Trump & Religious Principles

[stevevw]

You keep trying to divert this thread about *TRUMP* (and his lack of religious principles) in to one about Harris or Biden. I'm not going to play that game, but since you insist on peddling nonsense, I will briefly address it here only one time.

Why is it a diversion. Its a natural and logical follow on that if you want to criticise a presidential candidate you have to compare him to his opponents. It may be that what the Left believe about Trump is less of a concern than the opposition. Then it makes Trump the better candidate in comparison despite his flaws.

Then you should pay attention. She has been articulating policy positions from the beginning of the year. The

From the beginning of the year. How could she when that would have conflicted with Biden. She now says she will carry out the greatest mass deportation of illegals. At the beginng of the year she was saying that anyone who enters the US is not illegal and that border police were KKK. She says she is not opposed to fracking but at the beginning of the year even 4 months ago she was against it.

So yes she has provided some policies now but they are either reneging on her recent position ofr are dangerous radical policies which will make matters worse than already caused by the Left.

She is not. There is a lot of nonsense in the media and on the internet (including this site) about her being in charge of everything, which is a completely wrong understanding of the limited powers of the VP (not just her). From the descriptions given, the President and VP treat her role as a "chief counselor" working together as he comes to his decisions. She has not backed away from these decisions even though she is not the one making them. I have seen many in the media give her the chance to deny Biden but, unlike Peter, she has not.

Its not about being in charge but being the last person in the room on Bidens administration. So she endorced those policies. Now she is distancing herself from all that as though she is a new candidate who is not part of what she just helped create.

In fact her position was even more radical than Joes and the Left. The Left and Joe had an open border policy which Harris supported. But her position was even more extreme. She regarded border crossings as legal and a right and wanted to defund the border police. Called them like the KKK for simply stopping illegals some dangerous from entering the US.

Now all of a sudden the re created Harris is going to come down on illegals with the biggest deportation and be the greatest border Zcar in history lol. Give me a break. She says and becomes anything to win power. The Left are willing to gas light everyone for the sake of keeping power. Thats the charade people are waking to with the Left.

That is a laughable statement and it is not funny. Any attempt to recreate her as such is only in the minds and claims of her opponents and the RW media. She has the full backing of her party and it is obviously enthusiastic.

Of course she does. Thats the result of the performance they have put on. The charade is working and fooling many. As Kamala said its all about joy and hope and big smiles. Its identity and popular politics.

I don't even know where to begin with this claim. Do you even know what her positions are? I doubt it.

Thats funny. Up until a few weeks ago most Harris supporters could not name one policy she stood for.

But while the Democratic nominee has been clear about what she is not — Donald Trump — she is either unwilling or unable to spell out a comprehensive blueprint for exactly what she would do as the 47th president.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/18/politics/harris-policy-specifics-analysis/index.html

Surveys done show that the average Dem voter has no idea what Harris stands for. She has put out some broad policies but they lack detail and most commentators say are unreal and dangerous for the economy. It shows her lack of experience and knowledge.

But we do know Kamala's true policy positions from the recent past. A Leopard doesn't change its spots. She is for open borders and won't stop illegals in any real way. In fact she will give any free transition if the are Trans. Shes also for defunding the police and supports BLM who are a radical Marxist group. She will go after Christians just as she did as DA and wind back religious rights.

She will ban fracking and get around this through tighter regulations. Speaking of regulations she will like all good socialists regulate the hell out of the economy and cap prices adding costs and restrictions on business enterprise and competition.

Shes is also for big spending with her give aways like 25k home purchase, 6k lump sums for first time child, increasing child care, free health care for all. Which will devalue the dollar and add to inflation by pushing houses up even further beyond most. Oh and don't forget tax cuts as well. Where is all the money going to come from. Thats right print more.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2083874362048342

We know shes for abortion and has a track record of using lawfare against anti abortionist. So we should expect more of the same.

You can notice a theme runnning through her policies. She is the most radical candidate so far and despite her claiming to be a moderate, she is no moderate.

 

[Postvieww]

Then you should pay attention. She has been articulating policy positions from the beginning of the year.

You play very loosely with the word “articulating”. I bet you can’t even explain what you think she has articulated.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You play very loosely with the word “articulating”. I bet you can’t even explain what you think she has articulated.

It is no big secret.

The Office of Kamala D. Harris

Learn about Kamala D. Harris's journey as a leader and advocate for the people—from District Attorney to Vice President of the United States. Stay connected with her office and contact Vice President Harris.

kamalaharris.com

 

[Postvieww]

With certainly, no, but he was an actual experienced politician unlike the novice president. I would suspect more success from him.

I am sure he appreciates your past vote and confidence. See here is the problem, any Republican praised and supported by a liberal is suspect of being that “banned phrase”. Inversely any so called Republican supporting Kamala is absolutely one of those “banned phrase” people.

 

[Postvieww]

It is no big secret.

The Office of Kamala D. Harris

Learn about Kamala D. Harris's journey as a leader and advocate for the people—from District Attorney to Vice President of the United States. Stay connected with her office and contact Vice President Harris.

kamalaharris.com

That is an empty promise with absolutely no “articulation” on how she plans to pull it off. Yes she has claimed to be from a working class family, big deal, that is no qualification for anything. BYW check out Candice Owens’s research on Kamala’s family on YouTube.

