Bluegrassrivals

Romney and McCain speaking at the DNC! Outrageous. Does McCain have a primary opponent?

Pick6 Wrote:Romney and McCain speaking at the DNC! Outrageous. Does McCain have a primary opponent?

Seems like a natural fit to me...

You mean they are not both democrats?

Bob Seger Wrote:Seems like a natural fit to me...

You mean they are not both democrats?

If Romney really wants to be President he should have changed his affiliation to Dem and run against Hillary in the primary. McCain is even worse, but he's getting a pretty stiff challenge from Paul Ryan. RINO's all.

TheRealThing Wrote:If Romney really wants to be President he should have changed his affiliation to Dem and run against Hillary in the primary. McCain is even worse, but he's getting a pretty stiff challenge from Paul Ryan. RINO's all.

Before Donald Trump said he was a RINO....

TheRealThing Wrote:A lot of people put him the same company as John McCain and Jeb Bush though, I do not. Romney was hard to get to know, in fact, I can't really say I knew him until late into his second run. Without belaboring already posted opinion, let's just say that to my way of thinking he was no RINO and would have made a very good President, both at home and for our interests abroad.

TheRealThing Wrote:Take for example Mitt Romney. A man of impeccable personal integrity and with a record as governor that bears the scrutiny of any reasonable interest. The best the libs/Dems could come up with when he ran was that he was a bully in high school, and that he was so rich he was out of touch with the working class. Never mind the fact that he was running against a guy who never held a job in his life, right? That little bit of fabricated dirt was all Mr Obama had to run on, as his record was abysmal even in 2012. So we saw that rather than address the issues, Dems instead made some stuff up about Mitt's character and dodged the record. Slam the other side. It happened to Kim Davis, Mitt Romney, Sharron Angle, and every other Republican who has run for office at the federal level since the Clinton era even though Republicans have been winning of late. I mean Obama even slammed Republicans when he spoke about the terror attacks in Paris, France. And yet, you're still going to hear the talking heads on FOX and the rest say that both sides do it, despite the fact that Republicans seldom make up lies to slam the Dems with.

At the time I made those posts I was lamenting on our misfortunes in having to deal with Barack Obama. If anything these days, he is much worse, and I worry about regulations and executive orders. The contrast would have been between those two and hindsight being 20/20, if I could have somehow magically installed Mitt into the Oval Office I would not have hesitated to do so, and as his tenure has become history, so much more even now.

But that was before Romney made a spectacle of himself as a #NeverTrump, openly trying to usurp the will of the people. I stuck up for Paul Ryan too before he bared his fangs. It's like I said, when I see people putting their own interests ahead of that of their country I get off their band wagon. In any case, I'm smart enough to recognize there is a difference between the proven record of Hillary, versus Donald Trump. If Hillary gets in you'll be lucky if you have enough money to raise a family in relative comfort.

None the less, I still say Romney would have been a much better President than Obama has been both at home and prosecuting our interests abroad. :dudecomeon:

TheRealThing Wrote:At the time I made those posts I was lamenting on our misfortunes in having to deal with Barack Obama. If anything these days, he is much worse, and I worry about regulations and executive orders. The contrast would have been between those two and hindsight being 20/20, if I could have somehow magically installed Mitt into the Oval Office I would not have hesitated to do so, and as his tenure has become history, so much more even now.

But that was before Romney made a spectacle of himself as a #NeverTrump, openly trying to usurp the will of the people. I stuck up for Paul Ryan too before he bared his fangs. It's like I said, when I see people putting their own interests ahead of that of their country I get off their band wagon. In any case, I'm smart enough to recognize there is a difference between the proven record of Hillary, versus Donald Trump. If Hillary gets in you'll be lucky if you have enough money to raise a family in relative comfort.

None the less, I still say Romney would have been a much better President than Obama has been both at home and prosecuting our interests abroad. :dudecomeon:

So it's okay to overturn the will of the people with Barack Obama....

But with Donald Trump, the will of the people is absolutely what matters. nicker:

And you also admit that it was Trump saying Romney was a RINO as to why you went against him.

