Thread Rating:
01-15-2016, 06:33 AM
Tremendous debate tonight, with very little in the way filibustering. Even Kasich was tolerable tonight. And with Fiorina down in the second tier, that left only one candidate out of place. Jeb Bush.
It was hard for me to believe Jeb had the courage to take on Trump where it comes to trade with China. He actually cited the same old tired and failed measures of the past twenty years as evidence that he (Bush) was the consummate expert on trade with China. :please: I mean, if what we've been doing is so right, why is China handing us our financial rear ends? Later Bush actually tried to jump on Trump again with regard to immigration. If I'd have been Trump I would have landed on him like a 747 in recalling his assertion that violators of federal immigration laws are not committing crimes, they are guilty only of "acts of love." Really there Jeb? Neil Cavuto just interviewed Jeb and by all indications, he thinks he won the debate. :eyeroll:
Cruz was never the same after he tried to defend himself on the "New Yorker values" comment. Trump tap danced all over him on that one, recalling vividly the heroic acts of sacrifice and patriotism that characterized the people of New York as they met and prevailed against the awful acts of terror on 9/11. Cruz did some damage to himself tonight, though I do not believe he dealt himself a killing blow in any way. And I thought he handled Rubio very well BTW.
It was hard for me to believe Jeb had the courage to take on Trump where it comes to trade with China. He actually cited the same old tired and failed measures of the past twenty years as evidence that he (Bush) was the consummate expert on trade with China. :please: I mean, if what we've been doing is so right, why is China handing us our financial rear ends? Later Bush actually tried to jump on Trump again with regard to immigration. If I'd have been Trump I would have landed on him like a 747 in recalling his assertion that violators of federal immigration laws are not committing crimes, they are guilty only of "acts of love." Really there Jeb? Neil Cavuto just interviewed Jeb and by all indications, he thinks he won the debate. :eyeroll:
Cruz was never the same after he tried to defend himself on the "New Yorker values" comment. Trump tap danced all over him on that one, recalling vividly the heroic acts of sacrifice and patriotism that characterized the people of New York as they met and prevailed against the awful acts of terror on 9/11. Cruz did some damage to himself tonight, though I do not believe he dealt himself a killing blow in any way. And I thought he handled Rubio very well BTW.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
01-15-2016, 06:55 AM
I will not be supporting Donald Trump because he is untrustworthy, IMO. His slimey birther attacks on Cruz were the last straw for me and I thought Cruz destroyed Trump in that exchange. Trump is just another RINO playing the part of a conservative to win the nomination. He says many of the right things but he has a long history of supporting liberal politicians and positions and his conversion to a conservative with no track record is a little bit too convenient.
I will be supporting a candidate who has not written large checks to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Mitch McConnell. I hope that means that I will be able to cast a vote for a Republican in the general election, but if I have to turn to a third party, then so be it. Trump is an arrogant jerk who does not have a conservative track record. We have suffered through seven years under the tyranny of an arrogant jerk with no appreciation for the U.S. Constitution. Four more years would be four too many.
I will be supporting a candidate who has not written large checks to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Mitch McConnell. I hope that means that I will be able to cast a vote for a Republican in the general election, but if I have to turn to a third party, then so be it. Trump is an arrogant jerk who does not have a conservative track record. We have suffered through seven years under the tyranny of an arrogant jerk with no appreciation for the U.S. Constitution. Four more years would be four too many.
01-15-2016, 02:51 PM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I will not be supporting Donald Trump because he is untrustworthy, IMO. His slimey birther attacks on Cruz were the last straw for me and I thought Cruz destroyed Trump in that exchange. Trump is just another RINO playing the part of a conservative to win the nomination. He says many of the right things but he has a long history of supporting liberal politicians and positions and his conversion to a conservative with no track record is a little bit too convenient.
I will be supporting a candidate who has not written large checks to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Mitch McConnell. I hope that means that I will be able to cast a vote for a Republican in the general election, but if I have to turn to a third party, then so be it. Trump is an arrogant jerk who does not have a conservative track record. We have suffered through seven years under the tyranny of an arrogant jerk with no appreciation for the U.S. Constitution. Four more years would be four too many.
You're actually comparing Trump to Obama? Trump is right to point out that Democrats are threatening to sue Cruz over the eligibility question, and he's doing Cruz a favor in forcing him out in front of it now before it can hurt his primary chances. And let us not forget that it is the Dems who are making the threat, not Trump. Trump has done us all a favor in fact, the so-called anger of the voter if you ask me is more about the mealy mouthing ambiguities, cowardice in high places in the face of negotiations, and fading financial well being of the middle class more than anything else. And if not for Trump we'd still be doing the Potomac Two Step to the same old politically correct dirges on the debate stage and elsewhere. Is Rubio lying, or does Cruz team up with Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul to vote against Military spending bills?
Not to mention that where Hillary is concerned, Trump deflated her (and Billy Boy I might add) right off the bat. Nobody's perfect, and I'm not trying to diminish Cruz. And in saying that, you mention 7 years of tyranny about which you know I am in agreement. I am just as concerned about the 7 years of military abuses and foes that are up on their nuclear high horses. This is not the time to keep slashing and downsizing the military.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-15-2016, 04:04 PM
Debates in this type of format do very little to impact a person's decision just because it's hard to have a debate with that many people on the stage, even though the crowd trimmed a I don't think anybody gained major ground. If anybody was hurt from it, I feel like Carson and Kasich were because it felt like they did not get the same amount of air time as some of the other candidates - although they did have some good lines. I laughed at Kasich's funny comments about the GOP beating Bernie Sanders should he win the Democratic primary.
Jeb didn't do bad, but I didn't see anything from him overly catchy and he sounded like a typical politician most of the time. I was hoping to see him and Trump go at it a few times (yeah, I admit it - I know it's bad, but I like the comedy!) but it disappointed me that they didn't have any big exchanges except for maybe once.
Christie's performances are at his best when he's aggressive and authoritative. He established himself a couple of times and really stood out. I'm not a Christie guy, but he did have a couple good lines in his message to Barack Obama.
This was the first time we were able to see Cruz and Trump go at it. I didn't agree with Trump about the issue relating to the birth certificate because Cruz has been a lot more open about it than Obama has, but I anticipate the media will make this an issue if he does win so it's good to be ready to defend it continually. Hillary Clinton made it a big issue in the 2008 Democratic primaries for Barack Obama and it continued to be an issue for him throughout his campaign both in the primaries and the general election. The difference with this one will be that should Cruz win the primaries, this will be brought up non-stop by the mainstream media unlike it was with Barack Obama. Cruz came out hammering when asked that and Trump responded well. I thought Cruz's response both to Trump and to the moderators were good. I anticipate Trump bringing it up several more times throughout the campaign.
The second major issue that came up between Cruz and Trump was the comment about New York values that Cruz made. I thought Cruz handled it well and from reading comments on articles from The Blaze and Breitbart, a good majority of conservatives believe he did too. Cruz pointed out the NY values of Manhattan in that is a big area for liberalism with strong support for social issues such as abortion or redefining marriage. In other words, Cruz was saying that since Trump comes from a liberal ground in NY where a lot of Republicans are more moderate, he could very well be that same kind of candidate and not the true conservative we need. Trump responded by talking about 9/11 and the work that people did volunteering and cleaning the area after that horrific disaster, using that against Cruz in his argument.
Where Trump comes from isn't a big deal to me even if it's a liberal area, although I do have suspicions about his views on abortion and his definition of marriage. Overall, I would call that one a draw as well. Cruz I thought illustrated and reminded about liberal NY values and that Trump could potentially be more moderate than some of the others, whereas Trump had a strong response with 9/11. The comment is a non-issue to me, but Cruz did have a point about the potential for him to lean moderate/liberal on a couple of the major issues.
