The Irony of moral opposition to Trump

[TCassidy]

Republican party was to grow a backbone

No chance of that happening.

If enough people voted for Johnson or Castle one of them would win

If enough people vote for the Man in the Moon he would win, but this is the real world. It will be either Trump or Clinton. And, of the two, Trump is less dangerous to our liberty than Clinton.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I wish that anti-abortion folk would be half as concerned about the life of a child after it is born as they are about the unborn. Being anti-abortion requires nothing from them in a material way. Being pro-life for both the unborn and the born is theological consistant. However, being in favor of society providing a good life for the born child will require real effort and material help and a large majority of

No chance of that happening.

If enough people vote for the Man in the Moon he would win, but this is the real world. It will be either Trump or Clinton. And, of the two, Trump is less dangerous to our liberty than Clinton.

I beg to differ. Trump is much more dangerous. Look at all the scandals he has been involved in. There is no subsidence in any of his speeches. He has throw-away lines to bring cheers filled in between with bragging about himself.

Oh, and the man-in-the-moon could not win. That mythical fellow is not a natural born American citizen.

 

[Salty]

Johnson is out - he is pro-abortion
Castle is too right-wing (not saying that is bad), and thus would never get the (much needed) moderate vote.
Just looking at the facts

 

[Revmitchell]

Society has no responsibility to provide a good life for anyone. People need to be self supporting. What actually requires nothing from people is to say its the governments (society) job to provide a good life for anyone.

I am proud to be an anti-abortionist and those who place themselves at odds with anti-abortionists as if they were other people and not yourself are only telling on yourself. When that same person also supports Planned Parenthood you are only telling on yourself.

See the issue is about more than just being "anti-abortion". The abortion process rips unborn children limb from limb in the most greusome fashion. Partial birth abortion delivers all but the head of a living child and then a tube is rammed into the base of the skull and the brain contents are suck out.

To simply put it in terms of "abortion" while comparing it to anything else is to demean and belittle to hard cold facts. It is also telling on yourself.

I am proud to be anti-abortion. If you do not like it too bad.

 

[Salty]

I wish that anti-abortion folk would be half as concerned about the life of a child after it is born as they are about the unborn. Being anti-abortion requires nothing from them in a material way. Being pro-life for both the unborn and the born is theological consistant. However, being in favor of society providing a good life for the born child will require real effort and material help and a large majority of

We are - there are many Christian organizations to help. The problem is that so many are falling for Hilalrys "it takes a Village to raise a child"

I beg to differ. Trump is much more dangerous. Look at all the scandals he has been involved in. There is no subsidence in any of his speeches. He has throw-away lines to bring cheers filled in between with bragging about himself.

1) Being military, I consider national security to be of extreme importance.
2) There have been numerous lies
3) Will you still be think Hillary is less dangerous,when she approves of post-birth abortion?
4) will continue later with more.

Oh, and the man-in-the-moon could not win. That mythical fellow is not a natural born American citizen.

I have a hunch that T was being facetious.

 

[Crabtownboy]

We are - there are many Christian organizations to help. The problem is that so many are falling for Hilalrys "it takes a Village to raise a child"


1) Being military, I consider national security to be of extreme importance.

I agree and I believe she is a better choice than Trump at Commander-in-Chief, She certainly knows foreign policy better and is known by foreign leaders. Also, Putin wanting Trump sets off all kinds of alarm bells for me.

2) There have been numerous lies

No question about that.

3) Will you still be think Hillary is less dangerous,when she approves of post-birth abortion?

What is post-birth abortion. Looks like an oxymoron to me. How can a child be aborted after birth. He will use abortion as a throw-away line to get cheers. I do not think he is serious about this issue. I am not sure what issue he is serious about. He is backing away from his hard illegal alien stance.

I don't think Trump can do anything about abortion. I doubt he will even try. He has been on both sides of this issue.

4) will continue later with more.

I'll look for your posts.

I have a hunch that T was being facetious.

I also was being tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Revmitchell]

 

[Salty]

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

 

[StefanM]

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

That's absolutely revolting. Just sickening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

Great article by a conservative, evangelical pastor.

If You're On the Fence About Your Vote, This Pastor Clarifies How the Very Future of America Is At Stake

I have been asked "the question" so many times regarding Trump or Hillary. By way of background, I have followed every national convention—Republican and Democrat—from the time I was age 9, and have attended most of the GOP Conventions from 1984 to the present. I have watched the news virtually every day from the age of 8. I have never seen anything like what we are observing.

