Donald Trump accepts Christ

[Darrell C]

The undecided voter is addressed as the 6th voter, Darrell. You know, the one I said has four choices?

Again, the math is wrong, because there will actually be more than 6 people voting this year.

ONLY if you believe ALL democrats will vote democrat; and that democrats far outnumber those who would vote for Trump.

So you admit that not voting for Trump or voting third party would ensure Clinton's victory.

Thanks.

Not sure what you base this reasoning on. How often do Democrats vote Republican or third party, particularly to an election upset?

Oh, wait; I already addressed that, too, when I said you had to make the assumption that Trump doesn't have enough votes to win....

You are the one making an assumption. This is evident in your statements. The assumption that Trump does or does not have enough votes is irrelevant. What is relevant is impressing upon people their vote doesn't matter. What is relevant is a view that as Christians we cannot vote for Trump because Trump is not a Christian. What is relevant is that Trump is running as Republican which has historically garnered the conservative vote (for as long as I can remember, which I admit isn't that far back, but then, the Abortion Agenda being a major force in America hasn't been a major issue that long either). What is relevant is why the Republican candidate usually garners the conservative vote.

As I mentioned in my post to Baptist Believer where I asked him/her to reconsider voting for Clinton, and laid out several reasons why.

I didn't address that post, but since you mention it...

If Clinton follows the same strategy as Obama, then there is as much threat to the First Amendment as there is by Trump. Trump is just more obvious.

What?

Trump is a more obvious threat to the First Amendment than Obama and Clinton?

Two things: first...why?

Secondly...this makes it clear that in view are not your Christian rights directly, but your rights as an American. That is secular reasoning, Don, so it is a little conflicting to present a posture of Christian dilemma in voting for Trump when it is your rights as an American citizen you are worried about.

So educate me, how exactly is Trump a more obvious threat to your rights as an American citizen than Obama and Clinton?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Actually, in order to be voting for Mrs. Clinton, one would have to actually vote for her. By voting for a third party, you are voting for that third party member - not Mrs. Clinton.

If all the Christians who refused to vote for Romney because he was a Mormon had voted for him based on the fact he was a proven leader with financial skill and conservative in his views, Obama would not have won.

By voting third party one can be pretty sure their candidate is not going to win.

That is why a vote for a third party and a non-vote is considered a vote for Clinton.

See, I don't see Mr. Trump as being a "viable alternative". I don't see either candidate as being viable.

I do see Trump as a viable candidate for a couple reasons:

1. This is a secular office and there is no reason it cannot be filled by a secular President. Even Presidents that claim to be Christian could be examined and that claim questioned. Obama claims to be Christian and many Christians voted for him, yet his policy is far from Christian. This then means that the "Christianity" of the candidate doesn't have to be true Christianity, it just has to meet the standard of the voter's view of what Christianity is.

Better a secular President like Trump than someone like Obama who is right now the greatest advocate for Liberal Theology the world has, who perverts what Christianity means, and supports that which is contrary to Christianity (Islam, abortion, homosexuality, et cetera).

2. Running as Republican Trump will have a responsibility to the conservative voters who help elect him. This means he will be hard pressed to support the agendas Obama has, which we know Clinton supports.

3. Trump's foreign policy is a major shift from the damage Obama has created in the last 7 1/2 years. His policy, as stated thus far, holds the interests of the American population over the interests of foreign countries.

4. Hillary Clinton will seek to leave her own "legacy," which in her mind will have to compare to what she views as Obama's.

5. Trump is the only candidate that can possibly beat Clinton. I would think that would be fairly obvious. We know most liberals are going to vote for her.

Imaginary?

Do you really think a third party candidate has a chance?


God bless.

 

[annsni]

1. This is a secular office and there is no reason it cannot be filled by a secular President. Even Presidents that claim to be Christian could be examined and that claim questioned. Obama claims to be Christian and many Christians voted for him, yet his policy is far from Christian. This then means that the "Christianity" of the candidate doesn't have to be true Christianity, it just has to meet the standard of the voter's view of what Christianity is.

Better a secular President like Trump than someone like Obama who is right now the greatest advocate for Liberal Theology the world has, who perverts what Christianity means, and supports that which is contrary to Christianity (Islam, abortion, homosexuality, et cetera).

I have no problem voting for a secular president. I just don't want to vote for a man who I wouldn't want to ever do business with. I wouldn't have him do my plumbing, change the oil in my car or mow my lawn. I don't say this lightly but he's probably one of the most egotistical fake people I've ever seen. Ever. I don't trust him at.all.

2. Running as Republican Trump will have a responsibility to the conservative voters who help elect him. This means he will be hard pressed to support the agendas Obama has, which we know Clinton supports.

This man has flip flopped more than a fish out of water and I don't trust him to stick with what he had to say in order to get voted in. He has been a democrat for his whole life and suddenly he's a virtuous republican? In his dreams.

3. Trump's foreign policy is a major shift from the damage Obama has created in the last 7 1/2 years. His policy, as stated thus far, holds the interests of the American population over the interests of foreign countries.

This man is going to make us the laughingstock of the world. I don't doubt he will offend every.single.leader.of.the.world.

Do you really think a third party candidate has a chance?