WideRight05 Wrote:So it's okay to overturn the will of the people with Barack Obama....

But with Donald Trump, the will of the people is absolutely what matters. nicker:

And you also admit that it was Trump saying Romney was a RINO as to why you went against him.

You know, I've always felt I had reasonable command of the King's English. Where you are concerned however, it seems to me your attempts to communicate a thought are usually as vague as was the intended meaning of your having posted a picture of a corn dog over and over again. If Trump said Romney is a RINO I wasn't aware of it, but if you're trying to say anything else just spit it out.

You want to insult me I got that, but only because you put up the snicker icon, which was BTW, is the only part of your post that makes any sense.

TheRealThing Wrote:You know, I've always felt I had reasonable command of the King's English. Where you are concerned however, it seems to me your attempts to communicate a thought are usually as vague as was the intended meaning of your having posted a picture of a corn dog over and over again. If Trump said Romney is a RINO I wasn't aware of it, but if you're trying to say anything else just spit it out.

You want to insult me I got that, but only because you put up the snicker icon, which was BTW, is the only part of your post that makes any sense.

I just pointed out how you contradicted yourself. Read the bold. It's that simple.

[Image: why-you-mad-hoe-quotes-quotesgram-ZgGvlS-quote.jpg]

WideRight05 Wrote:I just pointed out how you contradicted yourself. Read the bold. It's that simple.

[Image: why-you-mad-hoe-quotes-quotesgram-ZgGvlS-quote.jpg]

What you posted is unintelligible, it's that simple.

But no, I don't need any help in understanding what I wrote. Neither do I need any help in understanding the changes in our country, or the ideological insanities that drive those responsible for having made those changes. Especially during the past 8 years. What I said was that past your intent to insult me, I no more get the point of your post than I do the deal with pictures of corn dogs. But as you know, I always appreciate the opportunity to express my opinions. And in this case as they may contrast to the times, Romney and McCain and especially Ryan, were doing a much better job of disguising their true agendas back then. Taking that into consideration, and though I don't know what you were trying to say, (that might make two of us) I can post the following.

I changed my mind about the motives of McCain, Romney and Ryan, because they have since proven themselves to support certain social justice policies of the left. And BTW, I make no apology for having the smarts to see what lies before us. Unlike Libertarians and their ilk, I see no middle ground from which one can lay back and take pot shots at the political system, thusly claiming to be too good to participate because in the minds of such, they are above the system. Recognizing the intentions of those who intend to flush their vote by voting for someone who has no chance of winning, say Daffy Duck for example, Democrats think they can therefore level the playing field by parlaying the afore mentioned percentage with their own decaying base in saying that both candidates have soaring negatives. Ironically there is precedent to the madness because Reid used the technique when he blamed Republicans for the Congressional gridlock he over which he presided. And why would they say such a thing about their own candidate? Just ask yourself which one of the candidates is being investigated by the US Congress and the FBI? And we can only guess what the CIA is doing. Thus the Dems were put in a position that they had to bring down whomever the Republicans would have nominated, because there is just no way to bring Hillary's reputation up. Even during the Dems own convention we saw the birth of yet another email scandal. One last point about emails, if Hillary's 33,000 deleted emails were just about yoga classes, (like Bill and Loretta's clandestine tarmac rendezvous was about golf), why did Leon Panetta insist that had Russia hacked them, it would pose significant threat to our national security?

But back to the real problem, and the inescapable prerequisite assumption as to the identity of the occupant of the Oval Office on January 20, 2017. It will be, no matter how efficient the third railers get at burying their heads in the sand, or how rapier their meaningless asides wax, Hillary or Trump. No other candidate has a ghost of a chance. I mean, I've heard people sit in sports bars and criticize both teams while making snide but faux intellectual remarks as they order another beer. It just sounds so cool. But the outcome of this Presidential election is a situation which is a bit more intense. In 1984 Ronald Reagan asked the people of the US to "Stay the course." During his speech before the DNC Obama declared to all, "Let's keep it going!" If Hillary is elected she will keep the Obama era going. Taxes will go out of sight, so will the staggeringly unacceptable abortions total and the associated tax dollar funding, the electrical grid will continue to erode, ObamaCare will get a big reprieve and you will pay for it, fossil fuels will disappear, along with skyrocketing natural gas prices due to the coming ban on fracking, some form of gun control, the effectiveness of cops and the military will continue slide, and on and on. I saw it all go down the last time they were in the White House.

