What a sad time. Coming to the end of an eight year period of idiocy by a guy poorly pretending to be a president, and what have we got? The choice between bad and worse and the inability to decide which is which. I am on record as insisting it is the duty of every American to vote...for every Christian to vote...that not voting is a vote for the worst of evils on the ballot (assuming more than two)...and that one cannot complain about the state of affairs when one did nothing to influence the direction of the state.
So now what do I do?
Assuming there's still a chance ol' Bernie can win the Democratic nomination, there's no way on God's green earth that I would ever vote for a socialist...especially one as goofy as this guy. And Hillary? Are you freaking kidding me? At best she's four more years of Barry O!
Then there's the Trumpster. We know what kind of hell hole we'll be in with either Bernie or Hillary. Of that there's no doubt. They simply CAN'T improve our situation. But Donnie-boy is an unknown. That is to say, we really don't know what he'll do given the fact that he hasn't given us a whole lot about which we can feel certain. I'm not talking about getting things done, but about exactly what he'll try to get done. He's walked back a lot of things he's asserted he will do.
I'm concerned about the guy's character, frankly, and despite what some who are said to know him well say, it's hard to feel good about a strip-club owner. There's also his lack of concern for private property rights. And we're just supposed to believe him that things will be better with him in charge, when a little insight as to how he intends to accomplish what he promises would go a long way toward instilling some confidence in those like myself who are not impressed with his "political incorrectness".
That alone is a big deal to me. There's rejecting political correctness, and then there's being an ass. There is no need to be the latter when claiming to favor the former. In speaking to Megyn Kelly, he said he likely wouldn't be where he is if he hadn't acted and talked like he did. I don't doubt it for a minute. But being a clown is not what we need in a president, as Barry has proven. (Indeed, pretending for a moment that he's actually conservative, he's the conservative Barry O, and his supporters are very much like Barry's were...and just as foolish.)
He also told Kelly that if he fails to win the White House, he would regard his campaign as having been a great waste of time. Two problems with this gem: 1. He didn't use the word "failure" in regards to...you know...FAILING to win the presidency, and 2. Striving to serve the nation as its president, but failing to be elected is not a waste of time if one is truly concerned with doing the job I the first place. His comments indicate an "it's all about me" attitude, which seems to be totally Trump.
And that's another problem. Many insist that he will surround himself with really good people. I would hope so. But my fear is that he will not abide their counsel. He regards himself highly. He's a legend in his own mind. Will he truly take guidance from more expert people?
I could go on and on about all the things that make him a horrible choice. As disappointed as I was with the American people for Obama, both with those who supported him as well as those who didn't vote because of all the lame reasons for not voting, I am even more disappointed now. We had a guy who really knows the Constitution and has proven that he is more concerned with it being followed than he is with making friends, and people think Trump spouting off about immigration makes him more worthy of their votes. It didn't then and doesn't now, but now we have a harder choice (Cruz was the no-brainer choice, meaning too many have proven they have no brain).
We have a harder choice, but we have no choice but to cast a vote for this low-life scumbag (I'm following his lead in my word choices here). To allow a Clinton/Sanders win is to support what they will do to us. That simply can't be allowed to happen. It's too late to go third party and while I'd like to write in Cruz, that's really no different than going third party without some real confidence that a majority will do the same.
I'm going to have to hold my nose (tightly) and vote for Trump. I don't want to. But fools have tied my hands. I have to vote for the guy who didn't attract enough attention in the primaries to quickly force out those who eventually stayed in the race too long. Most of the right-wing didn't want him. I still don't.
But....
I recently heard Mark Levin talking about SCOTUS appointments and those on Trump's list of possibilities. Mark knows these things well and his opinion of the list is favorable for the most part, Levin knowing many of them on the list. So Trump's choice(s) could make voting for him worth it. What else he might do and/or accomplish will remain to be seen. And I'm nervous as hell about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
295 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 295 of 295Voting for Hillary is voting for the same commitments as was voting for Eisenhower.
http://ritholtz.com/2011/10/us-debt-accumulation-by-president/
Then you definitely can't deal with this.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen
feo,
I will leave you to support that contention made in your comment from June 18, 2016 at 8:29 AM. I'm sure it's quite the stretch and will provide lots of laughs.
