Thread Rating:
01-31-2021, 03:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2021, 03:16 PM by Old School Hound.)
The other thread considered the question of WOULD Trump be convicted? I think, with the 55-45 vote on Rand Paul's constitutionality question , that it is probably unlikely, even after the evidence is heard, that there will be enough votes to convict. I still say, however, that if McConnell wants to forever purge Trump from the party and make him unable to run for office again, he could bring sufficient votes along with him to make it happen. I'm sure he is weighing the political consequences(as most all members of Congress do) of his potential actions. I just doubt if there are enough balls in the halls of Congress to vote for conviction.
So this thread does not take up the question of whether Trump will be convicted but SHOULD he be tried and, if so, SHOULD he be convicted of his actions up to the Capitol insurrection.
What do you think? Should he go on trial? If you think the answer is "yes" to that, do you think he should be convicted?
I recently read a letter prepared and signed by 150 constitutional scholars, both progressive and conservative, that carefully considered the constitutionality question and concluded that it was constitutionally legal to try an ex-President. I am not a constitutional scholar so will defer to them on that question and answer "Yes."
I am looking forward to hearing all of the evidence that will be presented, but I feel like at this point that Trump invited the mob to meet him at the Capitol("I'll be there with you") to fight like hell and create chaos. Insiders in the WH have said that Trump was watching the insurrection on TV and was very pleased with what he was seeing. He knew these people were riled up, he knew they were capable of executing violence at the Capitol, and he was enjoying it as it was being carried out. In my opinion, he bares some responsibility for the terrorist acts at the Capitol and his words and actions were not those of a President discharging his duties of protecting the Constitution and protecting American democracy.
I want to hear all the evidence but at this point I say "Yes," he should be tried , and "Yes" he should be convicted and barred from ever holding any other political office.
I respectfully await your analysis. Thanks in advance.
So this thread does not take up the question of whether Trump will be convicted but SHOULD he be tried and, if so, SHOULD he be convicted of his actions up to the Capitol insurrection.
What do you think? Should he go on trial? If you think the answer is "yes" to that, do you think he should be convicted?
I recently read a letter prepared and signed by 150 constitutional scholars, both progressive and conservative, that carefully considered the constitutionality question and concluded that it was constitutionally legal to try an ex-President. I am not a constitutional scholar so will defer to them on that question and answer "Yes."
I am looking forward to hearing all of the evidence that will be presented, but I feel like at this point that Trump invited the mob to meet him at the Capitol("I'll be there with you") to fight like hell and create chaos. Insiders in the WH have said that Trump was watching the insurrection on TV and was very pleased with what he was seeing. He knew these people were riled up, he knew they were capable of executing violence at the Capitol, and he was enjoying it as it was being carried out. In my opinion, he bares some responsibility for the terrorist acts at the Capitol and his words and actions were not those of a President discharging his duties of protecting the Constitution and protecting American democracy.
I want to hear all the evidence but at this point I say "Yes," he should be tried , and "Yes" he should be convicted and barred from ever holding any other political office.
I respectfully await your analysis. Thanks in advance.
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
01-31-2021, 03:26 PM
(01-31-2021, 03:13 PM)Old School Hound Wrote: The other thread considered the question of WOULD Trump be convicted? I think, with the 55-45 vote on Rand Paul's constitutionality question , that it is probably unlikely, even after the evidence is heard, that there will be enough votes to convict. I still say, however, that if McConnell wants to forever purge Trump from the party and make him unable to run for office again, he could bring sufficient votes along with him to make it happen. I'm sure he is weighing the political consequences(as most all members of Congress do) of his potential actions. I just doubt if there are enough balls in the halls of Congress to vote for conviction.YES and YES
So this thread does not take up the question of whether Trump will be convicted but SHOULD he be tried and, if so, SHOULD he be convicted of his actions up to the Capitol insurrection.
What do you think? Should he go on trial? If you think the answer is "yes" to that, do you think he should be convicted?
I recently read a letter prepared and signed by 150 constitutional scholars, both progressive and conservative, that carefully considered the constitutionality question and concluded that it was constitutionally legal to try an ex-President. I am not a constitutional scholar so will defer to them on that question and answer "Yes."
I am looking forward to hearing all of the evidence that will be presented, but I feel like at this point that Trump invited the mob to meet him at the Capitol("I'll be there with you") to fight like hell and create chaos. Insiders in the WH have said that Trump was watching the insurrection on TV and was very pleased with what he was seeing. He knew these people were riled up, he knew they were capable of executing violence at the Capitol, and he was enjoying it as it was being carried out. In my opinion, he bares some responsibility for the terrorist acts at the Capitol and his words and actions were not those of a President discharging his duties of protecting the Constitution and protecting American democracy.
I want to hear all the evidence but at this point I say "Yes," he should be tried , and "Yes" he should be convicted and barred from ever holding any other political office.
I respectfully await your analysis. Thanks in advance.
01-31-2021, 03:29 PM
1. Trump should not have been impeached either time. There was/is no credible evidence of an impeachable crime in either case.
2. There should be no trial because the purpose of impeachment is to remove the President from office. Trump is not the President - he is a private citizen and the Senate has no constitutional right to hold a trial to remove a man from office who is not in office.
3. Trump has a constitutional right to serve four more years. He won an election that was stolen from him. Democrats know that they would need to cheat again by rigging a second election to have any chance to defeat him in 2024. I personally believe that it is too early to consider voting for a 78 year old presidential candidate in 2024. If he runs, then he should be judged on his physical and mental condition at the time of the election. Biden's family and the people who rigged the system to put him in the Oval Office should be ashamed of themselves for risking our national security by installing a feeble 79-year old president who is neither physically or mentally fit to hold the office.
If Democrats cared about ethics and the law, then they would be demanding a full investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden's deals with Russia and Ukraine while Joe Biden was Vice President and during the time that he was out of office. The Trump impeachment and trial is nothing but a political stunt, while a man who almost certainly has committed impeachable crimes signed more than 40 Executive Orders during his first week in office, as he proved that he is the authoritarian dictator wannabe that Democrats have falsely claimed Trump to be for the past four years.
There has never been a better example of hypocrisy and abuse of power than the difference in how Democrats have treated Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
2. There should be no trial because the purpose of impeachment is to remove the President from office. Trump is not the President - he is a private citizen and the Senate has no constitutional right to hold a trial to remove a man from office who is not in office.
3. Trump has a constitutional right to serve four more years. He won an election that was stolen from him. Democrats know that they would need to cheat again by rigging a second election to have any chance to defeat him in 2024. I personally believe that it is too early to consider voting for a 78 year old presidential candidate in 2024. If he runs, then he should be judged on his physical and mental condition at the time of the election. Biden's family and the people who rigged the system to put him in the Oval Office should be ashamed of themselves for risking our national security by installing a feeble 79-year old president who is neither physically or mentally fit to hold the office.