There will be no safe haven from which one can sit back and feel superior or enlightened. The affect of lawlessness and open borders will wash away all remaining vestiges of normalcy, and you will pay for it all, because you have a job. To get more of your money all Hill has to do is write another reg, or get Congress to pass another tax. And since it is the President who decides who fills the agencies that govern such matters, if it is Hillary who winds up sitting the captain's chair, the status quo is assured.

TheRealThing Wrote:What you posted is unintelligible, it's that simple.

But no, I don't need any help in understanding what I wrote. Neither do I need any help in understanding the changes in our country, or the ideological insanities that drive those responsible for having made those changes. Especially during the past 8 years. What I said was that past your intent to insult me, I no more get the point of your post than I do the deal with pictures of corn dogs. But as you know, I always appreciate the opportunity to express my opinions. And in this case as they may contrast to the times, Romney and McCain and especially Ryan, were doing a much better job of disguising their true agendas back then. Taking that into consideration, and though I don't know what you were trying to say, (that might make two of us) I can post the following.

I changed my mind about the motives of McCain, Romney and Ryan, because they have since proven themselves to support certain social justice policies of the left. And BTW, I make no apology for having the smarts to see what lies before us. Unlike Libertarians and their ilk, I see no middle ground from which one can lay back and take pot shots at the political system, thusly claiming to be too good to participate because in the minds of such, they are above the system. Recognizing the intentions of those who intend to flush their vote by voting for someone who has no chance of winning, say Daffy Duck for example, Democrats think they can therefore level the playing field by parlaying the afore mentioned percentage with their own decaying base in saying that both candidates have soaring negatives. Ironically there is precedent to the madness because Reid used the technique when he blamed Republicans for the Congressional gridlock he over which he presided. And why would they say such a thing about their own candidate? Just ask yourself which one of the candidates is being investigated by the US Congress and the FBI? And we can only guess what the CIA is doing. Thus the Dems were put in a position that they had to bring down whomever the Republicans would have nominated, because there is just no way to bring Hillary's reputation up. Even during the Dems own convention we saw the birth of yet another email scandal. One last point about emails, if Hillary's 33,000 deleted emails were just about yoga classes, (like Bill and Loretta's clandestine tarmac rendezvous was about golf), why did Leon Panetta insist that had Russia hacked them, it would pose significant threat to our national security?

But back to the real problem, and the inescapable prerequisite assumption as to the identity of the occupant of the Oval Office on January 20, 2017. It will be, no matter how efficient the third railers get at burying their heads in the sand, or how rapier their meaningless asides wax, Hillary or Trump. No other candidate has a ghost of a chance. I mean, I've heard people sit in sports bars and criticize both teams while making snide but faux intellectual remarks as they order another beer. It just sounds so cool. But the outcome of this Presidential election is a situation which is a bit more intense. In 1984 Ronald Reagan asked the people of the US to "Stay the course." During his speech before the DNC Obama declared to all, "Let's keep it going!" If Hillary is elected she will keep the Obama era going. Taxes will go out of sight, so will the staggeringly unacceptable abortions total and the associated tax dollar funding, the electrical grid will continue to erode, ObamaCare will get a big reprieve and you will pay for it, fossil fuels will disappear, along with skyrocketing natural gas prices due to the coming ban on fracking, some form of gun control, the effectiveness of cops and the military will continue slide, and on and on. I saw it all go down the last time they were in the White House.

There will be no safe haven from which one can sit back and feel superior or enlightened. The affect of lawlessness and open borders will wash away all remaining vestiges of normalcy, and you will pay for it all, because you have a job. To get more of your money all Hill has to do is write another reg, or get Congress to pass another tax. And since it is the President who decides who fills the agencies that govern such matters, if it is Hillary who winds up sitting the captain's chair, the status quo is assured.