 

[BT3241]

I will not marry religion to politics you can disagree with me but they are some of the most corrupt people in the world that's what money does to you.I stepped back from politics as a independent they are both evil in my view if I vote it will be for who I believe is the lessor of two evils. Its a human system not holy and divine its corrupt and a slave to the money.I have turned from politics as one of the most dishonest things I have to deal with in this life and a system thats bound to bring a end to us all.
I am not speaking about Trump I am not a American but I have the same problem when I go out to vote no matter how I vote I am choosing evil.Its the same here I only have 2 choices and I don't like either.In Canada the government decided taxpayers would pay to upgrade businesses to the new green giving away billions while people can't pay their rent.The carbon tax goes directly on consumers its just overhead to business and gets added to the cost and we have paid for it.Its all about the money and the power it brings.Why do you think you have senators who are in diapers they can't give up the power they want to die with it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why is it a diversion.

If you can't tell, then either you are clueless about discussion or are intentionally driving the diversion. Either way I'm not going to play

Its a natural and logical follow on that if you want to criticise a presidential candidate you have to compare him to his opponents. It may be that what the Left believe about Trump is less of a concern than the opposition. Then it makes Trump the better candidate in comparison despite his flaws.

From the beginning of the year. How could she when that would have conflicted with Biden.

She was running for VP and was making campaign related appearances.

She now says she will carry out the greatest mass deportation of illegals. At the beginng of the year she was saying that anyone who enters the US is not illegal and that border police were KKK. She says she is not opposed to fracking but at the beginning of the year even 4 months ago she was against it.

So yes she has provided some policies now but they are either reneging on her recent position ofr are dangerous radical policies which will make matters worse than already caused by the Left.

Its not about being in charge but being the last person in the room on Bidens administration. So she endorced those policies. Now she is distancing herself from all that as though she is a new candidate who is not part of what she just helped create.

In fact her position was even more radical than Joes and the Left. The Left and Joe had an open border policy which Harris supported. But her position was even more extreme. She regarded border crossings as legal and a right and wanted to defund the border police. Called them like the KKK for simply stopping illegals some dangerous from entering the US.

Now all of a sudden the re created Harris is going to come down on illegals with the biggest deportation and be the greatest border Zcar in history lol. Give me a break. She says and becomes anything to win power. The Left are willing to gas light everyone for the sake of keeping power. Thats the charade people are waking to with the Left.

Of course she does. Thats the result of the performance they have put on. The charade is working and fooling many. As Kamala said its all about joy and hope and big smiles. Its identity and popular politics.

Thats funny. Up until a few weeks ago most Harris supporters could not name one policy she stood for.

But while the Democratic nominee has been clear about what she is not — Donald Trump — she is either unwilling or unable to spell out a comprehensive blueprint for exactly what she would do as the 47th president.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/18/politics/harris-policy-specifics-analysis/index.html

Surveys done show that the average Dem voter has no idea what Harris stands for. She has put out some broad policies but they lack detail and most commentators say are unreal and dangerous for the economy. It shows her lack of experience and knowledge.

But we do know Kamala's true policy positions from the recent past. A Leopard doesn't change its spots. She is for open borders and won't stop illegals in any real way. In fact she will give any free transition if the are Trans. Shes also for defunding the police and supports BLM who are a radical Marxist group. She will go after Christians just as she did as DA and wind back religious rights.

She will ban fracking and get around this through tighter regulations. Speaking of regulations she will like all good socialists regulate the hell out of the economy and cap prices adding costs and restrictions on business enterprise and competition.

Shes is also for big spending with her give aways like 25k home purchase, 6k lump sums for first time child, increasing child care, free health care for all. Which will devalue the dollar and add to inflation by pushing houses up even further beyond most. Oh and don't forget tax cuts as well. Where is all the money going to come from. Thats right print more.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2083874362048342

We know shes for abortion and has a track record of using lawfare against anti abortionist. So we should expect more of the same.

You can notice a theme runnning through her policies. She is the most radical candidate so far and despite her claiming to be a moderate, she is no moderate.

Not on topic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am sure he appreciates your past vote and confidence.

I've never voted for Chris Christie (or Donald Trump). I do not live in New Jersey.

See here is the problem, any Republican praised and supported by a liberal is suspect of being that “banned phrase”. Inversely any so called Republican supporting Kamala is absolutely one of those “banned phrase” people.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I'm not certain that it matters.

 

[stevevw]

Gnats.

Lol, we call them blowies, blow flies. They get everywhere in the heat. Thats what they call the Australian salute because we are continuously swatting flies around our face it looks like we are saluting.

Nightmare fuel. Both are a menace.

Both are a menace. Thats a bit over the top. Maybe a menance to the Dems as they nce were siding with them and now they disagree. But the arn't republicans either. The strange thing is they agree the how the Dems use to be and now they see some of that in the Reps.

Candidates, not members yet.

Yes only the chair people have been chosen and the rest are being compiled in readiness. They probably know but its not official. Its the same for the Left. Harris may have picked a couple like Waltz but the rest are yet to be named.

