Actions speak louder than words.

Also, and you probably don't know this, but Bill Clinton was a widely known womanizer and cheater when he was just a governor of Arkansas, years before he ran for Pres.

---

I am fine with people believing in God but I am not fine with my government subsidizing religious elementary and high schools. (for example)

We can agree that the majority of schools in the US are publicly run, and entirely government subsidized? What if any non-government run school, uniform in curricular outcome wanted some government subsidies? Is not the same rationale for funding public government run schools the same as for subsidizing any school?

The only difference is that some non-government run schools teach additional things, like STEM emphasis, or performing arts, or religious studies. But, they are highly scrutinized to ensure the same or better curricular outcomes.

I don't understand why so many independence minded in the US are willing to tolerate the near complete government monopoly on education.

Everybody should be treated the same, but sadly atheists are discriminated almost everywhere, christians are discriminated in Muslim countries and muslims are discriminated in Christian countries.

Craig Hicks claimed he wanted "equality" as well, but I believe his actions were also biased against religious people.

I was thinking more about the situation in the Netherlands. In the beginning of the 20th century we got public schools with religious grounds.

Funny story....the socialists wanted to have voting rights for women and they could finally trade it off with teh christians.......the christians only would allow voting rights for women if they could have their christian schools subsidized by the state just like the neutral schools.
(this tory actually says it all to me)

Chew on this:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vaster...-forskolan

Hit translate, if you need to.

I see where this is going. Do you?