As to your 12:19PM post, there's this:
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm
Unlike your link, which compares only two freakin' years of Obama's presidency with all of Bush's two terms, mine gives more detail that puts things into perspective. So typical of you to play with numbers to "prove" your fantasies.
As to your most recent post, yeah, I can't deal with such a long puff-piece at present. But I got far enough to read this:
"Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season. And in general Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most (but not all) politicians they have tracked over the years."
...against which I counter with this:
http://humanevents.com/2012/08/30/politifact-bias-does-the-gop-tell-nine-times-more-lies-than-left-really/
...wherein we find:
"PolitiFact started off straight. As a partnership of Congressional Quarterly and the Tampa Bay Times (then the St. Petersburg Times) formed in 2007, the outfit won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the 2008 election. The partnership dissolved shortly after when The Poynnter Institute – the parent company of both outfits – sold off CQ.
The Florida journalists carried on alone, and their liberal tendencies became more obvious as the “Pants on Fire” rulings piled up on one side. By one count, from the end of that partnership to the end of 2011, the national PolitiFact operation has issued 119 Pants on Fire ratings for Republican or conservative claims, and only 13 for liberal or Democratic claims."
I doubt you can deal with that. Reliance on Politifact to support contentions of honesty on the part of Clinton taints the piece right away as the work of a pro-Hillary Hack. But in another way I'm unlike you are Danny-boy, I actually do my own fact-checking with multiple sources (to the extent I can find them) rather than just accepting a true the first thing I read (which also consumes time I don't have at present).
But in any case, like Dan, you are once again comparing liars and asserting that your liar isn't as bad as the other liar because your liar doesn't lie as much as the other liar (assuming that's not a lie as well).
Here's good news.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/end-of-conservative-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-may-be-next-to-leave/article/2594317
Good news for the stupid who don't understand the value of a justice who understands and abides the US Constitution.
A very compelling case against Trump from many, many conservatives, from a very conservative point of view. This racist, no-nothing, immoral/amoral/godless man will destroy the GOP, according to these conservatives...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination
Including this quote from Michael Medved...
If Trump becomes the nominee, the GOP is sure to lose the 2016 election.
But the problem is much larger:
Will the Republican party and the conservative movement survive?
If Asians and Latinos come to reject Republican candidates as automatically and overwhelmingly as African Americans do, the party will lose all chance of capturing the presidency, and, inevitably, it will face the disappearance of its congressional and gubernatorial majorities as well. There is one sure strategy to pursue if the GOP for some reason wishes to suffer such self-inflicted wounds: nominate a presidential candidate who exemplifies the most unpleasant, and non-conservative, characteristics that the mainstream media and liberal pundits invoke to demonize the Right.
And from Mona Charen...
one thing about which there can be no debate is that Trump is no conservative — he’s simply playing one in the primaries. Call it unreality TV...
Is Trump a liberal? Who knows? He played one for decades — donating to liberal causes and politicians (including Al Sharpton) and inviting Hillary Clinton to his (third) wedding. Maybe it was all a game, but voters who care about conservative ideas and principles must ask whether his recent impersonation of a conservative is just another role he’s playing. When a con man swindles you, you can sue — as many embittered former Trump associates who thought themselves ill used have done. When you elect a con man, there’s no recourse.
Conservatives are really between a rock and the fires of hell.
~Dan
"Conservatives are really between a rock and the fires of hell."
Unlike liberals like yourself, who eagerly, happily and proudly dive right into those fires of hell.
