400-pound hacker? 'Miss Piggy'? Trump comments fuel dialogue on fat-shaming

[jazzflower92]

http://www.adn.com/nation-world/201...-trump-comments-fuel-dialogue-on-fat-shaming/

Colossians 3:8
But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

This is just immature even for him, and he's supposed be 70 years old. Sorry, but if people stop tripping over themselves to justify his actions then they would see why he's not fit be president because he's a jerk who belittles anyone and revels in it. That's the problem when you got a guy who says he doesn't need to apologize, because he feels self justified and egoistical.

 

[seashale76]

What sickens me is that professing Christians will vote for this man.

 

[4x4toy]

We're deplorable

 

[MWood]

Would it be better to put Hillary in office to up hold Obamas' exec orders and appoint very liberal Judges to the SCOTUS? She will also up hold this failing Obama Care that will eventually cost the people more than they can afford. If you don't like Obamas' policies you wont like hers' at all.

You have to sign it before you can read it. And. What difference does it make at this point. And. I have turned all of my emails.

Is there any other reminders that you need?

 

[jazzflower92]

Would it be better to put Hillary in office to up hold Obamas' exec orders and appoint very liberal Judges to the SCOTUS? She will also up hold this failing Obama Care that will eventually cost the people more than they can afford. If you don't like Obamas' policies you wont like hers' at all.

You have to sign it before you can read it. And. What difference does it make at this point. And. I have turned all of my emails.

Is there any other reminders that you need?

If you vote for Trump, don't make him out to be a moral man when he does things like this. In fact, it's the reason why I am not voting for him because he's anti-Christian in spirit.

 

[SolomonVII]

It was just a few days ago when the talking heads were all sniggering about the extra pounds that were revealed in Trump's medical report.

And now, it is "awful, just AWFUL, that this man, this godless man(how could any Christian EVER support him!)" has been revealed as someone who called a young beauty contestant winner Miss Piggy because she was fat*

Trump is an obnoxious boor. Everybody knows that. Even Trump knows that. All the commentators are commenting on how foolish he is yet again for going into the face of all political wisdom and again defying the laws of political correct discourse, where everybody has a safe space that is sacrosanct. They are shaking their heads in bewilderment as this buffoon keeps tweeting the issue into life rather than left it die and concentrate on something more edifying for him.

It the meantime, the 100 million Americans left high and dry and outside of the labor force, the millions upon millions who have even given up on the hope of ever holding a job again, hear the media and the elites and the late night entertainment again and again and again DELIGHTING in the horrid 'travesty of justice' involved in this horrible statement by this horrible man.
As trivial as this latest media story is, this is what is important to Hillary and the MSM.
That makes the 100 million less than trivial to the elites that run the country.

But nobody focuses on the less than trivial identity of these deplorables, these misfits and losers, and drug addicts, and dead beat dads, and ne'er do wells.


Nobody that is, except Trump.





*fat is bad for the beauty contest business. too.

 

[J Cord]

It was just a few days ago when the talking heads were all sniggering about the extra pounds that were revealed in Trump's medical report.

And now, it is "awful, just AWFUL, that this man, this godless man(how could any Christian EVER support him!)" has been revealed as someone who called a young beauty contestant winner Miss Piggy because she was fat*

Do you sincerely believe that the POTUS should be held to the same standards as the worst of America, and not the best? Or do you think these "talking heads" you refer to are running for POTUS as well? Your standards are terrible.

 

[J Cord]

We're deplorable

When you defend this kind of behaviour, in an adult, what do you think that says?

If you're any kind of parent, I'm guessing you would never accept your child doing this, yet here we have a grown man who is running for POTUS demonstrating behaviour we wouldn't accept from a six year old. It's ridiculous and pathetic that a grown man would act this way.

 

[4x4toy]

When you defend this kind of behaviour, in an adult, what do you think that says?

If you're any kind of parent, I'm guessing you would never accept your child doing this, yet here we have a grown man who is running for POTUS demonstrating behaviour we wouldn't accept from a six year old. It's ridiculous and pathetic that a grown man would act this way.

Quit crying or I'll give you something to cry about #1 rule for my sons ..

 

[J Cord]

Quit crying or I'll give you something to cry about #1 rule for my sons ..

Exactly my point. Trump cries about *everything*. The election is rigged, the debate was rigged, this person did that to me, "crooked Hillary", "lying Ted", it never ends.

Like I said, Trump behaves in a manner we wouldn't accept from a six year old. Foreign leaders are going to walk all over him. Either by getting Trump to act like a complete fool, and forcing him to back down, or by praising Trump to high heaven, when Trump has in reality been taken to the cleaners. Trump won't care one iota if a deal is good or bad for America, so long as the other leader says he was brilliant. We already had a taste of that in regards to Putin's statements.