If Democrats cared about ethics and the law, then they would be demanding a full investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden's deals with Russia and Ukraine while Joe Biden was Vice President and during the time that he was out of office. The Trump impeachment and trial is nothing but a political stunt, while a man who almost certainly has committed impeachable crimes signed more than 40 Executive Orders during his first week in office, as he proved that he is the authoritarian dictator wannabe that Democrats have falsely claimed Trump to be for the past four years.
There has never been a better example of hypocrisy and abuse of power than the difference in how Democrats have treated Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
01-31-2021, 04:45 PM
(01-31-2021, 03:29 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: 1. Trump should not have been impeached either time. There was/is no credible evidence of an impeachable crime in either case.1. Liar
2. There should be no trial because the purpose of impeachment is to remove the President from office. Trump is not the President - he is a private citizen and the Senate has no constitutional right to hold a trial to remove a man from office who is not in office.
3. Trump has a constitutional right to serve four more years. He won an election that was stolen from him. Democrats know that they would need to cheat again by rigging a second election to have any chance to defeat him in 2024. I personally believe that it is too early to consider voting for a 78 year old presidential candidate in 2024. If he runs, then he should be judged on his physical and mental condition at the time of the election. Biden's family and the people who rigged the system to put him in the Oval Office should be ashamed of themselves for risking our national security by installing a feeble 79-year old president who is neither physically or mentally fit to hold the office.
If Democrats cared about ethics and the law, then they would be demanding a full investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden's deals with Russia and Ukraine while Joe Biden was Vice President and during the time that he was out of office. The Trump impeachment and trial is nothing but a political stunt, while a man who almost certainly has committed impeachable crimes signed more than 40 Executive Orders during his first week in office, as he proved that he is the authoritarian dictator wannabe that Democrats have falsely claimed Trump to be for the past four years.
There has never been a better example of hypocrisy and abuse of power than the difference in how Democrats have treated Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
2. More Lies
3. Pants on Fire
And finally you have heard of the last about Hunter and President Biden dealings with Russia and Ukraine if your Dear Leader couldn't find anything time to move on
01-31-2021, 05:55 PM
(01-31-2021, 04:45 PM)vector#1 Wrote:Waste of space and time. Communist troll.(01-31-2021, 03:29 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: 1. Trump should not have been impeached either time. There was/is no credible evidence of an impeachable crime in either case.1. Liar
2. There should be no trial because the purpose of impeachment is to remove the President from office. Trump is not the President - he is a private citizen and the Senate has no constitutional right to hold a trial to remove a man from office who is not in office.
3. Trump has a constitutional right to serve four more years. He won an election that was stolen from him. Democrats know that they would need to cheat again by rigging a second election to have any chance to defeat him in 2024. I personally believe that it is too early to consider voting for a 78 year old presidential candidate in 2024. If he runs, then he should be judged on his physical and mental condition at the time of the election. Biden's family and the people who rigged the system to put him in the Oval Office should be ashamed of themselves for risking our national security by installing a feeble 79-year old president who is neither physically or mentally fit to hold the office.
If Democrats cared about ethics and the law, then they would be demanding a full investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden's deals with Russia and Ukraine while Joe Biden was Vice President and during the time that he was out of office. The Trump impeachment and trial is nothing but a political stunt, while a man who almost certainly has committed impeachable crimes signed more than 40 Executive Orders during his first week in office, as he proved that he is the authoritarian dictator wannabe that Democrats have falsely claimed Trump to be for the past four years.
There has never been a better example of hypocrisy and abuse of power than the difference in how Democrats have treated Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
2. More Lies
3. Pants on Fire
And finally you have heard of the last about Hunter and President Biden dealings with Russia and Ukraine if your Dear Leader couldn't find anything time to move on
01-31-2021, 08:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2021, 08:39 PM by Old School Hound.)
Constitutional Law Scholars on Impeaching Former Officers
January 21, 2021 (Signed by 150 scholars with differing political persuasions from across the country):
Now that President Trump has left office, may the Senate take up an article of impeachment, and try, convict, and disqualify President Trump from holding future office? We, the undersigned constitutional law scholars, conclude it can.
We take no position on whether the Senate should convict President Trump on the article of impeachment soon to be transmitted by the House of Representatives.
We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation. But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.
Our shared conclusion is supported by the text and structure of the Constitution, the history of its drafting, and relevant precedent. The Constitution allocates the “sole Power of Impeachment” to the House of Representatives, and the “sole Power to try all Impeachments” to the Senate. It provides that the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It further specifies that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”
In other words, the Constitution’s impeachment power has two aspects. The first is removal from office, which occurs automatically upon the conviction of a current officer. The second is disqualification from holding future office, which occurs in those cases where the Senate deems disqualification appropriate in light of the conduct for which the impeached person was convicted. The impeachment power must be read so as to give full effect to both aspects of this power.
Impeachment is the exclusive constitutional means for removing a president (or other officer) before his or her term expires. But nothing in the provision authorizing impeachment-for-removal limits impeachment to situations where it accomplishes removal from office. Indeed, such a reading would thwart and potentially nullify a vital aspect of the impeachment power: the power of the Senate to impose disqualification from future office as a penalty for conviction. In order to give full effect to both Article I’s and Article II’s language with respect to impeachment, therefore, the correct conclusion is that former officers remain subject to the impeachment power after leaving office, for purposes of permitting imposition of the punishment of disqualification.
If impeachment were only a device for removing officials from office, then perhaps only current officers could be impeached. But disqualification is a consequence that might need to be imposed on prior officeholders as well as current ones. In keeping with that rationale, nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office. Indeed, the ability to try, convict, and disqualify former officials is an important deterrent against future misconduct. If an official could only be disqualified while he or she still held office, then an official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate’s final conviction vote. The Framers did not design the Constitution’s checks and balances to be so easily undermined.
History supports a reading of the Constitution that allows Congress to impeach, try, convict, and disqualify former officers. In drafting the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, the Framers drew upon the models of impeachment in Great Britain and state constitutions. In 1787, English impeachment was understood to allow for the impeachment, trial, and conviction of former officials; likewise, the law of several states made clear that waiting to impeach officials until they were out of office was preferred or even required, and no state barred the impeachment of former officials.
More broadly, a singular concern of the Framers in devising our constitutional system was the danger of a power-seeking populist of the type they referred to as a “demagogue” rising to the highest office and overthrowing republican government. The Framers further understood that the source of such a person’s power does not expire if he or she is expelled from office; so long as such a person retains the loyalty of his or her supporters, he or she might return to power. The Framers devised the disqualification power to guard against that possibility, and would surely disagree that a person who sought to overthrow our democracy could not be disqualified from holding a future office of the United States because the plot reached its crescendo too close to the end of his or her term.