Maybe not but both main candidates are evil and would be extremely damaging to this nation. I don't want either of them in office. I do know one or the other will likely make it in but I cannot vote for either one. I've been able to put my name to a better candidate in years past but this year? There is none.

 

[Don]

Oh I've had a belly full.

You're being rude to Baptist Believer. Go back and read his explanation of why he's voting for Clinton, and refute his points.

 

[Don]

Again, the math is wrong, because there will actually be more than 6 people voting this year.

I was keeping the numbers simple in order to keep the explanation simple. You're not actually refuting the math, just complaining about it.

So you admit that not voting for Trump or voting third party would ensure Clinton's victory.

Thanks.

Um...how do you come to that roundabout conclusion?

Not sure what you base this reasoning on. How often do Democrats vote Republican or third party, particularly to an election upset?

I based that statement off of Sanders supporters saying they would vote for Trump rather than Clinton. Are you not paying attention to the news?

You are the one making an assumption. This is evident in your statements. The assumption that Trump does or does not have enough votes is irrelevant. What is relevant is impressing upon people their vote doesn't matter. What is relevant is a view that as Christians we cannot vote for Trump because Trump is not a Christian. What is relevant is that Trump is running as Republican which has historically garnered the conservative vote (for as long as I can remember, which I admit isn't that far back, but then, the Abortion Agenda being a major force in America hasn't been a major issue that long either). What is relevant is why the Republican candidate usually garners the conservative vote.

So your argument hinges on voting for the party, no matter who's the candidate. Thanks for that clarification.

My intention is NOT that a vote doesn't matter; never have I argued that. My intention has been to dispel this myth that not voting for one candidate is a vote for another.

I didn't address that post, but since you mention it...

What?

Trump is a more obvious threat to the First Amendment than Obama and Clinton?

Two things: first...why?

Secondly...this makes it clear that in view are not your Christian rights directly, but your rights as an American. That is secular reasoning, Don, so it is a little conflicting to present a posture of Christian dilemma in voting for Trump when it is your rights as an American citizen you are worried about.

So educate me, how exactly is Trump a more obvious threat to your rights as an American citizen than Obama and Clinton?


God bless.

I didn't say he was a more obvious threat. You have a talent for mis-reading, or simply mis-representing, the posts of others, which has been painfully obvious in this thread.

Obama and Clinton are subtle, and work from a strategy of ambiguous public statements and back-room deals. Trump is more vocal and hot-headed; thus, more obvious.

Not a more obvious threat. Just more obvious about it.

 

[Darrell C]

I have no problem voting for a secular president. I just don't want to vote for a man who I wouldn't want to ever do business with. I wouldn't have him do my plumbing, change the oil in my car or mow my lawn. I don't say this lightly but he's probably one of the most egotistical fake people I've ever seen. Ever. I don't trust him at.all.

Now that's funny, because from what I can see Trump has been very successful in business.

While you might not like the man personally (as I do not), as a business owner myself, I can recognize one thing about Trump that has to be true: he knows how to put in place those necessary to make a business successful.

I have no doubt that he will do the same thing as President.

I would like to know just what exactly it is that causes you to say you would not do business with Trump.

I would also reiterate the question I think that has to be asked...do you really think Trump would be worse than Hillary Clinton?

You don't know what Trump's Presidency is going to be like, but you should know exactly what Hillary's is going to be like. I think both are liberal, but, as of right now Trump is taking positions against the current administration and Hillary Clinton. They can get together and laugh about it in private, I don't care, but, what is publicly made clear should be a major factor in our decision on who we vote for.

And I can say that a vote for Trump is without question a vote against Hillary Clinton, and the liberal, homosexual, and abortion agendas.

That is just a fact that is unalterable. A non-vote or a third party vote is not, because it is not reasonable to think that a third party has a chance.

This man has flip flopped more than a fish out of water and I don't trust him to stick with what he had to say in order to get voted in. He has been a democrat for his whole life and suddenly he's a virtuous republican? In his dreams.

Doesn't really matter, Ann, what matters is that he is obligated to what the Party has has historically stood for.

And seriously, you think there are "virtuous republicans?" Are not all men subject to sin?

This man is going to make us the laughingstock of the world. I don't doubt he will offend every.single.leader.of.the.world.

Actually, we are already the laughingstock of the world, and it has to do with the brain-dead policies of the current administration.

You tell me that ISIS would have flourished under George Bush's administration. We already know Islam did not. Obama's policies have emboldened Terrorists, homosexuals, and abortion activists. THey have all gained ground under Obama, and that will with no doubt get worse should Clinton get elected.

If you deny this you are not being realistic.

And if you think a non-vote or third party vote is a wise use of your vote, I cannot judge you, all I can do is say I disagree and that the non-vote and third party vote can be held directly responsible for Obama winning two elections.

The liberals seem to be more interested in taking action than do conservatives.

Maybe not but both main candidates are evil and would be extremely damaging to this nation. I don't want either of them in office. I do know one or the other will likely make it in but I cannot vote for either one. I've been able to put my name to a better candidate in years past but this year? There is none.

You do know, Ann. Clinton is going to get every liberal vote out there, because they are not going to think that a non-vote or third party vote will advance their agendas.