Nothing you've presented is a newsflash, Dan. And I've stated it clearly enough that as of this writing, there are no conservatives available whom we can expect to win the White House come this fall. None. Voting third party or a write-in won't get it done, unless there is some way to determine that enough have chosen to do so in support of one particular person that the rest of us can confidently cast our own votes for the same. So regardless of whatever you can drudge up about Trump, he still stands as the best alternative to Clinton/Sanders, two socialists whose positions and proposals are known, and known to be worthless failures. The continued downward spiral is guaranteed with either. It is only the speed at which it happens that we can hope to alter by casting a vote for Trump. We could be wrong. He might destroy us faster. But we just don't know. We know what we'd get with the buffoons you like to support.
Fine. Ignore what these conservatives are saying and destroy the GOP. I just hope there is something left to serve as a balance when you all are decimated as a party. Perhaps a Libertarian/Green type party can help balance things out with the Dems. That would be helpful.
Rest in Peace, GOP. Thanks to Marshall and all those who capitulate to Trump.
According to conservatives. (If you want to complain with this reality, take it up with them... I'm done trying to help you all.)
Here's good article demonstrating that the railing against Trump for his comment about the judge is just selective outrage:
http://barbwire.com/2016/06/20/fed-suit-obamas-doj-destroys-trump-racist-narrative/
"Fine. Ignore what these conservatives are saying and destroy the GOP"
As if the GOP hasn't already been in serious trouble for some time. Note that Trump's current status is a result of people rejecting the GOP in hopes that some "outsider" can get something done that the GOP has thus far failed to do.
Again, you want so desperately to believe that my vote for Trump stands as support for his brand of leftism, when I've repeated over and over that my vote for him would be a vote for a lesser brand of leftism that would slow the decline of this nation due to people like those you support.
I don't want "balance" with the Democrats. The only good the Dems provide for this nation is as a reminder of what stupid looks like. There is absolutely nothing that they offer that improves the lot of my fellow Americans.
And you want to talk capitulation? By your support of the Democrat/socialist party, you are complicit in:
--The ongoing murder of thousands of innocent unborn every year.
--The celebration and furthering of sexual immorality, and all the harm that has brought about to our culture and its people.
--The continued burden on the private sector and its ability to grow and produce jobs, products and services that improve the lives of everyone.
--The ongoing murder of innocent civilians due to the appeasement of both terrorist jihadists AND the common criminal in our nation.
--The inability of the average law-abiding citizen to adequately defend himself against those terrorists and criminal you and your party aid and abet.
--The strained relations between our nation and our allies, particularly Israel.
--The porous border and the invasion of illegal immigrants and dangerous people.
--The dumbing down of our children in our public schools.
--The slow growth of our economy.
--The increased costs of medical care.
...this isn't close to a complete list of all the harm you and your kind have foisted upon this nation and its people and you dare talk about capitulation.
And of course, in your deceitful lying heart, you've conjured this lame argument that somehow makes conservatives you would ordinarily spit upon golden due to their opposition to Trump. When those same conservatives can explain how letting Hillary or Bernie win the presidency over Trump will serve the national interest, then perhaps you won't come off as the poor bullshit artist you are. Yeah, you'd love nothing more than to dissuade people form voting for Trump. It's the only way Clinton or Sanders can win. Nice try, liar.
What we are saying, Glenn, is that Trump is making racist comments and stirring up racist support for his campaign. Do you want to be voting for the party of racists, Glenn?
As many conservatives are correctly noting: Trump's statements are racist, by definition. Your article does nothing but confirm Trump's duplicitousness, even if it is accurate.
Remember Trump's followers? People like these two...
Two brothers reportedly
attacked a 58-year-old Hispanic homeless man
in Boston,
breaking his nose and urinating on him,
in mid-August. They alegedly told police they targeted the man because of his ethnicity and added,
“Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.”
After the GOP candidate was told of the attack, instead of denouncing the act Trump said his followers were “passionate.”
THOSE type of people? Is it good to know you're standing side by side with them in support of racist-speaking Trump? As several of those conservatives note in the argument, Trump is sealing the public image of the GOP as the Party of Racists, Sexists and Violent Troglodytes.
Nice comrades, there.
~Dan
Dan,
You've got a lot of nerve daring to speak of racism after having supported Obama for all these years. Your hypocrisy is truly evil. Did Obama denounce:
--The actions of Trayvon Martin which led to his own demise? No.