In spite of the unprecedented nature of this election cycle, I will attempt to respond to "the question." I am not demanding that anyone else share my view. But I was asked. Here is my best attempt to answer as I am able to see things at this time:

The rest of the main points can be found at:
http://www.charismanews.com/politic...es-how-the-very-future-of-america-is-at-stake

 

[Zaac]

If the SCOUTS can find a "right" to kill an unborn baby - they will find a way to outlaw guns

According to the GOP, The SCOTUS doesn't make law. That rests with the legislative branch of government.

 

[TCassidy]

The SCOTUS doesn't make law.

Uh, ever heard of "case law?"

 

[Zaac]

That has got to be the most uninformed post I have ever read on Facebook. The Supreme Court has ruled against gun rights on dozens of occasions, upholding gun control laws that infringe on the law abiding citizen's rights to own and carry firearms.

That's ruling on the Constitutionality of OTHER laws. That's not undoing the 2nd Amendment. Their rulings don't change what's in the 2nd Amendment and the rights that it affords.

The Supreme Court, if Hillary appoints the new Justice(s), will have the power to make gun ownership by private citizens illegal just by failing to understand (deliberately misinterpreting) the "Militia" statement.

Stop the fear mongering. GOPers are always talking about somebody wanting to take their guns.

Where has Hillary Clinton ever expressed a desire to stop private ownership of guns?

"The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' . . . constitutes a present participle . . . It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The "to keep and bear arms" is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

Then stand and fight when they come to take your guns.

Professor Roy Copperud (University of Southern California) and member of the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary. His book, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

You can call it whatever you want. The SCOTUS makes suggestions in accordance with their interpretations of the Constitution.

They can invalidate legislation by deeming it unConstitutional. They CANNOT make new law.

This is why they deal with invalidating laws and not what's in the Constitution. They can't change the Constitution.

 

[Zaac]

Uh, ever heard of "case law?"

We didn't cover that in law school.

 

[TCassidy]

Where has Hillary Clinton ever expressed a desire to stop private ownership of guns?

http://downtrend.com/71superb/hillary-clinton-vows-to-overturn-individual-gun-ownership-rights

 

[TCassidy]

Then stand and fight when they come to take your guns.

Are you advocating civil war? An armed rebellion?

 

[TCassidy]

They CANNOT make new law.

Of course they can. Better get your "Blacks" out and do a little research.

case law
noun

1. the law as established by the outcome of former cases.

 

[StefanM]

We didn't cover that in law school.

Oh come on. You're being deliberately obnoxious. I can appreciate the humor of it (I can be obnoxious for kicks, too), but the details are fuzzy.. You know full well that in a common law system cases establish precedent, and that precedent is universally binding if it comes from SCOTUS. Thus, SCOTUS has the de facto position of being able to create law through cases. It may not have that authority de jure, but the mere fact that the concept of judicial review as we know it was established in Marbury vs. Madison---case law!

Thus, SCOTUS as we know it today basically created itself.

Sure, a few legislative remedies exist (expanding the Court like FDR attempted, for one), but we tend to defer to tradition (i.e. precedent), even when it isn't binding.

There is, however, almost nothing to stop SCOTUS from taking a activist approach that reinterprets part of the Constitution to fit an agenda (cf. Wickard v. Filburn). Plus, with the principle of Chevron deference for federal agencies, SCOTUS could go out of its way to make an activist-friendly decision.

I'm not saying that SCOTUS will invalidate Amendments. It can't do that. What it can do is validate laws that violate those Amendments and strike down those that uphold them.

So can they make law? Not directly, but they can use perfectly-crafted cases for which they can grant cert and can then rule as they wish.

 

[Zaac]

http://downtrend.com/71superb/hillary-clinton-vows-to-overturn-individual-gun-ownership-rights

I don't see anywhere in there where she's vowing to overturn the individual gun ownership rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment. That story spoke to here belief that there should be better gun storage. The guy says that's not what the case was about, but he says that's what she spoke to and then added his own speculation and fear mongering about what he THINKS is her motive.

 

[Zaac]

Are you advocating civil war? An armed rebellion?

I'm advocating that if you're that much of a gun diehard and are afraid that Hillary is gonna send folks to take your guns, then fight back when they come. In the unlikely world that something like that wouldn't happen,you'll probably be killed but by golly, your dead corpse will probably still be grasping your guns.