When the snot is announced we can discuss their unsuitability on an appropriate thread. This is not that thread.

lol I like how you just assumed no matter who they are they will be snot and unsuitable.

There is no limit on the size beyond the practical.

Yes but one thing is usually common which is that the Left like over heavy. So we can be sure there will be a lot of waste and overspending on bureaucracy to ensure they are able to enforce their socialist utopia.

Candidates, not announced yet.

I think so. They will probably know their roles but it has not been announced. Who are Harris's team and admin. I thought they announce them after the election. Apart from some key positions. I think most will come from current politicians in government and opposition but they always make changes and they don't necessarily hold the same position.

I don't buy your claim that my country or its government has failed.

Not just your country but most western nations. Its certainly the case that the US is at a crucial point in its history. It seems to me both sides speak of a serious matter as to the viability and even the existence of a free and healthy US is at risk.

Both sides carry on as though if the other side wins the US will be no more. Or at least be put in a grave situation which risks fundemental truths it has stood for.

There is certainly economic uncertainty and many people are struggling. Homelessness, addiction and mental illness increasing. For the first time in modern history the current generation have no chance of owning a home. People and the nation are in massive debt and the solution is to go even further in debt. Something has to give. Another financcial crisis perhaps.

Then there is all the civil unrest from identity politics. Even to the point where its causing students to call for genocide and where some of the many unstable people that has resulted wanting to assassinate Trump. A symptom of the division to its extreme. Some commentators say that the US resembles much of what was happening pre IRA in Ireland with the ideological divisions.

Then there is the instability and wars internationally where the US plays its part or not which has consequences at home and abroad. Feeding into peoples anxiety and mental health. So its not just an unstable US its an unstable US within an unstable world. Things could not be worse at the moment.

 

[stevevw]

If you can't tell, then either you are clueless about discussion or are intentionally driving the diversion. Either way I'm not going to play

Your creating an either/or logical fallacy. I am not denying Trumps indiscretions or immorality. I am saying that if we are going to do that. Single out Trump then whats the point. The reason why he is being singled out is because he is wanting to be president. If he wasn't no one would bother.

So to make any sense of this we need to understand the context. The reason his morality is being scrutinised is because he is applying for a public office where society likes to think they will employ someone of decency and moral standing as well as the political ability. Otherwise so what.

In that case if we are going to scrutinize one person in a race between two or more and they are the only options then we better know what the other person stands for to make that decision. If the other person is seen in even worse moral and political standing then it suddenly makes Trumps seem not so bad.

But if you just focus on Trump, yeah sure we will find bad stuff. But so what without that context. Sure you can proclaim your just being moral in pointing out anothers immorality. What. But you open up a can of worms if you do. Especially in a relativist society.

So we can say yeah sure, Trump is not the best candidate and unsuitable on his own. It would be better if all that baggage was not there. Maybe Trump being more like Vance.

But thats all there is in this race, just Trump. So in that sense if theres only two choices and the other choice is seen as even worse than Trump in other ways, for the viability of the nation itself then Trump becomes a not so bad option and you begin to see that most are not ignoring Trumps flaws but rather think the oppositions are worse. There is no perfect and ideal candidate at the moment.

She was running for VP and was making campaign related appearances.

You mean in 2020. I am talking about this year. In the last 8 months. Even last 3 years. She could not have been making VP campaign related appearances because she was already VP and she did not know Biden was going to be stood down. At that point she was behind Biden all the way.

It wasnt until around 3 months ago when Biden's incoherency was exposed to the nation and the eilites realised they could not keep the charade up that Harris began to come into consideration. Even then others were proposed and she was not a popular pick and no one really knew what her policies and she was said to be too radical.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your creating an either/or logical fallacy. I am not denying Trumps indiscretions or immorality. I am saying that if we are going to do that. Single out Trump then whats the point. The reason why he is being singled out is because he is wanting to be president. If he wasn't no one would bother.

Trump is relevant because he wants to be president. We can discus him on his own without diversions. (Or most of us can.)

So to make any sense of this we need to understand the context. The reason his morality is being scrutinised is because he is applying for a public office where society likes to think they will employ someone of decency and moral standing as well as the political ability. Otherwise so what.

In that case if we are going to scrutinize one person in a race between two or more and they are the only options then we better know what the other person stands for to make that decision. If the other person is seen in even worse moral and political standing then it suddenly makes Trumps seem not so bad.

But if you just focus on Trump, yeah sure we will find bad stuff. But so what without that context. Sure you can proclaim your just being moral in pointing out anothers immorality. What. But you open up a can of worms if you do. Especially in a relativist society.

So we can say yeah sure, Trump is not the best candidate and unsuitable on his own. It would be better if all that baggage was not there. Maybe Trump being more like Vance.

But thats all there is in this race, just Trump. So in that sense if theres only two choices and the other choice is seen as even worse than Trump in other ways, for the viability of the nation itself then Trump becomes a not so bad option and you begin to see that most are not ignoring Trumps flaws but rather think the oppositions are worse. There is no perfect and ideal candidate at the moment.

TL; DC

You mean in 2020. I am talking about this year. In the last 8 months.

No, I mean in 2024.

