Sponsored Result was the top result. The red box is covering the "Search Results:" and whitespace that the Then column has.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Wellthatsucks/comments/1d3zgdw/googling_stuff_then_vs_now/#lightbox
So the US will continue to be a part of NATO as a part of this deal... but does that mean that the US can pay the "Fair European Share", that is to say, nothing, and let the other members of NATO cover the payment?
European nations went for decades without paying their share, and hoisting the cost onto the US. That would seem to set a precedent that Trump could exploit.
If you lance an infected wound, do you just leave it be, or do you clean it out and treat it so that it doesn't just get worse later?
America is under attack by cartels and the drug trade. Making sure it's shut down properly is America First. Maduro is one man, from an institutionally corrupt and broken system, from one country among many. Why would you think that leaving a power vacuum in place would be a good idea in the first place?
Obama is just an example, there a several snakes in this context. Look at what happened with a no name like Floyd. I'm referring to anyone who people will riot over or martyr. The bigger the name, the more fear and uncertainty will be pumped out by the media to generate more thrashing. Ironically, it's the people in the shadows who have more power, but who are so unknown that the only paid protestors might show up, and even that could be minimal if handled with care.
I'm simply saying that while arrests need to happen, they need to be handled with care, because the situation is volatile, and fear mongering will be used to create unrest and chaos. It's not as simple as some would say to just arrest these people.
When you remove the head of the snake, the body thrashes. The body must be subdued to mitigate potential damages.
If, say, Obama was arrested tomorrow, the "head of a snake" would be removed, and the body would thrash; riots, "protests", looting, pandemonium.
The temperature needs to be lower, and exposure needs to be provided to mitigate the thrashing. It can't be stopped entirely, but it can be minimized and hardened against.
Arresting protesters is, in a sense, another snake. Effectively, the "head" is whatever "martyr" the body falls behind.
I had this thought as well, particularly regarding Survivor. His address didn't overwrite Survivor like other similar things have; I think I can remember Obama having addresses that just cut out the portion of the show that overlapped. In this case, though, Survivor was paused until after the address, so nothing was lost.
With that in mind, I'm wondering how many non-politically minded households just left it running rather than skipping it, and actually heard what he said. Most of his address was a recap of the prior year, and things that might be obvious to those who pay attention, but aren't things that the non-political would really know about.
Not only that, but he could have done this at any time, for the message that he gave. However, with it taking place mid-way through Survivor's season finale, it seems like he'd have a higher audience count than he would have had otherwise, even if most skipped it.
I'm not sure if this is the same video that I saw earlier, but Epstein was sending texts to a congresswoman (I can't remember her name), instructing her with questions to ask regarding one of Trump's aids. After she followed his instructions, he sent her the text "Good work".
The entire text conversation took place during a live recorded session, where it can be tracked to the minute when she's looking at her phone and typing responses, compared to the transcripts of the conversation.
Didn't Tucker recently defend Sharia Law, crediting countries under it for "a divorce rate of zero", and suggesting that it was better than western values?
I've seen the video, and I've looked for additional context for why he might do this, but I'm genuinely confused by how he could come to this conclusion, and it doesn't feel like a "dis-info is necessary" kind of take. If he's crediting the current culture in the West, particularly Leftist originated cultures, as being destructive, then that would be one thing, but I'm not sure why Sharia Law should ever be touted as a positive system.
Latter-day Saints believe Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God, the Word made flesh, the Savior and Redeemer of the world. We worship Him, pray in His name, and accept His atonement as the only source of salvation. Our understanding of His relationship to the Father differs from creedal Christianity, but we do not “deny” Him or view Him as anything less than the risen Lord of the New Testament.
And no, the Book of Mormon is not touted as “the most perfect book ever written.” That’s a misrepresentation critics like to repeat, but it’s not how members treat it or how it’s actually taught. Accusations about “occult” practices and “a tool of the devil” aren’t theology; they’re rhetoric. You don’t have to agree with our doctrine, but dismissing it with conspiracy theories doesn’t change the reality of our discipleship to Christ.
