• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Those Five Republican (?) Senators

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
Sorry, I assumed you would know what I meant by “shadow President.” Do you realize you could have looked it up on a search engine if you didn’t know what that meant?

More than influence, but being the defacto head of the Republican Party, holding rallies and issuing press releases. That’s a change from the way things have been done in the past. That’s what I meant — and what Graham seemed to be saying — when we referred to Trump being a “shadow President.’

I never claimed that he would run the Executive Branch. That’s why I said “shadow” President. He would have to be President to run the Executive Branch.

Again, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Please seriously consider what I say without assuming the most stupid and nonsensical interpretation possible.
Well, I was trying to make sense of your nonsense. But I've now considered and it's all too clear what the issue really is.

Obama and Biden, Hillary and Bernie, and even Carter, and many others as well, all worked in concert with the Dem Media and the Dem Congress and key figures in the bureaucracy to oppose and undermine Trump at every step, even saying Trump was illegitimately elected and trying to illegitimately impeach him.

Now all of a sudden it's supposed to make sense that Trump would be a sort of "shadow president" whom every patriotic American should oppose? You seem to have a very deeprooted hypocrisy guiding you. But then that rather goes with the territory when siding with the Dems. Thanks for clearing it up.
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We don't conservatives need to speak about the faults of Trump?
Because the Libs more that fill the quota for that.
More than “the Libs.” People who are concerned about our nation’s leadership speak up.

We dont need to give them any more ammo
Thank you for being honest here. By saying this, you show you have chosen to support the Republicans instead of being a Christian and speaking prophetically and separating your political preferences from the gospel message.
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well, I was trying to make sense of your nonsense. But I've now considered and it's all too clear what the issue really is.

Obama and Biden, Hillary and Bernie, and even Carter, and many others as well, all worked in concert with the Dem Media and the Dem Congress and key figures in the bureaucracy to oppose and undermine Trump at every step, even saying Trump was illegitimately elected and trying to illegitimately impeach him.

Now all of a sudden it's supposed to make sense that Trump would be a sort of "shadow president" whom every patriotic American should oppose? You seem to have a very deeprooted hypocrisy guiding you. But then that rather goes with the territory when siding with the Dems. Thanks for clearing it up.
What a joke.

You are completely in willful error. I’m not going to dignify this nonsense by responding to your accusations.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
...Thank you for being honest here. By saying this, you show you have chosen to support the Republicans instead of being a Christian and speaking prophetically and separating your political preferences from the gospel message.

Here is the thing - I have no problem with discussing political issue with those I disagree. However - it needs to be a 2 way street. Most of the Libs I talk to on FB - refuse to admint even one good thing about Trump. I will be the first to admit that I do not agree with every issue with Trump. But to say you cannot agree with even one item - either you are an out and out liar or you do not want to admit that you can actually agree with him.
I even linked a page with over 200 accomplishments - of Trump and they tell me there is not even one item on the list they agree! - yea - right.....

So for most folks - I am not going to waste my time with them. In fact I am on a couple of FB pages and I am getting ready to leave them because so many are so one sided. and closed minded
 

SGO

Well-Known Member
I am not “ok with abortion.”


I am simply being accurate and trying to speak with precision. Humankind has been aborting children for at least 5,000 years, so there are some who will do it no matter what. Then there are folks who believe that the removal and death of an embryo when removed from an ectopic pregnancy is abortion, so I’m trying to cover that as well.


I don’t know what you mean by “morally feasible,” but yes, Jesus was crucified. As Bonhoeffer stated so well, “when Christ calls a man, He bids him to come and die.” Jesus told us to take up our cross and follow Him. It is a metaphorical cross (to consider ourselves as dead men) and sometimes a more literal cross that leads to martyrdom.

Many American Christians seem to want to live a life of ease and popularity and not set aside their own selfish desires and sin to take up the life of the cross.


But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles domineer over them, and those in high position exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wants to become prominent among you shall be your servant, and whoever desires to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28)


But does any of that actually end abortion, or make people think abortion is a bad thing when they have an unwanted pregnancy?


Good, because I’m not terribly interest in identifying with a political party.



No, I’m pro-life.

I don’t think it is right to reject the full teachings of Jesus and reject the sanctity of life for those already born solely in the hopes of voting in a politician who will be likely extremely ineffective in doing anything that will reduce abortions.

That’s simplistic, ineffective, and undermines the gospel.


If the proliferation of abortion was the only moral issue facing our nation, Your premise would have more weight, but if we want to be pro-life, we have many other areas to be concerned about.


Thank you for answering my question.

It takes lots of repetition to get any idea accepted especially if the idea goes against the prevailing attitude.

So President Trump's many forays into that field was good. He had other issues but I don't think he was "extremely ineffective".
The government stopped paying abortion doctors in some instances. That will surely change with Biden-Harris.
"“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles domineer over them, and those in high position exercise authority over them." Including fetuses.

