The new normal

miamited · Oct 6, 2019

Hi devin,

Thanks for your response:

devin553344 said:
I don't follow the secular judgments that the world performs on its people or leadership, if that was the case then Moses would have been a criminal and St. Paul also. And yet we as Christians find them both saints instead of sinners. Not comparing Trump to Moses or Paul, but I can't really see importance in this new accusation. They already cried wolf once.

Uh, no. In the baptist understanding of all men, everyone is a sinner with a sin nature and Moses nor Paul are any different than the rest of us. Now, that doesn't make them criminals anymore than we might imagine Adam or Eve to have been criminals. However, as relates to God's desire for us, I think that Jesus was clear that we all, like sheep, have gone astray.

So, you think that if we find a man innocent of a particular murder, then if any question should ever come up again about that man committing some other murder, that because we've already 'cried wolf' we should just let it go. I believe that our justice system is replete with examples of people tried for one crime that were found innocent, or at least the evidence didn't warrant a finding of guilty, that were later tried for another similar crime in which the evidence for that new crime stacked up enough to convict them.

Interesting.

Don't worry, after this new investigation is over, we will also have a determination as whether or not President Trump did something to abuse the people.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

devin553344 · Oct 6, 2019

miamited said:
Hi devin,

Thanks for your response:

Uh, no. In the baptist understanding of all men, everyone is a sinner with a sin nature and Moses nor Paul are any different than the rest of us. Now, that doesn't make them criminals anymore than we might imagine Adam or Eve to have been criminals. However, as relates to God's desire for us, I think that Jesus was clear that we all, like sheep, have gone astray.

So, you think that if we find a man innocent of a particular murder, then if any question should ever come up again about that man committing some other murder, that because we've already 'cried wolf' we should just let it go. I believe that our justice system is replete with examples of people tried for one crime that were found innocent, or at least the evidence didn't warrant a finding of guilty, that were later tried for another similar crime in which the evidence for that new crime stacked up enough to convict them.

Interesting.

Don't worry, after this new investigation is over, we will also have a determination as whether or not President Trump did something to abuse the people.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I don't see Moses as a sinner. I see Paul as a repentant sinner who was fully capable of being chosen as a leader of Jesus' church.

hedrick · Oct 6, 2019

miamited said:
Don't worry, after this new investigation is over, we will also have a determination as whether or not President Trump did something to abuse the people.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Like any investigation, we’ll know whether there’s proof he did something. It’s virtually impossible to prove that a president hasn't done something wrong.

miamited · Oct 6, 2019

devin553344 said:
I don't see Moses as a sinner. I see Paul as a repentant sinner who was fully capable of being chosen as a leader of Jesus' church.

Hi devin,

So, you don't think that murder is a sin? How about someone who pretty much spent half of his life not honoring God? From the account of Moses' meeting with the Lord at the burning bush, he didn't seem to have a clue who he was. How about the fact that God said he wasn't going to enter the promised land because of his unbelief? None of those incidences constitutes sin to you?

Absolutely Paul was capable as are many pastors and leaders today. But I don't think any of them think of themselves as not being sinners. Paul himself decried that he was a chief sinner.

I understand that you're explaining how you see these issues, but the Scriptures actually tell us the reality of these issues before God. Similarly, I understand that you're explaining how you see these issues involving the President. However, there is some evidence that 'how' you're seeing and understanding isn't actually the reality of how these issues really are.

Now, I could be just as guilty of that as you are. I'm willing to let the political process run it's course in making any such determination. However, I'm not willing to allow that just because someone doesn't do, or gets away with something that they are accused of once, means that they then get a free pass for the rest of their lives for similar events. Each accusation must be investigated and guilt or innocence determined in each case. I honestly can't think of any justice system, that after finding someone not guilty of a particular crime, then just looks the other way at any future crimes committed by that person because they were looked at once before for something else. I'd be happy to look at your evidence for that understanding.

Seeing it as I've explained it here, that nobody gets a free pass just because they were once accused of some other crime, I question your logic in this matter. So, I'm saying that maybe you're wrong about Moses and Paul...and possibly President Trump, too. Have you vetted this understanding you have of Moses and Paul with a teacher of the Scriptures?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited · Oct 6, 2019

hedrick said:
Like any investigation, we’ll know whether there’s proof he did something. It’s virtually impossible to prove that a president hasn't done something wrong.

