Scary Trump: Fails Basic Literacy Test; Way Of Speaking Is "Oddly Adolescent"

[Revoltingest]

Remind me why the answer should not be "the people who voted for him", please?

I knew it.
So I assume that my betters who voted for him also knew it.

It shouldn't come as news, but deciding upon a vote requires
considering may traits of all candidates, both positive & negative.
We who voted for Trump knew of his negatives.
Hillary voters on RF also spoke of her negatives.
Tolerating shortcomings doesn't mean that we're all unaware of them.

Have you ever voted for a less than perfect candidate?

 

[LuisDantas]

You are not helping your case, you know.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are not helping your case, you know.

You aren't responding, you know.

 

[LuisDantas]

It should be obvious, but if you need it to be made explicit:

Sure, I have. I am not even sure that there is such a thing as a perfect candidate.

That in no way connects to the matter of voting in Trump. That needs some sort of major explanation.

Trump is not a run of the mill "less than perfect" candidate. He is a gross parody.

 

[Revoltingest]

It should be obvious, but if you need it to be made explicit:
Sure, I have. I am not even sure that there is such a thing as a perfect candidate.
That in no way connects to the matter of voting in Trump. That needs some sort of major explanation.
Trump is not a run of the mill "less than perfect" candidate. He is a gross parody.

Before the election, we voters on RF tallied pluses & minuses for both.
She was also more less perfect than anyone would've wanted.
And thus, you understand that when voting for a candidate with
faults, this doesn't mean one is unaware of the faults.

 

[LuisDantas]

Before the election, we voters on RF tallied pluses & minuses for both.
She was also more less perfect than anyone would've wanted.
And thus, you understand that when voting for a candidate with
faults, this doesn't mean one is unaware of the faults.

Again: that is no excuse for voting for Trump.

You are not even trying.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again: that is no excuse for voting for Trump.

There's something going on with extreme anti-Trump types.
They cannot or will not see that there is any merit on the other side.
I can see reasonable arguments why Hillary voters chose her, my
opposition notwithstanding. I wouldn't say that people have "no excuse
voting for Hillary". But anti-Trumpers have "The Truth", & will have
no truck with other perspectives or views.

You are not even trying.

Correct.
I'll not try to convince you that Trump was the best candidate.
I've detailed my reasoning before, but if it's still rejected or
ignored, then repeating myself will change nothing.

 

[Phantasman]

Where have you seen them "trampling Old Glory" here? They're here because they want to be here, so why don't you get that?

My wife is from a very poor area in Italy, what could have easily been called a "backwater" region, and she's proud of her Italian heritage-- but even more so proud to be an American. She's raised the American flag, which represents a country that these "backwater" people have fled to.

And what did Jesus say about the poor and the "stranger"? Did he say "Deport those backwater people!"? IOW, WWJD, Phantasman?

Protesting is a right. A right given to Americans under our Constitution. Not to visitors from others countries. They can protest all they want in their country like Iran does. They don't have Constitutional "rights" until they become "legal" Americans. Right now the illegals are being allowed to stay by Americas patience, not by any American law. If the law were followed, they "would" be sent back to their birth nations for their parents responsibility.

This will eventually work out best for them due to it being Americas fault for not enforcing it's own law, as well as local, state and federal governments not following the law and allowing lawlessness to create the problem.

It's not about making Jesus a political figure in any government. Jesus separated that system by giving Caesar what is Caesars and God what is Gods. This decision isn't about God, but the system (Caesar) of government. Jesus would never tell his followers to break the law. The law is flesh, God is spirit. These people have God no matter what (flesh) system they are in.

Orthodoxy has always been about running governments. Christianity (in it's true form) is a theology, not a theocracy. Jews and Muslims are theocracies.

 

[metis]

Not to visitors from others countries.

The Dreamers are not "visitors".

It's not about making Jesus a political figure in any government. Jesus separated that system by giving Caesar what is Caesars and God what is Gods.

If one thinks that there can be an actual complete separation of church and state, they don't understand religion-- Gandhi (paraphrased).

But really the issue here is compassion for those in need, which I would hope one should feel is important if they're actually a believer in Jesus. Jesus clearly was compassionate and just (fair). Maybe it's best for you to reread the Sermon On the Mount and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats (Matthew 25). Maybe it's best for you to reread the Psalmist where he says nations will be judged by how they treat the poor.

Jews and Muslims are theocracies.

"Jews" is a nationality-- not a religion nor a form of government. There a Christian Jews, secular Jews, etc. "Judaism", a religion, does not dictate what form of government a state must have, and I would suggest the Israel is a "Jewish country" that actually is a thriving democracy-- not a theocracy.

