Stop Trump!!!

[Bruh]

Jesus will bring us to Jesus. The more appropriate question is, "Which candidate do you feel would govern in a way most compatible with the teachings of Jesus?"

Instead of trying to answer that question, you've chosen to cheer the person who is probably the worst possible answer to that question. Even more so, the things you are cheerleading are the types of things that are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

in your opinion, Which candidate do you feel would govern in a way most compatible with the teachings of Jesus?

From what I know about them, I believe Kasich tries to govern more in accordance with his Christian faith than his political ideology.

So tell me: how does dropping nukes on others then taking their resources fit with the whole "love your enemy" concept?

If someone was kicking ur door in and tiring to kill ur family, what would be ur line of action?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Jesus will bring us to Jesus. The more appropriate question is, "Which candidate do you feel would govern in a way most compatible with the teachings of Jesus?"

Instead of trying to answer that question, you've chosen to cheer the person who is probably the worst possible answer to that question. Even more so, the things you are cheerleading are the types of things that are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

in your opinion, Which candidate do you feel would govern in a way most compatible with the teachings of Jesus?

From what I know about them, I believe Kasich tries to govern more in accordance with his Christian faith than his political ideology.

So tell me: how does dropping nukes on others then taking their resources fit with the whole "love your enemy" concept?

If someone was kicking ur door in and tiring to kill ur family, what would be ur line of action?

He'll never answer. He never has.

 

[rsc2a]

Jesus will bring us to Jesus. The more appropriate question is, "Which candidate do you feel would govern in a way most compatible with the teachings of Jesus?"

Instead of trying to answer that question, you've chosen to cheer the person who is probably the worst possible answer to that question. Even more so, the things you are cheerleading are the types of things that are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

in your opinion, Which candidate do you feel would govern in a way most compatible with the teachings of Jesus?

From what I know about them, I believe Kasich tries to govern more in accordance with his Christian faith than his political ideology.

So tell me: how does dropping nukes on others then taking their resources fit with the whole "love your enemy" concept?

If someone was kicking ur door in and tiring to kill ur family, what would be ur line of action?

I'd try to stop them in defense of others. As much as possible, I'd limit it to non-lethal means. That would be the appropriate response.

Of course, there is the crazy right wing option whereby you hear that someone heard that someone else said they might think about harming you so you go and blow their house up and kill all their children. Oh yeah...and you kill their neighbor's children and cause such a mess that their neighbor's neighbor's children also get killed in the confusion, then you can blame them for starting it because you heard somewhere that someone said something. And as an added bonus, you take their TV and their new couch as winner's dibs.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=praise_yeshua]He'll never answer. He never has.[/quote]

So this is where you are blatantly wrong again?

 

[Bruh]

Jesus will bring us to Jesus. The more appropriate question is, "Which candidate do you feel would govern in a way most compatible with the teachings of Jesus?"

Instead of trying to answer that question, you've chosen to cheer the person who is probably the worst possible answer to that question. Even more so, the things you are cheerleading are the types of things that are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

in your opinion, Which candidate do you feel would govern in a way most compatible with the teachings of Jesus?

From what I know about them, I believe Kasich tries to govern more in accordance with his Christian faith than his political ideology.

So tell me: how does dropping nukes on others then taking their resources fit with the whole "love your enemy" concept?

If someone was kicking ur door in and tiring to kill ur family, what would be ur line of action?

I'd try to stop them in defense of others. As much as possible, I'd limit it to non-lethal means. That would be the appropriate response.

Of course, there is the crazy right wing option whereby you hear that someone heard that someone else said they might think about harming you so you go and blow their house up and kill all their children. Oh yeah...and you kill their neighbor's children and cause such a mess that their neighbor's neighbor's children also get killed in the confusion, then you can blame them for starting it because you heard somewhere that someone said something. And as an added bonus, you take their TV and their new couch as winner's dibs.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kacz6PSMpxk

They ain't training them to spread peace but to die for their god and that my friend is nearly unstoppable.

 

[rsc2a]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kacz6PSMpxk

They ain't training them to spread peace but to die for their god and that my friend is nearly unstoppable.

And we are propping up dictators, have frequently taken part in overthrowing other governments, and generally use our military to push others around. We (i.e. our foreign policy) aren't interested in democracy. We aren't interested in freedom or human rights or equality or justice. We aren't interested in all of those platitudes the politicians like to say. We are interested in empire-building...something that is soundly condemned in Scripture.

So tell me again why I should cheerlead those kinds of actions?

 

[Bruh]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kacz6PSMpxk

They ain't training them to spread peace but to die for their god and that my friend is nearly unstoppable.

