Trump Assassination Attempt At Correspondents Dinner

DaveXR650 said:

There again, it would be perfectly alright if you were. All I would ask of those who are anti Trump is that they articulate specific reasons why it would be better for the country if we had had a Democrat party in control of everything. Him being crude and not nice is not to me an acceptable argument. Now he may do something very wrong in the next couple of years and they will turn out to be right. But I just don't buy the argument that even this risk is worth instead supporting those who were promising to govern wrongly and stupidly as a matter of policy. Seriously, I would just ask that someone explain that.

Click to expand...

It would be, depending on the "anti" part.

The percise argument should be that Trump lacks diplomacy (a necessity for diplomatic positions due to their interactions with foreign nations). But I am ok with that too.

I believe we should be able to take an honest look at our leaders (all have issues and strengths because all are human beings).

But the Democrats are simply engaging in false propaganda.

Both sides do this (Trump did with Kimmel's joke the other day). But the Democrats are far worse as their agenda is to shut down any dialogue.

Ascetic X said:

I believe the reason for not participating in politics was because political activity at that time in the Roman empire included worshiping the emperor as a god.

Click to expand...

No, that was not the reason (they actually gave their reasons).

Origen said that the Chriatian is to separate from worldly politics and exercise those positions as gifted within the congregation.

Tertullian said that political involvement itself is evil because that is engaging within Satan's domain (one cannot serve two masters).

Hippolytus explained that a public official must resign from office prior to baptism or be rejected because secular government are concerned with the secular (as opposed to Christianity). They are different worlds.

It was not until the invention of the Catholic Church (when Christianity became the official religion) that Christians participated in politics. They did not gain that right. What happened is the political officials had to become "Christian".

JonC said:

No, that was not the reason (they actually gave their reasons).

Origen said that the Chriatian is to separate from worldly politics and exercise those positions as gifted within the congregation.

Tertullian said that political involvement itself is evil because that is engaging within Satan's domain (one cannot serve two masters).

Hippolytus explained that a public official must resign from office prior to baptism or be rejected because secular government are concerned with the secular (as opposed to Christianity). They are different worlds.

It was not until the invention of the Catholic Church (when Christianity became the official religion) that Christians participated in politics. They did not gain that right. What happened is the political officials had to become "Christian".

Click to expand...

Thanks for the concise explanation. They must not have paid much attention to Romans 13, “they are ministers of God”.

Having said that, I am disgusted by politics in general and only recently started voting.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-scourge-of-left-wing-violence-isn-t-new-it-s-only-going-to-get-worse/ar-AA21VQuk?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=69f161e72b124b68b86f71b63031ce02&ei=24

JonC said:

….

So yes, absolutely jail the shooter for life. But the real problem is much larger and needs to be addressed rather than ignored. This rhetoric needs to be addressed on both sides.

Click to expand...

There is little chance, imo, he gets life in prison.

20-25 years, yeah maybe

Peace to you

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/duplicitous-democrats-double-down-on-the-assassination-culture-they-created/ar-AA21ZtzO?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=69f1e91c95c14081aa4baa92947fae83&ei=20

canadyjd said:

There is little chance, imo, he gets life in prison.

20-25 years, yeah maybe

Peace to you

Click to expand...

Yea...I doubt he will get life as nobody was killed. But given the nature of the crime (it was a crime against the US, essentially the guy is a traitor) were I to decide that would be the penalty.

JonC said:

I agree that it is a faulty comparison. Trump is not a nazi, not (as far as I can see) a racist, a rapist, a pedophile, or a murderer.

I am not posting negativity about Trump (quite the opposite - I am placing a degree of responsibility for the shooting squarely on the Democrat Party).

My point is....what would YOU do? Would you kill a modern Hitler, a rapist pedophile traitor who is killing innocent people, if it would save people from being murdered? If so, would that be contrary to Christianity?

My answer is I would not because I believe we are responsible for our actions (not the actions of others). But many Christians believe that loving others includes actions of protection.


Thr shooter believes that Trump is a traitor, a murderer, a pedophile and a rapist. Regardless of the accuracy of his beliefs the same values many Christians hold can be applied to his actions.


IF an intruder enters your home, and you see he has a gun, would you shoot him to protect your family? If it turns out the guy was really a friend of one of your family members, did not actually have a gun and was playing a prank would that mean your actions were anti-Christian?

The fault goes to the shooter for several reasons. One is his blending politics with Christianity which opened the door to political indoctrination. But it also goes to political parties that use such extreme rhetoric.

Click to expand...

I didn’t mean to sound like I was coming out “guns a-blazin’” so to speak.
There are just some faulty premises that get put out there like the innocent guy who has never heard the gospel. There is no such thing as an innocent guy so whatever comes next is faulty.
A soldier has the authority of his government that has sent him to do the job. So as a representative of the government, a WW2 soldier would have the authority were it his orders to shoot Hitler on sight.
But the whole time machine ethics question is something that I don’t find constructive. The inability of the scenario makes it seem more sanitary to “do evil that good may come.”
(Romans 3:8
And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.)