The conservative vote has in the last two elections sat out because of "principle." Many did not vote for Romney because he was a Mormon, who, in my opinion, was far closer to conservative principles than Bill Clinton, for example, who claimed to be a Christian and then tread underfoot the Son of God through his personal life, which was made very public.

Personally I was hoping for Herman Caine to run last time, but even he, a man that on national television sang Gospel music...could not stand up to the machine of propaganda. The point is, even if we had a Christian Candidate running, to invest hope in that candidate because he is a Christian who meets your standard is not logical. There will be no Christian leadership in truth until Christ returns, that is the simple truth about sin and the consequences of sin in relation to man's weakness.

Trump will have a responsibility to conservative voters which, as a politician, he will either honor or risk losing a second term. Most presidents want to be elected twice so that they do not look as though their presidency was a failure.

That is what I am hoping for, and, I will add, we have seen God work through secular leaders in the past, and it may be that Trump might actually grow up a little as President.

Just a thought.


God bless.

 

[InTheLight]

Now that's funny, because from what I can see Trump has been very successful in business.

Then you're not looking very hard.

While you might not like the man personally (as I do not), as a business owner myself, I can recognize one thing about Trump that has to be true: he knows how to put in place those necessary to make a business successful.

Again, you're not looking very hard. He's not been doing that in the campaign.

I have no doubt that he will do the same thing as President.

I have no doubt he would be a failure as president, like the other CEO's that have become presidents. I have no doubt that quality people don't want to work with him.

I would like to know just what exactly it is that causes you to say you would not do business with Trump.

Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

Then there was the whole veteran charity debacle.

I would also reiterate the question I think that has to be asked...do you really think Trump would be worse than Hillary Clinton?

In some areas, yes.

And I can say that a vote for Trump is without question a vote against Hillary Clinton, and the liberal, homosexual, and abortion agendas.

These issues are decided by the states or the courts. The president has little to do with it, except for nominating SCOTUS justices. We just saw today that a Reagan appointee was the swing vote in an important abortion vote.

That is just a fact that is unalterable. A non-vote or a third party vote is not, because it is not reasonable to think that a third party has a chance.

Voting for Trump has no chance of getting God's blessing on my life.

Doesn't really matter, Ann, what matters is that he is obligated to what the Party has has historically stood for.

Then why is he deviating from that in so many issues?

And if you think a non-vote or third party vote is a wise use of your vote, I cannot judge you, all I can do is say I disagree and that the non-vote and third party vote can be held directly responsible for Obama winning two elections.

More likely it was a superior ground game, an excellent get out the vote effort, more money raising, and a better overall campaign. It did not help that Romney had flip-flopped on so many issues (so has Trump)

The liberals seem to be more interested in taking action than do conservatives.

Yes, because the Dems nominate candidates that their base gets excited about.

You do know, Ann. Clinton is going to get every liberal vote out there, because they are not going to think that a non-vote or third party vote will advance their agendas.

Large swaths of Sanders voters are going to sit it out.

The conservative vote has in the last two elections sat out because of "principle." Many did not vote for Romney because he was a Mormon, who, in my opinion, was far closer to conservative

So third times a charm. Maybe after Trump gets destroyed by the electoral college the RNC will put up a quality candidate next time.

Trump will have a responsibility to conservative voters

Trump does stuff that benefits Trump. No one else. He'll do whatever he wants to do. He's had advisers telling himself to knock off the "unpresidential" act, but he keeps it up. Why do you think he would change once he's the most powerful man in the world and beholden to nobody?

Just a thought.

An extremely naive and ill informed one, but hey, that's Trump voters for ya.

 

[Darrell C]

I was keeping the numbers simple in order to keep the explanation simple. You're not actually refuting the math, just complaining about it.

The refutation stands. Your math does not include all relevant factors.

The primary factor you leave out is the impact of propaganda, and how it can sway the potential voter who is not really a factor in your math. You assume everyone is going to vote, and the point I have tried to make is that many will be dissuaded from voting altogether.

But it is unlikely that those who are zealous of personal gain through the advancement of their agendas will sit at home.

More likely it will be people staying home who have been convinced they cannot vote for Trump based on Christian Principle.

Um...how do you come to that roundabout conclusion?

It's very simple:

ONLY if you believe ALL democrats will vote democrat; and that democrats far outnumber those who would vote for Trump.

Your math factors are speculation.

If all democrats do vote democrat, and democrats do far outnumber those who would vote for Trump...then failing to vote for Trump is a vote for Clinton, as opposed to the reality that a vote for Trump is a vote against her.

The difference between most conservative voters and liberal voters is this: the conservative voter isn't after his own interests in regards to the benefits of having their candidate winning the election. Yes, we hope to curb abortion, but that does not benefit us. Yes, we hope to curb the naturalization of homosexuality, but that doesn't benefit us. Yes, we do hope to curb the erosion of our rights as Americans, but...that doesn't just benefit us.

It helps us to continue, with freedom, fighting against those things which stand contrary to the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I do not want freedom of speech and religious liberty so I can simply say what I want or worship as I choose, I want it so the Gospel remains unhindered.

The liberal voter, on the other hand, has self-serving motivation.

I based that statement off of Sanders supporters saying they would vote for Trump rather than Clinton. Are you not paying attention to the news?

