Featured Donald Trump accepts Christ

Wow a thank you is considered meaningless rhetoric. Good to know

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

The conservative vote is not getting him elected.

The anti-Hillary vote is primarily what is driving his campaign among the mainstream voters. Otherwise it is those who are frightened and angry who are at the core of his campaign.

He barely has any policy positions to speak of, except for striking out at those he has identified as the enemies of his way of life.

He has been pro-choice, except when he hasn't. He has been pro-homosexual, except when he hasn't. He has been reliably anti-religious liberty.

I oppose Islam but I do not oppose religious liberty. I do not advocate using the sword to restrict Islam, nor treat people differently on the basis of their religious heritage.

I think you DO realize when you are using an ad hominem to deflect attention from the issue. You use it quite skillfully, so I think I will point it out each time you do it.

Well Trump would have to have a public foreign policy in order to make a comparison. Obama actually has a weak one. Trump tells us nothing but demonstrates his ignorance and bullying attitude. Do you trust him with the nuclear launch codes? I don't.

Trump is a bully. We have been a bully in history from time to time, but indiscriminately killing people has not been our nature. We had to bomb entire cities in WW2, but that was after a long period of war where things had ratcheted up to that point. Moreover, simply killing people doesn't solve the issue, it only exacerbates it.

Obama has not essentially advocated an end to religious liberty and controls on freedom of the press. Undermining the Bill of Rights is a radical position.

Ad hominem

Ad hominem. FWIW, I have never watch MSNBC. I don't listen to partisan talking head shows.

Intentionally bombing women and children is radical. Our military does not do that. We have no such tradition.

Ah, the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

You would rather throw away our Constitution than vote for Hillary Clinton? Appalling.

Nice. The "No true Scotsman" fallacy coupled with guilt by association.

You are quite skilled at debate and introducing logical fallacies into the discussion while ignoring anything you don't want to deal with. However, I am not a simple-minded person who is swayed by rhetorical tricks.

If Trump ignores and undermines the Constitution, then we are a long way from even having common ground to deal with pro-life and pro-family issues. You're concerned with having the right Supreme Court Justices to interpret the Constitution. I'm worried about having a Constitution.

 

Well considering that when you point out to Trump supporters that he has no regard for the constitution and Bill of rights my experience has been they shrug their shoulders and say at least it's our guy ripping those documents to shreds.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

Darrell, seriously. I think you just like to argue.

First, propaganda is covered by the fact that I provided 4 possible choices for the last voter. That voter, who represents the undecided, will weigh factors based on all the propaganda and other known facts and cast (or not cast) their vote, resulting in the 4 possible outcomes.

Second, if you really want to include propaganda, then your argument would be more feasible if you provide the effects of propaganda on past elections; and also include the number of third-party and write-in votes from past elections, the number of each party who voted, etc., etc. As I mentioned previously, I was simplifying the argument.

Third, I do NOT assume everyone is going to vote. I mentioned 6 people who voted; those who don't vote *can't* be calculated into the final tally. All you can say about them is they didn't vote; you can say "if they'd voted" all you want, but that and $3.25 might get you a small coffee at Starbuck's, and doesn't change the outcome of the vote in any way.

Partially; but they're speculation based on numbers.

Everything we're discussing is speculation, so this is a specious argument.

"If." Speculation?

Mostly agree. I would propose that conservatives realize that, as an example, voting against abortion benefits both the society and the individual, due to the regard for life; the Christian principle of "thou shalt not murder." A society that instills a mentality of "abortion is a convenience" is a society that rejects a regard for life, and rejects God as the creator of all life.

As of late May, it was 20% of Sanders supporters saying they would vote for Trump.

As of yesterday, some liberal news sources are saying the number is down to 8%. But like the news yesterday (or the day before) that 60-something% of voters say Trump isn't qualified to be president that poll seems mainly to have been made at Clinton supporter locations....

No argument from me.

I said that you vote for the party, no matter who's the candidate. You wrote that conservative voters tend to vote for the republican candidate; then you wrote above that your argument centers on a viable option to combat agendas. So the conclusion is, you'll vote for the party that opposes those agendas, no matter who the candidate is.

If the candidate actually matters to you, then you would have written about the candidate, and not injected this obfuscation about "oppose the agendas" You see, we're all aware of the liberal agenda; you just haven't proven that Trump will oppose it, and not actually further it.