Ascetic X said:

Thanks for the concise explanation. They must not have paid much attention to Romans 13, “they are ministers of God”.

Having said that, I am disgusted by politics in general and only recently started voting.

Click to expand...

Generally people do not pay attention to Scripture as a whole. I mentioned the Puritans earlier. They are a good example of misapplication of Scripture involving Christian interaction. They focused on biblical truths but also ignored much. We are probably all that way to an extent.

Ben1445 said:

I didn’t mean to sound like I was coming out “guns a-blazin’” so to speak.
There are just some faulty premises that get put out there like the innocent guy who has never heard the gospel. There is no such thing as an innocent guy so whatever comes next is faulty.
A soldier has the authority of his government that has sent him to do the job. So as a representative of the government, a WW2 soldier would have the authority were it his orders to shoot Hitler on sight.
But the whole time machine ethics question is something that I don’t find constructive. The inability of the scenario makes it seem more sanitary to “do evil that good may come.”
(Romans 3:8
And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.)

Click to expand...

I understand. To clarify, I am using "innocent" in the secular sense.

With "Hitler" I am not talking so much as hypothetically going back in time but instead taking that principle to the present.

We have to learn from history. We put ourselves in that historical context and ask "what would we have done...what should we have done?". I would argue that this is the greatest value of keeping a record of historical events.

I agree that we do not do evil that good may come. That is why I refuse to support a politician with my voice (my vote). But that is typically the exact argument we often see from Christians every four years (choose the "lesser evil").

In the situation I believe that murder is murder and we are responsible for our own actions, not the actions of other men.


My point is that there are positions that oppose my view which are also based on Christian principles. In fact, this is a common (more common now) idea among congregations (pastors or church security carrying guns, for example).

What is the purpose for a pastor or church security to carry a gun if not to use that gun to protect members of the congregation from somebody intending harm?


@Ascetic X made the point that such things demonstrates a lack of faith (that God will protect from intruders). Carrying a gun equates to a lack of faith. And that is a legitimate view based on Scripture.

But protecting the congregation from harm (the gun carrying pastor) as God's method of protecting the congregation could also be argued from a Chriatian perspective.

As believers we are united in Christ, but at the same time we see many things differently. I believe it is wrong to automatically declare the opposing view "unChristian" even when we can support that declaration. It deserves more discussion.

Those who simply provide a verse or two and claim the opposing view are opposing Christ are trying to short-cut legitimate discussion (trying to silence opposition).

Instead we should discuss the issue, identify problems with each view, understand ine another, and depart as brethren even if we disagree.

Ben1445 said:

A soldier has the authority of his government that has sent him to do the job. So as a representative of the government, a WW2 soldier would have the authority were it his orders to shoot Hitler on sight.
But the whole time machine ethics question is something that I don’t find constructive. The inability of the scenario makes it seem more sanitary to “do evil that good may come.”

Click to expand...

One thing I have noticed is that with Trump for instance, people have decided, and many on here as well, that he is a complete idiot and incompetent as well, a threat to civilized society. So with something like Iran, although none of us have access to what they are actually up to, it is assumed that whatever Trump or Israel do is at least incompetent, if not evil.

Yet, for 50 years I have been seeing on program after program, show after show, article after article, how the Nazis came to power, blamed the Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies, and then set about to kill all of them. And in all those articles we put partial blame on the average German citizen for not doing something about this, and we also blame all the world leaders for trying to avoid confronting Hitler early on. So then, when Iran says exactly what the Nazis said regarding the Jews, and consider America the great Satan, and England the little Satan, and brag themselves that they will get a nuclear device - we turn around and ridicule Trump for being an idiot and warmonger.

You are right in that the whole time machine ethics is of little use. The fact is, we have no way to know what we should do about Iran for instance, and applying past things is some help but still limited. Likewise, we have no right to pull a verse out of context regarding being hospitable to sojourners and apply that to millions of people over running communities, settling permanently with a list of demands and saying that this is their country now. To see fellow believers put a stunt like this is about as embarrassing as it gets.

JonC said:

With "Hitler" I am not talking so much as hypothetically going back in time but instead taking that principle to the present.

Click to expand...

I think the modern version of this is Maduro, and I think it was right to arrest him. I don’t know that it will always be able to be an arrest vs assassination, but the real question is who are we talking about taking out of their position?
I don’t think there is remotely a case for the removal of our President. And there are ways to remove US Presidents within the legal system. It is not only wrong in the US to assassinate a leader, it is also unnecessary. We have a legal system that allows for peaceful removal if warranted.
So who would be the next present day questionable leader?