Not as much as you, apparently.

So how many of these voters has the oh-so trustworthy news identified? Why would we find this to be a logical premise to our own reasoning, conclusions, and actions?

It is true there are conservative minded voters to a certain extent, but anyone who supports a party that has historically ran it's race based on promises of promoting ungodly agendas...

...needs to have their head examined. We know they will not have their hearts examined.

So your argument hinges on voting for the party, no matter who's the candidate. Thanks for that clarification.

My intention is NOT that a vote doesn't matter; never have I argued that. My intention has been to dispel this myth that not voting for one candidate is a vote for another.

No, Don, it's not a Republican Party issue, it is, as I have made clear in each discussion we've had, centers on a viable option to combat agendas which will harm our efforts as Christians.

And it is not logical to think that we can combat Hillary Clinton by not voting, or casting our vote for someone we know stands no chance of winning.

That is a waste of a vote, and if that keeps your conscience clear that is between you and God, not you and I. But I do not have to consider it either Christian duty or logical, but as I do see it...a waste that potentially will result in more deaths.

Deaths of Christians, deaths of infants. Death of those who succumb to the diseases associated with homosexuality.

And by far the worst death is the Second Death those who think they are Christian will die because their religion is political, not Christian.

I didn't say he was a more obvious threat. You have a talent for mis-reading, or simply mis-representing, the posts of others, which has been painfully obvious in this thread.

You did:

If Clinton follows the same strategy as Obama, then there is as much threat to the First Amendment as there is by Trump. Trump is just more obvious.

I wish I could say you have an obvious talent for redefining what you say, but you do not.

Obama and Clinton are subtle, and work from a strategy of ambiguous public statements and back-room deals. Trump is more vocal and hot-headed; thus, more obvious.

Not a more obvious threat. Just more obvious about it.

?

You are denying you are saying Trump is a more obvious threat?

You throw in an "if" but make a definitive statement "Trump is just more obvious."

Shall I interpret that to mean that you do not see Trump as a threat to First Amendment, and this is just speculation?

Okay, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and that I am reading this wrong...

...what exactly is Trump more obvious about?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Then you're not looking very hard.

So I need to look to the news for information? News about a presidential candidate?

Your right, I am not looking very hard.

Now what is Trump's net worth again?

Again, you're not looking very hard. He's not been doing that in the campaign.

So you say, yet he's still in the race.

Secondly, there is a difference between a presidential candidate and a president. Who Trump will put in place remains to be seen.

Third, how is who Trump has in his campaign relevant to who he will put in place as president. If war breaks out, who will be put in place by Trump to deal with it?

Won't be John Kerry. Pretty sure about that.

I have no doubt he would be a failure as president, like the other CEO's that have become presidents. I have no doubt that quality people don't want to work with him.

The question in view is has he been a failure as a businessman?

Was Romney a failure as a governor?

Is Obama a failure in regards to the financial situation of this Country?

Will Hillary be successful in this area?

You can only speculate as to what kind of people will be put in place concerning Trump, you don't have to speculate about what kind of people Clinton will surround herself with.

It is clear that your understanding feeds off of propaganda, and you base your conclusions on what you want to believe. There is no substance to your speculation, and there is no way you can say Trump has been a failure as a businessman.

Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

Then there was the whole veteran charity debacle.

Wow, how surprising, your conclusions are based off of propaganda.

Imagine that.

I have a number of former employees that didn't like the way I ran things either.

By the way, just curious...does enlarging the text make what we say more true, or no?

In some areas, yes.

Okay, this is what we call an opportunity to have a discussion that actually examines relevant details, ITL: please state how you think Trump would be worse than Hillary as President, and keep in mind the corollary...Clinton would be a better president based on these issues.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

These issues are decided by the states or the courts. The president has little to do with it, except for nominating SCOTUS justices. We just saw today that a Reagan appointee was the swing vote in an important abortion vote.

ITL, are you really going to try to say, with a straight face (no pun intended)...that Obama has had no impact on these agendas?

Seriously?

Voting for Trump has no chance of getting God's blessing on my life.

So if you do not benefit...you sit it out.

Kind of opportunistic if you ask me. Not exactly a shining example of how Christians should think.

How about the blessing of life that might be enjoyed by a Christian in an Islamic country? You do not believe Obama has emboldened ISlam and radical execution of Islam?

How about one more person persuaded that the agendas the Democratic Party support are...evil.

Would that be a blessing, ITL?

But okay, if you cannot benefit from a candidate, you'll sit it out.

That is between you and God.

Then why is he deviating from that in so many issues?

Again...what issues, ITL.

We have to examine them. A general statement does absolutely no good in trying to reason this out.

More likely it was a superior ground game, an excellent get out the vote effort, more money raising, and a better overall campaign. It did not help that Romney had flip-flopped on so many issues (so has Trump)

The fact still remains...the non-vote and the third party vote could have changed who it is we have as a President right now.

Who did you vote for, ITL?

And where did you get your understanding Romney flip-flopped...and Obama did not? Is it better for a candidate to be consistent in his campaign and then do the opposite after elected? What candidate cannot be seen to have flip-flopped?

Yes, because the Dems nominate candidates that their base gets excited about.