Lastly, Rubio. He came out swinging. I think he brought up a lot of false statements though. I didn't fact check him, but he certainly made an effort to twist Cruz's position on immigration which I thought Cruz handled well. He also went after Christie on guns, but Christie had a strong response. Rubio did have a couple good points throughout the debate, but I don't think he helped himself.
Jeb didn't do bad, but I didn't see anything from him overly catchy and he sounded like a typical politician most of the time. I was hoping to see him and Trump go at it a few times (yeah, I admit it - I know it's bad, but I like the comedy!) but it disappointed me that they didn't have any big exchanges except for maybe once.
Christie's performances are at his best when he's aggressive and authoritative. He established himself a couple of times and really stood out. I'm not a Christie guy, but he did have a couple good lines in his message to Barack Obama.
This was the first time we were able to see Cruz and Trump go at it. I didn't agree with Trump about the issue relating to the birth certificate because Cruz has been a lot more open about it than Obama has, but I anticipate the media will make this an issue if he does win so it's good to be ready to defend it continually. Hillary Clinton made it a big issue in the 2008 Democratic primaries for Barack Obama and it continued to be an issue for him throughout his campaign both in the primaries and the general election. The difference with this one will be that should Cruz win the primaries, this will be brought up non-stop by the mainstream media unlike it was with Barack Obama. Cruz came out hammering when asked that and Trump responded well. I thought Cruz's response both to Trump and to the moderators were good. I anticipate Trump bringing it up several more times throughout the campaign.
The second major issue that came up between Cruz and Trump was the comment about New York values that Cruz made. I thought Cruz handled it well and from reading comments on articles from The Blaze and Breitbart, a good majority of conservatives believe he did too. Cruz pointed out the NY values of Manhattan in that is a big area for liberalism with strong support for social issues such as abortion or redefining marriage. In other words, Cruz was saying that since Trump comes from a liberal ground in NY where a lot of Republicans are more moderate, he could very well be that same kind of candidate and not the true conservative we need. Trump responded by talking about 9/11 and the work that people did volunteering and cleaning the area after that horrific disaster, using that against Cruz in his argument.
Where Trump comes from isn't a big deal to me even if it's a liberal area, although I do have suspicions about his views on abortion and his definition of marriage. Overall, I would call that one a draw as well. Cruz I thought illustrated and reminded about liberal NY values and that Trump could potentially be more moderate than some of the others, whereas Trump had a strong response with 9/11. The comment is a non-issue to me, but Cruz did have a point about the potential for him to lean moderate/liberal on a couple of the major issues.
Lastly, Rubio. He came out swinging. I think he brought up a lot of false statements though. I didn't fact check him, but he certainly made an effort to twist Cruz's position on immigration which I thought Cruz handled well. He also went after Christie on guns, but Christie had a strong response. Rubio did have a couple good points throughout the debate, but I don't think he helped himself.
01-15-2016, 05:06 PM
After last night, i'm not sure why anyone other than Trump, Cruz, and Rubio is even still considering a run. Too me, those three have moved far and beyond everyone else. I'm not sure what i can say that everyone else hasn't already said. I do agree however that Cruz needs to face the birther issue now, after what Obama faced about this issue, you better believe Cruz will get hammered as well. IMO, there's nothing wrong with what Trump said about it, just get it out and get it taken care of now instead of later.
I also seen a split screen this morning with Trump and Haley. It was showing her watching the debate while Trump was talking about her response. Of course, her side of the screen was glaring from her teeth that was so freaking bright. I thought he handled that well also, saying he was angry, he's saying what others are thinking about our government, and while some may call it brash, i love it.
Like WideRight i'm interested to hear Trumps views on abortion and marriage. I'm sure it will eventually come up...
I also seen a split screen this morning with Trump and Haley. It was showing her watching the debate while Trump was talking about her response. Of course, her side of the screen was glaring from her teeth that was so freaking bright. I thought he handled that well also, saying he was angry, he's saying what others are thinking about our government, and while some may call it brash, i love it.
Like WideRight i'm interested to hear Trumps views on abortion and marriage. I'm sure it will eventually come up...
01-15-2016, 06:45 PM
Donald Trump has discussed both issues of abortion and marriage redefinition a few times, I will post my thoughts below.
I do think Trump does have consideration to help Christians. He did state on twitter when he started his campaign that Christians have been treated badly. I watched the opening to his rally in Pensacola, Florida, and liked that the opening came from a Christian pastor who both prayed to God and concluded the prayer in the name of Jesus. Sometimes (especially on the Democratic side) you will see "pastors" who act afraid to mention Jesus. He also stated via twitter that the problem was where Christians didn't have anybody to represent them and that he would be the best representative Christians have had in a long time. I'm not sure really how much he believes in it himself (and only God can tell that, I sure can't) and my alarm doesn't stem so much from his positions, but more from how he stumbles around when being asked questions about The Bible.
There are videos of him on YouTube talking about the major social issues, the one that I am suspicious is a couple years ago when Trump was interviewed by Howard Stern about abortion and marriage redefinition. Trump mentioned how the public has swung in favor of redefining marriage and stated that the number will probably continue to increase. Stern said something to the tune of, "I know you Donald...you're a social liberal." Trump stumbled through his words and didn't make a huge effort to fight that.
Relating to abortion, he did state in an interview in 1999 (parts of which I watched) that he was pro-choice, but that he did say that he hated the concept of abortion. The past five or so years, he has been consistent at stating that he is pro-life with the exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother.
Relating to religious liberty, Trump has stated he has been for it. I am yet to find comments about whether the baker, florist, or wedding chapel owner who has Biblical beliefs should participate in a mock wedding. I think he has been very careful to not tread on those waters. Pope Francis visited the United States a while back, and even Barack Obama gloated that he cherished religious liberty. So the definition of religious liberty may be different to Donald Trump than it is to say, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio who have been consistent in defending people who are under attack for living out their Biblical beliefs.
Relating to redefining marriage, it hasn't been a big issue for Trump, but he is on record multiple times stating that he is for traditional marriage. His stance has been the typical one we have seen from people such as John Kasich who disagree with the SCOTUS decision, but want us to move on. When Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Trump didn't defend her. He said that she needed to comply with the law. Ted Cruz went right on the air and said that he stood unequivocally with Kim Davis.
Donald Trump seems to be in consistent support for amending the civil rights act to include "sexual orientation" as part of it when it comes to discrimination. While that may seem like a good thing in protecting them from say, being denied food because they're gay, these laws have been used to punish people who believe in Biblical marriage. For example, in Australia The Catholic Church is under fire from the government for distributing "harmful" pamphlets throughout their schools.
We just saw where a Catholic school in Massachusetts was forced to hire someone that did not adhere to Church doctrine because of an "anti-discrimination" law. A fire chief in Atlanta, GA lost his job for distributing a book with references to homosexuality. We will definitely see many more instances like this if Trump pushes a so-called "anti-discrimination" law for LGBT people.
The Human Rights Campaign considers Trump one of the better Republican candidates for LGBT people. One of the directors of the Log Cabin Republicans, a socially liberal group, called Trump one of the best pro-gay Republican candidates to ever run for the presidency.
Trump is tough, aggressive, and confident when being asked about issues such as immigration or the economy. When it comes to abortion or marriage redefinition, he often stumbles around his answers. Given that the debates will likely be between 2 - 4 candidates soon, I anticipate that will be a vulnerable area for him.
One moment from the second debate a while back that caught my eye was when Donald Trump and Jeb Bush were debating. Bush is against casino gambling, Donald Trump owns casinos so it's pretty obvious he's for it. Bush claimed that Trump tried to persuade him to vote for casino gambling when he was governor of Florida. Trump quickly denied this, but I do believe what Bush was saying just because of the fact that Trump owns casinos and I'm sure he would be able to make a lot of money opening a few in Florida. And I'm no Jeb Bush fan.
