Christians what do you think about Trump's convictions

[metis]

In these cases it is not about freedom of speech, but about causing falsely harm to others.

Which also a legal basis that limits freedom of speech legally.

This means also, if medical company told a vaccine is safe and then many people die because of it, they are murderers and deserve the penalty that is for murderers.

Intent is a factor that can and often does come into play.

 

[metis]

Human life and freedom is more important. That is why I am against forcing others to give their money.

So, you're against all taxes? You're against people being sued?

It appears money is more important than anything else to you.

 

[1213]

Please be so kind as to present the names of these "abortion companies".

I believe one such a company is the Planned Parenthood, which I think have admitted they do so, just not in the worst way. But, there are claims that they are actually doing worse than what they admit, and I can easily believe that.

Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video - FactCheck.org

The full Planned Parenthood video shows an executive repeatedly saying its clinics want to cover their costs, not make money, when donating fetal tissue from abortions for scientific research.

www.factcheck.org

 

[1213]

Which also a legal basis that limits freedom of speech legally.

I don't think so. The limit is and I think should be for example in that people should not murder others. If one kills other person softly with his words, it is a murder case, not a case about freedom of speech.

Intent is a factor that can and often does come into play.

And as we all know, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Good intention is not a good reason to do evil things.

 

[1213]

So, you're against all taxes? You're against people being sued?

I am against forcing people to pay.

It appears money is more important than anything else to you.

If money would be more important, I also would force others to pay.

 

[metis]

I am against forcing people to pay.

If money would be more important, I also would force others to pay.

That's not even remotely logical, so maybe rethink this.

 

[metis]

I don't think so. The limit is and I think should be for example in that people should not murder others. If one kills other person softly with his words, it is a murder case, not a case about freedom of speech.

So, if I trick someone to kill you, an innocent person, that's "freedom of speech" thus not punishable? How about if I show state secrets to an enemy compromising our country's security, that's "freedom of speech" thus not punishable?

 

[Laniakea]

Not sore. Just tired of the games.

Likewise.

 

[1213]

So, if I trick someone to kill you, an innocent person, that's "freedom of speech" thus not punishable?

I think the speech itself is not.

How about if I show state secrets to an enemy compromising our country's security, that's "freedom of speech" thus not punishable?

When governments tells that they should have the right to spy every citizen, they say, "honest non criminal people have nothing to hide". Why would it be any different in case of governments, shouldn't non evil government have nothing to hide?

But, I think treason is already punishable, no need to separately silence everyone who disagrees with government.

 

[1213]

That's not even remotely logical, so maybe rethink this.

Sorry, if it was unclear. The point is, I am against that people are forced to pay taxes. But, if I would not care about others, and if I would care only about the money, I would not have a problem in forcing others to pay taxes.

 

[metis]

I think the speech itself is not.

When governments tells that they should have the right to spy every citizen, they say, "honest non criminal people have nothing to hide". Why would it be any different in case of governments, shouldn't non evil government have nothing to hide?

But, I think treason is already punishable, no need to separately silence everyone who disagrees with government.

So, the motive behind speech isn't important? That's like children saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Well, the reality is that words can indeed hurt people as we have repeatedly seen. We also know words can hurt groups as words often have consequences and also an entire country.

 

[metis]

Sorry, if it was unclear. The point is, I am against that people are forced to pay taxes. But, if I would not care about others, and if I would care only about the money, I would not have a problem in forcing others to pay taxes.

That is totally unworkable and would lead to a collapse of security for the entire country. Even our founding fathers well knew this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Likewise.

Then I'd suggest you stop playing them.

 

[wellwisher]

Well since this is religious forums...
We have heard what strong dems and strong repubs think...
So regardless of party what do the Christians here think of Trumps convictions.

From a legal POV the Prosecution's case was based on an untested theory of the law. All the charges were past the statute of limitations, by established law. It was over, so they had to come up with a new legal angle, to try to reset the counter of limitations. This bad logic will be over turned on appeal, but the scam can and did do damage; time and money. However, it appears to be backfiring, since Trump is gaining popularity and closing in on Biden even in States Biden won.