 

[4x4toy]

Exactly my point. Trump cries about *everything*. The election is rigged, the debate was rigged, this person did that to me, "crooked Hillary", "lying Ted", it never ends.

Like I said, Trump behaves in a manner we wouldn't accept from a six year old. Foreign leaders are going to walk all over him. Either by getting Trump to act like a complete fool, and forcing him to back down, or by praising Trump to high heaven, when Trump has in reality been taken to the cleaners. Trump won't care one iota if a deal is good or bad for America, so long as the other leader says he was brilliant. We already had a taste of that in regards to Putin's statements.

HA , Quit your crying and judge rightly .. Or maybe prioritize real problems , you don't get it do you ?

 

[J Cord]

HA , Quit your crying and judge rightly .. Or maybe prioritize real problems , you don't get it do you ?

What are you babbling about? Your post makes no sense, try again. I suggest you read what I wrote, and then try to respond appropriately, instead of arbitrarily deciding that it's non sequiter hour. Here, try this:

Donald Trump is behaving in a manner we wouldn't accept from a six year old. Do you think this is an appropriate way for a POTUS to behave?

 

[4x4toy]

What are you babbling about? Your post makes no sense, try again. I suggest you read what I wrote, and then try to respond appropriately, instead of arbitrarily deciding that it's non sequiter hour. Here, try this:

Donald Trump is behaving in a manner we wouldn't accept from a six year old. Do you think this is an appropriate way for a POTUS to behave?

 

[miamited]

Would it be better to put Hillary in office to up hold Obamas' exec orders and appoint very liberal Judges to the SCOTUS? She will also up hold this failing Obama Care that will eventually cost the people more than they can afford. If you don't like Obamas' policies you wont like hers' at all.

You have to sign it before you can read it. And. What difference does it make at this point. And. I have turned all of my emails.

Is there any other reminders that you need?

Hi mwood,

I really don't understand how a half dozen untruths over a lifetime of public office can possibly be used to support another who has told at least a dozen untruths in less than a year. How does one point a finger at one person who may well have told a few lies, untruths or misstatements over a couple of dozen years of public office to support someone else who has in just the short span of a year told at least 3 times as many. How does that work? How does that support the 'virtue' of anyone?

Also, why is voting for Mrs. Clinton equivalent to continuing President Obama's presidency? She's a democrat and President Obama is a democrat. She works as a part of his staff. She is, therefore, expected to support a lot of his issues and platforms merely by virtue of their working relationship. However, I don't think one can make a valid argument that because, while she was an 'employee' of the Obama administration she supported his presidency, as necessarily meaning that she would continue with a lot of the same goals and plans as a part of her presidency.

Just some thoughts that come to my mind when I read your claim.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[4x4toy]

Hi mwood,

I really don't understand how a half dozen untruths over a lifetime of public office can possibly be used to support another who has told at least a dozen untruths in less than a year. How does one point a finger at one person who may well have told a few lies, untruths or misstatements over a couple of dozen years of public office to support someone else who has in just the short span of a year told at least 3 times as many. How does that work? How does that support the 'virtue' of anyone?

Also, why is voting for Mrs. Clinton equivalent to continuing President Obama's presidency? She's a democrat and President Obama is a democrat. She works as a part of his staff. She is, therefore, expected to support a lot of his issues and platforms merely by virtue of their working relationship. However, I don't think one can make a valid argument that because, while she was an 'employee' of the Obama administration she supported his presidency, as necessarily meaning that she would continue with a lot of the same goals and plans as a part of her presidency.

Just some thoughts that come to my mind when I read your claim.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

We submit to the government unless government conflicts with our higher authority , pencil me in as grandfathered under our Constitution and our Lord Jesus .. When government sworn to uphold fail to defend God and constitution then they are the liars and are missing in action on our behalf ..

 

[miamited]

We submit to the government unless government conflicts with our higher authority , pencil me in as grandfathered under our Constitution and our Lord Jesus .. When government sworn to uphold fail to defend God and constitution then they are the liars and are missing in action on our behalf ..

Hi 4x4,

Yes, absolutely! However, that has been the nature of our national government for quite some time. But, even our constitution is not without fault in it's claims about God. It states that the founding fathers believed that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Creator. It states that one of these is the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere in the Scriptures is their any inference, that I'm aware of, that God has endowed us with such a right. We can have peace, but even that peace isn't something that we get from living in this world. Rather it is a peace that comes from trusting that our God will see to it that everything will be taken care of in its time and that, for those who love God, peace that our eternal destiny is set no matter what happens in this life.