My major issue with Trump when it comes to social issues is his ability to make wise decisions appointing judges that are pro-life and defend traditional marriage and religious liberty. I could see him passing up one or both of those issues because he doesn't seem to acknowledge that they're a big priority. Republicans had control of the presidency for 20 of 24 years between 1968 and 1992 and produced more judges that defended Roe v. Wade (Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Anthony Kennedy) than fought against it (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, William Rehnquist). Thus, the importance of wisely appointing judges is crucial to me. That's one of the reasons I am for Cruz, because he has been very consistent on these issues and I would trust him to appoint judges who are trustworthy. Given that Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and Scalia are all approaching 80, we could see retirements this term to the point where the next POTUS would have to replace four judges in their first term.
I don't have anything personal against Trump, I do think he has done a great job in eliminating the Republicans such as Jeb Bush who cave toward the realm of political correctness. He has done a great job in waking up the party and getting them to stop pandering to the media and apologizing for what they believe in. How many times has a Republican made a comment similar to Trump and lost his campaign? Quite a bit. Oftentimes the Republican will apologize and then quickly back off. It's disappointing to see so many people cave. I do hope that Republicans take after Trump when it comes to standing up to the media and to others who attack them. My stance on Trump is that I will support him if he wins, but I really hope we see Ted Cruz pull it out.
I do think Trump does have consideration to help Christians. He did state on twitter when he started his campaign that Christians have been treated badly. I watched the opening to his rally in Pensacola, Florida, and liked that the opening came from a Christian pastor who both prayed to God and concluded the prayer in the name of Jesus. Sometimes (especially on the Democratic side) you will see "pastors" who act afraid to mention Jesus. He also stated via twitter that the problem was where Christians didn't have anybody to represent them and that he would be the best representative Christians have had in a long time. I'm not sure really how much he believes in it himself (and only God can tell that, I sure can't) and my alarm doesn't stem so much from his positions, but more from how he stumbles around when being asked questions about The Bible.
There are videos of him on YouTube talking about the major social issues, the one that I am suspicious is a couple years ago when Trump was interviewed by Howard Stern about abortion and marriage redefinition. Trump mentioned how the public has swung in favor of redefining marriage and stated that the number will probably continue to increase. Stern said something to the tune of, "I know you Donald...you're a social liberal." Trump stumbled through his words and didn't make a huge effort to fight that.
Relating to abortion, he did state in an interview in 1999 (parts of which I watched) that he was pro-choice, but that he did say that he hated the concept of abortion. The past five or so years, he has been consistent at stating that he is pro-life with the exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother.
Relating to religious liberty, Trump has stated he has been for it. I am yet to find comments about whether the baker, florist, or wedding chapel owner who has Biblical beliefs should participate in a mock wedding. I think he has been very careful to not tread on those waters. Pope Francis visited the United States a while back, and even Barack Obama gloated that he cherished religious liberty. So the definition of religious liberty may be different to Donald Trump than it is to say, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio who have been consistent in defending people who are under attack for living out their Biblical beliefs.
Relating to redefining marriage, it hasn't been a big issue for Trump, but he is on record multiple times stating that he is for traditional marriage. His stance has been the typical one we have seen from people such as John Kasich who disagree with the SCOTUS decision, but want us to move on. When Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Trump didn't defend her. He said that she needed to comply with the law. Ted Cruz went right on the air and said that he stood unequivocally with Kim Davis.
Donald Trump seems to be in consistent support for amending the civil rights act to include "sexual orientation" as part of it when it comes to discrimination. While that may seem like a good thing in protecting them from say, being denied food because they're gay, these laws have been used to punish people who believe in Biblical marriage. For example, in Australia The Catholic Church is under fire from the government for distributing "harmful" pamphlets throughout their schools.
We just saw where a Catholic school in Massachusetts was forced to hire someone that did not adhere to Church doctrine because of an "anti-discrimination" law. A fire chief in Atlanta, GA lost his job for distributing a book with references to homosexuality. We will definitely see many more instances like this if Trump pushes a so-called "anti-discrimination" law for LGBT people.
The Human Rights Campaign considers Trump one of the better Republican candidates for LGBT people. One of the directors of the Log Cabin Republicans, a socially liberal group, called Trump one of the best pro-gay Republican candidates to ever run for the presidency.
Trump is tough, aggressive, and confident when being asked about issues such as immigration or the economy. When it comes to abortion or marriage redefinition, he often stumbles around his answers. Given that the debates will likely be between 2 - 4 candidates soon, I anticipate that will be a vulnerable area for him.
One moment from the second debate a while back that caught my eye was when Donald Trump and Jeb Bush were debating. Bush is against casino gambling, Donald Trump owns casinos so it's pretty obvious he's for it. Bush claimed that Trump tried to persuade him to vote for casino gambling when he was governor of Florida. Trump quickly denied this, but I do believe what Bush was saying just because of the fact that Trump owns casinos and I'm sure he would be able to make a lot of money opening a few in Florida. And I'm no Jeb Bush fan.
My major issue with Trump when it comes to social issues is his ability to make wise decisions appointing judges that are pro-life and defend traditional marriage and religious liberty. I could see him passing up one or both of those issues because he doesn't seem to acknowledge that they're a big priority. Republicans had control of the presidency for 20 of 24 years between 1968 and 1992 and produced more judges that defended Roe v. Wade (Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Anthony Kennedy) than fought against it (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, William Rehnquist). Thus, the importance of wisely appointing judges is crucial to me. That's one of the reasons I am for Cruz, because he has been very consistent on these issues and I would trust him to appoint judges who are trustworthy. Given that Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and Scalia are all approaching 80, we could see retirements this term to the point where the next POTUS would have to replace four judges in their first term.
I don't have anything personal against Trump, I do think he has done a great job in eliminating the Republicans such as Jeb Bush who cave toward the realm of political correctness. He has done a great job in waking up the party and getting them to stop pandering to the media and apologizing for what they believe in. How many times has a Republican made a comment similar to Trump and lost his campaign? Quite a bit. Oftentimes the Republican will apologize and then quickly back off. It's disappointing to see so many people cave. I do hope that Republicans take after Trump when it comes to standing up to the media and to others who attack them. My stance on Trump is that I will support him if he wins, but I really hope we see Ted Cruz pull it out.
01-15-2016, 08:18 PM
One correction to make, I left out Antonin Scalia from the judges who have been consistent in wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade and included Samuel Alito instead. Alito was placed into office in 2006 by George W. Bush, replacing O'Connor.
01-16-2016, 12:35 AM
TheRealThing Wrote:You're actually comparing Trump to Obama? Trump is right to point out that Democrats are threatening to sue Cruz over the eligibility question, and he's doing Cruz a favor in forcing him out in front of it now before it can hurt his primary chances. And let us not forget that it is the Dems who are making the threat, not Trump. Trump has done us all a favor in fact, the so-called anger of the voter if you ask me is more about the mealy mouthing ambiguities, cowardice in high places in the face of negotiations, and fading financial well being of the middle class more than anything else. And if not for Trump we'd still be doing the Potomac Two Step to the same old politically correct dirges on the debate stage and elsewhere. Is Rubio lying, or does Cruz team up with Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul to vote against Military spending bills?Yes, I see many parallels between Trump and Obama. Neither one seems to have much interest in the truth or the Constitution. Both have "yuge" egos. Obama wears out the words "I," "my," and "me." Trump has spent most of his adult life stamping his own name on as many buildings as possible. Trump doesn't use the personal pronouns to the same extent as Obama, but he does use the royal "we" quite a bit. Neither Trump nor Obama had any presidential qualifications when they decided that what the country really needed was themselves in the White House.
Not to mention that where Hillary is concerned, Trump deflated her (and Billy Boy I might add) right off the bat. Nobody's perfect, and I'm not trying to diminish Cruz. And in saying that, you mention 7 years of tyranny about which you know I am in agreement. I am just as concerned about the 7 years of military abuses and foes that are up on their nuclear high horses. This is not the time to keep slashing and downsizing the military.