If you're just going to delve into anti-LDS conspiracies and rhetoric without providing any actual substance, only false accusations and gatekeeping, then I believe that we are done here.
That’s a distortion of our belief. Latter-day Saints worship Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God, crucified and resurrected as our Savior. His role is utterly unique, not interchangeable with Lucifer. But if you also believe that God created all, then by your own beliefs, we are all His children, even Lucifer. So how do you define God's children as anything other than being “brothers and sisters”?
You can’t claim we twist doctrine for saying what you just said yourself. Calling that a “different Jesus” is just inconsistency dressed up as gatekeeping.
As for the “underwear” mockery, garments aren’t “magical” or worshipped. They’re a personal covenant reminder, much like a wedding ring, meant to keep us mindful of sacred commitments, including fidelity in marriage. Or are you mocking us for our fidelity, and arguing for the case of adultery? Dismissing that as superstition says more about you personally than about what we actually believe. It's honestly a lazy and very childish line of argument.
Mocking sacred practices and reducing faith to “check your underwear” isn’t a serious argument, it’s just an attempt to insult. Latter-day Saints worship the same Jesus of the New Testament: born of Mary, crucified, resurrected, and the source of salvation.
You don’t have to agree with our interpretation of His nature, but dismissing it as a “different Jesus” or resorting to ridicule doesn’t change the reality of our discipleship. We follow Christ, and that is the definition of being Christian.
That feels like a very superficial way to define Christianity. Symbols on a building don’t determine whether someone is a disciple of Christ, faith in Him does. Latter-day Saints worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God, crucified and resurrected for our salvation, which is the heart of Christianity.
Insisting that we’re not Christian because our churches don’t display a cross isn’t about theology, it’s about gatekeeping. Just think about what you're suggesting for a moment, and question whether your pride and judgement against the LDS for "self-identification as Christians" is something that Jesus himself would care about. Different traditions use different symbols, but discipleship to Christ has never been measured by architecture or the supposed approval of different sects of followers.
That's a lot of text to throw out at once to just repeat the point that you see Latter-day Saint doctrine as “false” or “heretical.” From our perspective, those differences are real, but they don’t erase our discipleship of Christ. Our entire faith is centered on Him: His divinity, atonement, resurrection, and role as Savior and Redeemer.
On baptism and ordinances, we believe they matter because Christ himself taught and commanded them. They aren’t about being “better than” other Christians, but about keeping covenants with God and drawing closer to Him. And while plural marriage was practiced in the 19th century, it wasn’t instituted for the sake of bigamy, it was tied to literal survival, as early Saints were repeatedly driven from their homes and lands until they had to flee so far west that no one could easily follow. They had to be more reliant on each other to survive. The mainstream LDS Church ended that practice more than 130 years ago, and what you describe with child marriages belongs to fundamentalist sects that the Church has long condemned.
You may not accept our theology, but burying the conversation under a wall of accusations doesn’t change the fact that Latter-day Saints worship and follow Jesus Christ. That is why we call ourselves Christian, regardless of your opinions on the matter.
That’s a distortion of what we actually teach. The Latter-day Saint belief is that all of God’s children - including us - are created by Him with agency, and that Christ is uniquely divine as the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, our Savior and Redeemer. His role is utterly distinct and central, and to equate our faith with Islam or dismiss it as “centered on a man” ignores the reality that everything in our doctrine points to Jesus Christ as the source of salvation.
You don’t have to agree with our theology, but mischaracterizing it doesn’t make your point stronger, it just takes the focus away from the very Christ-centered discipleship we actually live.
Didn't you know? All cats are descended from an alien species that landed on earth long ago. Apparently, while the descendants of the original invaders appeared to become more animalistic to avoid drawing attention, the rest of their species took inspiration from earth and became more humanoid.