AZ megachurch to host Trump tomorrow (6/23) at the next stop on the Pandemic Hotspot Tour

[TLK Valentine]

Attack might be a little stronger than my intent. You are correct though, I skipped right over the rest of what you said. My thoughts on that are pretty much in line with what you said. The church and Christians should call him out on his behavior instead of welcoming him with open arms.

That's not how one gets their thirty pieces, however.

It bothers me to have to overlook all those faults to get a few things that I want to see.

Yet you do it nonetheless... not because you have to; because you choose to.

That's why I have stated many times elections for me always end up being lesser of two evils.

Choosing a lesser evil is still choosing evil.

 

[Arc F1]

That's not how one gets their thirty pieces, however.



Yet you do it nonetheless... not because you have to; because you choose to.



Choosing a lesser evil is still choosing evil.

I will always side with a little bit of good over none at all.

 

[cow451]

How soon we forget that the Clintons had a bungalow at the epstein ranch. I knew about the Lolita express years ago. That's a hard obstacle to overcome. That and she goes completely against Christian beliefs. Trump on the other hand throws us a few crumbs.

She's been married once. Trump, on the other hand is so pro-marriage, he's had three so far.

And don't act like Trump never crossed the Epstein Line.

Let's be clear: I did not vote for Hillary Clinton.

 

[Arc F1]

She's been married once. Trump, on the other hand is so pro-marriage, he's had three so far.

And don't act like Trump never crossed the Epstein Line.

I'm not going to defend Trump for anything bad he's done. I will however give him credit for the good. Same as I did for Obama when I voted for him.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I will always side with a little bit of good over none at all.

Did you do it this time?

 

[cow451]

I'm not going to defend Trump for anything bad he's done. I will however give him credit for the good. Same as I did for Obama when I voted for him.

You voted for the evil, Mooslim, Kenyan? I'm stunned, I say, stunned. Now, I gotta lie down and rethink my worldview.

 

[Arc F1]

Did you do it this time?

Did I miss the election? If you mean the primary I'm still a registered Democrat. Trump wasn't on my list.

 

[miamited]

HI

Hindsight is 20/20

At the time of the election in November 2016 what evidence was that that would have clearly proved this?

I get the lesser of two evils until you feel someone is clearly disqualified. What is next, we elect the guy who killed 1 person because the other candidate killed 2?

Hi ZNP,

Again, I can't speak for others, but I saw plenty of evidence of the type of man that Donald Trump was, long before he threw his hat into the ring. I was aware of the trickery and thievery that he and his father, Fred, practiced in running their empire. I was well aware of his lack of moral fiber as far as his commitment to things. Marriage, party affiliation, charitable works. How the only way he seemed to run companies was that he had to have his family as the top echelon people. He has always depended on the loyalty of his family to push him ahead.

Then when I look at Mrs. Clinton's past, while it certainly isn't perfect, there are much fewer red flags.

No, I can attest that from day one of his throwing his hat in the ring, I was pretty certain that this wasn't going to end well for us. I think there are probably some posts in the archives that I made regarding that position back in the day.

That's the 'funny' truth about deception. The person being deceived doesn't realize it. Those people that bought all of that swamp land in Florida didn't realize that they were being deceived until it was well too late.

I'm not sure what you're trying to claim in your account of candidates killing anyone, but yes, if candidate A kills one person and candidate B kills two, then A is the lesser of two evils. However, I really don't see this as being the issue here. For me, the moral fiber of the two in question in these last posts isn't nearly as close as one killing one and the other killing two. Sounds to me like you're just trying to obfuscate the issue by what is called reducing to the ridiculous.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Arc F1]

You voted for the evil, Mooslim, Kenyan? I'm stunned, I say, stunned. Now, I gotta lie down and rethink my worldview.

Not exactly how I would describe him but yes I did. I'm still a registered Democrat. I should hang my head in shame I know. The party has left me.

 

[cow451]

Did I miss the election? If you mean the primary I'm still a registered Democrat. Trump wasn't on my list.

I'm a registered Republican and Trump isn't on my list, either.

 

[cow451]

Not exactly how I would describe him but yes I did. I'm still a registered Democrat. I should hang my head in shame I know. The party has left me.

That's OK. My party left me, too.

 

[Arc F1]

I'm a registered Republican and Trump isn't on my list, either.

Hahaha. Good answer. Nothing wrong with a little humor.

 

[miamited]

Let's see if I understand your take on my post. What I meant was,
1. Prochoicers don't believe that abortion (always*) murders babies.
2. The (oft-heard prolifer accusation) that they do believe that abortion murders babies but have abortions anyway is thus unfounded.

*I understand that statement #1 is an oversimplification, but it is also true that not all prochoicers are in favor of abortion as such.

There is a reason why the destruction of a viable fetus (generally third trimester) is illegal in 42 states, laws which the courts have ruled to be consistent with Roe v. Wade and which don't draw all that much opposition from the prochoice side. But at the same time, prochoicers still want "abortion on demand," which means they want it to be a medical rather than a legal matter.

The bottom line s that you are never going to convince the majority of voters that a woman who has popped a morning-after pill has just "murdered a baby" because most voter don't believe that what has happened.

Hi speedwell,

When one says that they want to see if they understand another's position, they generally recap the other position and not restate their own in different words.

You end by agreeing that we're not going to stop abortions, but you just aren't in agreement with when it should be legal to stop it. At the point of a morning after pill, or 30 days into a pregnancy, or 60 or 120. Yes, that's a big issue and so far, because of that, there are a lot of people who favor some opportunity for abortion and we are country whose laws generally follow the will of the people.

