I sense some sarcasm in there....or in this case, "sarchasm".
-
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!
Trump's America -- Crimes against humanity
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
That's interesting you thought I was being sarcastic.
You were serious?
Then dumb it down a bit, please.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Are you going to answer my question?
People who don't use the phrase "Muslim terrorist" don't use it a lot of times because freedom of religion is taken rather seriously, so I can see where an atheist might be of a different opinion but Christians can't get let off the hook so easy either.
One thing is certain Hillary wouldn't be so careless with civilians. The OP shows Trump cares little for the people there. This is part of the whole problem.
I thought I had answered every legit question.
Which one would you like?
I still don't see what the underlying point is.
I agree that she would've been more considered in her policies.
This is not a good thing for her, given her record & statements,
which cannot be chalked up to momentary petulence. There is
firm intent. Her poor judgement & penchant for war are risk factors.
I wonder if it's even possible for her supporters to see this perspective?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
What made her a greater threat than Trump?
I wonder....
So often on RF, we hear that "Hillary is old news." & that "bringing her up" is deflection.
Yet how can we not discuss her, when her most fervent fans & defenders just won't
drop it? Don't ever blame me for her enduring ubiquity, people!
So often on RF, we hear that "Hillary is old news." & that "bringing her up" is deflection.
Yet how can we not discuss her, when her most fervent fans & defenders just won't
drop it? Don't ever blame me for her enduring ubiquity, people!
With the partisanship thing, one side tends to be pro freedom of religion while the other side tends to be more pro freedom of Christianity. It's a problem especially when a group of people see an entire religion as a threat because it doesn't jive with Christianity. My point was, fighting terrorism isn't the same as trying to fight one particular religion like Trump might suggest with his "radical Muslim terrorist" rhetoric.
No you brought it up first. Deflecting trumps current warmonger status. The elections warmongers is old news.
I did answer, & I'll do so again.
(But at some point I'll start refusing.)
The highlights.....
She voted to start the Iraq war, & to continue both wars.
She threatened to "obliterate Iran".
If you didn't & don't bother to read the threads & posts about
comparing the two candidates before the election, it's really
presumptuous to expect us to re-hash it all just for you.
The let's stick to the OP. Why is Trump killing so many civilians? Because he is a bigot and a hatemonger.
I disapprove of his rhetoric.
I often have.
So I don't know what you're going after here.
Deflecting?
Now I think you're the one who is confused.
Ok well he hasn't really changed his tone so it's the same person less than half the nation voted for
Check post #2.
Your side brought The Hildabeast into the discussion first.
Did you object then?
No.
Were I paranoid, I might think that you guyz set traps.....
Make SWSNBN a topic, & then object if others take the bait.
Do you have more than just insults for him?
Those don't inspire discussion.
Last edited:
Still smarting over the EC process?
Remember that SWSNBN (she-who-shall-not-be-named) had less than half of the votes.
Neither achieving a real majority indicates the low quality of choices from the Big Two.
Nonetheless, he won by the rules in place before the election.
Complaining about them & the result doesn't change that.