Featured Donald Trump accepts Christ

Thanks. I just felt bad that you got caught up in his beef with me

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

I gave you a conversation when you asked for how Trump would be worse than Hillary. I posted an article from USA Today and Wall Street Journal proving my point(s). Your response? USA Today is not a credible source and complained that my copy-and-paste job was in bold, enlarged font. In other words, you never addressed my points. So you are not worthy of having a discussion with.

You are so long-winded, droning on and on and on and on, even "Continuing" posts from one to another. Who wants to rebut a novel?

 

Let HilLIARly get the nod and see what a SCOTUS we have and what they are composed of. They would eventually force churches...regardless what their SoF/AoF says about denying gays membership...to take in the LGBT ppl...

 

I chose(oh the irony) to say what I did, so anyone can choose(oh the irony) to quote it.

 

True story

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

What part of "I would do my best" in regards to collateral damage do you not understand?

What part of "They care about their families" do you not understand?

There is not enough in the clip to put "You have to take out their families" in context. I could decide, from what is said in it, that he means you can't calculate their families as a definitive reason not to destroy the terrorists, or...he means you have to kill the families as well.

Both are essentially true. This is an enemy that uses women and children both as shields, as well as operatives. When it comes to taking out terrorism, we don't call off our campaign because the terrorists' families might egt killed.

We are not the ones putting those women and children in harms way...

...the terrorists are.

Again, another example of Liberal Reasoning. Get the rest of Trump's statement so we might better define the context of the statement.

Drawing conclusion on media clips might work for Liberals, but I am not satisfied with just part of what someone says.


God bless.

 

Again, you misrepresent the facts. Here is my response to the USA Today article...

...which was, by the way, in a context of whether Donald Trump was a good businessman, and your attempt to show he is a failure as a business man.

Don't you even pay attention to what you are saying? I can understand not being able to comprehend what I am saying, lol, but what you yourself say? C'mon.

I also said...

Why you would think USAToday, or any newspaper is a credible source for determining whether Trump is a good business man ranks right up there with your view that accruing 4.5 billion in net worth is...

...a failure.

I will admit to viewing your oversized print as emphasis on your part, if that makes you feel better. I may have done that myself a time or two.

So, DO YOU FORGIVE ME FOR THAT?

I don't really care why the prophets of liberalism shut up, just as long as they do.

Whatever excuse you care to offer up is perfectly acceptable to me.




God bless.

 

ITL remember to Trump supporters, Trump talking is no better then the Huffington Post talking about aliens, or propaganda.
This is per Benjamin and DC.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

And you seem to understand the threat Hillary Clinton poses, which is the precise basis of my arguments presented in this thread.

A side issue that has been focal is the notion that a non-vote based on religious conviction or a third party vote will not impact the outcome of the election.

It is seeming to be pretty obvious that Hillary will get the royal pass for anything she may have done which may or may not have been treasonous and criminal and she, and Trump, will be the two primary candidates in this election. It is my belief that because of religious conviction in the last election, Obama won, and Romney, ironically, a man in stark contrast to Obama because he was a proven governing leader who also had a head for finances...lost.

Abortion is important, the normalization of homosexuality is important, Foreign Policy is important, and Islamic Sympathy and Tolerance as a whole is important...to us first as Christians. Underlying the Liberal Agenda is the goal of making religious liberty suit what they define as religion. Their religion allows for the murder of infants, the murder of Christians unchecked, and ironically, tolerance for every religion except those based on the Bible. They will not admit it is a religion, but, that is our job, to point out that they are by far more religious than we could ever be, and that their religion stands in direct contradiction to Christianity.


God bless.

 

Would hope that he is following the real jesus of the Bible, and not doing this in order gain political points! to

 

Oh come on, Yeshua, why would we doubt an article from the news or a statement by Dr. Dobson?

I mean, if it is in the news...it has to be true, right?


God bless.

 

Pure foolishness and clearly viewed through a political veil. SHAME ON YOU!

After all the stuff that Donald Trump has said and done,to purport that the only evil to be combated is that coming from Hillary Clinton, is one of the reasons why perhaps Christians need to be quiet.

Again more foolishness. The same God who would be on His throne during a Trump administration would be on His throne during a Clinton administration.

And can't nobody stem the tide of sin but HIM.

 

Highlights, because our posts have become one-post-per-page....

A third-party vote indicates a disinterest in the issues? Au contraire, mein freund. A third-party vote is cast based on that individual's interest in particular issues, that they perhaps disagree with the primary candidates on. So once again, I'm relegated to saying: it is *only* the non-vote that is wasted.