--The actions of Michael Brown which led to his own demise? No.
--The actions of the Black Panthers when they intimidated voters at the polls? No.
--The actions of gang-bangers killing other blacks in his own city of Chicago? No.
--The actions of blacks who've killed white police officers? No.
Has he ever denounced the racist speech of people like Louis Farrakan or Al Sharpton? How about denouncing Hillary when she tries to talk like a black person?
You crap-for-brains leftists already view the GOP, conservatives and indeed, anyone center-right as racist while all the while demonstrating your own blatant racism. Why would we expect liars like you to do any different with Trump in ascribing the term to him for seeing the problems with our lack of border protection?
Yeah, you're making a great case. Nutty false and unsupported charges really help you sound less demented.
So, when the black majority, the hispanic majority, the progressive majority, the LGBTQ community and their allies, women and other current minorities are not won over by Trump and his supporters who defend blatant racist language, who will be left to vote for you?
You'd think simple self-preservation would get you all to tone down the emotional and irrational outbursts.
You know, if you talk abusively enough, defend enough racism, enough evil actions, engage in emotional and shrill outbursts with very little tethering your comments to reality, make demonstrably false claims enough times and assume that everyone is out to get you and all those who disagree with you are liars and of the devil and evil, etc, etc, etc... you're going to sound nutty, unhinged and just plain immoral. That is no way to ever change the world by affective arguments.
If you believe in the righteousness of your positions, Marshall, perhaps you'd be better off learning how to defend them in a polite and rational manner.
Priceless.
"While the folks at Huffpo are highly amused that Donald Trump’s evangelical advisory board includes Kenneth Copeland — who declared that God had anointed Ted Cruz as president back in February — they’ve missed an entirely different story.
During Tuesday’s gathering of evangelical leaders at Trump Tower, Jerry Falwell Jr. snapped a photo with himself giving Donald Trump the thumbs up. He then jauntily tweeted their group selfie with his endorsement. Alas, perhaps he should have cropped the background first."
http://freakoutnation.com/2016/06/evangelical-tweets-trump-endorsement-with-framed-playboy-photo-in-background-image/
Keep holding your nose, Glenn. Ever tighter. Your Christian courage is really going to tested. You know, come to think of it. Just so you don't get too tainted by Trump, why don't you cut it off? Better to lose your nose than your soul.
Hey fellas, we aren't voting for a pastor.
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2016/06/voting-for-lesser-of-two-evils.html
No, but we are voting for the leader of the free world and we can reasonably expect the man not to be a charlatan, a fraud, a cheat, to behave like a 12 year old boy (an immature and rude/obnoxious one), to be a blatant serial womanizer, to utter racist comments or stir up support from blatant racists, to make repeated horribly sexist comments, to encourage policies that are counter to our Constitution and better ideals of human rights and liberty, to encourage war crimes, to make false claims without a care as to whether they're true or not, etc, etc.
In many ways, I have higher ideals for our president than I would your pastor. This man is a travesty and, truly, he is playing conservatives for fools. He doesn't care about your values, he's just in this for himself (that, or he's crazy) and he'll destroy any remaining credibility the fundamentalist/conservative wing of this country may have remaining. RIP, GOP.
~Dan
Glenn abdicates his faith in politics. Such is it's quality.
Donald Trump factchecking: Has a 91% false claim ratio!
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/31/ninety-one-percent-donald-trump-false.html
This is different than simple "politicians tell lies" truism. This is pathological. This is a complete and utter indifference to facts and to truth. Of course, it already appeared/appears that conservatives don't care much about facts or science. You all voting for this guy just nails the lid on that coffin.
So much for Truth and American Values.
~Dan
"You know, if you talk abusively enough, defend enough racism, enough evil actions, engage in emotional and shrill outbursts with very little tethering your comments to reality, make demonstrably false claims enough times and assume that everyone is out to get you and all those who disagree with you are liars and of the devil and evil, etc, etc, etc... you're going to sound nutty, unhinged and just plain immoral."