It is a case by case scenario for me. I don’t think every situation is a quick yes or no.
That said, I don’t have all the information to make decisions about any particular “would be Hitler” scenarios either.

DaveXR650 said:

One thing I have noticed is that with Trump for instance, people have decided, and many on here as well, that he is a complete idiot and incompetent as well, a threat to civilized society. So with something like Iran, although none of us have access to what they are actually up to, it is assumed that whatever Trump or Israel do is at least incompetent, if not evil.

Yet, for 50 years I have been seeing on program after program, show after show, article after article, how the Nazis came to power, blamed the Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies, and then set about to kill all of them. And in all those articles we put partial blame on the average German citizen for not doing something about this, and we also blame all the world leaders for trying to avoid confronting Hitler early on.

Click to expand...

I think this is the validation that people claim in trying to stop Trump and Israel, but they take up the wrong side and are for the eradication of Jews. It makes no sense.

DaveXR650 said:

So then, when Iran says exactly what the Nazis said regarding the Jews, and consider America the great Satan, and England the little Satan, and brag themselves that they will get a nuclear device - we turn around and ridicule Trump for being an idiot and warmonger.

Click to expand...

Ironic to say the least.

DaveXR650 said:

You are right in that the whole time machine ethics is of little use. The fact is, we have no way to know what we should do about Iran for instance, and applying past things is some help but still limited. Likewise, we have no right to pull a verse out of context regarding being hospitable to sojourners and apply that to millions of people over running communities, settling permanently with a list of demands and saying that this is their country now. To see fellow believers put a stunt like this is about as embarrassing as it gets.

Click to expand...

A major difference is that the so-called “sojourners” are criminals. They have broken the laws. And it is against the law to aid them in breaking the law.
So it is foolish for so-called Christians to not submit themselves to the higher powers ordained by God in respect to illegal immigration.

DaveXR650 said:

One thing I have noticed is that with Trump for instance, people have decided, and many on here as well, that he is a complete idiot and incompetent as well, a threat to civilized society. So with something like Iran, although none of us have access to what they are actually up to, it is assumed that whatever Trump or Israel do is at least incompetent, if not evil.

Yet, for 50 years I have been seeing on program after program, show after show, article after article, how the Nazis came to power, blamed the Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies, and then set about to kill all of them. And in all those articles we put partial blame on the average German citizen for not doing something about this, and we also blame all the world leaders for trying to avoid confronting Hitler early on. So then, when Iran says exactly what the Nazis said regarding the Jews, and consider America the great Satan, and England the little Satan, and brag themselves that they will get a nuclear device - we turn around and ridicule Trump for being an idiot and warmonger.

You are right in that the whole time machine ethics is of little use. The fact is, we have no way to know what we should do about Iran for instance, and applying past things is some help but still limited. Likewise, we have no right to pull a verse out of context regarding being hospitable to sojourners and apply that to millions of people over running communities with a list of demands and saying that this is their country now. To see fellow believers put a stunt like this is about as embarrassing as it gets.

Click to expand...

I still believe that history can be a great teacher, a tool for evaluating present action. I disagree that evaluating what we, in the present, would do if in a historical event, is a "hypothetical time machine". But I grew up being taught that history must be evaluated in such ways so as not to repeat past mistakes (I'm in my late 50's).

Treating such questions ("what would you have done?") as useless is too dismissive of the value of history. In fact, placing ourselves in that context is perhaps the greatest reason for keeping a historical record.

I mention this because your suggestion seems on par with the "wokeness" we see today (removing historical presence from society, viewing historical people as less than "us", creating fictional histories to prop up contemporary narratives, etc.).

We can not only put ourselves in those "historical shoes" but we can also measure others to see what "historical shoes" fit.

The fascist charge does not fit Trump. BUT in many ways they do fit the current Democrat Party. And we can learn from that.

The "hypothetical time machine" (putting ourselves in the shoes of those who have gone before) is not only of immense value, it is the primary purpose of a historical record.

We evaluate what we would have done to prevent or help combat history (a bad history) from repeating itself should or when similar circumstances arise.

Do you all think that Christians started supporting war after they became a majority in the Roman empire? If they wouldnt have served in the army, they would have been stomped… much like the Orthodox church was later by Islam.

JonC said:

The "hypothetical time machine" (putting ourselves in the shoes of those who have gone before) is not only of immense value, it is the primary purpose of a historical record.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the hypothetical time machine must be an honest evaluation. It is one thing to know all the information that we do and go back and intervene. This is the common practice of historical ethics used today. Properly done, there should be no time machine. It should be an “if you were born and lived in that time and place” question it is a difficult situation to put yourself into because, IMO, one can’t fathom today the experience of the propaganda and peer pressure that existed. A true evaluation would have to be something like “Here is John Doe and Joe Smith. They both were in similar situations. Both had the same information, or at least access to it. They each handled it differently. How would/should you handle it if you were there?”
To do anything but evaluate the realities is disingenuous to me. I can’t un-think everything I have learned about WW2. So I don’t think it’s fair to the scenario to say that I can be a completely different person with knowledge of the future. I think it’s better to take an understanding of what people were able to recognize then and apply that.
There were citizens of Germany who helped Jews. There were officers of Germany who took up arms against Hitler.
So the opportunity was there. Some people took it.