Sources for verification, please. It's also painfully obvious that you don't have any numbers about how many voters were influenced by this propaganda.

But we can disregard Trump's prior record, right? Irony, thy name is Darrell....

As my eighth-grade English teacher used to say: "Uh, wrong." The reason it's wrong? Because even if they'd originally intended to vote, and they decide not to (one of the four options given), then the final tally is still based on the number of people who voted. Not people who didn't vote, not people who intended to vote, not people who looked wistful and said, "I've heard of a vote." You can't quantify or count an "intention."

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.[/quote]
Um, no, I'm not. How that last voter votes is based on a multitude of factors, as I've previously indicated. Whether the propaganda has influenced them; whether additional facts have come forward; whether their eyesight is dim and they mark the wrong box -- all of those are indicated by which choice that person makes, which is one of the four options I identified. ALL of your supposed "overlooked factors" are addressed by the options that last voter has; BUT, the only quantifiable measure is which of the four options the voter chooses. And then the math comes into play, and quantifies the results.

At this point, whether you don't realize it, or simply don't want to admit it, you're just talking past me.

Yes, I'm assuming that not all democrats are going to vote democrat. I provided you the reason for that in a later paragraph. It is illogical to assume that all democrats are going to vote democrat. Take, for example, Oklahoma: there are over 2,000,000 registered voters in that state. Generally, the state is pretty evenly divided: 43.6% republican, 43.5% democrat. Yet, in the last presidential election, Romney took 66.77% of the vote. How do you explain that without stating that democrats voted for him rather than Obama? And don't even try to say "all the democrats stayed home," because I know democrats in that state, and I can tell you, that wasn't the reason.

Not at all. It merely reinforces that you didn't have a clue that Sanders supporters had stated support for Trump as opposed to Clinton. All you had to do here was say, "gee, I didn't know that."

Consider, Darrell: I had the option of giving you only the first part (the 20%); I could have simply left off the 8% number, and let it go at that. But I gave you both pieces. Draw your own conclusion.

Appreciate the clarification.

Let's see: You previously said that we only have to look at a candidate's record to know how they'll behave; but "Trump is a wildcard," so that doesn't apply to him. That's the same argument the fox used....

Where your argument fails to persuade me, Darrell, is that you're asking me to choose between two scorpions....

 

Yes, apparently they will not accept things that Trump says unless he says it on Twitter.

By the way....The Donald has been strangely silent about the Supreme Court ruling on abortion. Hmmm....

 

(sigh) My apologies....

No, Darrell; your declaration is pure speculation. You hope Trump will be different, and you hope he will support the Christian agenda, and you hope he'll do something about abortion...but your only assurance is that he'll be held accountable by his political party members. The only way that he'll be held accountable is by not being re-elected. In the meantime, four years....

Prove to me that Trump will be anything other than a President that claims to be a Christian that is deceiving Christians into believing it is okay to be a Christian and support Abortion, homsexuality, and tolerance. Just yesterday, he walked back his stance about not allowing muslims to immigrate into this country; now it's "muslims coming from countries with known terrorist ties." And I need more than just rhetoric and speeches; show me his actions that support your stance.

Irony, thy name is Darrell.

Allow me to "spin" the paragraph again, to clarify my position, using the tenets of accuracy, brevity, and clarity:
Clinton and Trump are equal threats to the First Amendment.

At this point, just as you've clarified your statement about voting for the party, I'd like to assume that I've clarified my statement about Trump being an equal threat to the First Amendment. If you require further clarification, please let me know.

1) "If"??? You honestly aren't aware that he did this? How well do you *really* know this candidate that you're advocating for president?
2) He restricts the press, and you congratulate him for this. You indicate it doesn't imply he's going to restrict freedom of speech, when he already has.

Irony, thy name is Darrell.

If he does this as a candidate, one can only wonder how far it will go when he's given the power of executive order.

Then why are we even bothering to discourse with you, if you won't make the effort to actually have the facts and truth?

 

Look, Trump has his warts...many warts. But our country has fallen down soooooooo far we have an habitual liar, leftist pushing agenda woman pitted against a megalomaniac. These are the two we have to choose from. How sad is this? I do think Trump will help our vets and will be tolerant of Christians, whereas HilLIARly and 'Pocahontas'(I think she'll be her running mate) will do their best to ban us Christians to Elba.

 

Praise the Lord!