Precedent also buttresses our conclusion that Congress may try, convict, and disqualify former officers: Congress has done it in the past. In 1876, Secretary of War William Belknap tried to avoid impeachment and its consequences by resigning minutes before the House voted on his impeachment. The House impeached him anyway, and the Senate concluded that it had the power to try, convict, and disqualify former officers. Even in cases when impeachment proceedings were dismissed after the subject resigned, Congress has indicated that it was choosing to drop the case rather than being compelled to do so by the Constitution. Belknap was not a president, but there is no reason why the same rule would not apply to presidents—after all, the Constitution’s impeachment provisions apply to presidents, vice presidents, and civil officers alike.
In sum, the Constitution’s text and structure, history, and precedent make clear that Congress’s impeachment power permits it to impeach, try, convict, and disqualify former officers, including former presidents. The Senate may take up the House’s article of impeachment against former President Donald J. Trump, conduct a trial, convict him, and disqualify him from holding a future office of the United States.
January 21, 2021 (Signed by 150 scholars with differing political persuasions from across the country):
Now that President Trump has left office, may the Senate take up an article of impeachment, and try, convict, and disqualify President Trump from holding future office? We, the undersigned constitutional law scholars, conclude it can.
We take no position on whether the Senate should convict President Trump on the article of impeachment soon to be transmitted by the House of Representatives.
We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation. But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.
Our shared conclusion is supported by the text and structure of the Constitution, the history of its drafting, and relevant precedent. The Constitution allocates the “sole Power of Impeachment” to the House of Representatives, and the “sole Power to try all Impeachments” to the Senate. It provides that the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It further specifies that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”
In other words, the Constitution’s impeachment power has two aspects. The first is removal from office, which occurs automatically upon the conviction of a current officer. The second is disqualification from holding future office, which occurs in those cases where the Senate deems disqualification appropriate in light of the conduct for which the impeached person was convicted. The impeachment power must be read so as to give full effect to both aspects of this power.
Impeachment is the exclusive constitutional means for removing a president (or other officer) before his or her term expires. But nothing in the provision authorizing impeachment-for-removal limits impeachment to situations where it accomplishes removal from office. Indeed, such a reading would thwart and potentially nullify a vital aspect of the impeachment power: the power of the Senate to impose disqualification from future office as a penalty for conviction. In order to give full effect to both Article I’s and Article II’s language with respect to impeachment, therefore, the correct conclusion is that former officers remain subject to the impeachment power after leaving office, for purposes of permitting imposition of the punishment of disqualification.
If impeachment were only a device for removing officials from office, then perhaps only current officers could be impeached. But disqualification is a consequence that might need to be imposed on prior officeholders as well as current ones. In keeping with that rationale, nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office. Indeed, the ability to try, convict, and disqualify former officials is an important deterrent against future misconduct. If an official could only be disqualified while he or she still held office, then an official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate’s final conviction vote. The Framers did not design the Constitution’s checks and balances to be so easily undermined.
History supports a reading of the Constitution that allows Congress to impeach, try, convict, and disqualify former officers. In drafting the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, the Framers drew upon the models of impeachment in Great Britain and state constitutions. In 1787, English impeachment was understood to allow for the impeachment, trial, and conviction of former officials; likewise, the law of several states made clear that waiting to impeach officials until they were out of office was preferred or even required, and no state barred the impeachment of former officials.
More broadly, a singular concern of the Framers in devising our constitutional system was the danger of a power-seeking populist of the type they referred to as a “demagogue” rising to the highest office and overthrowing republican government. The Framers further understood that the source of such a person’s power does not expire if he or she is expelled from office; so long as such a person retains the loyalty of his or her supporters, he or she might return to power. The Framers devised the disqualification power to guard against that possibility, and would surely disagree that a person who sought to overthrow our democracy could not be disqualified from holding a future office of the United States because the plot reached its crescendo too close to the end of his or her term.
Precedent also buttresses our conclusion that Congress may try, convict, and disqualify former officers: Congress has done it in the past. In 1876, Secretary of War William Belknap tried to avoid impeachment and its consequences by resigning minutes before the House voted on his impeachment. The House impeached him anyway, and the Senate concluded that it had the power to try, convict, and disqualify former officers. Even in cases when impeachment proceedings were dismissed after the subject resigned, Congress has indicated that it was choosing to drop the case rather than being compelled to do so by the Constitution. Belknap was not a president, but there is no reason why the same rule would not apply to presidents—after all, the Constitution’s impeachment provisions apply to presidents, vice presidents, and civil officers alike.
In sum, the Constitution’s text and structure, history, and precedent make clear that Congress’s impeachment power permits it to impeach, try, convict, and disqualify former officers, including former presidents. The Senate may take up the House’s article of impeachment against former President Donald J. Trump, conduct a trial, convict him, and disqualify him from holding a future office of the United States.
01-31-2021, 09:23 PM
I find the opinion of 150 lawyers claiming to be from different "political persuasions" not persuasive at all. Many Republicans, including many lawyers, are vehemently anti-Trump, including those aligned with Project Lincoln. Also, there is no shortage of lawyers claiming to be constitutional experts who are not. Former President Obama is an example of such a lawyer.
The fact that all 222 Democrat Representatives voted to impeach Trump in the most recent impeachment vote and 230 of 233 Democrats voted to impeach him the first time is persuasive evidence to me that the impeachments and trials have nothing to do with justice.
How many of you have actual read the transcript of Trump's Ukrainian phone call? How many of you listened to Trump's entire speech on 6 January? How many of you have read the incriminating Hunter Biden emails and listened to the allegations made by Hunter Biden's former business partners implicating Joe Biden in an influence peddling scheme? How many of you bothered to watch Joe Biden brag about using $1 billion dollars of American aid to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter Biden and his employer, Burisma?
Why do I ask these questions? Because no honest person could possibly understand how much evidence of corruption there is against Joe Biden, support Trump's first impeachment, and oppose impeaching Biden.
I did listen to Trump's recent speech and it contained no call for violence. Yet, the House impeached Trump despite the fact that no investigation had been completed into the events of 6 January. Subsequent investigation revealed that pipe bombs were planted in DNC and RNC headquarters on the day before Trump's rally and there was advanced planning of the Capitol attack before the rally by groups not related to Trump.
I have never witnessed anything close to the political bias of liberals who participate in this forum. It is disgusting and it is the kind of bias that threatens all of our constitutional rights. I understand that Democrats are afraid that Trump will be elected to a second term. They believe that they are justified in taking any kind of action necessary to ensure that he cannot run for the office again. The reason is that the type of people running the Democrat Party cannot win a fair national election. Maybe eventually the near monopoly that liberals have on our media, Big Tech, and education system will allow enough voters to be transformed into socialist zombies but we are not there yet.
So what can liberals do to win fair elections faster? Open our southern border and put citizenship for illegals on a fast track. So, that is what Joe Biden plans to do, despite the pandemic. Liberals plan to flood this country with even more illegals that we already have, bribe them with federal benefits, and grant them citizenship ASAP.