No kidding? lol

Yeah, its pretty exciting to know that homosexuality, abortion, and Islam are going to thrive if your candidate wins. Very exciting indeed.

Large swaths of Sanders voters are going to sit it out.

You know this because...the news told you this?

Amazing.

It never occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, this is propaganda?

Secondly I would ask, just how different are Trump and Sanders, that a democrat might not be convinced that he should vote for him rather than Clinton?

Would you supply some reasons?

So third times a charm. Maybe after Trump gets destroyed by the electoral college the RNC will put up a quality candidate next time.

You're waiting for a secular group that is entangled in intrigue and mudslinging...to present a quality candidate?

Mwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahha.........

Oh, sorry, lost my head there for a second...

Trump does stuff that benefits Trump. No one else. He'll do whatever he wants to do. He's had advisers telling himself to knock off the "unpresidential" act, but he keeps it up. Why do you think he would change once he's the most powerful man in the world and beholden to nobody?

Well, I have to charge you with hypocrisy.

It's wrong for Trump to be self-serving but not yourself...

Voting for Trump has no chance of getting God's blessing on my life.

Since when does a President of the United States become a source of blessing...for Christians?

For those who seek to advance their agendas, sure...

...but not for Christians.

As far as being unpresidential, lol, well, it would not be the first time we had an actor as president.

I would rather have a secular man being honest about who he is than the scum that claim the name of Christ and tread Him underfoot in their policies. There's still hope for someone like that, ITL.

An extremely naive and ill informed one, but hey, that's Trump voters for ya.

Right. I need to become informed by the news. I need to buy into propaganda.

I'll stick to examining what I know about the parties involved from a Biblical worldview, thanks.

You can begin by explaining to me how Trump is a failure as a business man.

Okay?


God bless.

 

[InTheLight]

Now what is Trump's net worth again?

He says it is $10 Billion. Most outside experts say it is around $5 Billion. But we'll never have a clue because he is refusing to release his tax returns. I wonder why that is?

So you say, yet he's still in the race.

His campaign is broke. He wasted the month of May tweeting and making damaging statements about things instead of fund raising. He just fired his campaign communications director. He has 48% of Republicans wishing that there was another candidate besides Trump. Wealthy donors are not contributing. Hundreds of Republicans are saying they won't be a that convention because they don't want to be associated with Trump.

Yes, he's still in the race.

Secondly, there is a difference between a presidential candidate and a president. Who Trump will put in place remains to be seen.

Take a look at his shills he's got on the news talking shows. They are pathetic. Why should we expect him to suddenly smarten-up and pick quality people? Besides good people don't want to work with him.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f873...c4/need-help-trump-finds-few-willing-work-him

Third, how is who Trump has in his campaign relevant to who he will put in place as president. If war breaks out, who will be put in place by Trump to deal with it?

I'm going to presume it will be someone that agrees with Trump on killing the wives and children of terrorists, willing to waterboard people.

The question in view is has he been a failure as a businessman?

A study was done assuming Trump inherited $150 million dollars when he was much younger. Had he invested that money in a stock index mutual fund he would have more money nowadays as he has running his businesses "successfully". In other words, he was unable to beat the market average.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-probably-better-investing-donald-233020366.html

http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

You can only speculate as to what kind of people will be put in place concerning Trump, you don't have to speculate about what kind of people Clinton will surround herself with.

We can see the type of people that Trump surrounds himself with. Corey Leandowski, Jeff Lord, Paul Manafort, Katrina Pierson, etc.

It is clear that your understanding feeds off of propaganda, and you base your conclusions on what you want to believe. There is no substance to your speculation, and there is no way you can say Trump has been a failure as a businessman.

Four bankrupted businesses (including two casinos. How do you lose money with a casino?)
Trump University
Trump Airlines
Trump Steak
Trump Vodka
Trump Mortgage
Trump Magazine
Trump Ice
The USFL's New Jersey Generals

Okay, this is what we call an opportunity to have a discussion that actually examines relevant details, ITL: please state how you think Trump would be worse than Hillary as President, and keep in mind the corollary...Clinton would be a better president based on these issues.


Continued...

I think Trump would be more apt to get the US involved in another war. I think he would be a dangerous person to have in control of our military. He is the type of person that would ignore advice by generals and instead do things his own way. I think Hillary would be more open to taking advice of people in the military because she realizes she doesn't have the knowledge in that area. Trump's ego won't let him admit he's incompetent in anything.

Trump's plan to deport millions of illegal's would have a devastating effect on our economy. Couple that with his plan to drastically cut taxes on the wealthy and you have a recipe for driving up the national debt.

Study Sees Debt Jumping Under Trump, Staying Steady Under Clinton
Donald Trump’s tax and spending proposals would greatly increase the national debt over the next 10 years, while Hillary Clinton’s combination of new revenue and new spending would have a nearly negligible effect on the country’s $14 trillion debt, according to a study released Sunday.

Under the plan put forward by Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, the U.S. debt would grow to 127% of the entire economy, up from 75% today, according to the analysis by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates bringing down the national debt.