You know what's not logical? Remember the fable about the Fox and the Scorpion?

It's not logical to think the scorpion won't sting, no matter how much he reassures you.

And you're positive that Trump will stem the tide?

You're predicating your identification of my vote as "wasted" on no more assurance than "well, if it doesn't work out, we just won't re-elect him."

As I've said before, whether you agree or not, the only wasted vote is the one not cast. That's the person who allows everyone else to make the decision for them.

My Christianity doesn't stop at the church door. It is the foundation for everything I do, and every decision I make.

 

Part 2:

First, I apologize; perhaps I would have been clearer if I said "Trump is more obvious about it.

Second, my statement was Trump was as much of a threat; typically, people interpret that to mean "equal."

Third, what other candidate has ever revoked the press credentials of a news organization, no matter how heinous that organization's reporting on that candidate was? Or made statements that he would do more to see that news outlets are easier to sue--and thereby silenced?

Do we agree that some news sources take advantage of their 1st Amendment and freedom of the press rights? Yes. But such actions against the press will NOT be overturned by a liberal who replaces Trump; and more likely, will be continued and expanded upon, simply because they will be able to point the finger at republicans and say "well, you're the ones that started it." Then what do we say when the tables are turned on conservative news sources? Do the second-order, third-order, and long-term effects justify the knee-jerk hurt-feelings response?

 

Only God knows the Donald's heart. Hope that he has. As well as hope he can be a humble and nicer man. Leave it at that.

 

Ungh ungh. Not called of God to support either evil.

 

I guess you think Thomas Edison was a failure as well.

There is no reason to your argument, it is the same sad wresting of data in order to promote your candidate.


God bless.

 

Correct. You are called of God to combat evil and the only way to do that is to make sure Hillary Clinton is not the next President of the United States.

And only by voting for Trump can abortion, homosexuality, and Islam be stemmed from its current course of promotion.


God bless.

 

I didn't say it was, what I said is if the conservative vote helps to get him elected, the conservative vote will help to get him re-elected.

I think the airheads that watch reality TV shows will also help to get him elected.

Yeah? No kidding?

That's because some of us realize what a disaster she would be as a president. She will continue the advances Obama has made for various liberal agendas and the saddest part of this is...there are "Christians" who are going to vote for her.

And why?

Why would anyone think it's okay to advance Islam, homosexuality, and abortion?

As far as being frightened, that is true. It frightens me on a number of levels, the most serious being that many of these "Christians" are not Christians, they have been deceived by the world and are in full support of Satan's Agenda.

It's your way of life as well.

Restoring ties with our Allies affects the American way of life.

A strong position against Radical Islam supports the Christian Way of Life.

You have a focus on what Donald Trump considers enemies of "his way of life," but you are completely blind to who Obama considers friends of his way of life.

And that's not something I find hard to believe.

And that is relevant to what I have said...how?

Let me reiterate: as long as he is running as a Republican he is going to have a responsibility to the conservative voters in this country.

Don't think I view Trump as someone that is trustworthy, I do not. What I view him as, oddly enough, is...

...a politician.

And most politicians are concerned about those that help get him elected. Why do you think they all go out and make promises and speeches they think the People want to hear.

If his speeches reflect a pro-choice and pro homosexual position, then we can say that this country has fallen to a point where the majority accepts those changes these Agendas have been working for years to create.

And if you voted for Obama, you helped bring that change about. And I am speaking generally to all who voted for him.

My, how fabulously magnanimous of you.

Was it religious heritage that drove two planes into the Twin Towers? Yup.

Is it religious liberty heritage that stood many Christians on a beach and cut their heads off? Yup.

Is it religious heritage that has seen the deaths of, according to the last stats I looked at in May, has killed 350 Christians because they were...Christians?

Yup.

Again, you don't know how silly you sound. That is not ad hominen (and we will get to that shortly), that is just a simple fact.

Let me tell you why: our Religious Heritage as Americans has always stood on the premise that forced religion is wrong. Islam's religious heritage has always, from day one, stood on the premise of convert or die. World domination has always been the goal of Islam, and it still is. The peace loving Muslims of the world are not the Muslims who are true to their religion...

...the radical Islamists are.

What you are saying is that you are willing to let people die, because you fear to impinge on their religious liberties.

That is insane.


Continued...