Trump and his supporters represent the only resistance to the real insurrection of the United States, which is the cynical plan to import Democrat votes from Mexico and Central American countries.
The fact that all 222 Democrat Representatives voted to impeach Trump in the most recent impeachment vote and 230 of 233 Democrats voted to impeach him the first time is persuasive evidence to me that the impeachments and trials have nothing to do with justice.
How many of you have actual read the transcript of Trump's Ukrainian phone call? How many of you listened to Trump's entire speech on 6 January? How many of you have read the incriminating Hunter Biden emails and listened to the allegations made by Hunter Biden's former business partners implicating Joe Biden in an influence peddling scheme? How many of you bothered to watch Joe Biden brag about using $1 billion dollars of American aid to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter Biden and his employer, Burisma?
Why do I ask these questions? Because no honest person could possibly understand how much evidence of corruption there is against Joe Biden, support Trump's first impeachment, and oppose impeaching Biden.
I did listen to Trump's recent speech and it contained no call for violence. Yet, the House impeached Trump despite the fact that no investigation had been completed into the events of 6 January. Subsequent investigation revealed that pipe bombs were planted in DNC and RNC headquarters on the day before Trump's rally and there was advanced planning of the Capitol attack before the rally by groups not related to Trump.
I have never witnessed anything close to the political bias of liberals who participate in this forum. It is disgusting and it is the kind of bias that threatens all of our constitutional rights. I understand that Democrats are afraid that Trump will be elected to a second term. They believe that they are justified in taking any kind of action necessary to ensure that he cannot run for the office again. The reason is that the type of people running the Democrat Party cannot win a fair national election. Maybe eventually the near monopoly that liberals have on our media, Big Tech, and education system will allow enough voters to be transformed into socialist zombies but we are not there yet.
So what can liberals do to win fair elections faster? Open our southern border and put citizenship for illegals on a fast track. So, that is what Joe Biden plans to do, despite the pandemic. Liberals plan to flood this country with even more illegals that we already have, bribe them with federal benefits, and grant them citizenship ASAP.
Trump and his supporters represent the only resistance to the real insurrection of the United States, which is the cynical plan to import Democrat votes from Mexico and Central American countries.
02-01-2021, 09:22 AM
I got another perspective as to Hound's starter about "purging" DJT from the party. Trump got what,74 million, (officially recognized) votes? He had 88,776,124 followers on Twitter. The effort to disgrace Trump will only galvanize his supporters and the disgrace McConnell would visit upon Trump, will fall on himself. So how will McConnell purge the political convictions from that many people?
As I have said from 2016 forward; the people voted for Trump because they were tired of political correctness and getting their corn shucked by lying establishment politicians. They weren't tricked, nor were they flimflammed by a showman.
As I have said from 2016 forward; the people voted for Trump because they were tired of political correctness and getting their corn shucked by lying establishment politicians. They weren't tricked, nor were they flimflammed by a showman.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
02-01-2021, 09:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2021, 09:51 AM by Old School Hound.)
(02-01-2021, 09:22 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: I got another perspective as to Hound's starter about "purging" DJT from the party. Trump got what,74 million, (officially recognized) votes? He had 88,776,124 followers on Twitter. The effort to disgrace Trump will only galvanize his supporters and the disgrace McConnell would visit upon Trump, will fall on himself. So how will McConnell purge the political convictions from that many people?
As I have said from 2016 forward; the people voted for Trump because they were tired of political correctness and getting their corn shucked by lying establishment politicians. They weren't tricked, nor were they flimflammed by a showman.
No doubt the bolded is true, my friend. That, and he gave them permission to say, do, and feel the things they have been thinking and feeling for years. Much of that was some very dark thoughts and feelings, unfortunately. So, yes, I think what you said is part of the reason they voted for a failed businessman and TV personality but I do think he scammed them into thinking he was really for them and with them when, in fact, he privately mocked those who supported him. I don't think DJT thinks much of you, me, or anyone else. I do believe his long history reveals him to be a con artist.
(02-01-2021, 12:32 AM)jetpilot Wrote: LOL Hound got bamboozled by the old "150 diverse expert lawyers signed a letter" hoax? Say it ain't so Hound!
Maybe. lol But I wasn't scammed by DJT for more than four years.
(02-01-2021, 09:48 AM)Old School Hound Wrote:And there you have it Hoot, really just another political hack thread posting political hack stuff from political hacks while trying to pass it off as consensus bipartisan thought,,,really it's always so transparent with these people...(02-01-2021, 09:22 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: I got another perspective as to Hound's starter about "purging" DJT from the party. Trump got what,74 million, (officially recognized) votes? He had 88,776,124 followers on Twitter. The effort to disgrace Trump will only galvanize his supporters and the disgrace McConnell would visit upon Trump, will fall on himself. So how will McConnell purge the political convictions from that many people?
As I have said from 2016 forward; the people voted for Trump because they were tired of political correctness and getting their corn shucked by lying establishment politicians. They weren't tricked, nor were they flimflammed by a showman.
No doubt the bolded is true, my friend. That, and he gave them permission to say, do, and feel the things they have been thinking and feeling for years. Much of that was some very dark thoughts and feelings, unfortunately. So, yes, I think what you said is part of the reason they voted for a failed businessman and TV personality but I do think he scammed them into thinking he was really for them and with them when, in fact, he privately mocked those who supported him. I don't think DJT thinks much of you, me, or anyone else. I do believe his long history reveals him to be a con artist.
(02-01-2021, 12:32 AM)jetpilot Wrote: LOL Hound got bamboozled by the old "150 diverse expert lawyers signed a letter" hoax? Say it ain't so Hound!
Maybe. lol But I wasn't scammed by DJT for more than four years.
I do really like your music threads though Hound, seriously...
02-01-2021, 12:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2021, 12:30 PM by TheRealThing.)
(02-01-2021, 09:48 AM)Old School Hound Wrote:(02-01-2021, 09:22 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: I got another perspective as to Hound's starter about "purging" DJT from the party. Trump got what,74 million, (officially recognized) votes? He had 88,776,124 followers on Twitter. The effort to disgrace Trump will only galvanize his supporters and the disgrace McConnell would visit upon Trump, will fall on himself. So how will McConnell purge the political convictions from that many people?
As I have said from 2016 forward; the people voted for Trump because they were tired of political correctness and getting their corn shucked by lying establishment politicians. They weren't tricked, nor were they flimflammed by a showman.
No doubt the bolded is true, my friend. That, and he gave them permission to say, do, and feel the things they have been thinking and feeling for years. Much of that was some very dark thoughts and feelings, unfortunately. So, yes, I think what you said is part of the reason they voted for a failed businessman and TV personality but I do think he scammed them into thinking he was really for them and with them when, in fact, he privately mocked those who supported him. I don't think DJT thinks much of you, me, or anyone else. I do believe his long history reveals him to be a con artist.