JonC said:

I still believe that history can be a great teacher, a tool for evaluating present action. I disagree that evaluating what we, in the present, would do if in a historical event, is a "hypothetical time machine". But I grew up being taught that history must be evaluated in such ways so as not to repeat past mistakes (I'm in my late 50's).

Click to expand...

I agree. And being older I have come to the conclusion that we "lose" history, and we seem unable to really avoid repeating the same mistakes. It's enough to make one believe in total depravity of our race.

JonC said:

Treating such questions ("what would you have done?") as useless is too dismissive of the value of history. In fact, placing ourselves in that context is perhaps the greatest reason for keeping a historical record.

Click to expand...

I agree but realize that I bring all I currently am with me when I try to do this. So you can learn but you must be careful to not assume the people in history knew what you know when they did what they did. (And they may have known some things you don't know.) I don't think I can honestly say for instance, had I been an early American Puritan settler who had watched his whole family and community nearly starve, most of the kids die, believed that God had put us under judgement for some reason - and then you find out some girls in the village are using amulets and someone has had a stillborn baby that looked like a monster - I'm not sure I can know that I would not have joined the rest of them in looking for witches. I like to think I would say "now wait a minute" but I don't know.

As a general rule, assassinations do not achieve that which the assassins hope for. The prime examole is Julius Caesar. He was killed because it was feared that he would make himself king. The nett result was that his great nephew (Augustus) made himself emperor.
The murders of the Russian royal family resulted in Stalin becoming absolute ruler.

DaveXR650 said:

I agree. And being older I have come to the conclusion that we "lose" history, and we seem unable to really avoid repeating the same mistakes. It's enough to make one believe in total depravity of our race.

I agree but realize that I bring all I currently am with me when I try to do this. So you can learn but you must be careful to not assume the people in history knew what you know when they did what they did. (And they may have known some things you don't know.) I don't think I can honestly say for instance, had I been an early American Puritan settler who had watched his whole family and community nearly starve, most of the kids die, believed that God had put us under judgement for some reason - and then you find out some girls in the village are using amulets and someone has had a stillborn baby that looked like a monster - I'm not sure I can know that I would not have joined the rest of them in looking for witches. I like to think I would say "now wait a minute" but I don't know.

Click to expand...

I just read this on NPR (during a break...training this week) -

"In an apparent reference to Trump, the letter also says "I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.

But Holt and others say these views, however pointed some of the terminology may be, fall within a modern mainstream left. He and others say it is very unclear what may have tipped the individual from such widely held views into an alleged violent plot."

This demonstrates a major problem. The article was questioning why Allen would try to kill the President because, contrary to what Republican's believe, the guy was not on the "radical left" but instead expressed mainstream moderate left beliefs.


What the shooter believed was Democrat propaganda. And the article is correct that it is not a radicalization (it is not exterme left rhetoric). It is the moderate, everyday Democrat belief.


While not the intent of the article, it highlights a greater problem. No longer is there a moderate Democrat mentality. They are indoctrinated into the extreme leftist propaganda.

A moderate Democrat mentality is now a Republican mentality (a moderate Republican).

DaveXR650 said:

I agree. And being older I have come to the conclusion that we "lose" history, and we seem unable to really avoid repeating the same mistakes. It's enough to make one believe in total depravity of our race.

I agree but realize that I bring all I currently am with me when I try to do this. So you can learn but you must be careful to not assume the people in history knew what you know when they did what they did. (And they may have known some things you don't know.) I don't think I can honestly say for instance, had I been an early American Puritan settler who had watched his whole family and community nearly starve, most of the kids die, believed that God had put us under judgement for some reason - and then you find out some girls in the village are using amulets and someone has had a stillborn baby that looked like a monster - I'm not sure I can know that I would not have joined the rest of them in looking for witches. I like to think I would say "now wait a minute" but I don't know.

Click to expand...

Sorry....I quoted you on the last post without addressing your post (I wanted to let you know about the article).

I agree that were we products of the historical environment we cannot say what we would do. Most likely we would fall into the crowd. If we were Peter we most likely would have denied Jesus three times.

My point is not to travel back in time but to ask what we would do - now, with our own experience and worldviews - if we were facing that historical event.

History often repeats itself in circumstances, not identical ideology. So we ask "what would we do?", not "what would we have done back then?".