Even last 3 years. She could not have been making VP campaign related appearances because she was already VP and she did not know Biden was going to be stood down. At that point she was behind Biden all the way.

Her term as VP ends in less than 100 days. Back when Biden was running for a second term, so was she. It had nothing to do with her potentially replacing him. In particular she often addressed campaign issues in different ways than he did. Most noticeably on abortion.

It wasnt until around 3 months ago when Biden's incoherency was exposed to the nation and the eilites realised they could not keep the charade up that Harris began to come into consideration. Even then others were proposed and she was not a popular pick and no one really knew what her policies and she was said to be too radical.

Nope, she was running for VP all year until July 21st when she switched to running for President.

Now back to the reglious principles of Donald Trump. (Did I say that with a straight face? Oh well.)

 

[stevevw]

Trump is relevant because he wants to be president. We can discus him on his own without diversions. (Or most of us can.)

Yes and I have said on a couple of these threads I am not denying Trumps indiscretions, flaws, immoral acts, crimes however you want to frame it. Theres been plenty of discussion about this, more than any other persons in the history of politics, of society at present.

I am getting beyond that and asking what is the point. Obviously its to show Trump is not suitable and to stop him by those who make this an issue. But if thats the case then its not just about Trump is it. Its about Trump and Harris.

TL; DC

I don't know what that means. Are you agreeing with the reasoning.

No, I mean in 2024.

Her term as VP ends in less than 100 days. Back when Biden was running for a second term, so was she. It had nothing to do with her potentially replacing him. In particular she often addressed campaign issues in different ways than he did. Most noticeably on abortion.

Ok but that is not to the general public. Obviously to be reelected as VP means supporting Biden who is also going for re election. Otherwise she is then competing against him.

Harris has always emphasised abortion and its just a more extreme version of Biden and other Dems like Waltz and Newsom. But thats the problem they are radical. She has always been shifty about her position. You are right she did address issues differently if you listen carefully. The problem is their inconsistent and tahts why no one is sure what she stands for. But they other side can see right through the narratives.

Nope, she was running for VP all year until July 21st when she switched to running for President.

Thats strange. You would have thought that everyone knew what she stood for. As even as recent as a little over 3 months even shorter not many people knew what she stood for and the stuff she did tell people was a renege on her recent past. Apart from abortion of course. But there was no economic policy, immigration policy until recently, she was the border Czar and then she wasn't ect.

She only gave snippets of what she stood for with statements like illegal immigrants are not illegal. Or defunding police. Which you can assume her policies will reflect those ideas.

The VP is more a Dem internal thing so only they really get to see all her campaigning. But its more or less going to be supporting Biden with some emphasis on particular issues. She can't make any changes of real significance that are different to Biden.

Now back to the reglious principles of Donald Trump. (Did I say that with a straight face? Oh well.)

Ok what are the religious principles of Trump. What you or the Left believe are his religious principles may be different to how the Right see things. Just discussing Trumps moral principles bring metaethics in and then we really open a can of worms.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes and I have said on a couple of these threads I am not denying Trumps indiscretions, flaws, immoral acts, crimes however you want to frame it. Theres been plenty of discussion about this, more than any other persons in the history of politics, of society at present.

Trump has a weird way of inducing those who claim to put religious principles high on their list (if not at the top) a great deal of loyalty despite not having any clear religious principles himself. That topic alone is fascinating, but frankly I have more pressing things to discuss regarding Trump.

I am getting beyond that and asking what is the point. Obviously its to show Trump is not suitable and to stop him by those who make this an issue. But if thats the case then its not just about Trump is it. Its about Trump and Harris.

You could ask the OP what was the point (that post wasn't quite comprehendible anyway and demonstrated a lot of errors in evaluating Trump.) The GOP and the conservative movement have had numerous opportunities to get of the Trump train even since he lost the 2020 election. (The 2021 impeachment w/o conviction, disavowal before he declared for 2024, backing a conservative alternative for the GOP nomination, backing a third party conservative after he won the GOP nomination.) Some (but not a huge number) of conservatives/Republicans have chosen to back the alternative with an actual chance to win. Do you think Liz Cheney chose VP Harris to back because of her policy positions? Since the answer is "no, she didn't", it is clear that for some *conservatives/Republicans* Trump himself is all that is needed to discuss.

I don't know what that means. Are you agreeing with the reasoning.

TL; DR is "Too long; didn't read" I made up "TL; DC" as "Too long; don't care".

Ok but that is not to the general public. Obviously to be reelected as VP means supporting Biden who is also going for re election. Otherwise she is then competing against him.

What do you mean "not to the general public"? She was going to public events and talking about issues as the VP candidate all year. They weren't big rallies, but smaller events. Those were the events where her position on abortion (which is different in emphasis for certain than Biden were articulated and haven't changed). That changed when he dropped out in July. She hasn't competed against Biden since she dropped out of the 2020 Presidential nominating contest before the first primary.

Harris has always emphasised abortion and its just a more extreme version of Biden and other Dems like Waltz and Newsom. But thats the problem they are radical. She has always been shifty about her position. You are right she did address issues differently if you listen carefully. The problem is their inconsistent and tahts why no one is sure what she stands for. But they other side can see right through the narratives.