Under current law, the debt is expected to grow to 86% of the economy, largely because of automatic spending increases for programs such as Social Security and Medicare driven by the aging population. Under Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump’s likely Democratic challenger, the debt would grow slightly to 87% of the economy, the report found.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/...ing-under-trump-staying-steady-under-clinton/

(BTW, larger font and bold font due to copying and pasting from source, nothing I am doing...)

 

[Baptist Believer]

I do see Trump as a viable candidate for a couple reasons:

1. This is a secular office and there is no reason it cannot be filled by a secular President.

I agree.

2. Running as Republican Trump will have a responsibility to the conservative voters who help elect him.

Really? Mr. Trump has made much of the fact that he is NOT being elected by the typical Republican. Moreover, his ego is such that I don't think he feels any particular loyalty or obligation to anything but his own views - whatever they happen to be at the moment.

He has given NO evidence that he will be beholden to any viewpoint other than his own. If you have some evidence, I'd appreciate seeing it for my own peace of mind.

3. Trump's foreign policy is a major shift from the damage Obama has created in the last 7 1/2 years.

I am no fan of Obama's foreign policy, but Trump doesn't seem to know anything about foreign policy or the history of the struggles between nations. He knows about making crooked deals, but that is a recipe for disaster when dealing with other nations.

He also has an unfortunate tendency to shoot his mouth off in ignorance which has severe consequences if you are in one of the most influential offices in the world. I think Obama has diminished our nation in the eyes of the world. However Trump will make us both a bully and a laughingstock.

4. Hillary Clinton will seek to leave her own "legacy," which in her mind will have to compare to what she views as Obama's.

And you don't think Trump will want his person stamp all over everything? He is obsessed with himself and his name/brand. He will be the radical of radicals, attempting to lead our nation where it has never been and where it should never go.

5. Trump is the only candidate that can possibly beat Clinton. I would think that would be fairly obvious. We know most liberals are going to vote for her.

I would say that just about all liberals will vote for Clinton. And many true conservatives will vote for Clinton (because they want to "conserve" our nation). A vote for Trump is the vote of a political radical.

 

[Darrell C]

He says it is $10 Billion. Most outside experts say it is around $5 Billion. But we'll never have a clue because he is refusing to release his tax returns. I wonder why that is?

ITL, is having a net worth of 5 billion rather than 10...reason to conclude he is a failure?

Don't be absurd, okay? lol

His campaign is broke. He wasted the month of May tweeting and making damaging statements about things instead of fund raising. He just fired his campaign communications director. He has 48% of Republicans wishing that there was another candidate besides Trump. Wealthy donors are not contributing. Hundreds of Republicans are saying they won't be a that convention because they don't want to be associated with Trump.

Yes, he's still in the race.

Okay, so Trump's campaign is broke, this means he doesn't know how to put the right people in place.

I wished there was a better candidate than Romney, but there was no way I would have sat out, voted third party, or voted for Obama.

Your point and propaganda is irrelevant to the issues.

Take a look at his shills he's got on the news talking shows. They are pathetic. Why should we expect him to suddenly smarten-up and pick quality people? Besides good people don't want to work with him.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f873...c4/need-help-trump-finds-few-willing-work-him

We might have a different definition of what "good people" means.

And you can save your links, the points I raise do not have to seek confirmation from the news. Hillary Clinton is going to be a disaster for this country, that is not up for debate.

I would vote for Lassie before voting for Hillary, sitting out, or casting a third party vote I know is not going to mean anything.

I'm going to presume it will be someone that agrees with Trump on killing the wives and children of terrorists, willing to waterboard people.

I hope so. That will stand in stark contrast to a President that would rather see Americans and Christians dying, and allowing these criminals free reign.

Your vote against water-boarding, amigo...

...is a vote for beheadings.

You don't understand that, but it is.

A study was done assuming Trump inherited $150 million dollars when he was much younger. Had he invested that money in a stock index mutual fund he would have the same amount of money nowadays as he has running his businesses "successfully". In other words, he was able to meet the market average.

ITL, do you see your rationalization of a very simple point: If Trump's net worth is 4.5 billion he has been successful as a business man.

Look at the math, my friend: 150 million into 4.5 billion is pretty successful in my book for a business man.

We can see the type of people that Trump surrounds himself with. Corey Leandowski, Jeff Lord, Paul Manafort, Katrina Pierson, etc.

And your grief with this people is...?

And what you know of these people comes from...?

Four bankrupted businesses (including two casinos. How do you lose money with a casino?)
Trump University
Trump Airlines
Trump Steak
Trump Vodka
Trump Mortgage
Trump Magazine
Trump Ice
The USFL's New Jersey Generals

And he still has 4.5 billion credited as his net worth.

Yup...he's a failure all right.

I think Trump would be more apt to get the US involved in another war. I think he would be a dangerous person to have in control of our military. He is the type of person that would ignore advice by generals and instead do things his own way. I think Hillary would be more open to taking advice of people in the military because she realizes she doesn't have the knowledge in that area. Trump's ego won't let him admit he's incompetent in anything.

I think it is true that Trump would be more apt to get us involved in another war, which is contrasted to Obama supporting Muslim Terrorists, spitting in the faces of our allies, and otherwise all around depicting America as the villain.

As far as Hillary taking advice from anyone...you are delusional.

Here's a little advice she couldn't follow: National Security is important.