Well let's suppose for the sake of discussion that there is some truth to your assessment of DJT's veracity. When he ran the choices were him or Hillary. The devil we knew was of course Hillary, and we'd had enough. I mean, it was one thing to get her as first lady as the result of Bill getting elected. You will recall her push for universal healthcare back in the 90's? Then we dealt with her as the Senator from New York and let's face it, New Yorker's would vote for Satan if he ran as a Dem. Then we dealt with her as Secretary of State and I won't bother to try and list her shenanigans at that post. Then she wanted to be President and that just wasn't in the cards.
If he thinks little of the people, he surely hid it well. The common man saw his wages go up for the first time in decades, and minorities saw the best employment numbers in history. His claim was to be the President of the people, and evidence supports that claim as he always spurned Wall street and the establishment and took his case on most matters to the people. He didn't back off of ObamaCare, he lowered payroll taxes, and he was in the throes of lowering drug prices which in my remembrance was a first. Further, his America first policies included US sovereignty protected by a tight border system. I for one, do not agree that open borders serve this nation. And it follows that after Americans had gotten the back of Uncle Sam's left hand with regard to a system of law that harbors illegal felons on one cheek. They found that all illegals were to get special treatment in the form of a free ride to include health care and education; All of which cost regular working Americans so dearly. But the ultimate right handed haymaker comes in the form of those non-citizens being allowed to vote. An act which I say disenfranchises vote for vote this land's citizenry. And could swing the balance of power in government if an election came down to several swing states. Trump was for voter ID.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
02-01-2021, 03:38 PM
Trial starts this week. Trump replaced his attorneys this weekend. More 5D chess from the master. 
There is enough circumstantial evidence to find Trump guilty.
However, this will be the biggest screwup of his entire life if he is convicted.
These Senate Republicans are either guilty or too cowardly to convict.
But he has bankrupted a casino or two and turned the USA into a hellscape, so losing this is a possibility.
There is enough circumstantial evidence to find Trump guilty.
However, this will be the biggest screwup of his entire life if he is convicted.
These Senate Republicans are either guilty or too cowardly to convict.
But he has bankrupted a casino or two and turned the USA into a hellscape, so losing this is a possibility.
(02-01-2021, 03:38 PM)Cardfan1 Wrote: Trial starts this week. Trump replaced his attorneys this weekend. More 5D chess from the master.This is a lie, and only idiots believe/repeat it. Tells us what evidence you are aware of CF. You can't. "Orange Man Bad" or similar idiotic response in 3, 2, 1...
There is enough circumstantial evidence to find Trump guilty.
However, this will be the biggest screwup of his entire life if he is convicted.
These Senate Republicans are either guilty or too cowardly to convict.
But he has bankrupted a casino or two and turned the USA into a hellscape, so losing this is a possibility.
Again, what evidence is there CF. I'll wait...
02-01-2021, 03:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2021, 03:48 PM by TheRealThing.)
vector#
1https://youtu.be/I4daeEacIVI
Trump's top advisor
^^ All men are created and as such ought to know better than to mock Christianity, and therefore the Lord Himself. There will always be people who purport to represent the cause of Christ, but do so in a way that invites the enemies of God to make fun. That said, I didn't listen to your video vector, because I refuse to take part in the shame of belittling the Church. The act of which BTW, brings with it the burden of eternal remorse.
But for those who would be foolish enough to actively mock the Church, the Lord has a few words---
Galatians chap 6
v7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
v8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
There are only two possible option/outcomess for this life. Choose for or against Christ. That which may seem to be middle ground is in fact a choice against Him. There are only two harvests every man will reap: those outside of Christ reap corruption, and those who have accepted His grace will reap everlasting life.
1https://youtu.be/I4daeEacIVI
Trump's top advisor
^^ All men are created and as such ought to know better than to mock Christianity, and therefore the Lord Himself. There will always be people who purport to represent the cause of Christ, but do so in a way that invites the enemies of God to make fun. That said, I didn't listen to your video vector, because I refuse to take part in the shame of belittling the Church. The act of which BTW, brings with it the burden of eternal remorse.
But for those who would be foolish enough to actively mock the Church, the Lord has a few words---
Galatians chap 6
v7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
v8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
There are only two possible option/outcomess for this life. Choose for or against Christ. That which may seem to be middle ground is in fact a choice against Him. There are only two harvests every man will reap: those outside of Christ reap corruption, and those who have accepted His grace will reap everlasting life.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
02-01-2021, 03:52 PM
(02-01-2021, 03:43 PM)jetpilot Wrote:(02-01-2021, 03:38 PM)Cardfan1 Wrote: Trial starts this week. Trump replaced his attorneys this weekend. More 5D chess from the master.This is a lie, and only idiots believe/repeat it. Tells us what evidence you are aware of CF. You can't. "Orange Man Bad" or similar idiotic response in 3, 2, 1...
There is enough circumstantial evidence to find Trump guilty.
However, this will be the biggest screwup of his entire life if he is convicted.
These Senate Republicans are either guilty or too cowardly to convict.
But he has bankrupted a casino or two and turned the USA into a hellscape, so losing this is a possibility.
Again, what evidence is there CF. I'll wait...
I ain’t stepping on House Manager toes. They will tell you all about it the next week or so.
Remember this is not a criminal trial. That comes later
02-01-2021, 04:23 PM
(02-01-2021, 03:45 PM)TheRealThing Wrote: vector#First i am not mocking the church just the people the Dear Leader associates with maybe you should watch it and see for your self
1https://youtu.be/I4daeEacIVI
Trump's top advisor
^^ All men are created and as such ought to know better than to mock Christianity, and therefore the Lord Himself. There will always be people who purport to represent the cause of Christ, but do so in a way that invites the enemies of God to make fun. That said, I didn't listen to your video vector, because I refuse to take part in the shame of belittling the Church. The act of which BTW, brings with it the burden of eternal remorse.
But for those who would be foolish enough to actively mock the Church, the Lord has a few words---
Galatians chap 6
v7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
v8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
There are only two possible option/outcomess for this life. Choose for or against Christ. That which may seem to be middle ground is in fact a choice against Him. There are only two harvests every man will reap: those outside of Christ reap corruption, and those who have accepted His grace will reap everlasting life.
But then again you might not like what you watching a Con Game
Now on to other shocking news
They stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of an election they didn't vote in - CNN
But maybe not
02-01-2021, 04:39 PM
(02-01-2021, 03:52 PM)Cardfan1 Wrote:LOL so of course you won't even take a stab at backing up your lie that there is enough evidence to convict. How did I know that in advance? Thanks for playing though.(02-01-2021, 03:43 PM)jetpilot Wrote:(02-01-2021, 03:38 PM)Cardfan1 Wrote: Trial starts this week. Trump replaced his attorneys this weekend. More 5D chess from the master.This is a lie, and only idiots believe/repeat it. Tells us what evidence you are aware of CF. You can't. "Orange Man Bad" or similar idiotic response in 3, 2, 1...