And there are plenty of threads to discuss her position on these issues.

Thats strange. You would have thought that everyone knew what she stood for. As even as recent as a little over 3 months even shorter not many people knew what she stood for and the stuff she did tell people was a renege on her recent past. Apart from abortion of course. But there was no economic policy, immigration policy until recently, she was the border Czar and then she wasn't ect.

VP is a fairly invisible position. Her positions would have been more clearly on display to the public (ie in the news more often) if she had stayed in the Senate these last 4 years.

She only gave snippets of what she stood for with statements like illegal immigrants are not illegal. Or defunding police. Which you can assume her policies will reflect those ideas.

The VP is more a Dem internal thing so only they really get to see all her campaigning.

Again those were public appearances that were at least lightly reported, not private and not 'internal to the Dems'.

But its more or less going to be supporting Biden with some emphasis on particular issues. She can't make any changes of real significance that are different to Biden.

Over the past couple months she has put together and revealed to us, piece by piece, her vision for the country under her leadership. Some of those things are continuations of Biden policies, some expand on them, some are new. She hasn't campaigned against him, but this general pattern is little different (other than the timing) if a non-sitting-VP Democrat was running to follow him. That pattern isn't radically different than other sitting VPs running to succeed the current president (See Bush in '88, Gore in 2000) or even just running for office while the President of their party isn't running (see McCain in '08, or Clinton in '16). Differences, but lots of similarity to the incumbent. It's just how party policy alignment works.

Ok what are the religious principles of Trump. What you or the Left believe are his religious principles may be different to how the Right see things. Just discussing Trumps moral principles bring metaethics in and then we really open a can of worms.

A conversation that would be worth having and need not reference any political rivals. It's too bad he is so obviously unfit, amoral, and authoritarian, or his lack of interest in religious principles might interest me. It is refreshing to not be assaulted with religious talk from politicians.

 

[stevevw]

Trump has a weird way of inducing those who claim to put religious principles high on their list (if not at the top) a great deal of loyalty despite not having any clear religious principles himself. That topic alone is fascinating, but frankly I have more pressing things to discuss regarding Trump.

I guess thats why he appeals to so many as this unclear religious principles just happen to also be the same principles that he says made the US great.

You could ask the OP what was the point (that post wasn't quite comprehendible anyway and demonstrated a lot of errors in evaluating Trump.) The GOP and the conservative movement have had numerous opportunities to get of the Trump train even since he lost the 2020 election. (The 2021 impeachment w/o conviction, disavowal before he declared for 2024, backing a conservative alternative for the GOP nomination, backing a third party conservative after he won the GOP nomination.) Some (but not a huge number) of conservatives/Republicans have chosen to back the alternative with an actual chance to win. Do you think Liz Cheney chose VP Harris to back because of her policy positions? Since the answer is "no, she didn't", it is clear that for some *conservatives/Republicans* Trump himself is all that is needed to discuss.

And thats the problem with most on the Left including some Rep. They are voting against Trump and not for anything. Or for perhaps an even worse candidate simply because of their hate for Trump. Thats not a good way to vote. Its personal and based on identity alone. Which of course we know feeds right into the whole Lefts ideology.

TL; DR is "Too long; didn't read" I made up "TL; DC" as "Too long; don't care".

Ok well "TL; DC" to the rest of your post lol.

What do you mean "not to the general public"? She was going to public events and talking about issues as the VP candidate all year. They weren't big rallies, but smaller events. Those were the events where her position on abortion (which is different in emphasis for certain than Biden were articulated and haven't changed). That changed when he dropped out in July. She hasn't competed against Biden since she dropped out of the 2020 Presidential nominating contest before the first primary.

I mean that the events where she has expressed her position have been with Left leaning audiences. Preaching to the converted. A visit to an abortion clinic for example. Its not up for public debate so she can be tested on exactly what her position is. When it is she fails miserably because she has no clear position.

She has to stick to the same position as Biden, nothing new. Just more extreme that Biden. Biden being extreme enough himself. Like now she is for coming down on illegals or her position on the Isreal war. Biden and Harris had similar positions though Harris was just more extreme pre debate with Trump. Now she has changed in just a matter of 3 or 4 months ago.

The policy page, combined with the few statements Harris has given to the media since becoming the nominee, highlight how Harris has specifically pivoted to the center of issues like immigration and fracking since replacing President Joe Biden at the top of the presidential ticket in July.

Four issues Kamala Harris has changed her position on

Harris is tacking to the center as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, as polls suggest some voters view her as too liberal.

www.newsweek.com

So before that she was with Biden including during her VP re election campaign. She only changed them recently since Biden has gone as presidential candidate.

And there are plenty of threads to discuss her position on these issues.

VP is a fairly invisible position. Her positions would have been more clearly on display to the public (ie in the news more often) if she had stayed in the Senate these last 4 years.

Or if she was vetted by her own party before nominating her as the candidate. Yes she should have stayed in the senate proving herself rather than being fast tracked as a political appointment in the mold of Obama which she is clearly not.

Again those were public appearances that were at least lightly reported, not private and not 'internal to the Dems'.

Ok well she has changed even on those performances.