And we are propping up dictators, have frequently taken part in overthrowing other governments, and generally use our military to push others around. We (i.e. our foreign policy) aren't interested in democracy. We aren't interested in freedom or human rights or equality or justice. We aren't interested in all of those platitudes the politicians like to say. We are interested in empire-building...something that is soundly condemned in Scripture.

So tell me again why I should cheerlead those kinds of actions?

I don't see it that way, I disagree.

 

[rsc2a]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kacz6PSMpxk

They ain't training them to spread peace but to die for their god and that my friend is nearly unstoppable.

And we are propping up dictators, have frequently taken part in overthrowing other governments, and generally use our military to push others around. We (i.e. our foreign policy) aren't interested in democracy. We aren't interested in freedom or human rights or equality or justice. We aren't interested in all of those platitudes the politicians like to say. We are interested in empire-building...something that is soundly condemned in Scripture.

So tell me again why I should cheerlead those kinds of actions?

I don't see it that way, I disagree.

• We (i.e. the United States) supported the overthrow of Egypt's rightfully elected president because we didn't like his politics.
• We sat out of Syria for years (still are) while people were (still are) brutally being murdered. Of course, we jumped into Libya right away with both feet. Granted, Libya produces a lot of oil and Syria not so much.
• For decades, we were pulliing strings and practicing covert military ops in Latin America. I see no reason to suspect we are doing anything differently now.
• We allegedly went into Afghanistan on an execution mission and we are still there a decade and a half later. Furthermore, we are now ramping up our military engagements again.
• We frequently flex our military muscle as a way of intimidating those we consider threats to our superpower status. (a.k.a. empire building)

And this is just the stuff I know about off the top of my head. I'm sure with a tiny bit of research I could come up with much, much more.

 

[Just John]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/politics/donald-trump-tax-plan/index.html

I pay 30% now, I'd be happy with 15%.

Some good things to like but I am opposed to half of earners not paying any taxes. If some have to pay taxes everyone should have skin in the game. We are in the Democrat sandbox when we brag that 50% don't pay anything while others do. I do like lowering the corporate tax rate and keeping profits on shore.

(Not that I trust Trump to stand by any of this.  LOL)

And his  support for universal healthcare is anathema to every conservative principle.

I have nothing against universal healthcare. I have something against the government doing it. Trump has said he wants a private system with every company allowed to compete for subscribers.

There is no way to have universal healthcare without the government being majorly involved. None.  And Trump as been for single-payer healthcare in the  past. (But just last week he was done with FOX. Yet there he is in O'Reilly tonight. LOL) Socialized medicine has been a dream of progressives in this country for decades. It's all about big government. What if someone decides they don't want to have insurance?

Your "conservatism" must only reach to social issues.  Not a totally bad thing.

You're being ridiculous. Open market can sustain a universal system with limited government involvement. Yes. Trump was for a single payer system but he has repeated said that is impossible in the US. He isn't for a universal government run system.

Trump isn't for a mandate that I'm aware of. If a person doesn't want insurance they don't have to have it. You forget that conservatives were the ones that came up with the individual mandate.

Let's look at facts:

What Trump proposes, "making deals with the hospitals" is what Medicaid already does. And in making such deals to "lower costs" we now have a system that often makes it hard to find a doctor who will take medicaid patients. Their payment is lowered, the care is worse and the treatment is more limited. Yet Trump wants even more control because he wants to do it at a federal level where today Medicaid is negotiated and administered at the state level.  ANYTIME the government gets involved the costs go up. Case in point, college costs. The price of a college education has exploded many times the normal rate of inflation the past 20 years as the government has increasingly gotten involved in the education business through federal grants and loans.

You cannot "take care of everybody" as Trump says without getting the government involved and without mandates. Not "ridiculous", it's just a fact. Now I do agree with  opening competition among insurance companies across state lines. That will increase competition and lower costs. The other main thing and not mentioned is that tort reform is a must to lower costs. Ridiculous law suits have caused costs to skyrocket. The first and easiest step if someone is really serious about such a things is legislation requiring "loser pays".

Some  past statements of Trump regarding single payer (aka "the government pays"). Now it's only fair to say they were from 15 years ago but I find it funny he wanted to raise corporate taxes to pay for it. Yesterday his tax plans called for lowering corporate taxes. The dude has been all over the place. 

? "If you can?t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it?s all over. ... I believe in universal healthcare," Trump told CNN?s Larry King in October 1999.

? "I would put forth a comprehensive health care program and fund it with an increase in corporate taxes, " Trump told The Advocate right before he dropped out of the race in February 2000.

? "The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than America. ? We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing," Trump writes in his 2000 book The America We Deserve.

 

[Just John]

The establishment is over with (hopefully) you need to be over it as well.

