Mocking the Poor

Discussions about politics and goings on around the world. (Please keep discussions civil!)
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by RickD »

DBowling wrote:
We both agree that neither Trump or Reagan are sinless.
However, in your attempt to tear down Reagan, only one of your three accusations had a basis in fact.
My intention wasn't to tear down Reagan. I only meant to take him off of the pedestal that you put him on. I would agree with you that Reagan had a great presidency, if graded overall.

But I wouldn't call him a great man. I just don't call anyone that. We're all sinners. Reagan did some great things. Sure.
I like to think of my agenda as...
1. First and foremost pro-Christ
2. Which also implies being pro-truth and pro Christian values.
3. And from a political perspective, being pro-conservative.
I'd say that you're anti conservative, by your actions. And that's the issue I have with you on all of this. We went over this before, but a vote for Trump was the only choice you could've made that was pro-conservative. A vote for Trump was the only vote that was a step towards conservatism. Wasting a vote on Egg McMuffin was a temper tantrum against Trump, and a vote against any chance of getting any conservative agendas passed.

As I said before, sometimes we must vote the lesser of two evils, if we want to keep moving in the right direction. If enough people voted as you did, we'd have Hillary as president.

So, you can say that you voted pro-Christian values by voting for that fraud, McMullin. But in reality you voted for Hillary, because your vote didn't go towards the candidate who in practicality, is trying to enact laws that go along with pro-Christian values, despite his at times, anti-Christian actions.

To sum it up, we won't ever have a perfect candidate. We only have a choice of a candidate who has the best chance to move us in the direction that we want.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
DBowling
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2050
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by DBowling »

RickD wrote: I'd say that you're anti conservative, by your actions.
And I'd say your flat out wrong on that assertion about me.
And therefore any conclusions you would draw based on that flawed assertion are equally wrong.

I don't think I need to say much more about that nonsense.
Been there... done that.
Hortator
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 5:00 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ohio

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by Hortator »

I don’t get it, DBowling. Do you want him to act like Ned Flanders?
DBowling
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2050
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by DBowling »

Hortator wrote:I don’t get it, DBowling. Do you want him to act like Ned Flanders?
Nope... I'm ok with Rick acting like Rick...
He says goofy things every now and then, but I still think he's a 'great' guy.

You were talking about Rick... weren't you? :P

BTW...
I had to Google Ned Flanders to figure out who you were talking about :oops:
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by RickD »

DBowling wrote:
RickD wrote: I'd say that you're anti conservative, by your actions.
And I'd say your flat out wrong on that assertion about me.
And therefore any conclusions you would draw based on that flawed assertion are equally wrong.

I don't think I need to say much more about that nonsense.
Been there... done that.
Ok, tell me where I'm wrong here. Last election we had two, and only two possible outcomes for president. Either Hillary or Trump. We knew that Trump, while not conservative in the past, was running on a conservative platform overall. Hillary, was anything but conservative. If Hillary won, conservatism would be put aside for her liberal policies. If Trump won, there's a chance that some of his conservative policies would get voted in. So, as a conservative, the ONLY chance for the next four years, for anything conservative to get put in place, was for Trump to win. So, as a conservative, you logically must vote for Trump. A vote by a conservative for anyone else, is a vote for Hillary and her anti-conservatism.
So, you voted against Trump and against any chance of conservative policies for at least the next four years, because Trump has some character flaws.

Where am I wrong in calling you anti-conservative in your actions of voting for the fraud, Evan McMuffin?
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
User avatar
Philip
Site Owner
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by Philip »

Rick: We went over this before, but a vote for Trump was the only choice you could've made that was pro-conservative.
Well, Trump is no conservative - though he's adopted many views that take him closer to what many conservatives are concerned over.
Rick: A vote for Trump was the only vote that was a step towards conservatism.
Closer to reality - his was the only game in town for conservatives, in the election.
Rick: Wasting a vote on Egg McMuffin was a temper tantrum against Trump, and a vote against any chance of getting any conservative agendas passed.
Of course - a non-vote would have helped the unthinkable happen: The HillBillies would have been back in business! So, hopefully, there might yet be some good things to come of Trump. Most of us knew he is immensely flawed when we voted for him.