Over the past couple months she has put together and revealed to us, piece by piece, her vision for the country under her leadership. Some of those things are continuations of Biden policies, some expand on them, some are new. She hasn't campaigned against him, but this general pattern is little different (other than the timing) if a non-sitting-VP Democrat was running to follow him. That pattern isn't radically different than other sitting VPs running to succeed the current president (See Bush in '88, Gore in 2000) or even just running for office while the President of their party isn't running (see McCain in '08, or Clinton in '16). Differences, but lots of similarity to the incumbent. It's just how party policy alignment works.

Like I said it would have been good toi see her actually up against other candidates for presidential nomination. It would have been ideal for her coming from her VP re election campaign to then transfer that to the presidential candidate when Biden dropped out.

It seems she was in the best position to let people know her position and yet surveys show even a s recent as now that most Dems are not sure of what she stands for and want more detail. Which she is still not giving because she has none. She is a political appointment and doesn't have the merit. Now its being exposed.

A conversation that would be worth having and need not reference any political rivals. It's too bad he is so obviously unfit, amoral, and authoritarian, or his lack of interest in religious principles might interest me. It is refreshing to not be assaulted with religious talk from politicians.

Lol you say a discussion on his morals does not require bringing in his rivals and then you make truth claims about morality as a rival. Saying Trump is amoral first is not necessarily the truth. Its the truth according to his rivals. Whose morals are they basing that Trump is amoral. Is it their own or some independent determiniation.

His authoritarianism. According to who., the Left. How do we know thats not a biased view. Lack of interest in religious principles. Thats the biggest fallacy of all. The Left have no religious principles full stop to be judging Trump.

Oh sorry they do but its Woke religion which is a different type of determination. But still religious. The type that cancels people for telling the truth. So the Left are in no position to judge religious principles. This is so funny.

But realistically I think Trump is closer to the religious principles and truths the conservatives, Christians and common sense people support. Like the freedom of religion itself which the Left and especially Harris want to crush.

In fact the Dems nowadays are anti God and religious principles. Harris is all for abortion which is against Christian and religious principles. She laughed at a Christian saying Jesus is Lord at one of the abortion rallies like Jesus was not welcome and all her supporters cheered. At the DNC the Dems refused to say God in the pledge of alligance exposing their anti God position.

So at the very least overall Trump is more aligned with religious principles than Harris or the Left.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So at the very least overall Trump is more aligned with religious principles than Harris or the Left.

Here's my challenge, Steve, to get on topic:

1. Name a principle.
2. Show it is a religious principle.
3. Show Trump holds or follows it.
4. Show Trump's alignment to that principle is religious in origin.

Note, no other person is the subject of this post .Not his allies or his opponents, only Trump.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

1. Name a principle.
2. Show it is a religious principle.

This is an interesting distinction. There are many good principles. Some are mentioned in the this countries founding documents.
Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

[stevevw]

Here's my challenge, Steve, to get on topic:

1. Name a principle.
2. Show it is a religious principle.
3. Show Trump holds or follows it.
4. Show Trump's alignment to that principle is religious in origin.

Note, no other person is the subject of this post .Not his allies or his opponents, only Trump.

Hum, well 8 out of 10 evangelical Christians supported Trump in 2020 So there must be something they see in his position that aligns with Christian principles. I think thats because as part of his position in making America great again is getting back to the Christian principles the Declaration was built on.

For example freedoms such as freedom of religion and speech. But also natural rights regardless of identity such as race and gender. The same natural rights Dr King stood on.

This is reflected in his position against LGBTIQ+ ideology. The truth principle that we are made in Gods image male and female. This extends to marriage between a man and women. Hehas expressed his disagreement of Trans ideology.

He has also disagreed with the Left on abortion and is closer to the Christian position than the Lefts position. He questions unnecessary abortions and disagrees with 3rd term or unlimited abortion rights. He was instrumental in repealing Roe V Wade by appointing pro life Judges while he was in government.

He will do the same again if he wins by installing judges with at least religious sensitivity or outright Christian judges to ensure religious freedoms and speech is protected and can be freely practiced. I would say that would also mean stopping the Lefts totalitarian laws that forbib people even praying outside abortion clinics or being cancelled for simply expressing their beliefs such as traditional marriage and opposing Woke and Trans ideology.

Which may mean also repealing the laws (I think Title 9 or 16) that make identity a protection under anti descrimination. Or at least regulating it more perhaps with evidence based science to ensure we don't have the unreal situation where males are entering womens private spaces.

Its hard to show examples as you could say like with morality itself that the principle is not religious but something anyone would do. Like say equality. Its the different ideology behind those principles. Like equality to the Left is equity which is a form of reverse descrimination and still not treating people equally.

Whereas Trump is opposed to DEI and stands on the same foundational principle that the founding Fathers, Human Rights, Dr King and Christians share which is that we are made in Gods image and are all humans with equal value regardless of race or gender.

So its really about the worldview that he shares with Christians, traditionalists and Conservatives that destinguishes Trump from the Lefts principle positions which seems to be veering away from those founding and natural principles.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hum, well 8 out of 10 evangelical Christians supported Trump in 2020 So there must be something they see in his position that aligns with Christian principles. I think thats because as part of his position in making America great again is getting back to the Christian principles the Declaration was built on.