I see absolutely no similarities between Reagan and Trump, to whom The Donald is so fond of comparing himself. Reagan believed deeply in our Constitution and spent two successful terms as governor of the nation's largest state. Compared to Trump, Reagan was a very humble man who was slow to anger and personally liked by most of his political adversaries. Trump? Not so much.
After fraudulently claiming for days that he was just answering a journalist's question about Cruz's eligibility, Trump did finally take ownership of the attacks last night. Trump is not doing Cruz any favors with his slimy campaign. Cruz and most other top constitutional lawyers know that he is eligible.
Think about it. If Cruz is not eligible, then McCain was not eligible and no child born on foreign soil to an American woman in the U.S. military is eligible to be president either. Does that really make sense to you? It seems like a silly proposition to me. I despise McCain but there was never any doubt in my mind that he was eligible to be president.
I do not plan to post here much during the primary season. I am getting the same queasy feeling when I watch Trump speak as I do when I listen to Obama. He is an extremely polarizing figure who only has a shot to win the presidency because of his wealth, name recognition (the Trump "brand") and because Democrats have saddled themselves with such bad candidates. Everybody has to make up his or her mind about which camp they are in and I am not going to try to persuade my friends here to oppose Trump's bid.
Eventually, I expect that this country will succumb to a totalitarian dictatorship with sham elections but I refuse to support a man who may jump at that opportunity. Obama has personally insulted and used the resources of the federal government to harass his enemies for more than seven years. The precedent for an imperial presidency has been set. Trump is a scary character, IMO, and I do not see him any more willing to respect the constitutional power of Congress than Obama has been.
Trump's dumbed down campaign rhetoric and strong poll numbers makes wonder if the movie Idiocracy really might have been a prophetic glimpse into the future.
01-16-2016, 08:46 AM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Yes, I see many parallels between Trump and Obama. Neither one seems to have much interest in the truth or the Constitution. Both have "yuge" egos. Obama wears out the words "I," "my," and "me." Trump has spent most of his adult life stamping his own name on as many buildings as possible. Trump doesn't use the personal pronouns to the same extent as Obama, but he does use the royal "we" quite a bit. Neither Trump nor Obama had any presidential qualifications when they decided that what the country really needed was themselves in the White House.
I see absolutely no similarities between Reagan and Trump, to whom The Donald is so fond of comparing himself. Reagan believed deeply in our Constitution and spent two successful terms as governor of the nation's largest state. Compared to Trump, Reagan was a very humble man who was slow to anger and personally liked by most of his political adversaries. Trump? Not so much.
After fraudulently claiming for days that he was just answering a journalist's question about Cruz's eligibility, Trump did finally take ownership of the attacks last night. Trump is not doing Cruz any favors with his slimy campaign. Cruz and most other top constitutional lawyers know that he is eligible.
Think about it. If Cruz is not eligible, then McCain was not eligible and no child born on foreign soil to an American woman in the U.S. military is eligible to be president either. Does that really make sense to you? It seems like a silly proposition to me. I despise McCain but there was never any doubt in my mind that he was eligible to be president.
I do not plan to post here much during the primary season. I am getting the same queasy feeling when I watch Trump speak as I do when I listen to Obama. He is an extremely polarizing figure who only has a shot to win the presidency because of his wealth, name recognition (the Trump "brand") and because Democrats have saddled themselves with such bad candidates. Everybody has to make up his or her mind about which camp they are in and I am not going to try to persuade my friends here to oppose Trump's bid.
Eventually, I expect that this country will succumb to a totalitarian dictatorship with sham elections but I refuse to support a man who may jump at that opportunity. Obama has personally insulted and used the resources of the federal government to harass his enemies for more than seven years. The precedent for an imperial presidency has been set. Trump is a scary character, IMO, and I do not see him any more willing to respect the constitutional power of Congress than Obama has been.
Trump's dumbed down campaign rhetoric and strong poll numbers makes wonder if the movie Idiocracy really might have been a prophetic glimpse into the future.
I understand your argument, though I did not yet catch Trump's birther argument admission. Regrettably, I may have given you the wrong impression. I never thought for a second that Cruz may not be eligible to be President, but I would not be shocked if some uber liberal Harvard Law School prof filed. I would just prefer the smoke to clear before the primary voting begins.
In cutting to the chase I will say this, America is only as good as her people. And her people are only as good as are the dictates of their own consciences. My fear, and my contentions have been based in concerns over public servants putting their own interests over the well being of the country.
Cruz said last evening, that even given the uproar we have seen among the people of late, we still don't know the half of it. And given the number of RINO's lurking around in elephant clothes, even in the face of a great awakening the deck is still stacked against us. I don't know if you saw "The Matrix Trilogy," but if you did, I sort of feel like we're about to have our Morpheus moment. You know, that point in time when we may have to admit we have been chasing something that has been gone for a long time? The dream which is a free nation governed by it's citizenry, is only possible under a pretty narrow set of circumstances. We to survive, must be a moral people.
Our problem today, is that we seem to think we have outgrown our need for an adherence to the Godly principles of the past which, I refer to as our traditionally conservative heritage. Our system of law is founded upon the very Christian principles that we have abandoned. And as a result we have lost both the authority and the charter to run our own affairs. That is why according to Charles Swindoll, we Americans end the lives of 4,383 unborn children every single day of the year. And I would suggest that is why a loon the likes of Bernie Sanders can make a credible run at the Presidency. I mean, setting aside the fact that the whole process is a manufactured abstraction in deceit, we are still left with the fact that he has tremendous support among voters. Which settles in definitive fashion the debate about 'takers' BTW.
In other words, if man chooses to honor his own ideas of right and wrong over the clear teachings of God, we get arguments, factions and special interest groups. Laws become laughably permeated with loopholes for the privileged, and you get civil unrest. And it can only get worse from there, because apart from dictates from above, lawyers will never quit distorting and arguing. And as present circumstances reveal, settled law based on absolutes is far better than the chaos and writhing of present day.
In a different thread I recently said that picking the right man could afford us a reprieve. To see our Republic return again to function the way it did in the Reagan years would be a gift by any definition in my book. The personal integrity that enabled so many great patriots, and provided the basis for God's blessing on this land, is that thing that Martin Luther King talked about back in 1963. "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
The content of the American character is failing, and it is due to only one thing. Most Americans outgrew God. Something always rushes in to fill a vacuum, in our case sobriety and sanity has been replaced by self indulgence and insanity.
I will take Ted Cruz any day, and I will accept the straight shooting of Trump any day. But let us make no mistake, if the rainbows and unicorns are ever to reappear, it will be the result of only one thing having happened: 2 Chronicles 7:14 (KJV)
14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
The problem is with the Church. Christians are those who are His people, and it is they who are called by His name. Therefore it is the Church, who must humble themselves, pray, turn from their wicked ways, and then will He hear from heaven and heal their land.
If the Church responds things should level off for a least a while. If not these are just the machinations of the end time.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-16-2016, 09:20 AM
Trump is still taking it.
01-18-2016, 06:06 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/17/trump-...guy-video/
Trump calls out Cruz in this video again as expected considering Cruz and Trump will likely be the final two in the Republican primary, but what I question in this video isn't him attacking Cruz - it's his avoidance of mentioning his position on social issues such as abortion, marriage redefinition, etc.
Trump calls out Cruz in this video again as expected considering Cruz and Trump will likely be the final two in the Republican primary, but what I question in this video isn't him attacking Cruz - it's his avoidance of mentioning his position on social issues such as abortion, marriage redefinition, etc.
01-18-2016, 01:40 PM
Demarcus, that signature is really you!!!!
01-18-2016, 03:23 PM
WideRight05 Wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/17/trump-...guy-video/What Trump, or any other candidate says, is not as important as what they said or did before they were candidates. Trump will say whatever it takes to win the nomination and urge you to ignore whatever his past record is. Then, with the nomination in hand, he will say whatever it takes to win the general election. At that point, Trump will do whatever is best for Trump.