I don't see anyone here dealing with just anyone or with everyone who disagrees. It is you and feo alone who have invited what you want to call "abuse", which is simply speaking truthfully about you speaking untruthfully.
And speaking of false claims, I've been researching Trump's comments about immigrants and Gonzalo Curiel and find that charges of racism are wholly unfounded. Trump's manner is crude, no doubt. But racist is a cheap attack by people of cheap character, and yes, that would include center-right attackers as well (though in their cases I would temper charges against their character even though they are employing the same cheap attack). One of the sources I used for doing so was Politifact, which ran the transcript of his interviews where he defends his concerns about Curiel. They are legitimate concerns given his situation. It seems others want to make it out as if Trump doubts his abilities is only because of his heritage. It's must more detailed than that, though because the case is pending, he restricts his own defense. However, for those who think "nuance" is beyond the conservative, they miss his clear hints that his policies may conflict with associations of the judge. Do you not prefer impartiality when being judged? Are you going to deny that Trump cannot also be concerned with impartiality while he is being judged?
His remarks about immigrants are also falsely, and purposely so, attacked as racist. We DO get a lot of criminal types flowing in through our borders. And an inordinate amount that could be mitigate far better with stricter standards of border control. And I reiterate the stated goals of Islamic murderers to abuse the refugee process to gain entry.
And as I'm now called away, I leave with this: Your citation of an incredibly liberal source, who relies on Politifact, which is also greatly left-leaning and holds center-right people to a different standard of truth-telling than they do leftists does not make your charges against Trump legitimate. It makes YOU a liar.
91%. False claims. Obviously false.
By all means, prove politifact wrong. With data and facts (like politifact has done).
But empty and unsupported claims are wholly unimpressive. Especially coming from Trump and others who show no signs of reasoning or truth.
Here's a better idea, Dan. Prove that what was labeled as false was intentionally stated with the absolute knowledge of its falsehood.
Since you don't have the courage to actually read links of others, I present again one that I provided for feo when he saw fit to pretend Politifact is the Holy Gospel:
http://humanevents.com/2012/08/30/politifact-bias-does-the-gop-tell-nine-times-more-lies-than-left-really/
Your reliance upon Politifact, like with feo, lends credence to my position that lefties like yourself do NOT take the time to do true due diligence, but instead take it on faith that the least positive thing you read about your favored people or positions, or the least negative thing you read about those you oppose, is the truth and/or factual. That alone indicts you as a liar.
PolitiFact, as far as I'm aware, is the one source for keeping track on a broad scale of false claims made by both Dems and Republicans. Is there another source?
If you have a problem with their data, then by all means start your own - and strive to be objective. In the meantime, I'm relying upon the best source that I know of. Beyond that, i can read the claims that PolitiFact posts for both Dems and Republicans and I can see, oh yes, that is a false claim... that is a half truth. the data is there. It is only if you are a partisan hack relying on emotions instead of data that PolitiFact is problematic.
You clearly did not read the link that I posted a second time for you specifically. I'm not surprised as I had little doubt you'd bother, knowing the risk you take in doing so. Far easier and more comfortable to live in your little fantasy world.
"In the meantime, I'm relying upon the best source that I know of."
That's funny given the link I provided...just one from which I could have chosen that speaks to the bias and lack of objectivity so routine with Politifact. You rely upon them because it's the best source you know to validate what you want to believe about politicians, not because it truly enlightens about what is or isn't true. Again, not surprised at all.
So, you've got nothing? No alternative source? Just using, what? Your gut feelings? How you feel emotionally about it?
Not surprised at all.
Wrong way Trump. Clinton opens up double digit lead, not because she's winning Republicans over... but because Indepedents and Republicans of conscience can't vote for him.
You're keeping gutter company, Marshall. Always have no matter how long you've worked to deny it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-new-poll-support-for-trump-plunges-giving-clinton-a-double-digit-lead/2016/06/25/0565bef6-3a31-11e6-a254-2b336e293a3c_story.html
"So, you've got nothing? No alternative source? Just using, what? Your gut feelings? How you feel emotionally about it?"
