Christians should NOT vote for Donal Trump

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by n david

No, he hasn't. That's a misconception. Not voting for Trump does not equal voting for Hillary. A vote must be cast for someone to actually be for someone. One could as easily (and incorrectly) claim that not voting for Hillary equals voting for Trump. Both are incorrect, unless you're trying to apply common core logic to the voting process, which still is incorrect.



No, he did not get in by one vote. W lost the popular vote by over 500,000 votes (533,895); however, due to how the process is actually played, he won five more electoral votes. Electoral votes are not popular votes.

What i said, and I stand behind it, "you have just INDIRECTLY voted for her to be president."

As you can see, Bush became president by 1 vote, the vote of a Supreme court justice.

"The United States presidential election of 2000 was the 54th quadrennial presidential election. It was held on Tuesday, November 7, 2000. The contest was between Republican candidate George W. Bush, the incumbent governor of Texas and son of former president George H. W. Bush; Democratic candidate Al Gore, ... The Court's contentious 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore."

[n david]

Originally Posted by Bowas

As you can see, Bush became president by 1 vote, the vote of a Supreme court justice.

"The United States presidential election of 2000 was the 54th quadrennial presidential election. It was held on Tuesday, November 7, 2000. The contest was between Republican candidate George W. Bush, the incumbent governor of Texas and son of former president George H. W. Bush; Democratic candidate Al Gore, ... The Court's contentious 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore."

Wait, SCOTUS' 5-4 decision was just that, a decision, not a vote.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by n david

Wait, SCOTUS' 5-4 decision was just that, a decision, not a vote.

lol. The "decision" is comprised of how they voted.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You kept doubling down on concerning Trump. I didn't know how else to take it except you were defending him. He's not an easy person to defend.

I was not defending him. I was saying media made him worse than what he is. You said i meant he's innocent. No I didn't. I said nothing about any innocence in him whatsoever. How does, "Media makes people worse than what they are," translate into "he is innocent"?

Let me break this down really simply. If John Doe is evil and wicked and killed hundreds of people, media would make that worse and say he killed thousands as well as beat his wife and kids. See my point?

So, I wonder what you're thinking to make you do that with my words. I gave you no grounds in my words to say I thought he was innocent. He's a buffoon in many ways. But media makes it worse than that.

I believe Hillary is a plain old criminal. The email scam is simply wicked. But media even makes her out to be worse than what she is. Trump may be personally offensive. But that's not as serious as being a criminal. And perhaps Trump is a criminal in some ways, but the issue is Hillary is worse. Trump spoke far more FOR Christianity than Hillary ever did. The democrats are simply out to make Christianity and its values non-existent.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I was not defending him. I was saying media made him worse than what he is. You said i meant he's innocent. No I didn't. I said nothing about any innocence in him whatsoever.

Sorry, I can't quite wrap my brain around the words in bold. You keep saying that but it's not true.

So I wonder what you're thinking to make you do that with my words. I gave you no grounds in my words to say I thought he was innocent. He's a buffoon in many ways. But media makes it worse than that.

I believe Hillary is a plain old criminal. The email scam is simply wicked. But media even makes her out to be worse than what she is. Trump may be personally offensive. But that's not as serious as being a criminal. And perhaps Trump is a criminal in some ways, but the issue is Hillary is worse. Trump spoke far more FOR Christianity than Hillary ever did. The democrats are simply out to make Christianity and its values non-existent.

Yes, I do remember listening to this actual interview with Donald on Christianity.

"If I do something wrong, I think I just try to make it right, I don't bring God into that picture. I don't. When we go into church — and when I drink my little wine, which is about the only wine I drink, and have my little cracker — I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness. I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed, OK?"

Goodness! We have all made mistakes of which we need to ask for forgiveness, wondering how we could have made such dumb mistakes and gotten ourselves into such dumb situations. Donald's response here is....I have no words. LOL!

We will get one or the other. In good conscience, because God reigns supreme above all, my name won't be down for this one. Not happening.

I agree, especially, with Tom Bevin. This is the reality of this election. The person who happens to be in the spotlight is the one that suffers the most - they are such marred individuals.