Trump calls out Cruz in this video again as expected considering Cruz and Trump will likely be the final two in the Republican primary, but what I question in this video isn't him attacking Cruz - it's his avoidance of mentioning his position on social issues such as abortion, marriage redefinition, etc.
Trump reminds me of Chris Christie. It is really tempting to rally behind Christie as he bullies a public sector union leader or some other liberal, but after a while, it becomes obvious that he treats anybody who disagrees with him the same way. Christie has shown that he can exercise some restraint to win support. Trump has shown nothing but contempt for his political rivals.
It is never wise to align yourself with a bully because he will not respect you any more for supporting him. Your time on the receiving end of his abuse will eventually arrive.
Trump will take as many positions as he must to win the nomination. If Trump's words are enough to remove your reservations about this megalomaniac, then he will probably not disappoint you.
01-18-2016, 04:18 PM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:What Trump, or any other candidate says, is not as important as what they said or did before they were candidates. Trump will say whatever it takes to win the nomination and urge you to ignore whatever his past record is. Then, with the nomination in hand, he will say whatever it takes to win the general election. At that point, Trump will do whatever is best for Trump.
Trump reminds me of Chris Christie. It is really tempting to rally behind Christie as he bullies a public sector union leader or some other liberal, but after a while, it becomes obvious that he treats anybody who disagrees with him the same way. Christie has shown that he can exercise some restraint to win support. Trump has shown nothing but contempt for his political rivals.
It is never wise to align yourself with a bully because he will not respect you any more for supporting him. Your time on the receiving end of his abuse will eventually arrive.
Trump will take as many positions as he must to win the nomination. If Trump's words are enough to remove your reservations about this megalomaniac, then he will probably not disappoint you.
That could hurt Trump in the long run. Cruz has a very passionate base and IMO one of the most informed bases in politics. Trump could lose a lot of support by going after Cruz like that should he win the nomination.
I'm curious to see how these coming debates are going to be handled. I feel that Carson and Kasich are starting to slow down while Rubio, Christie, and Bush still have some momentum. Cruz and Trump are the two leaders to this point.
If the GOP limits it to two or three, which I doubt they will, then I anticipate Cruz will have a great showing. Trump will be tough for Cruz to beat handily though, and I think Cruz will have to win in a blowout to gain any kind of real traction. Trump is sharp as a tack and is good at using an insult to counter a point made by an opponent. If it does come down to just those two on the stage, at this point I think the establishment will try to make sure Cruz doesn't come out of there winning. Even though the establishment doesn't like Trump, having him would probably be better in their eyes than having a Christian conservative that has a proven record of standing up to the establishment.
I started out liking what Trump was doing and I can't say that it's not needed for establishment candidates or liberals, but this isn't the way to handle things. It may win him the primary, but at the end of the day the only way he would gain back the support from voters of other candidates would be if Hillary or Bernie puts enough of a scare in them that they show up at the polls to reluctantly vote for Trump. Then again, I may be wrong here. As a society (especially in politics) unfortunately we have very, very short memories.
01-18-2016, 05:00 PM
WideRight05 Wrote:That could hurt Trump in the long run. Cruz has a very passionate base and IMO one of the most informed bases in politics. Trump could lose a lot of support by going after Cruz like that should he win the nomination.
I'm curious to see how these coming debates are going to be handled. I feel that Carson and Kasich are starting to slow down while Rubio, Christie, and Bush still have some momentum. Cruz and Trump are the two leaders to this point.
If the GOP limits it to two or three, which I doubt they will, then I anticipate Cruz will have a great showing. Trump will be tough for Cruz to beat handily though, and I think Cruz will have to win in a blowout to gain any kind of real traction. Trump is sharp as a tack and is good at using an insult to counter a point made by an opponent. If it does come down to just those two on the stage, at this point I think the establishment will try to make sure Cruz doesn't come out of there winning. Even though the establishment doesn't like Trump, having him would probably be better in their eyes than having a Christian conservative that has a proven record of standing up to the establishment.
I started out liking what Trump was doing and I can't say that it's not needed for establishment candidates or liberals, but this isn't the way to handle things. It may win him the primary, but at the end of the day the only way he would gain back the support from voters of other candidates would be if Hillary or Bernie puts enough of a scare in them that they show up at the polls to reluctantly vote for Trump. Then again, I may be wrong here. As a society (especially in politics) unfortunately we have very, very short memories.
Apart from his obviously detached assaults on Cruz, I still like what he's doing. A lot of things have come to light as the result of what Trump has said out in public. Mark Levin warned Trump off a couple of days ago and that seemed to have had no effect whatever on Trump's strategy. It will all come to light and more than likely in time for voters to understand who he is. Cruz is already looking the better man, and that will hold until and unless he over engages in a war of words with Trump. In the meantime, I'd like to think that Trump will still be around to expose Hillary.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-18-2016, 05:20 PM
WideRight05 Wrote:That could hurt Trump in the long run. Cruz has a very passionate base and IMO one of the most informed bases in politics. Trump could lose a lot of support by going after Cruz like that should he win the nomination.I believe that whoever wins the Republican nomination will win the presidency in a landslide. With the exceptions of shake down artists, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Hillary and Bernie are the weakest presidential candidates in my lifetime. If Hillary is still a viable candidate in November, then there is not much hope for this nation.
I'm curious to see how these coming debates are going to be handled. I feel that Carson and Kasich are starting to slow down while Rubio, Christie, and Bush still have some momentum. Cruz and Trump are the two leaders to this point.
If the GOP limits it to two or three, which I doubt they will, then I anticipate Cruz will have a great showing. Trump will be tough for Cruz to beat handily though, and I think Cruz will have to win in a blowout to gain any kind of real traction. Trump is sharp as a tack and is good at using an insult to counter a point made by an opponent. If it does come down to just those two on the stage, at this point I think the establishment will try to make sure Cruz doesn't come out of there winning. Even though the establishment doesn't like Trump, having him would probably be better in their eyes than having a Christian conservative that has a proven record of standing up to the establishment.
I started out liking what Trump was doing and I can't say that it's not needed for establishment candidates or liberals, but this isn't the way to handle things. It may win him the primary, but at the end of the day the only way he would gain back the support from voters of other candidates would be if Hillary or Bernie puts enough of a scare in them that they show up at the polls to reluctantly vote for Trump. Then again, I may be wrong here. As a society (especially in politics) unfortunately we have very, very short memories.
01-18-2016, 05:38 PM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I believe that whoever wins the Republican nomination will win the presidency in a landslide. With the exceptions of shake down artists, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Hillary and Bernie are the weakest presidential candidates in my lifetime. If Hillary is still a viable candidate in November, then there is not much hope for this nation.
We may very well see the first 400+ electoral vote win since George H.W. Bush won the presidency in 1988.
TheRealThing Wrote:Apart from his obviously detached assaults on Cruz, I still like what he's doing. A lot of things have come to light as the result of what Trump has said out in public. Mark Levin warned Trump off a couple of days ago and that seemed to have had no effect whatever on Trump's strategy. It will all come to light and more than likely in time for voters to understand who he is. Cruz is already looking the better man, and that will hold until and unless he over engages in a war of words with Trump. In the meantime, I'd like to think that Trump will still be around to expose Hillary.
I know we have a lot of similar thoughts, based on your experience and knowledge about Trump what do you think about his positions on issues related to the Bible?
01-18-2016, 05:53 PM
TheRealThing Wrote:Apart from his obviously detached assaults on Cruz, I still like what he's doing. A lot of things have come to light as the result of what Trump has said out in public. Mark Levin warned Trump off a couple of days ago and that seemed to have had no effect whatever on Trump's strategy. It will all come to light and more than likely in time for voters to understand who he is. Cruz is already looking the better man, and that will hold until and unless he over engages in a war of words with Trump. In the meantime, I'd like to think that Trump will still be around to expose Hillary.Trump launched the war of words and Cruz has no chance of winning the nomination without engaging him head on. I do not expect Cruz to engage in the childish personal insults that impress so many Trump followers, but he will ridicule the many contradictions between Trump's words and Trump's words.