Hi hedrick,

I think that I would be more specific as to what is meant by 'wrong'. Has any president lived a sinless life? Of course not! However, I believe that there have been presidents who have done their best to uphold their oath of office and promise to the people of our nation. Presidents who haven't done anything wrong as far as being the president. They abided by the law of the land and worked within the system of how our government was established to operate in getting things done. Maybe something slightly less damning than being able to pass a camel through a needle's eye. LOL

God bless,
In Christ, ted

devin553344 · Oct 6, 2019

miamited said:
Hi devin,

So, you don't think that murder is a sin? How about someone who pretty much spent half of his life not honoring God? From the account of Moses' meeting with the Lord at the burning bush, he didn't seem to have a clue who he was. How about the fact that God said he wasn't going to enter the promised land because of his unbelief? None of those incidences constitutes sin to you?

Absolutely Paul was capable as are many pastors and leaders today. But I don't think any of them think of themselves as not being sinners. Paul himself decried that he was a chief sinner.

I understand that you're explaining how you see these issues, but the Scriptures actually tell us the reality of these issues before God. Similarly, I understand that you're explaining how you see these issues involving the President. However, there is some evidence that 'how' you're seeing and understanding isn't actually the reality of how these issues really are.

Now, I could be just as guilty of that as you are. I'm willing to let the political process run it's course in making any such determination. However, I'm not willing to allow that just because someone doesn't do, or gets away with something that they are accused of once, means that they then get a free pass for the rest of their lives for similar events. Each accusation must be investigated and guilt or innocence determined in each case. I honestly can't think of any justice system, that after finding someone not guilty of a particular crime, then just looks the other way at any future crimes committed by that person because they were looked at once before for something else. I'd be happy to look at your evidence for that understanding.

Seeing it as I've explained it here, that nobody gets a free pass just because they were once accused of some other crime, I question your logic in this matter. So, I'm saying that maybe you're wrong about Moses and Paul...and possibly President Trump, too. Have you vetted this understanding you have of Moses and Paul with a teacher of the Scriptures?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I see your point, and yes Moses must have fell like the rest of us as a sinner. I don't hold people accountable for their crimes.

What I believe in is stopping criminals from trespasses against others if it's necessary, even if that means incarceration. This protects the innocent. I'm careful not to judge. But if it was a one time crime, then I don't see the need to punish.

hedrick · Oct 6, 2019

miamited said:
Hi hedrick,

I think that I would be more specific as to what is meant by 'wrong'. Has any president lived a sinless life? Of course not! However, I believe that there have been presidents who have done their best to uphold their oath of office and promise to the people of our nation. Presidents who haven't done anything wrong as far as being the president. They abided by the law of the land and worked within the system of how our government was established to operate in getting things done. Maybe something slightly less damning than being able to pass a camel through a needle's eye. LOL

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Of course. I’m simply observing that because no one can prove that the President has done things doesn’t mean he hasn’t. I see reason to suspect a number of things that I doubt can be proven.

miamited · Oct 6, 2019

Hi devin,

Thanks for your response:

devin553344 said:
I don't hold people accountable for their crimes.

Oh, well sure. Then if you were in charge we'd just open up all the prison cells and close down the courts. Ok. However, I don't think that's going to work out well for your society. I'm thankful that the rest of humanity doesn't have that attitude that we shouldn't hold people accountable for their crimes, but hey, if that's your worldview, then that's your worldview. You certainly didn't get that worldview from the Scriptures.

I'd also be confident in saying that you certainly don't seem to represent the run of the mill Republican. They've always been a pretty law and order bunch. And I don't say that as a bad thing, just stating it as a fact. The Democrats have generally been the ones that the Republicans want us to believe have let the doors of the prisons open and crime being allowed to run rampant. You may want to consider changing political party affiliation.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited · Oct 6, 2019

hedrick said:
Of course. I’m simply observing that because no one can prove that the President has done things doesn’t mean he hasn’t. I see reason to suspect a number of things that I doubt can be proven.

Thanks hedrick for that clarification. I agree with you that proving intent is always a hard case. We don't any of us know the mind and heart of another, outside of their own testimony concerning themselves.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

devin553344 · Oct 6, 2019

miamited said:
Hi devin,

Thanks for your response:

Oh, well sure. Then if you were in charge we'd just open up all the prison cells and close down the courts. Ok. However, I don't think that's going to work out well for your society. I'm thankful that the rest of humanity doesn't have that attitude that we shouldn't hold people accountable for their crimes, but hey, if that's your worldview, then that's your worldview. You certainly didn't get that worldview from the Scriptures.

I'd also be confident in saying that you certainly don't seem to represent the run of the mill Republican. They've always been a pretty law and order bunch. And I don't say that as a bad thing, just stating it as a fact. The Democrats have generally been the ones that the Republicans want us to believe have let the doors of the prisons open and crime being allowed to run rampant. You may want to consider changing political party affiliation.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

There's a difference between protecting the people by incarcerating criminals and holding people accountable. Holding people accountable is eye for an eye and is consistent with old testament but not with the turn the cheek of the new testament.

miamited · Oct 6, 2019

devin553344 said:
There's a difference between protecting the people by incarcerating criminals and holding people accountable. Holding people accountable is eye for an eye and is consistent with old testament but not with the turn the cheek of the new testament.