I'll assume you are responding to me. I fail to see how being against a Trump candidacy, and a certain failed presidential run, is "establishment".  I also fail to see how being against government-mandated healthcare is anything other than conservative.  Isn't that a major thing we are mad at the GOP leadership for not repealing?  Supposedly the Trumpettes are for him because the GOP hasn't fought hard enough or isn't conservative enough but then they drop all pretenses of true conservatism to cheer him on. The diagnosis is fair...the proposed prescription just may be deadly.

I don't remember him saying UHC what he's talking about is Health Savings Account and things of that nature.

If none of them fought hard enough, than how can Trump mess anything up?
He's a business man more than anything and that's what we need. As for foreign policy I really believe Trump would split an atom on some of theses country's and put an American flag next to the oil well.

He also said "free trade" is hurting America (which it is) and would redo it. Who else is talking like this? WHO?

I didn't read his plan  but have seen nothing reported on HSA's. Hey, make it affordable for everyone to the extent you can but don't mandate it it for anyone.

Just "fighting" is not the answer. Fighting for the right thing is. At the risk of being a broken record that is my biggest problem with Trump, what will he really fight for?  We need leadership, not a businessman. Ronald Reagan was an "actor" but he was more importantly a leader. Many people called him President Raygun when he came into office as they feared he would be reckless in foreign policy and start wars. Of course he helped usher in the end to the cold war by leadership, strategy and diplomacy, not nuking anyone. America has a long history of respecting the sovereignty of countries borders and we don't need to blow countries up and steal their oil. Whether going into Iraq or Afghanistan was the right call is one thing but IMO we were right not to take the oil.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I'd try to stop them in defense of others. As much as possible, I'd limit it to non-lethal means. That would be the appropriate response.

I'd stop and ask myself, "What did I do to oppress this person such that he/she/other would feel like he/she/other has to harm me and my family?"  Then I'd apologize for my sins and the sins of my ancestors who surely oppressed him/her/other and his/her/other ancestors, and ask if there's any way I could make up for it.  If there's nothing I can do, then I'd ask him/her other to be satisfied to kill me and spare my family.  If that doesn't satisfy him/her/other, then I'd ask to please make our deaths quick and painless.  Failing that, I'd ask to make the death of my family painless, but torture me as long as necessary. 

Then I would apologize for not learning Arabic so he/she/other could understand anything I said.

 

[subllibrm]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/politics/donald-trump-tax-plan/index.html

I pay 30% now, I'd be happy with 15%.

Some good things to like but I am opposed to half of earners not paying any taxes. If some have to pay taxes everyone should have skin in the game. We are in the Democrat sandbox when we brag that 50% don't pay anything while others do. I do like lowering the corporate tax rate and keeping profits on shore.

(Not that I trust Trump to stand by any of this.  LOL)

And his  support for universal healthcare is anathema to every conservative principle.

I have nothing against universal healthcare. I have something against the government doing it. Trump has said he wants a private system with every company allowed to compete for subscribers.

I would like to know how you would get universal anything without the government mandating it. One person says "nah, I don't wanna" and universal is out the window.

 

[subllibrm]

The establishment is over with (hopefully) you need to be over it as well.

I'll assume you are responding to me. I fail to see how being against a Trump candidacy, and a certain failed presidential run, is "establishment".  I also fail to see how being against government-mandated healthcare is anything other than conservative.  Isn't that a major thing we are mad at the GOP leadership for not repealing?  Supposedly the Trumpettes are for him because the GOP hasn't fought hard enough or isn't conservative enough but then they drop all pretenses of true conservatism to cheer him on. The diagnosis is fair...the proposed prescription just may be deadly.

The Tea Party is against big gubmint as long as no one touches their Medicare. 

Cognitive dissonance, not just for liberals. 8)

 

[subllibrm]

The establishment is over with (hopefully) you need to be over it as well.

I'll assume you are responding to me. I fail to see how being against a Trump candidacy, and a certain failed presidential run, is "establishment".  I also fail to see how being against government-mandated healthcare is anything other than conservative.  Isn't that a major thing we are mad at the GOP leadership for not repealing?  Supposedly the Trumpettes are for him because the GOP hasn't fought hard enough or isn't conservative enough but then they drop all pretenses of true conservatism to cheer him on. The diagnosis is fair...the proposed prescription just may be deadly.

I don't remember him saying UHC what he's talking about is Health Savings Account and things of that nature.

If none of them fought hard enough, than how can Trump mess anything up?
He's a business man more than anything and that's what we need. As for foreign policy I really believe Trump would split an atom on some of theses country's and put an American flag next to the oil well.

He also said "free trade" is hurting America (which it is) and would redo it. Who else is talking like this? WHO?

Who wouldn't want to vote for nuclear war?  ???

 

[subllibrm]

Jesus will bring us to Jesus. The more appropriate question is, "Which candidate do you feel would govern in a way most compatible with the teachings of Jesus?"