Hopefully, Cruz will make Americans forget John Kerry's statement that he was "for the war before he was against it" and crown Trump the new world champion of political flip-flops.
01-18-2016, 06:02 PM
WideRight05 Wrote:I know we have a lot of similar thoughts, based on your experience and knowledge about Trump what do you think about his positions on issues related to the Bible?I don't think Trump gives much thought to the subject. The more that I have researched Trump's past, the more I have come to believe his statements and promises have a very short shelf life. He says whatever he thinks most people want to hear at the time.
Quote:Link
Late last year, Trump told Republican pollster and focus-group guru Frank Luntz that when the real-estate mogul has done something wrong, he tries to correct his error without getting God involved.
"I am not sure I have," Trump said when asked if he'd ever asked God for forgiveness. "I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don't think so," he said. "I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't."
01-18-2016, 08:21 PM
WideRight05 Wrote:I know we have a lot of similar thoughts, based on your experience and knowledge about Trump what do you think about his positions on issues related to the Bible?
Well I'll tell ya. The only thing that scares me about Trump is whether or not he is pro abortion and gay rights, or anti abortion and gay rights. I will never knowingly vote for any candidate who is of the 'pro' stance.
If he has in fact changed his mind about the moral arguments, and has adopted an actual conservative view, then I'm ok with that. Trump says he has changed his mind and I don't think we should necessarily dismiss that out of hand. That exact thing happened to Reagan, though not to the extent some imagine. At the same time Reagan matured and moderated his positions, the Dems were moving notably to the left. That's when Reagan changed his party affiliation, something he gets slammed for even today. The exact same thing has happened to anybody who tries to make amends for something done wrong, or anybody who has gone down on his knees before the Living God. It's called repentance and it is something of which I'm all about. If there were not something on the order of 12 candidates still standing, maybe we would have heard more debating on such issues. Surely that situation will rectify itself soon, because I for one would like to hear the matter put forth clearly. And then I would like to hear a clear answer.
Do I think Trump is a Christian? Mine is not to judge. I would however, take a guy still in the throes of working his way to Christian enlightenment any day and twice on Sunday, over a Clinton or a Sanders. Frankly, the candidate who seems to 'get it' would have to be Cruz, and he is ahead or tied with Trump in the Iowa polls. As Hoot has pointed out, this election is likely in the bag for Republicans and I just don't see how any of the also-rans have a shot at the front running Trump and Cruz. Just ask yourself this though, if one were in the booth with the curtain drawn and he had to make a choice between Cruz and Trump, who would likely get the vote?
I am convinced that the right man is one of those two and yet, I hear people on every side saying neither one of them could be elected. At some point a man just has to go with the dictates of his own heart, because you're going to hear the opposing sides of every issue proclaimed boldly, as if the truth were obviously on their side. Ironically, that brings us back to answering your question. Usually the wrong candidate speaks clearly enough that he is easily identified, but even if a candidate seems to have every possible answer, and yet advocates for abortion & gay rights, he's a goner in my book. So, sooner or later Trump will have to convince all evangelicals where he stands, or Ted Cruz is going to trump him. :biggrin:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-19-2016, 04:31 AM
Granny Bear Wrote:Demarcus, that signature is really you!!!!
LOL, the cat looks to be the most intelligent of the group!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-19-2016, 09:19 AM
Trump did offer Cruz the VP 
nicker:
nicker:
01-22-2016, 03:09 AM
TheRealThing Wrote:Well I'll tell ya. The only thing that scares me about Trump is whether or not he is pro abortion and gay rights, or anti abortion and gay rights. I will never knowingly vote for any candidate who is of the 'pro' stance.
If he has in fact changed his mind about the moral arguments, and has adopted an actual conservative view, then I'm ok with that. Trump says he has changed his mind and I don't think we should necessarily dismiss that out of hand. That exact thing happened to Reagan, though not to the extent some imagine. At the same time Reagan matured and moderated his positions, the Dems were moving notably to the left. That's when Reagan changed his party affiliation, something he gets slammed for even today. The exact same thing has happened to anybody who tries to make amends for something done wrong, or anybody who has gone down on his knees before the Living God. It's called repentance and it is something of which I'm all about. If there were not something on the order of 12 candidates still standing, maybe we would have heard more debating on such issues. Surely that situation will rectify itself soon, because I for one would like to hear the matter put forth clearly. And then I would like to hear a clear answer.
Do I think Trump is a Christian? Mine is not to judge. I would however, take a guy still in the throes of working his way to Christian enlightenment any day and twice on Sunday, over a Clinton or a Sanders. Frankly, the candidate who seems to 'get it' would have to be Cruz, and he is ahead or tied with Trump in the Iowa polls. As Hoot has pointed out, this election is likely in the bag for Republicans and I just don't see how any of the also-rans have a shot at the front running Trump and Cruz. Just ask yourself this though, if one were in the booth with the curtain drawn and he had to make a choice between Cruz and Trump, who would likely get the vote?
I am convinced that the right man is one of those two and yet, I hear people on every side saying neither one of them could be elected. At some point a man just has to go with the dictates of his own heart, because you're going to hear the opposing sides of every issue proclaimed boldly, as if the truth were obviously on their side. Ironically, that brings us back to answering your question. Usually the wrong candidate speaks clearly enough that he is easily identified, but even if a candidate seems to have every possible answer, and yet advocates for abortion & gay rights, he's a goner in my book. So, sooner or later Trump will have to convince all evangelicals where he stands, or Ted Cruz is going to trump him. :biggrin:
I agree with you that even though Trump has a questionable past when it comes to the issues we should still keep an open mind (not in the liberal sense but in the actual sense haha!) to his ideas and be receptive if we see that he really has switched his position on moral issues. If everything shows Trump actually has made a big change, if we aren't receptive to that then we shouldn't be receptive to Paul who killed people prior to changing and writing several books in The Bible.
Any new Christian eager to learn more about God and is not afraid to speak out for His Son would be a better presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. If Donald Trump really is a Christian or not, that's tough to determine and as you mentioned, it shouldn't be our determination. Based on everything I have seen with Trump, there are times that I feel good about him but other times I don't trust him. I've gone back and forth with it. Cruz has been my favorite for close to a couple of years now, I can't see that changing because of his consistency. However, if Trump were to win the nomination he would have my vote. Definitely don't want to see Clinton or Sanders become the POTUS.
Take note that I didn't listen to his full speech at Liberty University Monday but I caught some early parts, my concern wasn't the Bible verse that he supposedly misquoted (2 Corinthians...2nd Corinthians...the media criticizing his wording of that was silly). It was that he (1) did a good job bringing up Christian persecution overseas, but (2) didn't focus a whole lot on what is going on here with the bakers, florists, and most recently a business owner in NY was fined for refusing to host a same-sex "wedding."
TRT, I'll tell you what I'll do - you know more about what to look for than I do, I will post below all the positives and negatives relating to what I have heard from him and you can let me know your thoughts.
Positive
1. Said that he would be the best representative Christians have had in a long time.
2. Even when he was pro-choice, he stated that he hated the concept of abortion.
3. A lot more attentive than the current administration as to the Christian persecution overseas.
4. Is not afraid of being labeled a bigot, hater, etc. (although I wish he would take on some of the LGBT groups).
5. Has spoken highly of leaders such as Tony Perkins or Jerry Falwell, Jr.
6. Did speak at the Values Voter Summit, although I'm pretty sure I saw the speech, he focused mainly on economy and immigration.
7. Has consistently addressed the problem of our political correctness and the decline of our society.
8. He's not bought and paid for. Thus, it's unlikely we will see him cave as Mike Pence and other Indiana lawmakers did with the Indiana RFRA.