Not relevant to the question.

For example freedoms such as freedom of religion and speech. But also natural rights regardless of identity such as race and gender. The same natural rights Dr King stood on.

Freedom of speech and religion are not religious principles. (Certainly not in your religion. See "Thou shall have no other god")

This is reflected in his position against LGBTIQ+ ideology. The truth principle that we are made in Gods image male and female. This extends to marriage between a man and women. Hehas expressed his disagreement of Trans ideology.

This does seem to be a religious principle for some.

He has also disagreed with the Left on abortion and is closer to the Christian position than the Lefts position. He questions unnecessary abortions and disagrees with 3rd term or unlimited abortion rights.

As does this.

He was instrumental in repealing Roe V Wade by appointing pro life Judges while he was in government.

Not relevant.

He will do the same again if he wins by installing judges with at least religious sensitivity or outright Christian judges to ensure religious freedoms and speech is protected and can be freely practiced. I would say that would also mean stopping the Lefts totalitarian laws that forbib people even praying outside abortion clinics or being cancelled for simply expressing their beliefs such as traditional marriage and opposing Woke and Trans ideology.

I didn't ask what he will do.

Which may mean also repealing the laws (I think Title 9 or 16) that make identity a protection under anti descrimination. Or at least regulating it more perhaps with evidence based science to ensure we don't have the unreal situation where males are entering womens private spaces.

Its hard to show examples as you could say like with morality itself that the principle is not religious but something anyone would do. Like say equality. Its the different ideology behind those principles. Like equality to the Left is equity which is a form of reverse descrimination and still not treating people equally.

Whereas Trump is opposed to DEI and stands on the same foundational principle that the founding Fathers, Human Rights, Dr King and Christians share which is that we are made in Gods image and are all humans with equal value regardless of race or gender.

So its really about the worldview that he shares with Christians, traditionalists and Conservatives that destinguishes Trump from the Lefts principle positions which seems to be veering away from those founding and natural principles.

You've wandered off task again.

So far you've identified two (always going too far, you are) plausible principles people hold for religious reasons ("abortion is bad" and "trans people are disordered"). Now comes the hard part.

Pick one (not both, please) and demonstrate that Trump holds that position for religious reasons. (And no, doing it to placate the religious reasons of others does not qualify.) Good luck.

 

[stevevw]

Not relevant to the question.

Why. Don't just say not relevant without a reason. I think its relevant if we are talking about Trumps religious principles. Such a large majority of Christians supporting Trump may reflect the perception that Trump has religious principles.

Freedom of speech and religion are not religious principles. (Certainly not in your religion. See "Thou shall have no other god")

Of course freedoms reflect Christian principles. That is what Declarations and Human Rights are based on. Certainly for the West. Freedoms come out of being made in Gods image. Every human regardless of race, religion, gender has the same rights. Are equal in Christ and Gods children.

I am not sure why you brought up "Thou shall have no other god". This relates to Gods people when they kept falling into idol worship. That to become Gods people they could not believe in gods but only one God.

But this does not stop people from beliving whatever they want. Its when you commit to God there is only one God. If you want to commit to God. As opposed to other religions that allow polygods or more than one God and truth.

This does seem to be a religious principle for some.

For the majority of the Right and Christians. But either way its a religious principle because its really about ideology. How you assume and believe nature is. The nature of humans and whether there is some designed order or its human created.

As does this.

Yes because even some Christians will allow abortion if the baby or mothers life is at risk. But we all know that many abortions just happen unnecessarily. The Left don't want to know about the unnecessary ones as any limitations is limiting individual autonomy. Which is the ultimate rights based politics the Left loves. Putting individual freedom above all else.

Whereas I think Trump is at least sensitive to saying we need to reduce these unnecessary abortions and we are still not sure about what exactly is a human life in prenancy. Its an open question and therefore unnecessary abortions may amount to a grave wrong in hindsight. But the Left don't even go there. Especially Harris. She is a radical for abortion because she can champion identity politics.

Not relevant.

Once again why. It seems commonsense that someone who is reducing abortion through a change in law is supporting an antibortion religious principle. Certainly in line with this.

Placing pro Christian Judges is accommodating the possibility of pro religious principles being practiced. At least creating the environment for them. In that sense he is supporting whatever religious principles manage to be promoted and enacted.

I didn't ask what he will do.

I know but I am saying that the evidence supports that Trump will once again install a supportive environment for religious principles to thrive. At the very least Trump is more open to supporting religious principles than Harris or the Left.

You've wandered off task again.

So far you've identified two (always going too far, you are) plausible principles people hold for religious reasons ("abortion is bad" and "trans people are disordered"). Now comes the hard part.

Pick one (not both, please) and demonstrate that Trump holds that position for religious reasons. (And no, doing it to placate the religious reasons of others does not qualify.) Good luck.

I disagree. Your also making relevenat stuff irrelevant based on logical fallacies. I just gave you logical reasoning why his mindset, his openness to pro religious principles means he is also supporting those religious principles whether explicitly or implicitly. Based on his current policies he will do the sdame again if elected.