Oh wait...that's not advice...that's the Law! lol

Trump's plan to deport millions of illegal's would have a devastating effect on our economy. Couple that with his plan to drastically cut taxes on the wealthy and you have a recipe for driving up the national debt.

Actually, it would have a devastating impact on the home countries of these illegals. I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that not only do illegals send their tax free money back to their countries, there is a pipeline up and down the east coast where illegals are brought into this country. The way it works is like this: an illegal is sponsored by a previous illegal (and those who are legal), when he becomes established he then sponsors illegals.

The money we lose to illegals alone would pay off the national debt in short order. I have dealt with both illegal and legal immigrants, and most of them want to do everything under the table to avoid paying taxes.

And you want to support that underbelly of this country.

And then act as though you are some great humanitarian, that's what is so absurd.

Study Sees Debt Jumping Under Trump, Staying Steady Under Clinton
Donald Trump’s tax and spending proposals would greatly increase the national debt over the next 10 years, while Hillary Clinton’s combination of new revenue and new spending would have a nearly negligible effect on the country’s $14 trillion debt, according to a study released Sunday.

Gosh, I wonder if there is any propaganda out there that says the reverse with Hillary as the villain?

And you're kind of forgetting Obama's contribution to the national debt, aren't you?

Yeah, I bet you want the debt to remain "steady."

Study Sees Debt Jumping Under Trump, Staying Steady Under Clinton
Donald Trump’s tax and spending proposals would greatly increase the national debt over the next 10 years, while Hillary Clinton’s combination of new revenue and new spending would have a nearly negligible effect on the country’s $14 trillion debt, according to a study released Sunday.

Under the plan put forward by Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, the U.S. debt would grow to 127% of the entire economy, up from 75% today, according to the analysis by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates bringing down the national debt.

Under current law, the debt is expected to grow to 86% of the economy, largely because of automatic spending increases for programs such as Social Security and Medicare driven by the aging population. Under Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump’s likely Democratic challenger, the debt would grow slightly to 87% of the economy, the report found.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/...ing-under-trump-staying-steady-under-clinton/

And this is supposed to be predictive?

Go back and bring up reports of Obama's proposals before he was elected, ITL.

Do you have the integrity to do that?

(BTW, larger font and bold font due to copying and pasting from source, nothing I am doing...)

Okay, I'll let you slide this time.




God bless.

 

[InTheLight]

ITL, do you see your rationalization of a very simple point: If Trump's net worth is 4.5 billion he has been successful as a business man.

Look at the math, my friend: 150 million into 4.5 billion is pretty successful in my book for a business man.

You say you are a business owner. So you would be satisfied with making less money than the market average? The average means that 50% of the people made more money and 50% made less money. It takes absolutely no skill whatsoever to turn 150 million into $4.5 billion over 35 years. None. Just stick $150 million in the Vanguard Total Stock index fund in 1982 and sit on your hands and you would have made $6 Billion by 2016. That's more successful than Trump has been in business and you would have settled for being average.

I present evidence with links, mostly from neutral or conservative sources, and I'm absurd, delusional, and don't have integrity. Done talking to you since you've mixed up the pitcher of Trump Kool Aid.

 

[Darrell C]

I agree.

Great.

Really? Mr. Trump has made much of the fact that he is NOT being elected by the typical Republican. Moreover, his ego is such that I don't think he feels any particular loyalty or obligation to anything but his own views - whatever they happen to be at the moment.

He has given NO evidence that he will be beholden to any viewpoint other than his own. If you have some evidence, I'd appreciate seeing it for my own peace of mind.

It's pretty simple, BB: if the conservative vote helps him get elected, the conservative vote will help get him re-elected.

Just like Obama was re-elected, amazingly, by standing on the issues that are without question liberal and typical of the Democratic Party.

Had Obama reversed his policy and became anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, and anti-liberal in general...he would not have been re-elected. But candidates are not stupid enough to go against the people that win elections for them.

As far as providing evidence for you, I would ask...has Trump been pro-choice, pro-homosexual, pro-Islam?

I am no fan of Obama's foreign policy, but Trump doesn't seem to know anything about foreign policy or the history of the struggles between nations. He knows about making crooked deals, but that is a recipe for disaster when dealing with other nations.

I don't think you understand just how silly this sounds. "I'm no fan of Obama's foreign policy...but..."

Well tell me...what about Obama's foreign policy is better than that revealed by Trump?

Obama wants to legalize illegal entry into this country, Trump wants Mexico to start taking accountability for their criminally minded citizens coming to this country and taking money out of our economy.

Obama has spit in Israel's face and Trump seeks to rectify the way Obama has treated them.

Who is it again that doesn't understand the struggles between nations? Does Obama's policy of a "year away from nuclear capability" and the rest of the world's view that Iran should never have capability represent the interests or struggles between other nations?

Yeah, he understands, the problem is that he is sympathetic to Islam.

How is Obama's policy on large militant Islamic groups taking over in foreign countries? How does that contrast with Trump's policy?

He also has an unfortunate tendency to shoot his mouth off in ignorance which has severe consequences if you are in one of the most influential offices in the world. I think Obama has diminished our nation in the eyes of the world. However Trump will make us both a bully and a laughingstock.