There is enough circumstantial evidence to find Trump guilty.
However, this will be the biggest screwup of his entire life if he is convicted.
These Senate Republicans are either guilty or too cowardly to convict.
But he has bankrupted a casino or two and turned the USA into a hellscape, so losing this is a possibility.
Again, what evidence is there CF. I'll wait...
I ain’t stepping on House Manager toes. They will tell you all about it the next week or so.
Remember this is not a criminal trial. That comes later
02-01-2021, 04:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2021, 04:53 PM by Hoot Gibson.)
(02-01-2021, 04:39 PM)jetpilot Wrote:It will never occur to him that the burden of proof is much lower for an impeachment than it is for a criminal case or even a civil case. If Democrats cannot successfully frame Trump in the Senate, then there is no chance that he will ever be indicted on criminal charges for the bogus allegations. Reading CF's posts makes me very thankful that I was not born stupid.(02-01-2021, 03:52 PM)Cardfan1 Wrote:LOL so of course you won't even take a stab at backing up your lie that there is enough evidence to convict. How did I know that in advance? Thanks for playing though.(02-01-2021, 03:43 PM)jetpilot Wrote:(02-01-2021, 03:38 PM)Cardfan1 Wrote: Trial starts this week. Trump replaced his attorneys this weekend. More 5D chess from the master.This is a lie, and only idiots believe/repeat it. Tells us what evidence you are aware of CF. You can't. "Orange Man Bad" or similar idiotic response in 3, 2, 1...
There is enough circumstantial evidence to find Trump guilty.
However, this will be the biggest screwup of his entire life if he is convicted.
These Senate Republicans are either guilty or too cowardly to convict.
But he has bankrupted a casino or two and turned the USA into a hellscape, so losing this is a possibility.
Again, what evidence is there CF. I'll wait...
I ain’t stepping on House Manager toes. They will tell you all about it the next week or so.
Remember this is not a criminal trial. That comes later
02-01-2021, 07:58 PM
(02-01-2021, 04:23 PM)vector#1 Wrote:(02-01-2021, 03:45 PM)TheRealThing Wrote: vector#First i am not mocking the church just the people the Dear Leader associates with maybe you should watch it and see for your self
1https://youtu.be/I4daeEacIVI
Trump's top advisor
^^ All men are created and as such ought to know better than to mock Christianity, and therefore the Lord Himself. There will always be people who purport to represent the cause of Christ, but do so in a way that invites the enemies of God to make fun. That said, I didn't listen to your video vector, because I refuse to take part in the shame of belittling the Church. The act of which BTW, brings with it the burden of eternal remorse.
But for those who would be foolish enough to actively mock the Church, the Lord has a few words---
Galatians chap 6
v7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
v8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
There are only two possible option/outcomess for this life. Choose for or against Christ. That which may seem to be middle ground is in fact a choice against Him. There are only two harvests every man will reap: those outside of Christ reap corruption, and those who have accepted His grace will reap everlasting life.
But then again you might not like what you watching a Con Game
Now on to other shocking news
They stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of an election they didn't vote in - CNN
But maybe not
I got a little flash for you, I ain't buyin. Possibly you think you'll be able to talk your way out of trouble when surety brings the day of reckoning? You mocked the Church here, and you've done it in the recent past.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
02-01-2021, 08:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2021, 08:37 PM by Old School Hound.)
(02-01-2021, 01:05 PM)vector#1 Wrote:
Trump's top advisor
People actually send her money. A president actually sought her advice. I actually watched that again.
No wonder people from other countries make fun of us . Even my friends and colleagues who are people of faith are embarrassed by these prosperity gospel scoundrels.
(02-01-2021, 07:58 PM)TheRealThing Wrote:(02-01-2021, 04:23 PM)vector#1 Wrote:(02-01-2021, 03:45 PM)TheRealThing Wrote: vector#First i am not mocking the church just the people the Dear Leader associates with maybe you should watch it and see for your self
1https://youtu.be/I4daeEacIVI
Trump's top advisor
^^ All men are created and as such ought to know better than to mock Christianity, and therefore the Lord Himself. There will always be people who purport to represent the cause of Christ, but do so in a way that invites the enemies of God to make fun. That said, I didn't listen to your video vector, because I refuse to take part in the shame of belittling the Church. The act of which BTW, brings with it the burden of eternal remorse.
But for those who would be foolish enough to actively mock the Church, the Lord has a few words---
Galatians chap 6
v7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
v8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
There are only two possible option/outcomess for this life. Choose for or against Christ. That which may seem to be middle ground is in fact a choice against Him. There are only two harvests every man will reap: those outside of Christ reap corruption, and those who have accepted His grace will reap everlasting life.
But then again you might not like what you watching a Con Game
Now on to other shocking news
They stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of an election they didn't vote in - CNN
But maybe not
I got a little flash for you, I ain't buyin. Possibly you think you'll be able to talk your way out of trouble when surety brings the day of reckoning? You mocked the Church here, and you've done it in the recent past.
I have friends and colleagues who are people of great faith and they are openly disgusted by prosperity scoundrels like Paula White, Kenneth Copeland, and Benny Hinn. All of these people have been exposed for duping believers. I mention this because I think vector was being critical of Paula and her association with 45 and not the Church in general. Just sayin'.
(02-01-2021, 08:25 PM)Old School Hound Wrote:A fancy way of saying you know people who have opinions. What are their opinions of Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright and the endless list of fraudsters and hate speech, race baiters on the far-left?(02-01-2021, 01:05 PM)vector#1 Wrote:
Trump's top advisor
People actually send her money. A president actually sought her advice. I actually watched that again.
No wonder people from other countries make fun of us . Even my friends and colleagues who are people of faith are embarrassed by these prosperity gospel scoundrels.
(02-01-2021, 07:58 PM)TheRealThing Wrote:(02-01-2021, 04:23 PM)vector#1 Wrote:(02-01-2021, 03:45 PM)TheRealThing Wrote: vector#First i am not mocking the church just the people the Dear Leader associates with maybe you should watch it and see for your self
1https://youtu.be/I4daeEacIVI
Trump's top advisor
^^ All men are created and as such ought to know better than to mock Christianity, and therefore the Lord Himself. There will always be people who purport to represent the cause of Christ, but do so in a way that invites the enemies of God to make fun. That said, I didn't listen to your video vector, because I refuse to take part in the shame of belittling the Church. The act of which BTW, brings with it the burden of eternal remorse.
But for those who would be foolish enough to actively mock the Church, the Lord has a few words---
Galatians chap 6
v7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
v8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
There are only two possible option/outcomess for this life. Choose for or against Christ. That which may seem to be middle ground is in fact a choice against Him. There are only two harvests every man will reap: those outside of Christ reap corruption, and those who have accepted His grace will reap everlasting life.