Negative
1. When watching one of his interviews on the topic, he did state that he was a believer in traditional marriage. When asked if he supported civil unions, he said that nobody in his administration would be discriminated against, hinting that he did.
2. While illegal immigration and the economy are big priorities, he has rarely mentioned the slaughter of over 55 million innocent unborn babies.
3. Considered by some to be the most LGBT "friendly" Republican.
4. LGBT activist George Takei tried to convince him to change his views on marriage over lunch. Trump attended a "wedding" prior to meeting with Takei and told Takei it was a "beautiful marriage." Takei said that Trump agreed to disagree on it, but seemed to think that Trump didn't believe in it himself and was using it to cater to the Republicans - he's a good businessman and needs to pander to his base. Takei didn't think Trump would have any problem holding "weddings" in his hotels, restaurants, etc.
5. When defending issues such as abortion or marriage redefinition, Trump repeatedly states his position but struggles to formulate an argument to defend himself. He quickly tries to dodge the topic. If he approaches these two issues with the mentality he approaches illegal immigration in building a wall (another issue we supposedly didn't have a lot of support for) he would likely change some minds.
6. Given that he has been divorced three times, defending traditional marriage will be difficult for him.
7. When speaking about Christians he brings up topics such as persecution overseas or the war on Christmas. Topics that a majority of people can agree on. He avoids a lot of the controversial topics.
8. If he will turn on Ted Cruz, he will likely turn on anybody.
9. He mentions growing up listening to Norman Vincent Van Peele. He wrote The Power of Positive Thinking. I don't know a great deal about him. I never was big on denominations until recently, but I am heavily questioning of the Episcopal (who was just suspended by the Anglican Church for 3 years), Presbyterian (Where Trump comes from), and especailly the United Church of Christ, all three of which have fallen into liberal worldviews.
That's what I've gathered so far and I'm sure I'm leaving out a point or two.
01-22-2016, 05:45 AM
WideRight05 Wrote:I agree with you that even though Trump has a questionable past when it comes to the issues we should still keep an open mind (not in the liberal sense but in the actual sense haha!) to his ideas and be receptive if we see that he really has switched his position on moral issues. If everything shows Trump actually has made a big change, if we aren't receptive to that then we shouldn't be receptive to Paul who killed people prior to changing and writing several books in The Bible.
Any new Christian eager to learn more about God and is not afraid to speak out for His Son would be a better presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. If Donald Trump really is a Christian or not, that's tough to determine and as you mentioned, it shouldn't be our determination. Based on everything I have seen with Trump, there are times that I feel good about him but other times I don't trust him. I've gone back and forth with it. Cruz has been my favorite for close to a couple of years now, I can't see that changing because of his consistency. However, if Trump were to win the nomination he would have my vote. Definitely don't want to see Clinton or Sanders become the POTUS.
[SNIP]
That's what I've gathered so far and I'm sure I'm leaving out a point or two.
How about if I just make a comment after each of yours, which I will put back up in blue ink in an effort to keep things as clear as possible.
1. Said that he would be the best representative Christians have had in a long time.
After watching Christians get reintroduced to persecution via certain present administration officials, what a welcome relief it would be to have a sitting President restore them (in the secular sense) to their rightful place in the society setting. No one can do any harm to one of His children apart from His permissive will. He protects us always, but persecution is part and parcel to the faith.
2. Even when he was pro-choice, he stated that he hated the concept of abortion.
Believable
3. A lot more attentive than the current administration as to the Christian persecution overseas.
Long overdue and totally part of the President's responsibilities.
4. Is not afraid of being labeled a bigot, hater, etc. (although I wish he would take on some of the LGBT groups).
The GM union blue collar types who got caught smoking dope on their break were fired. Those guys had a lot of bad things to say about the guy who fired them. But the good of the company has not one thing to do with protecting those guilty of breaking the rules. We have become a nation of people who expect to be extended ridiculous levels of leniency for every trespass we might choose to commit. Such unreasonable lack of responsibility abounds in every walk of US life. It is high time a President grew some courage and faithfully executed his oath of office.
And one more thing. If Eric Holder had stepped up and warned the looters and pillagers that they were all headed for the hoosegow, you can bet they'd have pulled in those horns and behaved. But no, they were given special privilege to break the law for a season. It's got to stop. But the President cannot take on LGBT groups, and I'm sure you know why. However, that is clearly within the purview of the Church and they need to step up.
5. Has spoken highly of leaders such as Tony Perkins or Jerry Falwell, Jr.
Shows his mindset, and rightfully so.
[COLOR="blue"]
6. Did speak at the Values Voter Summit, although I'm pretty sure I saw the speech, he focused mainly on economy and immigration.[/COLOR]
In character.
7. Has consistently addressed the problem of our political correctness and the decline of our society.
Thank God.
8. He's not bought and paid for. Thus, it's unlikely we will see him cave as Mike Pence and other Indiana lawmakers did with the Indiana RFRA.
Hallelujah!!!
Negative
1. When watching one of his interviews on the topic, he did state that he was a believer in traditional marriage. When asked if he supported civil unions, he said that nobody in his administration would be discriminated against, hinting that he did.
Could have been a dodge until he gets down the road a bit.
2. While illegal immigration and the economy are big priorities, he has rarely mentioned the slaughter of over 55 million innocent unborn babies.
The number is likely much higher than that but, as with any other candidate, if he lies to us then we vote him out. Meanwhile, we know the numbers will continue to spin at an ever greater rate if Hillary or Sanders has a thing to do with it. That is their proud promise to the American voter.
So, you have Trump on the one hand who says he opposes abortion, and you have the offspring of Satan on the other vowing to extend the slaughter. I know my mind's made up! :biggrin:
[COLOR="blue"]3. Considered by some to be the most LGBT "friendly" Republican.
4. LGBT activist George Takei tried to convince him to change his views on marriage over lunch. Trump attended a "wedding" prior to meeting with Takei and told Takei it was a "beautiful marriage." Takei said that Trump agreed to disagree on it, but seemed to think that Trump didn't believe in it himself and was using it to cater to the Republicans - he's a good businessman and needs to pander to his base. Takei didn't think Trump would have any problem holding "weddings" in his hotels, restaurants, etc.[/COLOR]
Politicians cannot oppose what homosexuals do. Where they have gone wrong is to pass legislation validating the depravity by giving such abominable behavior legal standing. According to Laurence J. Kotlikoff, one of the Social Security benefits which have recently been extended to folks would be the inclusion of homosexual partners. That is unthinkable wrongheadedness at work. God has warned clearly in the Scriptures that when society begins to manifest such behavior, they have entered into territory that brings with it judgment and damnation the likes of Sodom and Gomorrah. If we don't change, we will pay. Maybe the Church can prevail upon DC to repeal gay legislation once certain folks leave power.
5. When defending issues such as abortion or marriage redefinition, Trump repeatedly states his position but struggles to formulate an argument to defend himself. He quickly tries to dodge the topic. If he approaches these two issues with the mentality he approaches illegal immigration in building a wall (another issue we supposedly didn't have a lot of support for) he would likely change some minds.
Agreed
6. Given that he has been divorced three times, defending traditional marriage will be difficult for him.
Not in my book.
7. When speaking about Christians he brings up topics such as persecution overseas or the war on Christmas. Topics that a majority of people can agree on. He avoids a lot of the controversial topics.
Well, on occasions such as these the doctrine of separation of Church and state does apply in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson's writings. At any rate, his would be to give equal protection, the Church has the rest.
8. If he will turn on Ted Cruz, he will likely turn on anybody.
Nobody is without baggage. Ted has his and he deals with controversy in his own way. But this is the race for the White House and they can only get so much mileage out of the so-called bromance. Ted has given as good as he has gotten. All will be forgiven if the Republicans can finally deliver this cycle. But, unlike the Trump detractors, I do not accept that it is all about himself. Like it was with "The Highlander," in the end, their can be only one.