 

Its not ad hominem, it is simply a statement of fact. You don't really want to argue psycho-babble with me, my friend, because you are not even of the level of the average atheist in debate, so employing their defense tactics will, I assure you...not go very well for you.

You are a fan of Obama's policy, and...you are a supporter of his policies.

That includes Abortion, Homosexuality, and the rise of Islam.

Apparently you spend your time finding negative things to say about Trump, digging through propaganda so you can help support Obama's policies, which will no doubt be carried on through hillary Clinton.

The saddest thing is that you are not even aware that you are doing so.


Continued...

 

Trump has made a Foreign Policy Statement, and it sounded pretty good to me, as an American.

And for the record, anytime someone takes a strong position, the chances they are going to be called a bully is very real.

It's funny you have time to dig up dirt on Donald Trump in your campaign to support Obama and Clinton, but you are not even aware of Trump's position on Foreign Policy?

And that, my friend, is why you are not even at the level of the average atheist, who understands the importance of having all the facts. At least they try.

As far as Trump having launch codes, again, you show your ignorance. As though Trump is handed launch codes and can effect them at whim. Everyone that is elected President enters into an established construct of Government...we are not electing a King, amigo.

How is Trump a bully? Why? Because the propaganda you read says he is?

Well...bully for him! lol

Better a bully that foreign countries know better than to spit in his face than the coward we have in Office right now that does not even warrant the leaders of the countries he visits to show up.

That's one of the changes Obama has made. It is a precedent in Presidential history.

And your mythological condemnation of American action in previous warfare shows you have no understanding of what we have done. And for the record, amigo, numerous countries have been at war for decades.

From the Canada Free Press:


Obama’s Backdoor Censorship of the Internet

Once the “wild, wild West” of internet freedom of speech becomes subject to the input of unelected UN bureaucrats from that large, large part of the world that doesn’t hold freedom of speech to be a basic civilizational ideal, we can expect to find the internet becoming significantly less open. And let’s face it, most of the countries in the world do not believe in freedom of speech. Indeed, a large functional majority of them do not. The Islamic world alone comprises 57 of the 193 members states of the United Nations. What do you do when they get together with China and its vassals, Russia and its lackeys, and the dictatorships of Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa to agree to ban criticism of Islam, the advocacy of decentralization and liberty, criticism of their regimes, and anything else that authoritarian regimes find disagreeable? Simply refuse to grant domains to “objectionable” groups and ideas, and you can strangle their expression in the cradle.

The quote is the link.

I like their motto: Because without America, there is no free world.

Apparently you have not been paying attention to what Obama has been doing. I guess that can happen if one is spending their time digging up dirt on those who stand in opposition to their leaders.

Geseundheit.

Actually it is genuine pity for you. Here you are defending Obama's policies and you haven't even bothered to find out what Trump's Foreign Policy actually is.

Now who, again, is guilty of ad hominem?


Continued...

 

It doesn't matter if it was MSNBC, CNN, or an email from Hillary herself...your resources for information are evidently liberal.

Oh, so now you assert Trump does have a Foreign Policy, lol.

Great. But the one you are conveying sounds nothing like the Statement I listened to.

And America doesn't have a policy of intentionally bombing women and children? The sad fact of war, my friend, is that there is always collateral damage.

Any time we have bombed it has not been a decision made lightly, and collateral damage is unfortunate, but, the standard "Better the few die for the many" is a general policy that most agree with.

Your reasoning is laughable. You cry ad hominem about a response addressing your attack of someone you do not even know except through what you have heard. You defend Obama, and by extension, Hillary Clinton, promote the Liberal Agenda/s, and then, amazingly, seem offended that someone would disagree with you.


Continued...

 

Let me explain something to you about Atheist Defense Tactics: they are fallacious, no pun intended.

Here is the weakness of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, particularly when it is applied to a Christian (in regards to whether he was saved or not)...we can without question set a particular parameter for what can be logically called true in regards to a Christian, and, I would add, to what we would call conservative. So when we say something like "Well, if this person despised the Christ of the Bible, thought he was just a man who sought to make a name for himself, and routinely offered up sacrifice to Satan...it is doubtful he was saved (a true Christian)," and the response is, "Ah, the No True Scotsman Fallacy," we can look him/her in the eye and know we are speaking to someone who refuses to acknowledge the truth.

That is what you are doing...refusing to acknowledge the truth.