Here's what I have a real problem with - just because conservatives despise the policies and beliefs of liberals and progressives, I get sick of people unwilling to criticize Trump when he truly needs to be hammered. That's not joining in the opposition, it's merely putting reasonable pressure on him when he's screwed up or made stupid comments - so that, hopefully, he'll actually learn from criticism of those who are pulling for him. But if conservatives and Christians just keep their mouths shut for political reasons whenever Trump or any other leader makes comments that are seen by millions - rightly or wrongly - as hurtful and divisive, then A) Trump (and others) will fail to learn or change and B) the perceptions of millions will be that this is also how mainstream conservatives think. And millions of young voters or kids who one day will be voters will be easily swayed that all conservatives are evil, haters or don't care about those of lesser means, etc. So ANYTHINGS that stupidly further that perception - even if the perception isn't accurate, is really, REALLY dumb!

People who don't care what other people think - that's really arrogant, if the perception is sincere but wrong. If people are upset, and nothing's been done that is truly wrong - and there also should be absolutely no reason to believe so, and they have every reason to realize this - if they just are haters piling on - well, of course, I couldn't care less what such people think, because they will oppose a good person no matter what they do or say; NOTHING one can say will make sense to such people - but these are not the kind of people I care what they think. I just don't want people being misled or having fears or concerns based upon false understandings. And so the best way to avoid such perceptions is to use one's brain with what we do and say - especially one in an office of great power and influence!

Also, being a megalomaniac who acts like a high school moron at the slightest criticism, Trump is a guy who you do not want to make him think he walks on water any further than he already thinks he can. So, when someone criticizes him legitimately, we should all echo that criticism when reasonable to do so - as why would you not? Is it because you don't want to look like your piling on with liberals and progressives who already despise him? That's simply not a good excuse for being easily dismissive of his bad behavior or dumb and offensive comments! If people are misreading the intentions of his comments and his attitude, I can only say that he is often, stupidly perpetuating their beliefs. Remember, the presidency is the "Bully Pulpit" - and if you can't persuade others of your ideas and that you have good intentions.

I certainly agree that no conservatives - whether Reagan or anyone else have been saints or weren't terribly flawed in various ways. But when someone has legitimate criticism of Trump or someone else, I don't think it is at all helpful to launch into - well, what about so and so, as they also did some of these same things. Irrelevant! I happen to care about people who might have been unnecessarily offended think. Or that don't trust this guy because the POTUS isn't smart enough to not word stuff with some tact. Trump isn't talking in a locker room to old college buddies when he does these kind of things. Words have consequences. Conservatives need to be consistent in what we criticize - else, we're just making things worse! We'll just be playing into the hands of those who want to convince young people that conservatism is for fools and haters.
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5016
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by abelcainsbrother »

I wuld like to know what things Trump has said that should be a concern for conservatives,especially when the media has taken Trump out of context and even changed words in things he said and then falsely reported that Trump said it.I mean I used to watch the Trump rallies during the election and then I'd find out that the MSM totally took what he said out of context and deliberately tried to make Trump look bad and I had just watched the rallie and know that Trump did not say that and they have consistantly done this throughout the election and since he has been President.Trump is right to call the media out on their "fake news" and it is effective.

Just like this Sh*thole comment Trump supposedly made.It was based on an annonymous source and he said she said,and then we find out **** Durbin a Democrat who has a history of making false statements about something accused trump of saying it. Although Trump hits back at those who attack him which I believe you must do if you want to win politically,he has never used curse words doing it.So I have absolutely no reason to believe anything the media claims Trump said. If we want to be concerned about lies as Christians? We should be focused on the MSM and Democrats who make Trump look like a Saint when it comes to lying.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
DBowling
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2050
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by DBowling »

RickD wrote:
DBowling wrote:
RickD wrote: I'd say that you're anti conservative, by your actions.
And I'd say your flat out wrong on that assertion about me.
And therefore any conclusions you would draw based on that flawed assertion are equally wrong.