But, the first disciples certainly didn't show that there was some pursuit of happiness to be gained from following God. Most all of the first disciples were martyred for their faith and even those who weren't were pretty much persecuted the rest of their life. Somehow I can't see one of Paul's messages to the early church being that they have some right to pursue happiness. I can't see Jesus spreading his arms wide and proclaiming, "Go and pursue your personal happiness."

So, since it's inception, while many of the people that were involved in the establishment of our nation may have been 'christian' believers, I'm not convinced that they were necessarily correct in their understanding of what God wants from an established government.

Finally, no, they aren't missing in action on our behalf. God has commanded that we respect those in authority over us because it is He who has established national governments. Nowhere do the Scriptures tie that idea of respect for those in authority over us with their having to have some godly intentions. Daniel respected the king of Babylon for his position. Jesus respected the Roman rulers over Israel and even commanded the Israelites to give unto Caesar what belongs to the Caesar. Paul always spoke with respect to Festus and other Roman rulers with whom he dealt with. This, even though everyone of these governments, as far as being particularly faithful to God, had no faithfulness or worship for the one true and living God.

So, while I certainly want to live a life that honors God, I don't think He gives us an out because we may be living under a government that doesn't likewise honor God. He tells us to respect those in authority over us without a single word being mentioned about their being some particularly righteous entity. As far as I can tell, God asks me, as an individual person who loves Him and wants to honor Him and follow His commands, to have respect for those in authority over me. He even tells me that such an attitude will make it go well with me individually. Quite frankly, when I see the rampant sin across our nation, I can understand that God may well have left us with these choices as a result of our national faithlessness.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[4x4toy]

Hi 4x4,

Yes, absolutely! However, that has been the nature of our national government for quite some time. But, even our constitution is not without fault in it's claims about God. It states that the founding fathers believed that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Creator. It states that one of these is the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere in the Scriptures is their any inference, that I'm aware of, that God has endowed us with such a right. We can have peace, but even that peace isn't something that we get from living in this world. Rather it is a peace that comes from trusting that our God will see to it that everything will be taken care of in its time and that, for those who love God, peace that our eternal destiny is set no matter what happens in this life.

But, the first disciples certainly didn't show that there was some pursuit of happiness to be gained from following God. Most all of the first disciples were martyred for their faith and even those who weren't were pretty much persecuted the rest of their life. Somehow I can't see one of Paul's messages to the early church being that they have some right to pursue happiness. I can't see Jesus spreading his arms wide and proclaiming, "Go and pursue your personal happiness."

So, since it's inception, while many of the people that were involved in the establishment of our nation may have been 'christian' believers, I'm not convinced that they were necessarily correct in their understanding of what God wants from an established government.

Finally, no, they aren't missing in action on our behalf. God has commanded that we respect those in authority over us because it is He who has established national governments. Nowhere do the Scriptures tie that idea of respect for those in authority over us with their having to have some godly intentions. Daniel respected the king of Babylon for his position. Jesus respected the Roman rulers over Israel and even commanded the Israelites to give unto Caesar what belongs to the Caesar. Paul always spoke with respect to Festus and other Roman rulers with whom he dealt with. This, even though everyone of these governments, as far as being particularly faithful to God, had no faithfulness or worship for the one true and living God.

So, while I certainly want to live a life that honors God, I don't think He gives us an out because we may be living under a government that doesn't likewise honor God. He tells us to respect those in authority over us without a single word being mentioned about their being some particularly righteous entity. As far as I can tell, God asks me, as an individual person who loves Him and wants to honor Him and follow His commands, to have respect for those in authority over me. He even tells me that such an attitude will make it go well with me individually. Quite frankly, when I see the rampant sin across our nation, I can understand that God may well have left us with these choices as a result of our national faithlessness.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I think we've been over this before , church is where 2 or more are gathered together and government begins with self government complete with self defense as final option
. If some one gets elected through treachery and deceit , you may consider that government legit , but you answer for yourself not anyone else .. If you go to a horrible movie , different people get up and walk out at different times .. Are you a globalist that would submit to a one world leader and government ?

 

[miamited]

I think we've been over this before , church is where 2 or more are gathered together and government begins with self government complete with self defense as final option
. If some one gets elected through treachery and deceit , you may consider that government legit , but you answer for yourself not anyone else .. If you go to a horrible movie , different people get up and walk out at different times .. Are you a globalist that would submit to a one world leader and government ?