9. He mentions growing up listening to Norman Vincent Van Peele. He wrote The Power of Positive Thinking. I don't know a great deal about him. I never was big on denominations until recently, but I am heavily questioning of the Episcopal (who was just suspended by the Anglican Church for 3 years), Presbyterian (Where Trump comes from), and especailly the United Church of Christ, all three of which have fallen into liberal worldviews.
Freedom of Religion. I will say, that had he grown up a L Ron Hubbard adherent, we might have a problem, LOL. Like I said though, I will take somebody who is working through his time in his quest to find the truth of God anytime over the alternative. :Thumbs:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-23-2016, 08:15 PM
I enjoyed your articulate post as always TRT. Unfortunately I have been grieving the death of a pet since this morning (yeah, what a time for that to happen given the storm) so unfortunately I'm not quite in the frame of mind to post a response. I am curious to dig deeper on the topic.
Here is something interesting I am going to post for you, though, written by the Donald himself today relating to his pro-life views.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald...le/2581271
"Let me be clear — I am pro-life. I support that position with exceptions allowed for rape, incest or the life of the mother being at risk. I did not always hold this position, but I had a significant personal experience that brought the precious gift of life into perspective for me. My story is well documented, so I will not retell it here. However, what I will do with the remaining space is express my feelings about life, and the culture of life, as we just marked the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
I build things. There is a process involved in building things. We tap into a lot of disciplines with engineering being one of the most important. The rules for putting structures together are as strict as are the rules of physics. These rules have stood the test of time and have become the path to putting together structures that endure and are beautiful. America, when it is at its best, follows a set of rules that have worked since our Founding. One of those rules is that we, as Americans, revere life and have done so since our Founders made it the first, and most important, of our "unalienable" rights.
Over time, our culture of life in this country has started sliding toward a culture of death. Perhaps the most significant piece of evidence to support this assertion is that since Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Count 43 years ago, over 50 million Americans never had the chance to enjoy the opportunities offered by this country. They never had the chance to become doctors, musicians, farmers, teachers, husbands, fathers, sons or daughters. They never had the chance to enrich the culture of this nation or to bring their skills, lives, loves or passions into the fabric of this country. They are missing, and they are missed.
The Supreme Court in 1973 based its decision on imagining rights and liberties in the Constitution that are nowhere to be found. Even if we take the court at its word, that abortion is a matter of privacy, we should then extend the argument to the logical conclusion that private funds, then, should subsidize this choice rather than the half billion dollars given to abortion providers every year by Congress. Public funding of abortion providers is an insult to people of conscience at the least and an affront to good governance at best.
If using taxpayer money to facilitate our slide to a culture of death were not enough, the 1973 decision became a landmark decision demonstrating the utter contempt the court had for federalism and the 10th Amendment. Roe v. Wade gave the court an excuse to dismantle the decisions of state legislatures and the votes of the people. This is a pattern that the court has repeated over and over again since that decision. Roe v. Wade became yet another incidence of disconnect between the people and their government.
We are in the middle of a presidential political cycle and votes will be cast in just days. The citizens of this nation will have the chance to vote for candidates who are aligned with their individual worldviews. It is my hope that they will choose the builder, the man who has the ability to imagine the greatness of this nation. The next president must follow those principles that work best and that reinforce the reverence Americans hold for life. A culture of life is too important to let slip away for convenience or political correctness. It is by preserving our culture of life that we will Make America Great Again."
Here is something interesting I am going to post for you, though, written by the Donald himself today relating to his pro-life views.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald...le/2581271
"Let me be clear — I am pro-life. I support that position with exceptions allowed for rape, incest or the life of the mother being at risk. I did not always hold this position, but I had a significant personal experience that brought the precious gift of life into perspective for me. My story is well documented, so I will not retell it here. However, what I will do with the remaining space is express my feelings about life, and the culture of life, as we just marked the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
I build things. There is a process involved in building things. We tap into a lot of disciplines with engineering being one of the most important. The rules for putting structures together are as strict as are the rules of physics. These rules have stood the test of time and have become the path to putting together structures that endure and are beautiful. America, when it is at its best, follows a set of rules that have worked since our Founding. One of those rules is that we, as Americans, revere life and have done so since our Founders made it the first, and most important, of our "unalienable" rights.
Over time, our culture of life in this country has started sliding toward a culture of death. Perhaps the most significant piece of evidence to support this assertion is that since Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Count 43 years ago, over 50 million Americans never had the chance to enjoy the opportunities offered by this country. They never had the chance to become doctors, musicians, farmers, teachers, husbands, fathers, sons or daughters. They never had the chance to enrich the culture of this nation or to bring their skills, lives, loves or passions into the fabric of this country. They are missing, and they are missed.
The Supreme Court in 1973 based its decision on imagining rights and liberties in the Constitution that are nowhere to be found. Even if we take the court at its word, that abortion is a matter of privacy, we should then extend the argument to the logical conclusion that private funds, then, should subsidize this choice rather than the half billion dollars given to abortion providers every year by Congress. Public funding of abortion providers is an insult to people of conscience at the least and an affront to good governance at best.
If using taxpayer money to facilitate our slide to a culture of death were not enough, the 1973 decision became a landmark decision demonstrating the utter contempt the court had for federalism and the 10th Amendment. Roe v. Wade gave the court an excuse to dismantle the decisions of state legislatures and the votes of the people. This is a pattern that the court has repeated over and over again since that decision. Roe v. Wade became yet another incidence of disconnect between the people and their government.
We are in the middle of a presidential political cycle and votes will be cast in just days. The citizens of this nation will have the chance to vote for candidates who are aligned with their individual worldviews. It is my hope that they will choose the builder, the man who has the ability to imagine the greatness of this nation. The next president must follow those principles that work best and that reinforce the reverence Americans hold for life. A culture of life is too important to let slip away for convenience or political correctness. It is by preserving our culture of life that we will Make America Great Again."
01-23-2016, 09:00 PM
In October, 2015, Trump said that he would love to nominate his sister to the Supreme Court, but that she is not interested in the job. Trump's sister is a pro-abortion (ruled against a state prohibition on late term and partial birth abortions) federal judge.
Trump first announced that he had changed his mind about abortion when he was contemplating running as a Republican for president in 2011. Prior to that time, he had supported all forms of abortion, including partial birth abortion.
The timing of Trump's epiphany on abortion and his contemplation of a political career was probably just a coincidence...
Trump first announced that he had changed his mind about abortion when he was contemplating running as a Republican for president in 2011. Prior to that time, he had supported all forms of abortion, including partial birth abortion.
The timing of Trump's epiphany on abortion and his contemplation of a political career was probably just a coincidence...
01-23-2016, 09:15 PM
This just in...how Trump feels about his supporters. Nobody has ever cast a vote for him and he is already feeling 10 feet tall and bulletproof.
Quote:Trump: I could shoot people in streets and not lose support
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump thinks there's not much he could possibly do to erode his support.
Lauding his fans' loyalty at a campaign event in Sioux Center, Iowa, on Saturday, Trump said he could kill people and still be popular.
âI have the most loyal people, did you ever see that? I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot people and I wouldnât lose voters,â he said.
01-24-2016, 01:16 AM
Trump will only continue to climb.
01-24-2016, 02:16 AM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:This just in...how Trump feels about his supporters. Nobody has ever cast a vote for him and he is already feeling 10 feet tall and bulletproof.
Trump is not my first choice. Offbeat silly sarcasm is a trait of many Americans but usually not heard from presidential candidates. It means nothing and IMO is harmless. Is it different? Certainly. Right or wrong, something "different" is what many voters are hungry for.
So, having a smartass POTUS that feels 10 feet tall and bullet proof might not be such a bad thing. What we've been settling for has certainly been a bad thing.
Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)