I remember so many whooping it up for President Reagan who said he was against abortion but did very little, but not nothing, to stop it.

The current Quo Vidus frying pandemic has been used for much political advantage but that happened because of repeating and expanding on the message quite often, did it not? Censoring and ostracizing contrary opinion helps too.
Cannot do that in the fight against killing babies because there is little or no advantage for power and as you said 5,000 years is a long history.

If a major politician or party is against murder of infants I will support them no matter what crazy other policies they might have. That is where we may differ a little. I may find a party's actions distasteful but if they support the rights of an infant to live I will not complain about the distasteful elements in order to promote the stopping of murder.

See you on the next wave.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It has been stated - elsewhere that the real reason is the Dems are afraid that Trump would run again in 2024- and if so- they might be afraid that he would win.

That and/or - they just want to add another blow to him.

Either way- I see it as a waste of time

And I would think the same if in two years when the R's get a House majority -
I wouldnt want them to try to impeach Obama or either Clinton - its done and over with.

Let sleeping dogs lie.
It ain’t done... No, not by a long shot
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Senator Ben Sasse on Abortion (Feb 6, 2021):

“We will continue to advocate for the bipartisan passage of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in this Congress,” Wussow said. “And as the pandemic continues, we will continue to advocate that the religious freedom rights of churches and ministries be upheld and respected. These policies are as common sense as they are critically needed.”

Sasse’s amendment was based on his Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which he first introduced in 2015. Democratic Sens. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and Joe Manchin of West Virginia joined all the Republicans in voting for the amendment.

“There’s a lot of complicated debates in this chamber, but this isn’t actually one of them,” Sasse told the Senate before the vote. “Here’s a chance for 100 Senators to come together and support every baby. Every baby deserves a fighting chance.”
I don't understand the need for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act . The law treats an infant after birth just like any other person. Is there anybody that thinks killing a person isn't murder?
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This group supports an excellent cause.

We are a group of people compelled to uphold the personhood of our neighbors according to the way of Jesus.

We want to work together to make places in the world where mothers and fathers can find a way forward to thrive and give abundant life to their children.

Where women and men are no longer weighed down by the burden of past abortion.

Where young people can capture a vision for living a deeper love in their relationships and sexual decisions.

We want to do all this and much more.

*****************************************************************************************************
My understanding is this group wants to make birt an economically viable alternative to abortion thereby reducing the number of abortions.
Many if not most abortions today are performed on women who already have children and can't afford to feed, clothe, house, etc. another one.
By giving these women help to do that they will choose life more often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SGO

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1) is it he actually refuse to accept - or is it that had he conceded - he would not be able to continue to fight for a recount.

2) Should there be an investigation to see how much fraud there was.
There were about 60 federal cases brought by Trump requesting recounts, including attempts to reach the Supreme Court. ALL of these failed due to lack
of evidence. Many of the judges were appoints by Trump. A recount was done in Georgia. This election was the most secure and watched over in America's history.

Here's how Trump's popular vote stacks up against all other presidents. In addition he LOST the electoral College vote by exactly the same margin as what
he called a "landslide victory" over H Clinton. At some point Republicans need to accept reality but I know that's difficult for Trump supporters.Presidents Popular Vote Perf.jpg
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
There were about 60 federal cases brought by Trump requesting recounts, including attempts to reach the Supreme Court. ALL of these failed due to lack of evidence.
Most were thrown out for procedural reasons having nothing to do with "evidence" (like a private citizen cannot contest the election or you cannot contest the election in another state). Most of those cases were not brought by Donald Trump, but by other individuals not employed by his campaign. So your statement is factually inaccurate and misleading.

You are, however, correct that none of the handful of cases brought by Trump revealed widespread fraud to the satisfaction of the courts that actually heard those minority of cases.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
that is the reason the House has only 2 year terms

Actually the terms were wisely built-in by the founders to protect the republic from the rapid change that history reveals pure democracies are vulnerable to due to demagoguery.

House - two years
Executive - four years
Senate - six years
Supreme Court - lifetime

'Checks and balances'.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 777

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Most were thrown out for procedural reasons having nothing to do with "evidence" (like a private citizen cannot contest the election or you cannot contest the election in another state). Most of those cases were not brought by Donald Trump, but by other individuals not employed by his campaign. So your statement is factually inaccurate and misleading.

You are, however, correct that none of the handful of cases brought by Trump revealed widespread fraud to the satisfaction of the courts that actually heard those minority of cases.
Trump campaign, Republican lawsuits challenging 2020 election: list (businessinsider.com)

Faced with the prospect of losing to a man he spent months hammering as corrupt, doddering, and mentally deficient, President Donald Trump is going on offense, spreading lies and conspiracy theories about a "rigged" election marred by "major fraud" from Democrats.
He's alternated between demanding that some states stop counting ballots, which he doesn't have the power to do, and saying that others should keep counting, which they were doing anyway.
To that end, the Trump campaign, Republican allies, and Trump himself have mounted at least 42 legal challenges since Election Day.