I understand what you're talking about there, but that's not what I was hitting at. There's no possible way you missed what I placed in my prior post, so you're dismissing it as a vague insult so you don't have to defend yourself. The point of which I made, is to point out your contradiction in you saying that if you could have magically taken out Barack Obama and replaced him with Mitt Romney, you would have. Then you go on to bash Romney for "openly trying to usurp the will of the people" and that you get off the bandwagon of anybody who tries to put their own interests ahead of the country.

You first talk about how you would usurp the will of the people and put Mitt Romney in Barack Obama's place as President. Then you go on a rant against Romney because he tried to usurp the will of the people with Donald Trump.

WideRight05 Wrote:I understand what you're talking about there, but that's not what I was hitting at. There's no possible way you missed what I placed in my prior post, so you're dismissing it as a vague insult so you don't have to defend yourself. The point of which I made, is to point out your contradiction in you saying that if you could have magically taken out Barack Obama and replaced him with Mitt Romney, you would have. Then you go on to bash Romney for "openly trying to usurp the will of the people" and that you get off the bandwagon of anybody who tries to put their own interests ahead of the country.

You first talk about how you would usurp the will of the people and put Mitt Romney in Barack Obama's place as President. Then you go on a rant against Romney because he tried to usurp the will of the people with Donald Trump.

I told you that was a lament and as such was meant as a hypothetical. IMO Romney warts and all, would have been light years better than Obama and his stepmom. I did miss your meaning because you're not quite as articulate as you might imagine. For example, my one liner about Romney was anything but a rant, as you called it.

If you will recall, I posted my submission to the reality of accepting the people's will this coming November. In fact, when Romney got beat in 2012, I said it was a jaw dropping attention getter because the people spoke that time too. In the last couple of days, I went on to frame our present circumstance in a 'going down the drain' analogy, holding out hope that the US is out in the slow moving calmer waters, rather than the fast moving and inescapable vortex. Which to me would mean if the people elect Trump, they have turned from their own selfish rebellion. I recognize that every vote counts, and can tell the difference from a valid vote and one flushed. Which takes us to the coup de gras of world leader placements and events associated thereto. And that is the fact that the Lord is the One Who has His finger on the button and if nothing else, I'd know better than to go against His sovereignty. Again, I was lamenting the fact that I believe we are going down the drain. In light of that then, IMHO, no one can play it safe or hedge his bet and just be a conscientious objector by opting out of the big tickets. The stakes are too high.

But you always keep it secular and in that you keep dodging the real issue along those lines. There are two ways a person can vote for Hillary this November. Vote the Democrat ticket outright, or vote for a third railer, both amount to exactly the same thing. FTR, there is a big difference in being mad and engaging in the conversation of which you and I have been involved.

TheRealThing Wrote:I told you that was a lament and as such was meant as a hypothetical. IMO Romney warts and all, would have been light years better than Obama and his stepmom. I did miss your meaning because you're not quite as articulate as you might imagine. For example, my one liner about Romney was anything but a rant, as you called it.

If you will recall, I posted my submission to the reality of accepting the people's will this coming November. In fact, when Romney got beat in 2012, I said it was a jaw dropping attention getter because the people spoke that time too. In the last couple of days, I went on to frame our present circumstance in a 'going down the drain' analogy, holding out hope that the US is out in the slow moving calmer waters, rather than the fast moving and inescapable vortex. Which to me would mean if the people elect Trump, they have turned from their own selfish rebellion. I recognize that every vote counts, and can tell the difference from a valid vote and one flushed. Which takes us to the coup de gras of world leader placements and events associated thereto. And that is the fact that the Lord is the One Who has His finger on the button and if nothing else, I'd know better than to go against His sovereignty. Again, I was lamenting the fact that I believe we are going down the drain. In light of that then, IMHO, no one can play it safe or hedge his bet and just be a conscientious objector by opting out of the big tickets. The stakes are too high.