Hi devin,

Ok. I still think that with that worldview you'd mesh better with the Democratic platforms rather than the Republican. But it is what it is and I've always held, even discussed on these boards from time to time, that I don't hold that all Democrats or all Republicans subscribe to the same understanding and agendas. You are proof of that.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

A_Thinker · Oct 6, 2019

ptif219 said:
That does not matter. The fact he had all democrats shows it was a witch hunt. Mueller did not even write the report

Totally irrelevant ...

miamited · Oct 6, 2019

devin553344 said:
I see your point. But the general hatred for the president is nothing new from the one side of the fence. Meet fire with fire is the OT motto.

Hi devin,

Right! You'll get no argument with me that the general 'uproar' over the president's actions, (I'm loathe to use the word 'hate' for such an attitude) is nothing new from one side of the fence. President Obama endured the same sort of division among the House and the Senate representatives and the general population. Sadly, our republic form of governance seems to be coming to a point that spell fairly grave damage to our government, which is what I alluded to in my opening post concerning the comments of Ben Franklin.

If this partisan backbiting continues as it seems to be going, we may very well find ourselves in the same situation that Germany found itself in, in the 1930's.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

HannahT · Oct 7, 2019

miamited said:
Well, you're certainly able to have that understanding about the issue. Personally, I don't see why the house voting for or against an impeachment inquiry at this point would be of any value to this initial investigation. Right now, I think that we are all in the 'let's look into what's going on' process.

From my understanding of this process a vote would give all parties to power to investigate, subpoena powers, etc. Without the vote only democrats can do that.

It would have committees involved besides the jurisury committee (Schiffs) also. So, in other words due process during this 'let's look' deal. WIthout the vote? There really is no due process, and no formal inquiry either if you think about it.

I'm not sure what the Democrats have to hide with not allowing the other side of this to look into what's going on process. They would be howling as well if they were put in this position.

It would also drag the process on longer, because you would have to vote on it at some point if they were to move forward. That's when the other side would get their powers to investigate, subpoena, etc. All they are doing is slowing it down.

If you want to have the American people behind you? You don't drag this out longer than it needs to be, especially when you claim 'crisis' and all that jazz. They claim they have been investigating for months now, and so when Pelosi came in front of the cameras to announce this? She really wasn't announcing anything that they haven't been doing for a while now anyway. This really could blow up in their face, and tear apart the country further if they aren't careful.

miamited · Oct 7, 2019

Hi hannah,

Thanks for your reply:

HannahT said:
From my understanding of this process a vote would give all parties to power to investigate, subpoena powers, etc. Without the vote only democrats can do that.

I'm not sure that's a fact. As I posted, the constitutional rules for impeachment make no allowance for any house vote to get things rolling. I believe that what's actually going on here is that the Republicans are using this idea of a House vote to make up some nonsense that they can't be involved without it.

Under House rules and long-standing practice, the House lays out the grounds for impeachment, then holds a simple majority vote. If the articles of impeachment are approved, they’re then presented to the Senate for further action.

Here also from Constitution Center. org:

“The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment,” it said.

I think we are right now in the process of the 'laying out the grounds for impeachment'. Or as the second reference states it, the 'initiation of the impeachment process'. After the evidence is weighed and gathered, then an article of impeachment is written up and then the full house has to vote on whether to hand the bill on up to the Senate. I don't think that the democrats feel that they are ready for that yet. They want to have a fairly iron clad case before they take up a formal article of impeachment to be voted on. According to the above quote, the vote on the articles of impeachment is the last step for the House. Then it goes to the Senate.

As far as I've found in the limited research that I've done, there isn't any constitutional reason that a Republican or Independent can't have any input in this investigative process, if they want to. But let's be clear that most Republicans don't really want to get involved in condemning the President at this point. They know that their futures will look bleak if they are seen as traitors like President Trump is alluding to Senator Romney and what he has already done to Senator Flake. It's still a dangerous position right now for any Republican to appear to be against his party's man.

The second step is the 'judiciary committee investigation'. Right now there are 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats on that committee. As far as I know, every member on that committee right now at this moment in time, has the ability to be involved in the process of the investigation. I don't think the Republican members want to be involved. So, what we find here is the usual gambit of President Trump throwing up roadblocks to delay that aren't necessarily legally true. Just as he has told us that he 'legally' has the right to do anything that he wants because he's the president. That just is not a true statement, but it sure raises a rebel yell throughout his supporters.