Well, aren't you the absolute idiot?! I don't rely solely on any one source (and certainly not sources proven to be less than objective, like PolitiFact), but simply engage in my own research. But yeah, there are cases when the lie is obvious. But even then I'll withhold judgement until I can do some digging. I don't take anyone's word for anything given the gravity of doing so when dealing with a politician. The higher the position of power, the less likely I'll just take his word for anything.
YOU, on the other hand, seem to simply buy into any pro-left crap that spews from a lefty's backside, be that lefty a politician or a left-leaning organization.
feo,
Seems you get aroused by polls. All the polls said the UK would stay in the EU. Recent polls have already been found to be biased toward Clinton.
As to gutter company, you support those who enable sexual immorality and the murder of the unborn. You and Dan have no legitimate justification for pretending you can take the moral high ground on which candidate is more heaven bound.
"You're keeping gutter company, Marshall. Always have no matter how long you've worked to deny it."
My denial is far more valid than your continued assertions regarding who and what I am, particularly absent any effort whatsoever to prove your charges. But then, you're a false priest and false charges aren't surprising.
Okay, Marshall, please provide your many sources for comprehensive data about candidate claims.
Weak sauce, Marshall. And weren't you fiscal conservative types upset with Bush runaway spending?
Well, here's your boy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-debt_us_57701efbe4b0dbb1bbbae2c9
That's the thing, Feodor... Trump is not a fiscal conservative. Trump is not a conservative Christian. Trump does not appear to be any sort of Christian at all. He is not reliably conservative on matters of abortion, spending, homosexuality or most other areas. He is not an ethical, moral businessman and he has questionable business skills. He has zero political skills (ie, working with representatives and the people to get laws passed and agreements made), he doesn't appear to have a good grasp on American ideals or the Constitution (and again, all this is what conservatives are saying)... the only thing he has "going for him" (if you can call it that) is that he has used racist, sexist, bullying, xenophobic, anti-Muslim language that has riled up a certain segment of the right wing of the US enough to win the nomination. To vote for him now is to endorse that racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-knowledge, anti-reason view of getting things done. This is why so many conservatives are refusing to vote for him or support him in any way.
The real question, then, is how large is this racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-reason segment of the US and how many other "conservatives" can be conjoled into voting for someone who is clearly not conservative or even moral, in any normal sense of the word?
Dan, you and I can say we are voting our conscience as guided by our faith. Marshall and Glenn are saying that they are actively voting against their conscience and ignoring their faith because they don't have an option. They are gutless.
True. As noted, if Trump were the Dem nominee, I could not vote for him. Integrity and all that.
Dan,
"Okay, Marshall, please provide your many sources for comprehensive data about candidate claims."
Are you going to pretend that Hillary and/or Bernie does not support policies that maintain or promote abortion, SSM, more restrictive gun control (including the banning of common rifles ideal for home defense), higher taxes (including the covetous progressive tax policies), more open borders, and things of this nature? All of them are immoral given the details and known effects.
Dan and feo,
What you boys (and I use that term because neither of you strike me as mature) is that you fail to grasp the simple point being made by many of us who are considering casting our vote for Trump. That point is, particularly with regard to all of your arguments regarding his character, is that YOUR alternatives are as greatly lacking in that department, and what is more, the party they represent is as well, and has been for quite a long time. Thus the hypocrisy of your position here (and it is considerable even with your blogging history in mind) sets a new standard.
I, for one, have acknowledged all the flaws that are so openly displayed by Trump (without having to make any up as Dan is doing). They are the reasons I never came close to considering him during the primaries. Those reasons are every bit as egregious to me as those that won't ever allow me to consider a Democrat, especially one like Hillary, or a socialist of any kind, like Bernie.