But you always keep it secular and in that you keep dodging the real issue along those lines. There are two ways a person can vote for Hillary this November. Vote the Democrat ticket outright, or vote for a third railer, both amount to exactly the same thing. FTR, there is a big difference in being mad and engaging in the conversation of which you and I have been involved.

Four years of reading my posts, and now all of a sudden you bring up how I articulate?

Just admit it TRT, you contradicted yourself and you got busted!

You seriously said that if people elect Trump, they will have turned from their own selfish rebellion? Oh man. Look, what has the whole Trump movement been based on? Rebellion!!

There is one way a person can vote for Hillary. That is going to the ballot box and checking her name. You might do that, but I’m sure not going to. The whole argument is nonsense. Hillary supporters are saying the same thing about Donald Trump. So I must be casting a vote for Trump since I’m voting for the only conservative running, Darrell Castle.

WideRight05 Wrote:Four years of reading my posts, and now all of a sudden you bring up how I articulate?

Just admit it TRT, you contradicted yourself and you got busted!

You seriously said that if people elect Trump, they will have turned from their own selfish rebellion? Oh man. Look, what has the whole Trump movement been based on? Rebellion!!

There is one way a person can vote for Hillary. That is going to the ballot box and checking her name. You might do that, but I’m sure not going to. The whole argument is nonsense. Hillary supporters are saying the same thing about Donald Trump. So I must be casting a vote for Trump since I’m voting for the only conservative running, Darrell Castle.

Somehow I think I'll manage to pull through the awful agony of your revelation about me. The façade of many politicians is an act, they contradict themselves when the truth comes out and their hypocrisy is exposed. I will admit to being wrong about their true agendas.

The Trump movement has been based on people being fed up with the lies, the crushing weight of ObamaCare, unemployment and the vanishing middle class, which is of course, a direct correlation of the fact that we've used up every last dime in the US Treasury, epic racial divide, the horror of terror on US streets and facilities, the gunned down cops and ricocheting emails. I admit in order to understand that, one would need the necessary measure of discernment in the first place. But you make a valid point that I believe deserves to be highlighted. The negativity about Trump is the work product of the rabid chipmunks there at the DNC who can see the handwriting plainly written on the wall. "IF TRUMP GETS ELECTED YOU CAN KISS ALL THE LIBERAL PROGRESS MADE DURING THE LAST 8 YEARS GOODBYE!!" It is as I said it would be, they were shocked when Trump won and they're terrified and so desperate to win, they will say anything. You like so many, are content to make arguments against Trump which are largely based in the propaganda that you evidently have been fed.

Time to take the red pill there Wide.

⬆⬆ It is not "mere propoganda" to monitor Mr. Trump's method of interaction and have concern if that were to be Presidential demeanor. It is not "mere propoganda" to have a thought about tax returns and customary practice discarded. It is not "mere propoganda" to cast a skeptical eye on business practices at odds with policies upheld or criticized. Donald Trump the man is certainly a "pause for thought" personality. One needs no "DNC" fact sheet to at least have a rising of concern in these areas.

TheRealThing Wrote:Somehow I think I'll manage to pull through the awful agony of your revelation about me. The façade of many politicians is an act, they contradict themselves when the truth comes out and their hypocrisy is exposed. I will admit to being wrong about their true agendas.

The Trump movement has been based on people being fed up with the lies, the crushing weight of ObamaCare, unemployment and the vanishing middle class, which is of course, a direct correlation of the fact that we've used up every last dime in the US Treasury, epic racial divide, the horror of terror on US streets and facilities, the gunned down cops and ricocheting emails. I admit in order to understand that, one would need the necessary measure of discernment in the first place. But you make a valid point that I believe deserves to be highlighted. The negativity about Trump is the work product of the rabid chipmunks there at the DNC who can see the handwriting plainly written on the wall. "IF TRUMP GETS ELECTED YOU CAN KISS ALL THE LIBERAL PROGRESS MADE DURING THE LAST 8 YEARS GOODBYE!!" It is as I said it would be, they were shocked when Trump won and they're terrified and so desperate to win, they will say anything. You like so many, are content to make arguments against Trump which are largely based in the propaganda that you evidently have been fed.