"The one enduring thing about this race is whichever one of them is under the limelight, suffers. And the spotlight has been on Donald Trump for a number of weeks -- intense scrutiny about the allegations of groping, etc. Now the limelight has shifted back to Hillary Clinton. It started even before the emails even started with some of the WikiLeaks stuff and with Obamacare. So she is not firmly under the spotlight with just a week left. Whichever one of these candidates -- it reminds voters of all the worst perceptions the public has about these two candidates. That is not where they want to be."

No discussion on how unacceptable Hillary is makes Donald acceptable.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Sorry, I can't quite wrap my brain around the words in bold. You keep saying that but it's not true.



Yes, I do remember listening to this actual interview with Donald on Christianity.

"If I do something wrong, I think I just try to make it right, I don't bring God into that picture. I don't. When we go into church — and when I drink my little wine, which is about the only wine I drink, and have my little cracker — I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness. I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed, OK?"

Goodness! We have all made mistakes of which we need to ask for forgiveness, wondering how we could have made such dumb mistakes and gotten ourselves into such dumb situations. Donald's response here is....I have no words. LOL!

We will get one or the other. In good conscience, because God reigns supreme above all, my name won't be down for this one. Not happening.

I agree, especially, with Tom Bevin. This is the reality of this election. The person who happens to be in the spotlight is the one that suffers the most - they are such marred individuals.



No discussion on how unacceptable Hillary is makes Donald acceptable.

My point is, as I noted, if a guy for example killed three people, media would make it out he killed four and perhaps add he hates women, too. That doesn't mean he's innocent. It means media made him more wicked than he is. Media always makes things worse than what they are. I work in small town media and was drilled about what media NORMALLY does and how that cannot fly in a small town news situation. I know how media works.

[mfblume]

Media works the way Churchill once nailed someone for using that wicked tactic they use....

He told the individual interrogating him, who demanded he simply say YES or NO. Nothing else. Churchill said some questions cannot be answered yes or no.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed. The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.

It's like someone coincidentally raises their hand and extends the index finger and the little finger while clenching the others. AHA! THE SIGN OF SATAN! He's giving the sign of satan! He's a covert satanist.

It's nonsensical twisting of the actual picture.

And, voila! You have just a touch of the tactics media uses!

It's like a CNN reporter asked a black man at a Trump rally what he thought of white supremicists voting for Trump. The black man caught the ruse and said it has nothing to do with Trump himself. He asked the reporter what about racists voting for Hillary. the man refused to reply. CNN is biased for democrats and Fox is biased for Republicans. Two-way street. I thought all Americans knew that.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Media works the way Churchill once nailed someone for using that wicked tactic they use....

He told the individual interrogating him, who demanded he simply say YES or NO. Nothing else. Churchill said some questions cannot be answered yes or no.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed. The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.

It's like someone coincidentally raises their hand and extends the index finger and the little finger while clenching the others. AHA! THE SIGN OF SATAN! He's giving the sign of satan! He's a covert satanist.

It's nonsensical twisting of the actual picture.

And, voila! You have just a touch of the tactics media uses!

It's like a CNN reporter asked a black man at a Trump rally what he thought of white supremicists voting for Trump. The black man caught the ruse and said it has nothing to do with Trump himself. He asked the reporter what about racists voting for Hillary. the man refused to reply. CNN is biased for democrats and Fox is biased for Republicans. Two-way street. I thought all Americans knew that.

They do know it. I think you chose the wrong person to defend with your topic. He is such a flawed person, that's all that can be seen during the whole discussion. Otherwise I agree with you concerning other people. Like when Donald contacted his friend at National Enquirer to start a bogus story about Ted Cruz's father being involved in killing JFK. That pretty well tells you Trump is no different than Hillary - lie, steal, ruin a person's life if you can - just win.

If she wins, I can say I told you so. If he wins, I can still say I told so because you will see what a liberal person he is. Hopefully he can surprise me.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You kept doubling down on concerning Trump. I didn't know how else to take it except you were defending him. He's not an easy person to defend.

I read it more as a condemnation of the media, than as an affirmation of Trump.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jito463

I read it more as a condemnation of the media, than as an affirmation of Trump.

All I was reading: "I was saying media made him worse than what he is."

I am, like, wut? Donald is his own worse self. I don't think the media had anything to do with it. He's the one that uses the media to make himself look even worse. He loves bad press and makes it happen. Twitter is a perfect case in point. If you doubt this is the media's fault on Donald, read his Tweets. LOL!