My position has been crystal clear in that I am more than a little displeased to be in a position where I must choose between:
a) Voting for a low character guy like Trump and seeing the nation realize all the worst that his candidacy might mean.
b) Voting for either Hillary or Bernie and seeing the nation realize all the worst that doing so is guaranteed to mean.
c) Voting third party, none of whom is likely, at this point, to stand any chance of succeeding and thereby lessen the likelihood of a Trump victory and more than likely give the win to the Democrat nominee.
d) Not vote at all, which will be one less vote against the Dem nominee which is as much aiding and abetting as a direct vote for the Dem nominee.
I am not the least bit swayed by the argument of either you two clowns given your own lack of moral conscience, as you both have supported the least moral candidates on any ballot for years. Neither of you, therefore, have any integrity to begin with.
Thus, the only "weak sauce" argument is the one you two are trying to make, that somehow I am acting against my conservative Christian nature in voting for Trump, that I am voting for a person of low moral character and neither of you two are.
From what I've heard for a few different sources, those Trump is said to be considering for the Supreme Court are acceptable to conservatives, some extremely so. I doubt the same could be said for either of the two you buffoons support. While Trump is lacking elsewhere (short a staff whose guidance he will truly hear and act on), this one aspect is possibly the most important one that separates him from Hill/Bern that makes it all worth it.
As for the rest, don't forget that he must deal with Congress as well and if he stays true to his liberal nature, would fare no better than Obama has, or Hill/Bern will.
My conscience is fine. Neither of you have one.
1997 TRUMP BRAGS ABOUT DODGING DRAFT, “SLEEPING AROUND WAS MY VIETNAM!”
http://www.greenvillegazette.com/r/watch-1997-trump-brags-about-dodging-draft-sleeping-around-was-my-vietnam-129511/
From what I've heard for a few different sources, those Trump is said to be considering for the Supreme Court are acceptable to conservatives, some extremely so
Trump's false claim ratio: 91%.
But you're right. That's probably one of the extremely true things he's said. You can count on that. That makes a great deal of sense.
"Okay, Marshall, please provide your many sources for comprehensive data about candidate claims."
Are you going to pretend that Hillary and/or Bernie does not support policies that maintain or promote abortion, SSM, more restrictive gun control
? Is that supposed to be an answer to my request?
Okay, Marshall, please provide your many sources for comprehensive data about candidate claims.
From what I've heard for a few different sources, those Trump is said to be considering for the Supreme Court are acceptable to conservatives, some extremely so
After Team McConnell and the GOP have purposely avoided doing their job and tried their best to undermine the duly elected president of the US... blocking a crazy amount of judicial appointments on the farcical "lame duck" claim, did you stop to consider that once Clinton is elected (and she will be), that the Dems have no reason to try to offer compromise judicial candidates? They may as well go ahead and propose actual liberal candidates. Does your obstructionist team ever think about how these destructive practices may backfire on them?
One of the tenets of actual conservatism is recognizing the problem of unintended consequences. Trump is going to lose, of course, and he's going to hurt the GOP congress. President Clinton will nominate multiple judges without trying to find moderate ones. Why work with people who aren't willing to work with you?
The stupidity runs top to bottom. I miss actual conservatives.
"Okay, Marshall, please provide your many sources for comprehensive data about candidate claims."
Shall I use sources that are as hard right as your sources are hard left, or would you hypocritically demand I use objective facts?
I will indeed provide in a manner you have proven you lack the honesty and integrity to do. Try not to wet yourself until then.
Your boy.
"Donald Trump’s Silence On SCOTUS Abortion Ruling Angers Conservatives"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-abortion-scotus-conservatives_us_577286b0e4b017b379f75264?section=
Doesn't anger any of us who didn't expect him to comment on it.
Because you know he's so dumb? Can't be because he's mute. He has some asinine to say about everything else.
In response to feo's attempt to further smear Trump, whose character is no less than feo's, I refer to Dan's favorite source of absolute truth and honesty, PolitiFact.
By pretending there is something most heinous in Trump's student and medical deferments, feo willingly ignores at least two bastions of liberalism, Bernie Sanders, and Bill Clinton.