Time to take the red pill there Wide.

The fact that you’re trying to imply that I get my info from some DNC propaganda machine, man if anybody needs a pill it’s you. You’re the one that used an article from CNBC recently to try to back up one of your claims about Trump. DNC propaganda sources must only be okay if you're the one using them. :biglmao:

TheRealThing Wrote:"[Trump] loaned $50 million to the campaign. He's now forgiven that loan. So that is a contribution," said Steve Mnuchin. "[Trump] has also said he will contribute significantly more money."
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/23/trump-for...chief.html

How can anybody watch the Trump campaign, whether they’re watching his Twitter account or listening to his speeches, and then type with a straight face thinking that he’s running an honest campaign? The Trump movement is based on electing a candidate with a big mouth that can entertain them by posting insults on Twitter using less than 180 characters. It’s the result of our society being dumbed down, first it struck the Democratic Party and now it has struck both parties.

It doesn’t take being a liberal democrat to realize that Trump’s character is questionable, not to mention he is susceptible to flip-flopping on issues when it suits him. Evidentially, you are too blinded by Trump to notice that you are electing Hillary’s donor.

Time to take a good hard swallow of the pill of reality TRT.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:⬆⬆ It is not "mere propoganda" to monitor Mr. Trump's method of interaction and have concern if that were to be Presidential demeanor. It is not "mere propoganda" to have a thought about tax returns and customary practice discarded. It is not "mere propoganda" to cast a skeptical eye on business practices at odds with policies upheld or criticized. Donald Trump the man is certainly a "pause for thought" personality. One needs no "DNC" fact sheet to at least have a rising of concern in these areas.

None the less, much of what's being said is not true. I don't get the interaction deal, his job will be to faithfully execute the office of President. If there were anything thing for him to worry about, the IRS would have leaked something from the past. He's been audited every year for the past decade. His business practices are public knowledge so, no worries there to come out.

But, I can see why you'd be concerned. Especially when casting his foibles against the lily white record, totally free of controversy, of Hillary Clinton. :please:

WideRight05 Wrote:The fact that you’re trying to imply that I get my info from some DNC propaganda machine, man if anybody needs a pill it’s you. You’re the one that used an article from CNBC recently to try to back up one of your claims about Trump. :biglmao:



How can anybody watch the Trump campaign, whether they’re watching his Twitter account or listening to his speeches, and then type with a straight face thinking that he’s running an honest campaign? The Trump movement is based on electing a candidate with a big mouth that can entertain them by posting insults on Twitter using less than 180 characters. It’s the result of our society being dumbed down, first it struck the Democratic Party and now it has struck both parties.

It doesn’t take being a liberal democrat to realize that Trump’s character is questionable, not to mention he is susceptible to flip-flopping on issues when it suits him. Evidentially, you are too blinded by Trump to notice that you are electing Hillary’s donor.

Time to take a good hard swallow of the pill of reality TRT.

LOL, the laugh icon doesn't do a lot to make you look smarter. Sidestepping won't either. CNBC is no fan of Trump, how would citing his political foes to pad my argument be questionable?

TheRealThing Wrote:LOL, the laugh icon doesn't do a lot to make you look smarter. Sidestepping won't either. CNBC is no fan of Trump, how would citing his political foes to pad my argument be questionable?

I'm not surprised that the only part of my post you were able to comprehend was the smiley face. CNBC is a Democratic propaganda machine, is it not? So how would you know the article you posted has a lick of accuracy? Not to mention all the times you have used Breitbart as a source.

If anybody has been dodging post after post, it's been you. Dismiss it as vague, dismiss it as an insult, or propaganda. Anything to have to avoid defending yourself.

TheRealThing Wrote:None the less, much of what's being said is not true. I don't get the interaction deal, his job will be to faithfully execute the office of President. If there were anything thing for him to worry about, the IRS would have leaked something from the past. He's been audited every year for the past decade. His business practices are public knowledge so, no worries there to come out.