America has always taken a strong position in regards to Foreign policy. Trump would restore a historical position, and do away with Obama's treasonous policies.

And you don't think Trump will want his person stamp all over everything? He is obsessed with himself and his name/brand. He will be the radical of radicals, attempting to lead our nation where it has never been and where it should never go.

That you would set Trump as more radical than Obama shows you are guilty of what you charge Trump of:

He also has an unfortunate tendency to shoot his mouth off in ignorance which has severe consequences

If you do not understand the difference between Obama's radical policy and Trump's personality, I feel very sorry for you.

If you do not understand just how radical Hillary Clinton is, then all I can say is you need to turn off your MSNBC.

Trump's a TV personality, no question, but, when it comes to foreign policy his views are more traditional, rather than being radical. And I would personally like to see Mexico called to accountability for their own people. All foreign countries, for that matter.

If you do not see issues such as straining relations with a key nation in the Middle east, and part of that strain an effort of friendship with a country that hates us, and has no intention of honoring the promises they make, I feel very sorry for you.

I would say that just about all liberals will vote for Clinton. And many true conservatives will vote for Clinton (because they want to "conserve" our nation). A vote for Trump is the vote of a political radical.

No, sorry, no true conservative is going to vote for Hillary Clinton, because it is not conservative to promote homosexuality, abortion, or seek to continue in the "progress" she keeps saying Obama has made. True, he has made progress, but there is nothing conservative about it.

A vote for Trump is the only vote that is going to combat the radical Political Religion of Obama and Hillary Clinton. Neither are Christian, and worse, because they claim to be.

Any Christian that can vote for abortion, and vote for homosexuality...

...is not a conservative.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

You say you are a business owner. So you would be satisfied with making less money than the market average? The average means that 50% of the people made more money and 50% made less money. It takes absolutely no skill whatsoever to turn 150 million into $4.5 billion over 35 years. None. Just stick $150 million in the Vanguard Total Stock index fund in 1982 and sit on your hands and you would have made $6 Billion by 2016. That's more successful than Trump has been in business and you would have settled for being average.

You're still missing the point: accruing a net worth of 4.5 billion cannot be considered a failure.

A failure would be losing all your money and being in debt.

I present evidence with links, mostly from neutral or conservative sources,

USA Today is not a neutral site, and I would suggest that there are very few sites that could legitimately called neutral.

You have not posted a legitimate site to support your rationalization that allows for a net worth of 4.5 billion to be considered a failure in business.

And you never will.

, and I'm absurd,

Yup, sometimes it is so painfully clear.

, delusional,

Now quote what I actually said instead of whining.

and don't have integrity.

Now quote what I actually said instead of whining.

You answer the question, that option is yours.

Done talking to you since you've mixed up the pitcher of Trump Kool Aid.

No, you're done talking because now we are at the phase of the discussion where you have run out of propaganda, and cannot continue the conversation as a discussion, examining the issues brought up.

You're done talking because to actually address those questions would make it evident that you approach this election with a syllogistic approach that has in large part media propaganda to supply premise.

As I have always made clear, I am not an advocate for Trump, I am an advocate for making sure Hillary Clinton does not get elected.

Your understanding of what financial success, placement of key supporting roles, and foreign policy...are absurd. You, Like Obama and HIllary Clinton, overlook that breaking of the Law of this Land in favor for personal gain and advancement of agendas.

The most dangerous of these, for us as Christians, is Islamic Sympathy. Trump, as a man that is clearly secular, will not support Islam as Obama has, all the while claiming to be a Christian.

You have been deceived, ITL. That you would not do anything you could to ensure that people of like mind with Obama could not get into power in this country is frightening. But it goes to show you simply do not understand what is at stake, nor what the consequences your vote brings about wreaks.

You, done talking? Not a chance.

You, engaging in an actual conversation, instead of simply talking at people? Not a chance.


Me, done with this discussion for today?

You bet.




God bless.

 

[blessedwife318]

DC thank you for continuing to give me more and more reasons to Never Vote for Trump. You have once again proved to be an invaluable source.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[blessedwife318]

I present evidence with links, mostly from neutral or conservative sources, and I'm absurd, delusional, and don't have integrity. Done talking to you since you've mixed up the pitcher of Trump Kool Aid.

I've presented link of Donald talking or of transcript of his direct quotes and they were compared to the huff post talking about aliens by a Trump supporter here. It was enlightening to see that even his supporters really don't think he is trustworthy source. And then they think they can convince to vote for this democrat.
#NEVERTRUMP

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

Another Trump business failure.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-baja-snap-story.html

 

[Benjamin]

DC thank you for continuing to give me more and more reasons to Never Vote for Trump. You have once again proved to be an invaluable source.

DC, you're arguments were exceptionally laid out and in large part indisputable by rational means. Just want you to know some here recognize and appreciate the value of the validity in your arguments and the logical truths in your conclusions. Also know that some of us recognize that the above attempt at a comeback with purely meaningless rhetoric that fails to give reason whatsoever to counter any of your claims merely demonstrates another example of the opposition's inability to engage your reasoning with anything more than fallacious rhetoric and propaganda and yet again demonstrates as you said concerning the lack of their ethical goals toward "engaging in an actual conversation, instead of simply talking at people". Well done!


#NeverHillary