Secondly, we can define what a Scotsman is. Whether he puts sugar on his oatmeal or not is irrelevant to a determination of what a true Scotsman is. Just like whether someone advocates for homosexuality and abortion, which is what you are doing right now, can be determined as conservative or not.

So tell me, to what extent can one approve, advocate, and help support the murder of infants and still be called a "Conservative?"

To what extent can someone approve, advocate, and help support homosexuality and still be called a Conservative?

To what extent can someone advocate the liberal agenda and still be called...a Christian?

This is the only way, amigo...by redefining what a Conservative is, and you...are helping in that process.

When these abominable atrocities are the norm, well, I guess you could still consider yourself a Conservative. And a Christian.


Continued...

 

How can you possibly think that Trump's positions lead to a conclusion that he is going to throw away the Constitution, and how can you possibly be ignorant of the fact that this is precisely Obama's policy and goal?

How?

Can there be, in the American Public...people quite so blind?

Apparently.

Two defense mechanisms identified here, the first, a typical atheist ploy to dismiss an argument, the second...your attempt to separate yourself from those who advocate homosexuality, abortion, and tolerance.

Sorry, but you are identified with that group through your public address.

That is not guilt by association in truth only, but, you are in fact a spokesman, which compounds your guilt by association, which you would try to dismiss.

That's the reality, my friend.

I would agree we have Christians ignorant enough to buy into Satan's Agenda, so we do not cast doubt on their salvation, but, there is nothing wrong with pointing out their error. And the absurdity of thinking one can be a Christian and stand behind a man that has actively promoted and advanced abortion, homosexuality, Islam, and the destruction of American Rights, and still be considered Conservative is astounding.

The public record speaks for itself. I will explain those fallacies you seek to employ as a defense mechanism you are forced to resort to for the very reason that you cannot address the points.

And you can tell me, if it's not rhetorical tricks that sway you, what was it?

Thanks for publicly admitting you place Constitutional Rights above the issues of Abortion and Homosexuality.

Your rights are more dear to you than the infants murdered on a daily basis, and the lives of the homosexuals that die from contracted diseases.

And even worse, their eternal destinies.

And can I ask you, where have I said the first thing about Supreme Court Justices, lol. You see, my friend, that too is another tactic of the poor debater...if you can't address what has been said, simply throw in a red herring, lol.

You need to give the "conservatism" you think you understand some thought. It is clear you are being led in your reasoning by resources that are lacking the bias of a Biblical Worldview.

Your vote matters, and can mean the difference, literally, between life and death. Those who might live, or might die...

...should take precedence over what you think your rights are.

Liberals do not want to preserve the rights of American Citizens, they want Special Rights that cater to their own desires. This is true of all Liberal Agendas.

And that is what you support.


God bless.

 

Actually, there is a part of me that has no problem arguing, and sometimes it is a lot of fun, lol.

But I look at it as meeting antagonists on their own level, because there are people we seek to have discussions with that only know how to argue, which is to be clearly distinguished from Discussion and Debate.

But, lest you think I cede this point lightly, let me remind you that when I do meet men on their level in an argument...I still rpesent arguments, as oppposed to those who simply argue for the sake of arguing.



And sorry but I am out of time (about an hour ago, lol), so will just answer without reposting my own quote. I may add your statement but will change the color rather than typing in the code for quoting, as this is much faster. I think the link might still be accessible, though.

Sorry, no: the undecided voter does not always base their decision on propaganda. For example, not being a Trump fan, it was his personal statements on Foreign Policy that convinces me he is going to take a more traditional role in regards to Foreign Policy, which is a huge consideration for the voter.

We cannot divorce Foreign Policy from our lives as Christians, this is a significant issue for us. And always has been.

You present a scenario that it is only propaganda by which a logical conclusion can be made in regards on how to vote...that is error.

So outside the boundary of the equation lie the factors that precede the equation, and it is only by doing that math that we even progress to that supplied by you, which was presented to dismiss the very simple fact that a non-vote and a third party vote are basically a vote for Clinton. Just as a non-vote or third party vote is a vote for Trump. What those votes represent is this: disinterest in the issues that historically lead to a vote in the first place.

Here's a few effects of propaganda in past elections:

1. Romney was not elected because he was a Mormon. Didn't matter if he was a proven leader and savvy in finances and governing.

2. Herman Caine wasn't nominated because he had an affair, supposedly.

3. Obama was elected because he swore Obamacare would allow people to keep their policies and that this would save everyone money, $2,400 and year.