"Muslims" are members of a religion (Islam), but it does not dictate which form of government there must be. The most populist Islamic country is Indonesia, and it is a democracy: Indonesia - Wikipedia

You actually might consider looking things up before posting, Phantasman.

 

[Phantasman]

The Dreamers are not "visitors".

If one thinks that there can be an actual complete separation of church and state, they don't understand religion-- Gandhi (paraphrased).

But really the issue here is compassion for those in need, which I would hope one should feel is important if they're actually a believer in Jesus. Jesus clearly was compassionate and just (fair). Maybe it's best for you to reread the Sermon On the Mount and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats (Matthew 25). Maybe it's best for you to reread the Psalmist where he says nations will be judged by how they treat the poor.

"Jews" is a nationality-- not a religion nor a form of government. There a Christian Jews, secular Jews, etc. "Judaism", a religion, does not dictate what form of government a state must have, and I would suggest the Israel is a "Jewish country" that actually is a thriving democracy-- not a theocracy.

"Muslims" are members of a religion (Islam), but it does not dictate which form of government there must be. The most populist Islamic country is Indonesia, and it is a democracy: Indonesia - Wikipedia

You actually might consider looking things up before posting, Phantasman.

Judaic Laws and Shariah Laws are for nations (ie government) There is no Christian nation,

Christians are hated by all nations. Matt 24:9
I don't read parables. Luke 8:10
You should try gnosis rather than figuring out or arguing parables. The parables come to life with spiritual knowledge.

 

[metis]

Judaic Laws and Shariah Laws are for nations (ie government) There is no Christian nation,

Now you are conflating "theocracy" with "laws" that establish basic morals. If you actually looked up what "shari'a" means and deals with, most of these laws deal with non-governmental matters. Same is true with "halacha" (Jewish law).

And the reality is that God established rules of moral conduct as found in Torah, which God inspired, right? If God really doesn't care about anything governmental, then why are there such laws given by Him?

During Jesus' time, we were not in control of the government, thus it's rather logical that He wouldn't have much to say about governmental regulations. But one thing to note is that He did not undercut the Law or imply that it shouldn't be followed, which is what "render unto Caesar..." is really saying. To put it another way, there's no indication whatsoever that Jesus was an anarchist who wanted to do away with government or who thought that government was intrinsically immoral. What He rather obviously was saying is that we all need to have priorities, and in this case meaning to follow God's Law as specified in Torah, which has some restrictions and some obligations dealing with the basic morals for government to follow.

At no point did he say or imply that government is immoral and should be abandoned. Even Paul discounts that when he tells the flock to "obey all authority...".

 

[Phantasman]

Now you are conflating "theocracy" with "laws" that establish basic morals. If you actually looked up what "shari'a" means and deals with, most of these laws deal with non-governmental matters. Same is true with "halacha" (Jewish law).

And the reality is that God established rules of moral conduct as found in Torah, which God inspired, right? If God really doesn't care about anything governmental, then why are there such laws given by Him?

During Jesus' time, we were not in control of the government, thus it's rather logical that He wouldn't have much to say about governmental regulations. But one thing to note is that He did not undercut the Law or imply that it shouldn't be followed, which is what "render unto Caesar..." is really saying. To put it another way, there's no indication whatsoever that Jesus was an anarchist who wanted to do away with government or who thought that government was intrinsically immoral. What He rather obviously was saying is that we all need to have priorities, and in this case meaning to follow God's Law as specified in Torah, which has some restrictions and some obligations dealing with the basic morals for government to follow.

At no point did he say or imply that government is immoral and should be abandoned. Even Paul discounts that when he tells the flock to "obey all authority...".

The Gospel message is void in your post.

Read Romans 13 over and over till you get it.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

The law is not merely obeyed by actions of flesh. When we love God, then others, the law becomes fulfilled and we are not judged by it. Love is not a law. It is a request (commandment) of the Father by the Son. Without the Spirit the 3 are not one as Jesus taught. The OT Law does nothing. The flesh profits nothing. The Law is of the flesh, which profits nothing. The mystery is revealed.
Romans:
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

You're just not seeing it. It's a hard habit to break. Mosaic law was the law of sin. Law of flesh.
Romans:
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Galatians:
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians is Paul teaching us of the false gospel. A gospel teaching the law for redemption. It is false. The law saves no one. You can follow it to the hilt and die as the Jews did. It is our faith in Christ through love that we are saved. When we love as our Father loves, we don't sin. This is the will of God. To love others as God loved us. When we do this, we don't lie, cheat, steal, etc. because our love doesn't drive such actions.

I'm sorry you don't see it or understand it. But I expect it because the deceiver is so strong.

 

[metis]

I'm sorry you don't see it or understand it. But I expect it because the deceiver is so strong.