You also have no foundation for what a religious principle is and thus are arguing from either ignorance or mirepresentation of some religious principles you think are right and not what are actually religious principles.

Your also underestimating the ones you acknowledge Trump supports. I mean what are religious principles. It seems to me a most of the religious principles are wrapped up in the two issues Trump supports with anti LGBTIQ+ and abortion. That covers 'being made in Gods image male and female which covers marriage, the traditional family as foundational and the importance of the father and mother.

It also covers the sacredness of life, which also covers religious principles like life after death, sin, Gods judgement, the soul. I mean what else is there. He has faith, goes to church, gives to the poor. From what I have heard he has come closer to God from his death scare. Anyone would.

These just about cover most religious principles and most others will be extentions of this. What other religious principles are there.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why. Don't just say not relevant without a reason. I think its relevant if we are talking about Trumps religious principles. Such a large majority of Christians supporting Trump may reflect the perception that Trump has religious principles.

Because "8 of 10" Christians are *NOT* Trump. I didn't ask about them. I asked about Trump (the man, not his fans).

Of course freedoms reflect Christian principles. That is what Declarations and Human Rights are based on. Certainly for the West. Freedoms come out of being made in Gods image. Every human regardless of race, religion, gender has the same rights. Are equal in Christ and Gods children.

I am not sure why you brought up "Thou shall have no other god". This relates to Gods people when they kept falling into idol worship. That to become Gods people they could not believe in gods but only one God.

But this does not stop people from beliving whatever they want. Its when you commit to God there is only one God. If you want to commit to God. As opposed to other religions that allow polygods or more than one God and truth.

In the "most important" laws of your religion the first items is worship "no other gods". That is not the basis for freedom to worship those other gods. (It also isn't relevant to the question at hand, so lets let it rest for different day and thread.)

For the majority of the Right and Christians. But either way its a religious principle because its really about ideology. How you assume and believe nature is. The nature of humans and whether there is some designed order or its human created.

Yes because even some Christians will allow abortion if the baby or mothers life is at risk. But we all know that many abortions just happen unnecessarily. The Left don't want to know about the unnecessary ones as any limitations is limiting individual autonomy. Which is the ultimate rights based politics the Left loves. Putting individual freedom above all else.

Whereas I think Trump is at least sensitive to saying we need to reduce these unnecessary abortions and we are still not sure about what exactly is a human life in prenancy. Its an open question and therefore unnecessary abortions may amount to a grave wrong in hindsight. But the Left don't even go there. Especially Harris. She is a radical for abortion because she can champion identity politics.

Once again why. It seems commonsense that someone who is reducing abortion through a change in law is supporting an antibortion religious principle. Certainly in line with this.

I already said I accepted that opposition to abortion is largely based on religious principles and that Trump is backing them, but it doesn't answer the question -- how does Trump's religious principles drive his opposition to abortion.

Placing pro Christian Judges is accommodating the possibility of pro religious principles being practiced. At least creating the environment for them. In that sense he is supporting whatever religious principles manage to be promoted and enacted.

I know but I am saying that the evidence supports that Trump will once again install a supportive environment for religious principles to thrive. At the very least Trump is more open to supporting religious principles than Harris or the Left.

The question wasn't about if Trump would enable Christian nationalism or put in policies that would favor Christians over others. It was about *his* religious principles.

I disagree. Your also making relevenat stuff irrelevant based on logical fallacies. I just gave you logical reasoning why his mindset, his openness to pro religious principles means he is also supporting those religious principles whether explicitly or implicitly. Based on his current policies he will do the sdame again if elected.

See the previous answer. I tried to keep my previous post succinct with a short dismissal. At this point in the post you haven't discussed Trump's religious position *at all*.

You also have no foundation for what a religious principle is and thus are arguing from either ignorance or mirepresentation of some religious principles you think are right and not what are actually religious principles.

Retract this. It is a falsehood. I'm not sure where you get this idea. For the record I opposed abortion for many years based on my religious principles. I no longer hold either position, but I *do* know what they are and how they work.

Your also underestimating the ones you acknowledge Trump supports. I mean what are religious principles. It seems to me a most of the religious principles are wrapped up in the two issues Trump supports with anti LGBTIQ+ and abortion. That covers 'being made in Gods image male and female which covers marriage, the traditional family as foundational and the importance of the father and mother.

It also covers the sacredness of life, which also covers religious principles like life after death, sin, Gods judgement, the soul. I mean what else is there. He has faith, goes to church, gives to the poor. From what I have heard he has come closer to God from his death scare. Anyone would.

As I acknowledged, Trump is backing these positions that others hold on religious principles. The question was not about the nature of those positions (debating abortion for example), or the positions held by the others. It is about why *TRUMP* holds them and if they are driven by *HIS* religious principles (not yours, or voters, or mine, or anyone else's). Are these positions Trump takes for based *his* religious principles or out of political expediency.

These just about cover most religious principles and most others will be extentions of this. What other religious principles are there.

So let's try again:


Pick one (not both, please) and demonstrate that Trump holds that position for religious reasons. (And no, doing it to placate the religious reasons of others does not qualify.) Good luck. (You are going to need it.)

[To anyone still reading this thread -- is my ask too much or too hard to understand? I don't think it is.]