They've won zero.

Please provide something to back up your baseless argument.
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
They've won zero.
So?
I admitted as much.
The part you are misrepresenting is:
  • most never got to trial to examine the facts because they were dismissed for lack of standing (the person filing the claim, or the court where it was filed had no jurisdiction).
... It does not PROVE the evidence false when the evidence is never examined.

You should just stick with the facts.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nice way of putting it but please, are you ok with abortion?

"But getting back to the issue, if conservative Christians were to transform our culture through the power of the Spirit by acting like Jesus, not just grabbing after worldly power to dictate our convictions, we could change everything and make abortion extremely rare."

"Extremely rare" sounds like it could be construed as a tacit approval so set me straight if it's worth it to you. Prob not.

They killed Jesus for His efforts to make things morally feasible. Wasn't He conservative in the power of the Spirit?

"Grabbing worldly power to dictate" is the politician's mantra, no?

Here is a list of what some Catholics think President Trump did to halt abortion:

Accomplishments of the Trump Administration on Pro-Life and Other Issues

Trump also had other issues to deal with and to me it's amazing he even attempted to do so much for life, rather than just use his stand as a way and a lie to get some Christians to support him.

The thief cometh not, but for to steal and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life...
John 10:10

I am not asking you to become a Republican or a Democrat just asking if you will support ANY politician who seeks to protect the lives of fetuses, of whatever color. And support them in spite of potential detriment to other causes.

Perhaps you see it more as one more wave in a sea of troubles.
So?
I admitted as much.
The part you are misrepresenting is:
  • most never got to trial to examine the facts because they were dismissed for lack of standing (the person filing the claim, or the court where it was filed had no jurisdiction).
... It does not PROVE the evidence false when the evidence is never examined.

You should just stick with the facts.
Show me some facts.
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Show me some facts.
Sure, here are the FACTS:
  • 54 Post Election Lawsuits
  • - 13 dropped by Plaintiff before reaching the court
  • -27 dismissed without a trial (Court refused to hear case)
  • -6 dismissed without a trial but currently awaiting an appeal
  • -2 Trials ongoing
  • = 6 Court Cases had evidence examined and ruled against out of 54 Lawsuits.
Some specific FACTS on active cases:
  • Bowyer et al. v. Ducey et al. ... Awaiting Appeal
    • Lawsuit seeking de-certification of Arizona results, litigated by Sidney Powell. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing; their fraud allegations were vague and implausible, and their evidence was unreliable or irrelevant. Appealed to the 9th circuit
  • Wood v. Raffensperger et al. ... Awaiting Appeal
    • Lawsuit challenging the inclusion of absentee ballots for the general election in Georgia.
    • November 19: Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) request to halt certification was Denied as plaintiff Wood lacks standing and his constitutional rights arguments fail.
    • December 5: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Wood's motion for emergency relief.
    • Motion filed, for an expedited consideration for a writ of certorari at the Supreme Court of the United States.
  • Pearson et al. v. Kemp et al. ... Awaiting Appeal
    • Litigated by Sidney Powell. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing and filed the case too late, that the federal court had no jurisdiction, and that the relief was impossible to grant.
    • Emergency petition filed in the Supreme Court of the United States for an emergency writ of mandamus.
  • King et al. v. Whitmer et al. ... Awaiting Appeal
    • December 7, 2020: Emergency Motion for Declaratory, Emergency, and Permanent Injunctive Relief denied. Appealed to the 6th Circuit.
    • Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for writ of certorari filed.
  • Bognet et al. v. Boockvar et al. ... Awaiting Appeal
    • Also called Bognet et al. v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
    • Asked a federal court to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision allowing the receipt of ballots after Election Day. Dismissed by the District Court, appealed to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; dismissed, and appealed to Supreme Court
  • Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar et al. ... ONGOING
    • Supreme Court appeal of multiple Pennsylvania lawsuits. Petition for a writ of certiorari filed with response due January 22, 2021. Motion of Constitutional Attorneys for leave to file amicus brief submitted. Amicus brief of Todd C. Bank submitted.
    • January 11, 2021: Motion to expedite denied
  • Feehan et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n et al. ... Awaiting Appeal
    • Plaintiffs challenge a variety of election practices and claim electronic ballot stuffing campaign occurred. Plaintiffs seek decertification of election results. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on December 9, 2020. The plaintiff also lacked legal standing.
    • Appealed to the 7th Circuit
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
atpollard

Looks like you did your homework
But why are you doing this -
are you trying to confuse FollowTheWay and others with the Facts!!!!
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't understand the need for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act . The law treats an infant after birth just like any other person. Is there anybody that thinks killing a person isn't murder?

You dont know what you are talking about. If a child survives abortion they are left to die uncared for. Get your facts straight before you post.
 
Top