Hi 4x4,

Submit does not equal respect. Daniel did not submit to the king's unrighteous decrees, but he always held the king in high regard and respect. Jesus did not submit to the Roman government, but he taught that Israel should do what is right in supporting the standing government of Rome that was over Israel at the time. Paul and the first disciples did not always submit to the rules of the governing bodies over them, but they always treated those in government with respect. It's a matter of respect, not submission.

You ask, would I submit to a one world government? I would obey and respect it as far as I could without doing something expressly against the commands of God. If, a one world government comes to exist, although I'm not convinced that's what the Scriptures teach us about the last days, yes, I would live under that government. I'm not going to go subversive or Rambo and fight to the death against such a government. I will continue to live pretty much as I do now. Loving God and trusting in Him. I will obey the government up to the point that it says that I cannot worship God and then I will be just like Daniel. I will continue to worship God and if that costs me my life or freedom then I will gladly give those over to one world government just as the great men of the Scriptures did. I will go into the fiery furnace. I will sleep in the den of lions. I will go into prison because I know that to suffer for cause of Christ is the greatest sacrifice that I can make and the Scriptures teach that I should.

But I don't understand how anyone could choose one of the candidates over another on these terms. Neither of them are particularly godly, but for me, certainly the least godly would be Mr. Trump. He's mean. He's got an ego the size of Alaska. He's a braggert. He's a liar. His god is money. Mrs. Clinton has also been caught in some untruths, but I don't find her to have nearly the braggadocios ego, nor quite the affinity for money that Mr. Trump has. Not to say that she isn't wealthy and they both get lots of money for speaking engagements, but there's not a continuous and loathsome constant bragging of how filthy rich she is.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[4x4toy]

Hi 4x4,

Submit does not equal respect. Daniel did not submit to the king's unrighteous decrees, but he always held the king in high regard and respect. Jesus did not submit to the Roman government, but he taught that Israel should do what is right in supporting the standing government of Rome that was over Israel at the time. Paul and the first disciples did not always submit to the rules of the governing bodies over them, but they always treated those in government with respect. It's a matter of respect, not submission.

You ask, would I submit to a one world government? I would obey and respect it as far as I could without doing something expressly against the commands of God. If, a one world government comes to exist, although I'm not convinced that's what the Scriptures teach us about the last days, yes, I would live under that government. I'm not going to go subversive or Rambo and fight to the death against such a government. I will continue to live pretty much as I do now. Loving God and trusting in Him. I will obey the government up to the point that it says that I cannot worship God and then I will be just like Daniel. I will continue to worship God and if that costs me my life or freedom then I will gladly give those over to one world government just as the great men of the Scriptures did. I will go into the fiery furnace. I will sleep in the den of lions. I will go into prison because I know that to suffer for cause of Christ is the greatest sacrifice that I can make and the Scriptures teach that I should.

But I don't understand how anyone could choose one of the candidates over another on these terms. Neither of them are particularly godly, but for me, certainly the least godly would be Mr. Trump. He's mean. He's got an ego the size of Alaska. He's a braggert. He's a liar. His god is money. Mrs. Clinton has also been caught in some untruths, but I don't find her to have nearly the braggadocios ego, nor quite the affinity for money that Mr. Trump has. Not to say that she isn't wealthy and they both get lots of money for speaking engagements, but there's not a continuous and loathsome constant bragging of how filthy rich she is.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[SolomonVII]

The Clintons have become very rich on the taxpayer dollar selling influence through their foundation.

Bill Clinton set the standard for the modern American presidency to a new low staining the interns under his desk real good, and telling sniggering lies about it that eventually got him disbarred.
Apparently, lawyers saw him as unfit to be a lawyer, but Democrats did not see that this even that low standard that ambulance chasers set for themselves was too low as to make a man unfit for POTUS.

My favorite story about the mealy-mouthed bully of a president named Lyndon Johnson was how he grabbed Lester Pearson, Canada's mousy prime minister by the scruff of his shirt collar, picked him up, and shook him.
JKF was pretty much a rapist in his years in office with all his shenanigans, but that was a different time in America where nobody really delved too deeply into the private lives of presidents. For Teddy Kennedy, murdering a girl and getting away with it did seem to be enough to make a run at president a nonviable proposition, even as he remained the leading Democratic congressman until his mortal demise.

This is pretty much accepted as acceptable by all the self righteous moralists who believe that their leftism is what makes them godly.

But *GASP* 'how dare Trump call anyone who put on a few pounds too many in her role as Miss Universe fat!! The nerve of the guy is unprecedented and makes him unfit to hold the office once held by morally righteous people like Jack, and LBJ and Clinton.'

It is not that what Trump says about women is not loathsome.
But it is no more loathsome than the behavior of the abusive men that have already been in the office. The hypocrisy of people who pretend otherwise is almost laughable.