For example, they are trying to say Trump's payment of money, to Stormy, as part of a disclosure agreed was misuse of campaign funds. There is nothing wrong or illegal to pay people not to disclose trade secrets. Their spin is saying he had two piles of money; his own and campaign money, and he used money from the campaign pile. How do you prove or disprove that? The Democrats had already use the Stormy Daniel angle to damage Trump years ago; 2016, but it did not stick, but may have hurt his wife and family due to dirty laundry.

If I recall, Trump began his run by using his own money. That is what made him different in the primaries. He invested in himself ,and therefore he claimed that he was no under the thumb of the donors and swam, like the rest. The fact is he did spend $100M of his own money, tells me he can afford to pay his tab for personal business. If he was poor or limit is would make some sense.

All the charges and guilty verdicts are based on shaky legal premises that the judge instructed the jury to ignore. Then again it did election interfere for months and cost Trump money to defend, and will keeping on giving to the Democrats, through the appeal process.

The other problem I see is, Trump was out of office for three years and nobody bothered him, beyond the sham jan 6 kangaroo court. It was not until he decided to run, did this legal scam B come into operation. It is deliberant election interference. Most people see this and are not taking the sham indictments seriously, but are siding with Trump as being a continuous victim of Swamp scam persecution since 2016. Can anyone count the number of scams the DNC has tried and Trump won since they were scams? People want Trump to get elected, so they can watch Trump get even with the swamp. Some liberals bullies are already shaking and complaining; Rachel Madcow and Liberal FBI minions.

Trump showed mercy after the failed Russian Collision scam, and did nothing but accept their scapegoat offering. Trump hoped this was behind them all, but the Swamp doubled down and now ever tripled down. Trump has no choice but to put some hurt, since they do not respond to mercy, but see it a weakness and an opportunity to attack again, with even worse scams. Donations are coming in from even rich Democrats, who see rhe writing on the wall and wish safe ground when the tidal wave comes.

 

[Kathryn]

I'm a Christian and pretty much a conservative but I can't stand Trump and I don't really care about his convictions one way or the other. I do not personally believe that either he or Hunter Biden are violent or should spend any time in prison.

 

[1213]

So, the motive behind speech isn't important? That's like children saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Well, the reality is that words can indeed hurt people as we have repeatedly seen. We also know words can hurt groups as words often have consequences and also an entire country.

I think if words hurt so much that fascism is required, one should grow up.

 

[1213]

That is totally unworkable and would lead to a collapse of security for the entire country. Even our founding fathers well knew this.

I disagree with that. I think the danger for every country and people comes from the governments that think they are entitled to take money from others.

 

[metis]

I disagree with that. I think the danger for every country and people comes from the governments that think they are entitled to take money from others.

In a democratic republic, we the people ARE the government!

So, go count your money, I guess, because that's where your heart seems to be.
Matthew 16-21: 19 “Don’t store up treasures here on earth, where moths eat them and rust destroys them, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 Store your treasures in heaven, where moths and rust cannot destroy, and thieves do not break in and steal. 21 Wherever your treasure is, there the desires of your heart will also be.

 

[metis]

And more relating to the above:
Ecclesiastes 5:10
He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves abundance with its income. This too is vanity.

2 Timothy 3:2
For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,

1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

 

[F1fan]

I am against forcing people to pay.

So people can walk into a store and just take things for free?

We pay taxes because we get services like education for kids, police, fire protection, paved roads, social management, infrastructure, state hospitals, etc. So you want to take all these services for free?

How about this, in you want to live in a city that has services you agree to pay. If you opt out of paying taxes you have to live outside the city and try to survive on your own. How long until you and other start pooling resources so you all can benefit?

If money would be more important, I also would force others to pay.

You certainly value money highly.

I disagree with that. I think the danger for every country and people comes from the governments that think they are entitled to take money from others.

See? Do you really think there would be any money if not for an organized government saying that money has a value? That includes gold. If all governments collapsed and there was no money or anything of value, even gold wouldn't be worth much. Things have value because there is a society saying it has value. So you sound like you want all the benefits of a socity, and glocal society, but are too greedy and selfish to contribute. It's called freeloading if you have the means, but don't want to contribute your share.