As potus he has the power to illiminate those who are charged with enforcing the law and has done so.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A: This is how you deal with Trump Supporters
- Thread starter Mindmaster
- Start date
As potus he has the power to illiminate those who are charged with enforcing the law and has done so.
Guilt by association attempts, blah... listen and learn...
The single neo-nazi who calls himself Republican is running uncontested by any other nominee in place that votes Democrat nearly 100% of the time. He has been denounced completely by official party representatives, but... there seems to be some confusion as to how political parties work.
Here's how it works:
1) You pay a small contribution to the GOP to become an official Republican. (Whether you take office or not, and just vote,) No one is denied, and I mean no one. It works exactly the same for the Democrats. Your membership allows you to to run for office or not as a party member. It does not make you a ranking member of the party, it only allows you to vote on the officers of said party. I'm not even sure they can refuse you...
2) After this, you can run as a Republican in any race you wish, in this case this Art Jones fellow is running in an area where Democrats win 100% of elections and is majorly ethnically Jewish. Republican candidates from the main party do not even attempt to run for these seats normally since it is a complete waste of their time and funds. Thus, there is no GOP person directly assigned to run against him in a primary, so as a "Republican" party member he is the uncontested Republican nominee. That's hardly a "party" decision... They cannot stop him or interfere with the election, it's against the law.
3) He has been repeatedly denounced by party officials, and condemned by them. They know exactly what he's about. Whether he wins or not, he is simply the only nominee and they have no choice of whether or not he can run as a Republican. He could run as a Democrat as well in another area where there is no competition and similarly get a space on the ballot. It means absolutely NOTHING.
The short of it is that anyone can call themselves a Republican and run, and it doesn't mean they have the party blessing. The party doesn't even have the right to stop them in any way other than to field another primary candidate, and in this case they won't bother because he can't win in the first place. (That place is close to my home, and I am well aware of the demographics...)
So while you've tried to style this into another racism comment, you are basically talking out of the side of your mouth in half-truths to promote your ideas which are unfounded in any sort of reality. Secondly, Muslims are not a race nor are refugees purely Muslim. Again, this is just hyperbole... The argument against accepting refugees is that culture shock is real for both sides of the equation. The solution isn't to try to convert refugees to our way of thinking, or convert us to theirs. Trump is aware of that, and that is the only reason he holds his position on such things. That's not racism, it's reality... If anything, it's typified by your comments here - you are no more likely to switch to or rationalize my beliefs than those refugees would. So, if they aren't going to be happy living in our way, what exactly is the point? Are we supposed to bring them here just to crap all over them unintentionally? Then when they get sick of that, now what? It makes more sense to work with them to reclaim their countries so they can go home, rather than adapt them to our lifestyle. (which will never work, IMHO, because it wouldn't even work for _me_ if the situation were reversed)
PureX
Veteran Member
The reason you don't vote for the left is that you think there is "a left". But you will not understand this, and nor will you bother to even try. Which is why it's pointless to debate with a Trump supporter.
Perhaps you should have a chat with Revoltingest. He claims he has the ability to break through such willful and determined ignorance.
Not always easy, but I've managed with you at times.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
Then according to you, it is pointless to put Trump on the stand. No matter what he says, you'll believe he's guilty.
Restricted forums with echo chamber threads aren't the most interesting to read,
since we outsiders cannot respond. But I checked it out, & find your post cromulent.
Too many of these anti-Trump types indeed filled with hate & prejudice for anyone
who voted for Trump. They preach tolerance & understanding without practicing either.
They claim they cannot talk to us...to reason with us. Actually, this is often true, but
because they insult, label, & dwell upon campaign & personal drama while avoiding
governmental issues. Of course we won't be receptive to uninteresting abuse.
Fortunately, some anti-Trump here can converse with insight & civility...
@Shadow Wolf & @Quetzal to name just a couple.
Nope.
I am sure that Trump is so accustomed to lying without repercussions that he will lie.
Just like Slick Willy was in the 90s. Except that Bill was accused of cheating on Hillary. Trump will be accused of treason.
Let's see if Trump can remain totally honest, on the stand and under oath. While he answers questions about why he fired the FBI director.