I don't think I need to say much more about that nonsense.
Been there... done that.
Ok, tell me where I'm wrong here.
Like I said... Been there... Done that... Many times...
But ok, for you... One... More... Time

The Trumpian false narrative that contorts simple logic beyond comprehension is...
"A vote for McMullin was a vote for Hillary"

It is easy to demonstrate that this false narrative is logically absurd
A. A vote for Trump was a vote for who?
That's right... Trump
B. A vote for Hillary was a vote for who?
That's right... Hillary
C. A vote for McMullin was a vote for who?
That's right... McMullin

Now let's look a little deeper...
D. Does McMullin = Trump?
No... McMullin is not Trump
E. Does McMullin = Hillary?
No... McMullin is not Hillary

Since...
McMullin is not Trump and
McMullin is not Hillary
Then by definition
a. A vote for McMullin was not a vote for Trump
and
b. A vote for McMullin was not a vote for Hillary

Therefore the assertion that
"A vote for McMullin was a vote for Hillary"
is a false assertion

The other ridiculous assertion is that voting for a person who was a "true conservative" (ie McMullin) is somehow anti-conservative behavior.
Again this logic falls flat on its face.
McMullin had more conservative credentials than Hillary
McMullin had more conservative credentials than Trump
Therefore casting a vote for McMullin was more conservative behavior than casting a vote for either Hillary or Trump.

This is not the first time I've explained this.
This logic is not complicated.
And yet somehow I still see this ridiculous false Trumpian narrative repeatedly thrown my way.

If people can't (or choose not to) understand simple logic after I've explained this over and over again, then it probably makes more sense to simply ignore these false statements in the future.
User avatar
Philip
Site Owner
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by Philip »

Any person using simple political understanding and logic realizes that if one candidate has NO chance, and that there are two others in a close race, that voting for the no chance person will benefit one of the other two candidates. Which doesn't matter IF the other two candidates are equally bad and dangerous - which is not near the case hear. The HillBillies are so much worse, would have caused so much more damage, in court picks, how it approaches the budget, energy, and a whole heap of things I wouldn't want Hillary anywhere near! So, I'm not terribly up on that other candidate, but you know it benefits one of the other more so - which in EFFECT, would be like voting for one of them.

The question is, did it not matter to you WHICH of the other two candidates got in? I would hope so. The little lesson in logic doesn't change the ramifications of many others throwing their vote away, as well, whether in protest or whatever else. But it seems rather silly to argue over that now. Right? RIGHT???!!!
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5016
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by abelcainsbrother »

For the naysayers who don't believe good is winning the war.
https://youtu.be/kE9x-nMQkuQ
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
DBowling
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2050
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by DBowling »

Philip wrote:Any person using simple political understanding and logic realizes that if one candidate has NO chance, and that there are two others in a close race, that voting for the no chance person will benefit one of the other two candidates.
And looking at the election returns I would say the votes for neither of the two candidates hurt Hillary more than Trump.
Hillary got 48.2% of the popular vote
Trump got 46.1 % of the popular vote
None of the above got 5.7% of the popular vote.

If the anti-Trump vote had consolidated under Hillary instead of filtering some off to 'none of the above' then it is very likely that we would be dealing with Madame President today and Gorsuch would not be on the Supreme Court.

So I think that a plausible argument can be made that "none of the above" votes like McMullin kept just enough of the anti-Trump votes from going to Hillary to allow Trump to win the Electoral College even though he lost the popular vote to Hillary.

So if we want to throw away logic and speculate on the practical impact on the election, I think it is likely that cumulative effect of third party candidates (ie 5.7% of the electorate) probably gave Trump just what he needed in those blue swing states to allow Trump to win the election.

However, we do need to sit back and realize who really sets up kings and removes kings.
User avatar
Philip
Site Owner
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by Philip »

I can't imagine why anyone would want to risk Hillary getting into the White House - gambling with their vote on a no-chance candidate - UNLESS they deemed Trump and Hillary equally terrible - which I cannot see how anyone knowing the Clintons would think. But that's just me.
DB: However, we do need to sit back and realize who really sets up kings and removes kings.
Yes, but we are to do our part, God does His. It seems He often gives us what we collectively deserve.
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5016
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by abelcainsbrother »

DBowling wrote:
Philip wrote:Any person using simple political understanding and logic realizes that if one candidate has NO chance, and that there are two others in a close race, that voting for the no chance person will benefit one of the other two candidates.
And looking at the election returns I would say the votes for neither of the two candidates hurt Hillary more than Trump.
Hillary got 48.2% of the popular vote
Trump got 46.1 % of the popular vote
None of the above got 5.7% of the popular vote.

If the anti-Trump vote had consolidated under Hillary instead of filtering some off to 'none of the above' then it is very likely that we would be dealing with Madame President today and Gorsuch would not be on the Supreme Court.