But then again you might not like what you watching a Con Game
Now on to other shocking news
They stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of an election they didn't vote in - CNN
But maybe not
I got a little flash for you, I ain't buyin. Possibly you think you'll be able to talk your way out of trouble when surety brings the day of reckoning? You mocked the Church here, and you've done it in the recent past.
I have friends and colleagues who are people of great faith and they are openly disgusted by prosperity scoundrels like Paula White, Kenneth Copeland, and Benny Hinn. All of these people have been exposed for duping believers. I mention this because I think vector was being critical of Paula and her association with 45 and not the Church in general. Just sayin'.
02-02-2021, 11:46 AM
(02-01-2021, 08:25 PM)Old School Hound Wrote:(02-01-2021, 01:05 PM)vector#1 Wrote:
Trump's top advisor
People actually send her money. A president actually sought her advice. I actually watched that again.
No wonder people from other countries make fun of us . Even my friends and colleagues who are people of faith are embarrassed by these prosperity gospel scoundrels.
(02-01-2021, 07:58 PM)TheRealThing Wrote:(02-01-2021, 04:23 PM)vector#1 Wrote:(02-01-2021, 03:45 PM)TheRealThing Wrote: vector#First i am not mocking the church just the people the Dear Leader associates with maybe you should watch it and see for your self
1https://youtu.be/I4daeEacIVI
Trump's top advisor
^^ All men are created and as such ought to know better than to mock Christianity, and therefore the Lord Himself. There will always be people who purport to represent the cause of Christ, but do so in a way that invites the enemies of God to make fun. That said, I didn't listen to your video vector, because I refuse to take part in the shame of belittling the Church. The act of which BTW, brings with it the burden of eternal remorse.
But for those who would be foolish enough to actively mock the Church, the Lord has a few words---
Galatians chap 6
v7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
v8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
There are only two possible option/outcomess for this life. Choose for or against Christ. That which may seem to be middle ground is in fact a choice against Him. There are only two harvests every man will reap: those outside of Christ reap corruption, and those who have accepted His grace will reap everlasting life.
But then again you might not like what you watching a Con Game
Now on to other shocking news
They stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of an election they didn't vote in - CNN
But maybe not
I got a little flash for you, I ain't buyin. Possibly you think you'll be able to talk your way out of trouble when surety brings the day of reckoning? You mocked the Church here, and you've done it in the recent past.
I have friends and colleagues who are people of great faith and they are openly disgusted by prosperity scoundrels like Paula White, Kenneth Copeland, and Benny Hinn. All of these people have been exposed for duping believers. I mention this because I think vector was being critical of Paula and her association with 45 and not the Church in general. Just sayin'.
Yes and to that end I am totally with you Hound. Some folks are just born gullible and as such are easy marks for the charlatans out there. And as the Lord said, these guys/gals will always be around. Some even claiming to be the Christ. But those easy marks represent a small minority of the Church. Most Christians are sage, and many of those are dynamic thinkers grounded in reality. Like the Apostles for example.
But there has been an ongoing political rationale out there of which a flamboyant DJT is a showman flimflam man who has duped 75 million into voting for him. And it follows that those 75 million are glassy eyed cultists. Church going red necks wearing hunter orange, burping tobacco juice and talking through their noses about their latest 80 round clip acquisition. All of which is a reprehensible attempt by the left to form a narrative which links low IQ with a belief in God and an allegiance to Trump. Which of course is an affront to the entire Republican Party, but vastly more significantly, is just another miserable attempt of affront to the Lord Himself.
That is why I quoted God is not mocked. I apologize for the confusion
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
02-02-2021, 12:23 PM
(02-02-2021, 11:46 AM)TheRealThing Wrote:I have never questioned your sincerity in your faith. My friends and colleagues at school, like you, are very sincere and they live their lives as evidence of that sincerity. I do have a problem with the Paula Whites, however. I don't think she represents true believers well. Do you know who she is blaming now for the criticism that is coming at her? She is blaming the Church. It's not atheists, she says, but the Church.(02-01-2021, 08:25 PM)Old School Hound Wrote:(02-01-2021, 01:05 PM)vector#1 Wrote:
Trump's top advisor
People actually send her money. A president actually sought her advice. I actually watched that again.
No wonder people from other countries make fun of us . Even my friends and colleagues who are people of faith are embarrassed by these prosperity gospel scoundrels.
(02-01-2021, 07:58 PM)TheRealThing Wrote:(02-01-2021, 04:23 PM)vector#1 Wrote:(02-01-2021, 03:45 PM)TheRealThing Wrote: vector#First i am not mocking the church just the people the Dear Leader associates with maybe you should watch it and see for your self
1https://youtu.be/I4daeEacIVI
Trump's top advisor
^^ All men are created and as such ought to know better than to mock Christianity, and therefore the Lord Himself. There will always be people who purport to represent the cause of Christ, but do so in a way that invites the enemies of God to make fun. That said, I didn't listen to your video vector, because I refuse to take part in the shame of belittling the Church. The act of which BTW, brings with it the burden of eternal remorse.
But for those who would be foolish enough to actively mock the Church, the Lord has a few words---
Galatians chap 6
v7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
v8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
There are only two possible option/outcomess for this life. Choose for or against Christ. That which may seem to be middle ground is in fact a choice against Him. There are only two harvests every man will reap: those outside of Christ reap corruption, and those who have accepted His grace will reap everlasting life.
But then again you might not like what you watching a Con Game
Now on to other shocking news
They stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of an election they didn't vote in - CNN
But maybe not
I got a little flash for you, I ain't buyin. Possibly you think you'll be able to talk your way out of trouble when surety brings the day of reckoning? You mocked the Church here, and you've done it in the recent past.
I have friends and colleagues who are people of great faith and they are openly disgusted by prosperity scoundrels like Paula White, Kenneth Copeland, and Benny Hinn. All of these people have been exposed for duping believers. I mention this because I think vector was being critical of Paula and her association with 45 and not the Church in general. Just sayin'.
Yes and to that end I am totally with you Hound. Some folks are just born gullible and as such are easy marks for the charlatans out there. And as the Lord said, these guys/gals will always be around. Some even claiming to be the Christ. But those easy marks represent a small minority of the Church. Most Christians are sage, and many of those are dynamic thinkers grounded in reality. Like the Apostles for example.
But there has been an ongoing political rationale out there of which a flamboyant DJT is a showman flimflam man who has duped 75 million into voting for him. And it follows that those 75 million are glassy eyed cultists. Church going red necks wearing hunter orange, burping tobacco juice and talking through their noses about their latest 80 round clip acquisition. All of which is a reprehensible attempt by the left to form a narrative which links low IQ with a belief in God and an allegiance to Trump. Which of course is an affront to the entire Republican Party, but vastly more significantly, is just another miserable attempt of affront to the Lord Himself.