Instead of trying to answer that question, you've chosen to cheer the person who is probably the worst possible answer to that question. Even more so, the things you are cheerleading are the types of things that are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

in your opinion, Which candidate do you feel would govern in a way most compatible with the teachings of Jesus?

From what I know about them, I believe Kasich tries to govern more in accordance with his Christian faith than his political ideology.

So tell me: how does dropping nukes on others then taking their resources fit with the whole "love your enemy" concept?

If it wasn't for us, all that oil would just sit under the sand going unused. And all the people in the middle east would be poor and oppressed by their governments. So we went in and drilled holes and bought their oil so that all the people could be poor and oppressed by their really, really rich governments. That is why they should be thankful for us coming over and perforating the desert. We have improved everything we have ever touched there. And now they don't appreciate all we have done for them. We should just nuke them in to glass sculptures. That will show the ingrates.  8)

 

[Bruh]

The establishment is over with (hopefully) you need to be over it as well.

I'll assume you are responding to me. I fail to see how being against a Trump candidacy, and a certain failed presidential run, is "establishment".  I also fail to see how being against government-mandated healthcare is anything other than conservative.  Isn't that a major thing we are mad at the GOP leadership for not repealing?  Supposedly the Trumpettes are for him because the GOP hasn't fought hard enough or isn't conservative enough but then they drop all pretenses of true conservatism to cheer him on. The diagnosis is fair...the proposed prescription just may be deadly.

I don't remember him saying UHC what he's talking about is Health Savings Account and things of that nature.

If none of them fought hard enough, than how can Trump mess anything up?
He's a business man more than anything and that's what we need. As for foreign policy I really believe Trump would split an atom on some of theses country's and put an American flag next to the oil well.

He also said "free trade" is hurting America (which it is) and would redo it. Who else is talking like this? WHO?

Who wouldn't want to vote for nuclear war?  ???

I sure don't.

The point is, I believe he would be as tough as he would NEED to be.

 

[subllibrm]

Jesus will bring us to Jesus. The more appropriate question is, "Which candidate do you feel would govern in a way most compatible with the teachings of Jesus?"

Instead of trying to answer that question, you've chosen to cheer the person who is probably the worst possible answer to that question. Even more so, the things you are cheerleading are the types of things that are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

in your opinion, Which candidate do you feel would govern in a way most compatible with the teachings of Jesus?

From what I know about them, I believe Kasich tries to govern more in accordance with his Christian faith than his political ideology.

So tell me: how does dropping nukes on others then taking their resources fit with the whole "love your enemy" concept?

If someone was kicking ur door in and tiring to kill ur family, what would be ur line of action?

Um, you do realize that we are over there kicking in their doors, right? So they respond as you say one should to defend themselves. But wait, if they defend themselves then we need to kick in more doors to root out the self defenders.

Because self defense is an American only right. Right?

 

[Bruh]

I'd try to stop them in defense of others. As much as possible, I'd limit it to non-lethal means. That would be the appropriate response.

I'd stop and ask myself, "What did I do to oppress this person such that he/she/other would feel like he/she/other has to harm me and my family?"  Then I'd apologize for my sins and the sins of my ancestors who surely oppressed him/her/other and his/her/other ancestors, and ask if there's any way I could make up for it.  If there's nothing I can do, then I'd ask him/her other to be satisfied to kill me and spare my family.  If that doesn't satisfy him/her/other, then I'd ask to please make our deaths quick and painless.  Failing that, I'd ask to make the death of my family painless, but torture me as long as necessary. 

Then I would apologize for not learning Arabic so he/she/other could understand anything I said.

Now that would definitely be the Christian response.   

 

[praise_yeshua]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/politics/donald-trump-tax-plan/index.html

I pay 30% now, I'd be happy with 15%.

Some good things to like but I am opposed to half of earners not paying any taxes. If some have to pay taxes everyone should have skin in the game. We are in the Democrat sandbox when we brag that 50% don't pay anything while others do. I do like lowering the corporate tax rate and keeping profits on shore.

(Not that I trust Trump to stand by any of this.  LOL)

And his  support for universal healthcare is anathema to every conservative principle.

I have nothing against universal healthcare. I have something against the government doing it. Trump has said he wants a private system with every company allowed to compete for subscribers.

I would like to know how you would get universal anything without the government mandating it. One person says "nah, I don't wanna" and universal is out the window.

"universal" for those who want it. The "church, universal" isn't made up of all of humanity. Universal is generally used to define a "particular group"

You don't really think before you say much of anything.

 

[praise_yeshua]

[quote author=praise_yeshua]He'll never answer. He never has.

So this is where you are blatantly wrong again?
[/quote]

I'm glad you finally answered. You've never answered it when I asked you. That tells you something right there....