So I think that a plausible argument can be made that "none of the above" votes like McMullin kept just enough of the anti-Trump votes from going to Hillary to allow Trump to win the Electoral College even though he lost the popular vote to Hillary.



So if we want to throw away logic and look at the practical impact on the election, I think it is likely that cumulative effect of third party candidates (ie 5.7% of the electorate) probably gave Trump just what he needed in those blue swing states to allow Trump to win the election.

However, we do need to sit back and realize who really sets up kings and removes kings.


There was massive vote fraud and Hillary still lost.I know that you'll chock it up to fake news but it is true.The proof is how high the popular vote for Hillary was when she lost the electoral college,It is never that high if and when a candidate loses electoral college but wins the popular vote.It is a closer election when that happens like Al Gore and George W Bush.Also Trump spent less money than any Presidential candidate and won only spending millions of dollars,while Hillary spent over 2 billion dollars with nobody in the media including Fox news giving him a chance to win,and yet he won. Trump spent alot less in both the Republican primary and the general election too.Also Trump flipped blue states to red and could have flipped more but chose to hold rallies in enough states to win the electoral college. Many Democrats voted for Donald Trump.Plus Trump got more votes from both hispanics and blacks than George W Bush,John McCain and Mitt Romney totally proving the political experts and their conventional political wisdom totally wrong.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by RickD »

DBowling wrote:
RickD wrote:
DBowling wrote:
RickD wrote: I'd say that you're anti conservative, by your actions.
And I'd say your flat out wrong on that assertion about me.
And therefore any conclusions you would draw based on that flawed assertion are equally wrong.

I don't think I need to say much more about that nonsense.
Been there... done that.
Ok, tell me where I'm wrong here.
Like I said... Been there... Done that... Many times...
But ok, for you... One... More... Time

The Trumpian false narrative that contorts simple logic beyond comprehension is...
"A vote for McMullin was a vote for Hillary"

It is easy to demonstrate that this false narrative is logically absurd
A. A vote for Trump was a vote for who?
That's right... Trump
B. A vote for Hillary was a vote for who?
That's right... Hillary
C. A vote for McMullin was a vote for who?
That's right... McMullin

Now let's look a little deeper...
D. Does McMullin = Trump?
No... McMullin is not Trump
E. Does McMullin = Hillary?
No... McMullin is not Hillary

Since...
McMullin is not Trump and
McMullin is not Hillary
Then by definition
a. A vote for McMullin was not a vote for Trump
and
b. A vote for McMullin was not a vote for Hillary

Therefore the assertion that
"A vote for McMullin was a vote for Hillary"
is a false assertion

The other ridiculous assertion is that voting for a person who was a "true conservative" (ie McMullin) is somehow anti-conservative behavior.
Again this logic falls flat on its face.
McMullin had more conservative credentials than Hillary
McMullin had more conservative credentials than Trump
Therefore casting a vote for McMullin was more conservative behavior than casting a vote for either Hillary or Trump.

This is not the first time I've explained this.
This logic is not complicated.
And yet somehow I still see this ridiculous false Trumpian narrative repeatedly thrown my way.

If people can't (or choose not to) understand simple logic after I've explained this over and over again, then it probably makes more sense to simply ignore these false statements in the future.
Looks like we have a fundamental disagreement here. I have an idea, if you'll oblige me. Show your dad my side, and your side. Let me know what he says.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
DBowling
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2050
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Mocking the Poor

Post by DBowling »

RickD wrote: Looks like we have a fundamental disagreement here. I have an idea, if you'll oblige me. Show your dad my side, and your side. Let me know what he says.
Would it surprise you to discover that I've had this very same discussion with my Mom and Dad?... more than once... :)

And of course we had good and, at times, intense discussions on this very topic.
Care to guess where we ended up?

Dad and Mom voted for Trump
I voted for McMullin

I love God, and both my parents love God.
I love my parents, and believe it or not my parents still love me.
I love America and my parents love America.
My parents and I still share nearly identical conservative political values.
I voted my conscience and my parents voted their consciences.
I understand and respect the choice my parents made, and my parents understand and respect the choice that I made.

I really love the fact that Dad and I are able to bounce ideas off of each other on all kinds of different topics, but I especially enjoy our theological discussions.
We can disagree, intensely at times, but we respect and value each others input and opinions even when we don't see exactly eye to eye.

I love my Dad and Mom!
Post Reply