That is why I quoted God is not mocked. I apologize for the confusion
02-02-2021, 09:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2021, 09:25 PM by TheRealThing.)
(02-02-2021, 12:23 PM)Old School Hound Wrote:(02-02-2021, 11:46 AM)TheRealThing Wrote:I have never questioned your sincerity in your faith. My friends and colleagues at school, like you, are very sincere and they live their lives as evidence of that sincerity. I do have a problem with the Paula Whites, however. I don't think she represents true believers well. Do you know who she is blaming now for the criticism that is coming at her? She is blaming the Church. It's not atheists, she says, but the Church.(02-01-2021, 08:25 PM)Old School Hound Wrote:(02-01-2021, 01:05 PM)vector#1 Wrote:
Trump's top advisor
People actually send her money. A president actually sought her advice. I actually watched that again.
No wonder people from other countries make fun of us . Even my friends and colleagues who are people of faith are embarrassed by these prosperity gospel scoundrels.
(02-01-2021, 07:58 PM)TheRealThing Wrote:(02-01-2021, 04:23 PM)vector#1 Wrote: First i am not mocking the church just the people the Dear Leader associates with maybe you should watch it and see for your self
But then again you might not like what you watching a Con Game
Now on to other shocking news
They stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of an election they didn't vote in - CNN
But maybe not
I got a little flash for you, I ain't buyin. Possibly you think you'll be able to talk your way out of trouble when surety brings the day of reckoning? You mocked the Church here, and you've done it in the recent past.
I have friends and colleagues who are people of great faith and they are openly disgusted by prosperity scoundrels like Paula White, Kenneth Copeland, and Benny Hinn. All of these people have been exposed for duping believers. I mention this because I think vector was being critical of Paula and her association with 45 and not the Church in general. Just sayin'.
Yes and to that end I am totally with you Hound. Some folks are just born gullible and as such are easy marks for the charlatans out there. And as the Lord said, these guys/gals will always be around. Some even claiming to be the Christ. But those easy marks represent a small minority of the Church. Most Christians are sage, and many of those are dynamic thinkers grounded in reality. Like the Apostles for example.
But there has been an ongoing political rationale out there of which a flamboyant DJT is a showman flimflam man who has duped 75 million into voting for him. And it follows that those 75 million are glassy eyed cultists. Church going red necks wearing hunter orange, burping tobacco juice and talking through their noses about their latest 80 round clip acquisition. All of which is a reprehensible attempt by the left to form a narrative which links low IQ with a belief in God and an allegiance to Trump. Which of course is an affront to the entire Republican Party, but vastly more significantly, is just another miserable attempt of affront to the Lord Himself.
That is why I quoted God is not mocked. I apologize for the confusion
LOL. I heard Jimmy Swaggart one day about 30 years ago, talking about having car trouble and was stranded on the side of the road. So he got out and anointed his engine with oil, got back in, fired it back up and away he went. I don't think Swaggart or White and many others represent the true Church well at all.
But as I say, the Lord has warned me not to judge because He will take care of it. And obviously He allows it all to go on. My job is to warn people of the terrors soon to come and THE ONE ark of safety which of course, is the Son of God.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
02-02-2021, 10:49 PM
(02-02-2021, 09:24 PM)TheRealThing Wrote:(02-02-2021, 12:23 PM)Old School Hound Wrote:(02-02-2021, 11:46 AM)TheRealThing Wrote:I have never questioned your sincerity in your faith. My friends and colleagues at school, like you, are very sincere and they live their lives as evidence of that sincerity. I do have a problem with the Paula Whites, however. I don't think she represents true believers well. Do you know who she is blaming now for the criticism that is coming at her? She is blaming the Church. It's not atheists, she says, but the Church.(02-01-2021, 08:25 PM)Old School Hound Wrote:(02-01-2021, 01:05 PM)vector#1 Wrote:
Trump's top advisor
People actually send her money. A president actually sought her advice. I actually watched that again.
No wonder people from other countries make fun of us . Even my friends and colleagues who are people of faith are embarrassed by these prosperity gospel scoundrels.
(02-01-2021, 07:58 PM)TheRealThing Wrote: I got a little flash for you, I ain't buyin. Possibly you think you'll be able to talk your way out of trouble when surety brings the day of reckoning? You mocked the Church here, and you've done it in the recent past.
I have friends and colleagues who are people of great faith and they are openly disgusted by prosperity scoundrels like Paula White, Kenneth Copeland, and Benny Hinn. All of these people have been exposed for duping believers. I mention this because I think vector was being critical of Paula and her association with 45 and not the Church in general. Just sayin'.
Yes and to that end I am totally with you Hound. Some folks are just born gullible and as such are easy marks for the charlatans out there. And as the Lord said, these guys/gals will always be around. Some even claiming to be the Christ. But those easy marks represent a small minority of the Church. Most Christians are sage, and many of those are dynamic thinkers grounded in reality. Like the Apostles for example.
But there has been an ongoing political rationale out there of which a flamboyant DJT is a showman flimflam man who has duped 75 million into voting for him. And it follows that those 75 million are glassy eyed cultists. Church going red necks wearing hunter orange, burping tobacco juice and talking through their noses about their latest 80 round clip acquisition. All of which is a reprehensible attempt by the left to form a narrative which links low IQ with a belief in God and an allegiance to Trump. Which of course is an affront to the entire Republican Party, but vastly more significantly, is just another miserable attempt of affront to the Lord Himself.
That is why I quoted God is not mocked. I apologize for the confusion
LOL. I heard Jimmy Swaggart one day about 30 years ago, talking about having car trouble and was stranded on the side of the road. So he got out and anointed his engine with oil, got back in, fired it back up and away he went. I don't think Swaggart or White and many others represent the true Church well at all.
But as I say, the Lord has warned me not to judge because He will take care of it. And obviously He allows it all to go on. My job is to warn people of the terrors soon to come and THE ONE ark of safety which of course, is the Son of God.
I used to watch Swaggart about every week(before the prostitute thing). He was a very engaging speaker, very charismatic, and an extremely talented musician. I think his son Donnie does most of the preaching now. I remember he used to rail against the very things he was engaging in at the time. Really a shame because he was obviously blessed with a lot of gifts. Not many families include three people as supremely talented as Swaggart, Gilley, and Jerry Lee.
02-03-2021, 01:00 PM
(02-01-2021, 04:39 PM)jetpilot Wrote: [quote pid="2300837" dateline="1612205572"]
[quote pid="2300834" dateline="1612205023"]
LOL so of course you won't even take a stab at backing up your lie that there is enough evidence to convict. How did I know that in advance? Thanks for playing though.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Fellas, you act like you have been right about anything in this calendar year.
What's really funny is Trump wants to argue that he won the election and is still technically POTUS. That cuts the legs out of the argument that he can't be impeached because he is not in office (which you can ) Can't have both.
Hooter, remember criminal and civil cases won't be judged by cowards who want Trump's voters.
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