But, I can see why you'd be concerned. Especially when casting his foibles against the lily white record, totally free of controversy, of Hillary Clinton. :please:

This was not a point I made ("lily white HRC"). The demeanor of a President is vital in my view. The reactions of a United States President are monitored worldwide. Political correctness is not the issue here. From my reading, my guess would be Mr. Trump's wealth is exaggerated, as has been his charitable giving. Thus, tax returns are problematic. I am not really downing Trump as much as saying a conscientious voter has a lot to think about in Clinton v. Trump, in my view.

Putting up 60 million $ of your own cash AND refusing to take $ from the Koch brothers says more about Donald Trump than anything that comes out of his mouth. Folks want to put everything said under a microscope, but dismiss statements made by their actions.

No one will ever own Donald Trump. Even if you disagree with his policies, that fact alone should make him electable. Hillary is a compulsive liar and corrupt to the core. Given the DEM nomination was compromised, will the world even recognize her as POTUS? I see no comparable breach of trust or truth in Trump.

Pick6 Wrote:Putting up 60 million $ of your own cash AND refusing to take $ from the Koch brothers says more about Donald Trump than anything that comes out of his mouth. Folks want to put everything said under a microscope, but dismiss statements made by their actions.

No one will ever own Donald Trump. Even if you disagree with his policies, that fact alone should make him electable. Hillary is a compulsive liar and corrupt to the core. Given the DEM nomination was compromised, will the world even recognize her as POTUS? I see no comparable breach of trust or truth in Trump.

According to Reuters, that $60 million is a pretty sketchy figure. If I understand your logic here, then only an uber rich person can truly be an independent thinker as a politician. Also, this ignores the issue that an "unowned" candidate may well have poor ideas and dubious policies. For the conscientious voter, there is a lot to sort through in Clinton v. Trump.

Voters of faith have no such dilemma. With HRC as POTUS, this country takes a big step towards socialism and financial insolvency,

Pick6 Wrote:Voters of faith have no such dilemma. With HRC as POTUS, this country takes a big step towards socialism and financial insolvency,

Are you suggesting that a true Christian cannot vote for HRC?

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Are you suggesting that a true Christian cannot vote for HRC?

If he's not saying it, I AM.

Correct. Women have a right to choose - to NOT HAVE SEX!



Psalm 139:13-16
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Jeremiah 1:5
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Psalm 127:3-5
3 Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him. 4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. 5 Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court.
Genesis 1:27
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Psalm 8:5-7
5 You have made them a little lower than the angelsand crowned them with glory and honor. 6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet: 7 all flocks and herds, and the animals of the wild,
Job 31:15
15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?
Psalm 22:10
10 From birth I was cast on you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Isaiah 49:15

15 “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!

Pick6 Wrote:Correct. Women have a right to choose - to NOT HAVE SEX!

Further, you are, then, saying a true Christian cannot be a Democrat, correct?

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Further, you are, then, saying a true Christian cannot be a Democrat, correct?

Not if you are fully supporting, condoing, or defending the current modern democratic party platform.

JMO

I don't see how anybody can call themselves a Christian and vote Democrat on a national level due to their open support of the slaughter of the unborn and relentless promotion of LGBT "rights." See the video at the convention where a woman practically brags about her abortion to a sickening applause. Maybe on a state/local level it might be okay at times, where some Democrats tend to lean more conservative on those issues. Even there I'm hesitant most of the time though. But I would never vote for a candidate like Hillary Clinton and I don't see how anyone who calls themselves Christian could.

With that being said, it sickens me to see Trump supporters trying to use that to scare people into a vote for Donald Trump. I understand people like Bob Seger didn't support Trump in the primary but who feel morally obligated to vote against Hillary Clinton to keep her out, but I have a tough time taking anyone seriously who says that and voted for Trump in the primary. You had several options, George Pataki being the only exception, that would have defended life, marriage, and liberty on a much bigger scale and are much less controversial from a moral standpoint. I have a tough time taking anybody seriously who voted for Donald Trump over all those other candidates and then tries to go around and use Christianity to get people to vote for him in the general.