HannahT said:
I'm not sure what the Democrats have to hide with not allowing the other side of this to look into what's going on process. They would be howling as well if they were put in this position.

Again, I haven't found any legal directive that supports this idea that Republicans, who are on these various and sundry committees, don't have just as much right as anyone else to be involved without some House vote that I can't even find a reference of, except the final vote to determine whether the articles of impeachment should be handed on up to the Senate. I think that President Trump and his lawyers have latched onto this idea and sold it to us as a way to show that he's being treated unfairly and that the Democrats are just out to get him, when that may not actually be the legal truth of the matter.

From a Newsweek article:
But the California Democrat has reiterated she has no intention to hold a floor vote and has stated her belief that one is not required to launch an inquiry—a conviction that is backed by legal experts and the Constitution.

"There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a full House vote to launch an impeachment inquiry," Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told Newsweek. "That has been done before, but it is not a constitutional requirement. President Trump is wrong in saying that it is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry without a floor vote."

So, please understand that Donald Trump has, for most of his adult life, leaned on high powered attorneys to instill doubt concerning the application of various laws that he has had to deal with. He has had some success in that endeavor. But this is all the more reason, now that he holds the office of a public trust and he's not just some businessman running a private business, that we need to check and double check everything that he or his representatives tell us. Donald Trump has been for most of his adult life a very, very wiley snake. He has, enjoyed some amount of success in tying people up in the courts with his legal wranglings and he still uses pretty much that same process in now his presidency.

HannahT said:
This really could blow up in their face, and tear apart the country further if they aren't careful.

Yes, it could. That's always a possibility in any impeachment inquiry. It's also true in pretty much any legal proceeding. Who remembers Marcia Clark?

However, it could also be successful and begin the process of putting our nation back together. So, one must weigh all the 'possibles'.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited · Oct 7, 2019

Hi all,

Well, just to keep abreast of this specific issue, we now find that at one time or another, President Trump has mentioned impeaching Rep. Schiff, Rep. Pelosi, Senator Romney and everyone who has been involved in the impeachment process against him, according to this quote:

“I guess that means that they, along with all of those that evilly ’Colluded’ with them, must all be immediately Impeached!,” Trump concluded.

We may not have anyone left after all of this is over.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Bobber · Oct 9, 2019

miamited said:
Hi all,

So now, we're going to start impeachment proceedings against everyone who doesn't agree with the President. Does this sound just utterly straw reaching to anyone else?

Trump calls for Romney's impeachment

You're failing to understand there's a BIG difference between someone yapping and one who has any authority to initiate such a process. If he had that authority and actually did it your argument might carry some weight. Sorry Ted....As it stands it doesn't.

Oh, I just can't wait until our current resident of the WH has left the building and just pray that we can return to some normalcy in the political process.

You mean normal Ted, like when a President wins an election and the Electoral College reps are pressured not to give their sign of support? You mean like normal times when right after the election a few states Trump won narrowly there was a demand for a recount? And why not the states Hillary narrowly won? You mean normal times when the leader of the Dem's run in 2016 stated before the election that anyone who seeks to question election results that they're not following the American way and are making light of traditions?

Or how about normal times when impeachment proceedings took place with two past Presidents there was a vote given in the House where BOTH parties had right and option to make their case and have input in the process? If you truly want a return to NORMAL times maybe you're looking the wrong direction? Perhaps it's a lot of the Dems (as you put it) ---->that need to leave the building?

Bobber · Oct 9, 2019

miamited said:
Hi hannah,

As I posted, the constitutional rules for impeachment make no allowance for any house vote to get things rolling. I believe that what's actually going on here is that the Republicans are using this idea of a House vote to make up some nonsense that they can't be involved without it.

No there's no language that demands such a vote needs to take place. HOWEVER it's been the American tradition to understand all this to mean in order to have the appearance of fairness the minority party would have this allowance. And you did say Ted did you not that you'd like to see a return to normal or civilized ways of doing things?

Mountainmanbob · Oct 9, 2019

devin553344 said:
But something is fishy about the dems here.

That's putting it lightly.
M-Bob

Bobber · Oct 9, 2019

HannahT said:
Although I guess we can debate about that one - media does a pretty good job of not reporting news and contributing to the atmosphere too.

Should "media" even be called media anymore? Maybe they should just be called political parties?

The new normal

Ted

I believe in the Resurrection

Senior Veteran

Ted

Ted

I believe in the Resurrection

Senior Veteran

Ted

Ted

I believe in the Resurrection

Ted

Well-Known Member

Ted

Newbie

Ted

Ted

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Goat Whisperer

Well-Known Member

Similar threads