• 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!

The Most Frightening Thing (for me)...

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
There are recent trending articles about how u.s. bases were swarmed by mysterious drones for 17 days.. maybe ufo drones. Seems like it should be more concerning than our little election rounds, or no?
 

Wirey

Fartist
There are recent trending articles about how u.s. bases were swarmed by mysterious drones for 17 days.. maybe ufo drones. Seems like it should be more concerning than our little election rounds, or no?
No. An alien intelligence that could visit us could overwhelm us if they wanted, so if they wanted we'd already be ET food. And since they don't exist, it seems highly unlikely.
 

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
The sickness is all yours.

Trump's hatred *IS* the truth, a truth you either can't see or condone.

Here's more paradox. If you love love, then you likely hate its enemies and defend love from them in unloving ways if necessary. Contempt for Trump is an expression of love of country. You don't shame anybody by pointing out that they hate Trump except yourself for failing to do the same.

We see more of this type of paradox with so-called peace officers (police). To protect or restore the peace, sometimes they must resort to physical force including tasers and guns.
Uh huh. Great comment, Have a great day!
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
The sickness is all yours.

Trump's hatred *IS* the truth, a truth you either can't see or condone.

Here's more paradox. If you love love, then you likely hate its enemies and defend love from them in unloving ways if necessary. Contempt for Trump is an expression of love of country. You don't shame anybody by pointing out that they hate Trump except yourself for failing to do the same.

We see more of this type of paradox with so-called peace officers (police). To protect or restore the peace, sometimes they must resort to physical force including tasers and guns.
There's something in the above that we don't talk about much, but what I hear from Trump supporters more than anything else is, "I was better off during his administration." This, of course, means money. Yes, inflation happened, but it's cause can be directly linked to Trump, his handling of the pandemic, and the first big packages to aid individuals and businesses, along with the failure to impose means of containing the virus and slowing the spread.

But that aside, this "I was better off" notion speaks to something else -- it speaks to pure selfishness! The nation can go to hell, so long as I'm getting mine. That's certainly not what JFK asked of Americans in his inaugural address, when he announced that "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty." And when he asked his fellow Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

That sentiment, alas, is gone. I don't see it coming back.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
But that is an accomplishment that will be undone if Trump is elected.

Harris was not called upon to prevent a dictatorship, until now.
Harris was called upon to unleash WW3 and to turn Europe into a nuclear battlefield.
So we Europeans are all nuked and dead.

But I put this into your conscience: do you really care if we all die?
I am sure the answer will be no. ;)
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
There is expert analysis in many publications. I guess you are admitting of being one of those poorly informed people out there making decisions that affect our nation and global affairs. That's why Trump has so much support:
Bad judgment by poory informed citizens.

Let me help you do the homework you should be doing yourself as a citizen




My guess is that @Balthazzar is just asking for something that many of us would like to see more of here: someone offering a rational and detailed explanation for their endorsement of their candidate/party rather than just making doomsday predictions about what would happen if the other side wins.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
I am a skeptical thinker, also. It was the "All because" statement you made that I was compelled to contribute with the inquiry.

It seems to me that this election is more and more taking out the character of a holy war between two competing religious factions, complete with threats of hell if the other side wins.

But even more so in this attitude that "anyone who isnt for us must be against us", exp:

F1fan said:
I guess you are admitting of being one of those poorly informed people out there making decisions that affect our nation and global affairs. That's why Trump has so much support:
Bad judgment by poory informed citizens.

And reactions to sincere questioning as if it were some sort of blasphemy:

F1fan said:
Let me help you do the homework you should be doing yourself as a citizen.

But fear not @Balthazzar, I have every faith that even umwashed infidels such as ourselves ( that is: anyone who doesn't have a fanatical attachment to one outcome or another) may still have a chance at redemption as long as our resident patron saints of snarky self-righteousness continue to try to bless us in their evangelical zeal. :D
 
Last edited:

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I voted early yesterday. I voted for Harris. I’m a life long (R). Trump is just way too flawed!
I agree that Trump is too flawed but I am going to write in a vote, not vote for Harris. I do not live in a swing state by the way, and my vote is unlikely to change anything one way or the other but someone will see it somewhere and that's good enough for me.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
My guess is that @Balthazzar is just asking for something that many of us would like to see more of here: someone offering a rational and detailed explanation for their endorsement of their candidate/party rather than just making doomsday predictions about what would happen if the other side wins.
I actually tried to do that, in a slightly unconventional but (in my view) very useful way in this thread -- to which not a single member has even posted a comment.

 

F1fan

Veteran Member
My guess is that @Balthazzar is just asking for something that many of us would like to see more of here: someone offering a rational and detailed explanation for their endorsement of their candidate/party rather than just making doomsday predictions about what would happen if the other side wins.
This might be true in 2008 between Obama and McCain. Or in 2012 between Obama and Romney. And even in 2016 between Clinton and Trump as all these candidates had fairly workable ideas. Trump in 2024 has more risky ideas that could not only affect the USA but also global stability. Want details? Trump’s notable support for Putin will mean a destabilizing impact for Ukraine and NATO countries. We can’t reslly predict outcomes but the risk of a global war would increase.

That alone should be enough to not vote for Trump. He is disturbed and growing more aggressive against the media, citizens, and political opponents. That’s unacceptable. Yet he’s being treated as if he is a typical politician and candidate. He’s nothing of the sort.

There’s only one emotionally stable candidate who can be trusted. Is she perfect? No. But she is stable.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
My guess is that @Balthazzar is just asking for something that many of us would like to see more of here: someone offering a rational and detailed explanation for their endorsement of their candidate/party rather than just making doomsday predictions about what would happen if the other side wins.

So are you saying that Trump is not a substantial and, as far as the U.S. is concerned, nearly unprecedented threat to democracy and the rule of law?
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
This might be true in 2008 between Obama and McCain. Or in 2012 between Obama and Romney. And even in 2016 between Clinton and Trump as all these candidates had fairly workable ideas. Trump in 2024 has more risky ideas that could not only affect the USA but also global stability. Want details? Trump’s notable support for Putin will mean a destabilizing impact for Ukraine and NATO countries. We can’t reslly predict outcomes but the risk of a global war would increase.

That alone should be enough to not vote for Trump. He is disturbed and growing more aggressive against the media, citizens, and political opponents. That’s unacceptable. Yet he’s being treated as if he is a typical politician and candidate. He’s nothing of the sort.

There’s only one emotionally stable candidate who can be trusted. Is she perfect? No. But she is stable.
Literally none of what I said has anything to do with who to vote for.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I was expecting something like: I do care about Europe's safety.
:)
I am afraid I will never listen to that from you.
Trump does care.
I was referring to your statement that " Harris was called upon to unleash WW3 and to turn Europe into a nuclear battlefield. So we Europeans are all nuked and dead."

I'm having a difficult time remembering when that happened, you see.

But for the record, I am a huge Europe supporter. Canada is a member of NATO, and that is something a greatly approve of, since it increases the safety for EVERYBODY -- including Russia -- because it reduces the likelihood that any nation will take on a NATO country because the rest would respond with Article 5. (The European countries I support least, at the moment, are Russia, Belarus and Hungary, because I don't like dictators.)

And for the record, it was Trump, early in his first (and with luck, ony) term, who threatened to pull the US out of NATO. Trump gets his jollies thinking about dictators.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
So are you saying that Trump is not a substantial and, as far as the U.S. is concerned, nearly unprecedented threat to democracy and the rule of law?
In exactly the same way that you're suggesting that we should teach wallabies how to play the accordion.
 
Top