BTW, for the record, there are quite a few pro-lifers who seem to agree that abortion isn't always about murder. Many of them hold to allowance for abortion in the case of rape or the mother's health or a few other strict parameters where they are ok with an abortion procedure.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

How soon we forget that the Clintons had a bungalow at the epstein ranch. I knew about the Lolita express years ago. That's a hard obstacle to overcome. That and she goes completely against Christian beliefs. Trump on the other hand throws us a few crumbs.

Hi arc,

So you have proof, or serious suspicions that Mrs. Clinton was somehow involved sexually with Epstein? Or that she knew of the goings on at his island retreat or Manhattan home, or any of his other properties? When you say 'had a bungalow', are you saying that there is some proof that Mrs. Clinton regularly traveled to the island and stayed in 'their bungalow'? Or do you mean to say that there is proof Mrs. Clinton once stayed in a Bungalow on the island?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Hi speedwell,

When one says that they want to see if they understand another's position, they generally recap the other position and not restate their own in different words.

Because I first wanted to make sure you understood what I meant, however clumsily, to say.

You end by agreeing that we're not going to stop abortions, but you just aren't in agreement with when it should be legal to stop it.

Because I don't know. Certainly I agree with restrictions on the destruction of a viable fetus. But with advances in medical science, that point is subject to change.

At the point of a morning after pill, or 30 days into a pregnancy, or 60 or 120. Yes, that's a big issue and so far, because of that, there are a lot of people who favor some opportunity for abortion and we are country whose laws generally follow the will of the people.

But as a political issue it's capital murder from conception onward.

BTW, for the record, there are quite a few pro-lifers who seem to agree that abortion isn't always about murder. Many of them hold to allowance for abortion in the case of rape or the mother's health or a few other strict parameters where they are ok with an abortion procedure.

In the present political climate, those folks are known as "baby killers."

 

[Arc F1]

Hi arc,

So you have proof, or serious suspicions that Mrs. Clinton was somehow involved sexually with Epstein? Or that she knew of the goings on at his island retreat or Manhattan home, or any of his other properties? When you say 'had a bungalow', are you saying that there is some proof that Mrs. Clinton regularly traveled to the island and stayed in 'their bungalow'? Or do you mean to say that there is proof Mrs. Clinton once stayed in a Bungalow on the island?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Only repeating what was on the news a while back. I don't put much stock in any reporting anymore so who knows?

 

[ZNP]

What business do the states have in restricting or prohibiting reproductive rights, (along with adulktery, etc.) inserting itself into the patient-doctor privilege? If it is part of religious practice, the state has no interest, then.

A state can legalize gambling or make it illegal, prostitution can be legal or illegal, polygamy can be legal or illegal, marijuana can be legal or illegal. Likewise a state can have legalized abortion or not. If I live in Nevada, they legalize abortion, I can move to Arizona if I don't like it. That is freedom of religion based on the US constitution and democratic rule. As those who dislike the States ruling (legalizing or making illegal abortion) move from one state to another you will have a balance based on democratic rule.

 

[ZNP]

Hi ZNP,

You responded:


Personally, I'm not in agreement with your defining of terms.


Hi ZNP,

Well, for the record, I disagree with your defining of terms. We have a number of 'rights' in this country to 'do things that the bible labels as sinful and fleshly without accountability'. Many states support legalized gambling. Some states support legalized prostitution. There are hardly any states that regularly practice God's command for dealing with murderers. None as far as I know for stealing.

Exactly, this should be up to each state, the Federal government has no right to make a law either way, and if that is the case the Supreme court has no jurisdiction.

As for the rest of what you shared I expect the US to honor the constitution, it is a contract they made with the people.

 

[ZNP]

I'm not sure what you're trying to claim in your account of candidates killing anyone, but yes, if candidate A kills one person and candidate B kills two, then A is the lesser of two evils. However, I really don't see this as being the issue here. For me, the moral fiber of the two in question in these last posts isn't nearly as close as one killing one and the other killing two. Sounds to me like you're just trying to obfuscate the issue by what is called reducing to the ridiculous.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I think it was highly relevant. Trump claimed he could kill a person in Midtown Manhattan and still get elected.

People very close to Hillary Clinton have been murdered and I am not fully up to date on the latest, but those that hate her feel she was involved.

The point is if you have two candidates, both of whom have committed acts which should get them fired from any other job, which is what I thought Hillary's emails would have meant to virtually anyone else in the State department, how can you elect her to be president. That is too big an insult to me.

I agree that there was enough on Trump to not vote for him, but I refused to vote for someone I felt was clearly disqualified.

 

[miamited]

Hi arc,

You responded to my questions:

Only repeating what was on the news a while back. I don't put much stock in any reporting anymore so who knows?

Well, I happened to watch the documentary on Netflix. It did show pretty conclusive evidence that Bill Clinton visited the island. Unlike some of the other visitors mentioned, it does not make the claim that he was involved in any of the sordid sexual escapades that apparently did go on there. One of the caretakers does recall seeing Mr. Clinton at the estate sitting poolside, but not with anyone other than the host. However, I didn't see any references to Mrs. Clinton having been there. I also didn't hear any reference to their having a 'bungalow'.

So, if it is a sin to have visited the island, then Mr. Clinton is surely guilty. As far as all the rest, I'd encourage you to offer up some actual proof to back up any such claims. Just as with Mr. Trump's birther claims concerning Mr. Obama, Donald Trump seems to have a fairly deeply ingrained way of making accusations against people that can't be substantiated. Personally, I don't find that to be a 'good' quality in the leader of the nation. That, for me, would be a quality admired by those who dive into conspiracy theories and the like. I try to limit my accusations and understandings as being those which are provable.

God bless,
In Christ, ted