But the reality is that the propaganda that persuaded the vote given was, after all...propaganda.

The moral of the story, Don? Don't base your vote on propaganda. Everyone is lying, and it will not be until the candidate is actually President that we are going to see what they are made of. The decision can be logically based on prior records of the candidate, which most of us, in regards to Obama...already knew the outcome of such a Presidency. Just like most of us already know the outcome of a Clinton Administration.

First, I quoted you:

Note that speculation is precisely what I am pointing out.

Secondly, you are dismissing the non-vote as though they never intended to vote in the first place.

Third, you are dismissing the impact of propaganda and how that impacts the election, as though it is a non-issue.

It isn't, Don.

Fourth, you are assuming that not all Democrats are going to vote Democrat. Now I ask you, if a Democrat is being convinced that "Obama's policies are just weak but Trump's are radical," do you really dismiss this a preceding factor in the math and the solution?


Continued...

 

No, Don...they are not.

There are no set factors until people actually vote, not vote, or vote third party, lol.

That is the problem with propaganda, it relies heavily on statistics which can be manipulated by the respective proponent. Just because statistics on crime in an area reach a certain level one year doesn't mean they will the following year. Just because voters vote, not vote, or vote third party one year doesn't mean they will in a following election.

Because the factors constantly change.

And one thing that has certainly changed in recent elections would be the mentality of the American People. I think Trump has a large block in airhead Reality TV viewers, for example. I think there are people who will vote for him...because they liked his show. I think there are people who will vote for Clinton because they belong to a generation that has as a staple Tolerance.

There are numerous variables that no stats can calculate.

No, Don, not everything is speculation, because we know that Clinton is a flaming liberal who will seek to progress abortion and the normalization of homosexual, just as we did not speculate that Obama would.

No, Don, it is not speculation, because we know that a vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary Clinton, and convincing people to vote third party and not to vote...helps Hillary.

You don't have to be a genius to understand the math.

You "propose the conservative realizes this?"

Did you just say that, Don?

Do you not understand the point of me spending time in this thread is a proposition to non-conservative voters (who in large part have deceived themselves to think they are) precisely what you have just said?

It is very well said, too.

Now, if you could just start getting the right target audience we will be on the same page, and in the same Book, lol.


Continued...

 

So you rely on statistics that cannot be trusted to draw conclusions. That is syllogistic at best, and tragic at worst.

We have to wait until the propaganda runs it's course before we begin to think that Sanders supporters are on board with Trump. People can change their minds and often when it comes to those who are originally voting for someone, the very reasons they were voting for that candidate might be suspect.

That is contrasted with a vote that is based on the hope that the conservative vote will receive recognition as it has historically. We live in troubled times, and in a country where Hollywood has more influence than the local preacher, so the variables remain unknown. We could speculate that the enormity of depravity embraced by America may just overwhelm newer generations and a rejection of the current trend might happen, but...

...it won't be those supporting the Liberal Agenda that enlighten that potential common sense voting block.

Well, I have been introduced to the data you view as relevant and a factor and look...

...its already changed.

Would you admit that reinforces my argument?




Continued...

 

Hey, that's not fair: how can I argue if you agree with me.

Of course it could be argued you aren't really agreeing with me...

No, Don, the vote is not for the Republican Party, it is for the person that stands in opposition to the Liberal Agenda. If Trump were running as Tea Party and had the possibility of winning as he does running as a Republican, then the vote would still be against the Liberal Agenda, not the Tea Party.

I don't think everyone is "aware" of the Liberal Agenda, Don. That is pretty evident in the discussion (or argument, however you want to look at it) with some of the people on this Forum.

Your argument is not a good one, because the fact that I argue opposition to the Liberal Agenda and have not, according to you, "written about the candidate," is not a matter of Trump being divorced from the issue. I have made it clear...I don't really like Trump as a person, I think he is a TV personality, an actor, and this is nothing that surprises me...about a political candidate. They're all actors, Don.

I have also said in these debates that God has utilized secular leaders in the past, and my hope is that He will do so in the case of Trump.

I have said that my hope is that Trump will be forced to grow up as President. The Presidency has a habit of doing that you know.

So this is a false argument not based on the facts of these discussions. That is parallel to using statistics to draw conclusions from. It is a faulty approach to how we should decide on who we are going to vote for, or not vote for.


Continued...