Tom
Akivah
Well-Known Member
I'm presuming that your measure of his veracity is totally based upon your beliefs and not the proven evidence.
I find civil discussions are much easier when common ground, while it may be rare, is found. It also comes with taking a hard critical look at the party you support (this goes for all voters but Democrats especially given what has happened). I would rather focus my energy on strengthening bonds with my Trump-voting adversaries because, believe it or not, we have many common goals! This can be useful to building a common platform for the midterms into the general election in 2020. Idealistic? Absolutely, but I find this a better alternative to perpetual doom n'gloom.
For those interested in some similarities I find (even in the most adamant of political rivals), they include but are not limited to:
- Not going to war.
- Help preserve natural resources
- Voting to help remove political corruption
- Holding all political officials to their legal/moral consequences.
- etc, etc.
No.
That's the difference between you religious people and us nontheist people.
Trump can be demonstrated to have promised something. He said he would his tax returns before the election. He didn't.
I believe this because the evidence is there. I can give you evidence that Trump said that. You can't give me evidence that Trump did release his tax returns.
That's the difference between you religious people and the rest of us. We have evidence for our claims. You don't.
Tom
What does this have to do with anything? You don't print your tax returns all over the place either.
I never cared whether or not he released them, and find it mildly amusing that it vexes bleeding heart lefties so much. But, only in the playful kind of way, lol. So let me get this straight, you got nothing of substance so all that's left is coming directly at @Akivah's personal beliefs? It's pretty arrogant to presume that "because you are an atheist" you are automatically right about something. Logic is based on only the information we're willing to accept, therefore it is subjective and fallible. It is really only correct or incorrect based on the model applied to understand a particular situation. However, what model is acceptable or "right" often just caters to what we like or sounds good. It's better to look at science as a moving target rather than a new religion, honestly. It's more accurate to speak in terms of "tendencies" than absolute realities, for all you know you could just be in a waking dream and this is just the matrix.
You have no way to tell, it could all be a lie.
In that spirit, I ask are we here to converse to constantly troll each other?
That's exactly the point of my original post...
I mean, we can always resort to just posting bacon memes when we have nothing nice to say.
The vicious circle is posting some banal comment about some half-true media crap, then one of the Trump liking folks trying to honestly answer or refute some questions in regard to it, and then whole forum does the lefty dog pile on them. I've started limiting my responses to people whom are posting original thoughts or aren't merely trolls. If you are trolling repeatedly I just ignore you, never to see you again. (Mostly, if the subject repeatedly shifts off of the the topic, and onto genetic/weak ad hominem attacks.) Of course, that has nothing to do with the person simply disagreeing with me - I'm just streamlining my replies for my optimal user experience.
That's why I include it as an option in polls.In that spirit, I ask are we here to converse to constantly troll each other?
That's exactly the point of my original post...
I mean, we can always resort to just posting bacon memes when we have nothing nice to say.
Everyone loves bacon of one kind or another.
Aye, I've had to slightly expand the small group of posters around whom I walk on eggs.
Rather strange thing to walk on.
It's even worse if they're about to hatch.
Brand an entire group of tens of millions as "im" or "a" moral.
And there's the blind partisanship we've all come to love here.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
There's not really any difference between religious people and non-religious people. People are people and we all have different beliefs.
You're changing subjects, I never claimed that Trump doesn't lie. You said that Trump would lie on the stand and under oath, and even if he was, that you wouldn't believe him anyways. I simply asked why you would want to see Trump under oath since you wouldn't believe him no matter what.
Wait a minute, when exactly did the Dems become a bastion of moral authority?
Anyway, "anyone" is a pretty large net... You sure must think you know a lot about something.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Do you believe that two wrongs make a right?
Secondly, it is you who is playing partisan politics with this-- not me. As an example, I felt that Bill Clinton, Al Franken, and John Conyers should have resigned, and the latter two did.
I do know that one tends to be at least somewhat like the company one tends to keep.
BTW, whaddya think about Trump's personal lawyer, Cohen, admitting that he paid the porn star who admitted having an affair with Trump even though Trump and Melania were only married for a few months? This is the kind of guy you want as your president, and this isn't the first time he's done stuff like this? Don't basic ethics count, and which "Old Religion" does behavior like that fit into?