And of course, there are stories of Hillary's alleged attempt to enlist, which are spurious at best, with one story I read claiming she liked to pretend to do so in order to see what kind of sexist response she might get (I don't pretend there's anything to it---just that it's out there). There are also those stories from Secret Service personnel who refer to her poor regard for military people in her hallowed presence.
But then, the left is always selective as to whom they will accuse of anything depending upon whether or not the person has an "R" or a "D" following the person's name.
feo also demonstrates another common character trait of the leftist...believing the world must act on the standards and codes of the leftist when it suits the leftist to so demand, as we see with his implication that somehow Trump is required to make a statement on the recent SCOTUS abortion ruling. It marks the desperation of lefties who need to find something with which they can use to smear opponents of their crappy candidates.
"After Team McConnell and the GOP have purposely avoided doing their job and tried their best to undermine the duly elected president of the US... blocking a crazy amount of judicial appointments on the farcical "lame duck" claim, did you stop to consider that once Clinton is elected (and she will be), that the Dems have no reason to try to offer compromise judicial candidates?"
Lots of baseless assumptions above, the first being that the GOP isn't doing its job in "undermining" someone who should never have been nominated, much less elected to the presidency. Rather than not doing their job, they failed in doing their job anytime they failed to convince enough Democrats to join them in blocking the bad proposals of this Idiot-In-Chief.
There's also this assertion that Dems compromise with the right. What a freaking joke! When has this happened when it wasn't a ruse to get the GOP to sign on to some idea, only to choose later to ignore their obligations of the compromise? The GOP's decision to "block" SCOTUS nominees are within the parameters of doing their job. Perhaps if Obama offered a possibility that was truly solid and constitutionally sound, they would have jumped at the chance to help put another Scalia-type on the bench. Any president can nominate anyone he likes. No Senate is obliged to confirm. Obama could have compromised on that score by nominating someone who wasn't another Kagan or Sotomayor. He chose to nominate the most liberal, anti-constitutional people he could find that would further the liberal cause.
The GOP absolutely did their job in blocking that which Obama wanted to do to "fundamentally transform" the America he despised, in order to reshape it into something un-American. I frankly don't care what the Dems want until such time as they can show they want something that aligns with the vision of the founders and the best interests of the American people as a whole.
"One of the tenets of actual conservatism is recognizing the problem of unintended consequences."
You have no idea what actual conservatism is, nor do you understand that the consequences of a Trump versus a Clinton or Sanders victory are exactly why one would decide to vote Trump over either of the other two. You also are too stupid to recognize that the worst consequence of a Trump victory is that he will act like a Democrat and thus you have no legitimate worries should he win. For the intelligent voter, Clinton/Sanders leaves no doubt that they will continue the current "fundamental transformation" that will most harm our nation. So you want us to reject one who has only the potential to continue that path, in favor of either of two who are certain to continue that path. Talk about stupidity! It's name is Dan Trabue (some call it "feodor")!
Well, he responded. His stupidity is not so strong as to able to, how did you put it?, resist the standards and codes of leftists (most people call it reason). Apparently he concluded he was required to speak.
And then promptly proved he's so stupid he can't count to 5.
[this is extra hilarious because you just defended his silence]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supreme-court-abortion_us_57754e2ae4b0bd4b0b13db65?section=
Trump broken in two by Bronx 5th graders.
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/06/30/trump-becomes-principal-for-a-day-but-leaves-early-after-fifth-grader-schools-him-details/
feo,
You can cite anything you like to trash Trump and that will never make him a "worse" choice than either Clinton or Sanders, two people who are no more worthy than Trump to hold public office. Thus, ironically, you are doing exactly what you accuse a conservative of doing...you're supporting a scumbag. One, because Hillary has proven herself to be so in so many ways that are documented, and two, because Sanders is a socialist and anyone who wishes to impose socialism on the United States of America is a scumbag for thinking it will improve the nation after it has done so much harm throughout history.
In the meantime, my vote for Trump, should I so cast one, does not indicate support for him, preference for him or in any way a desire to see him in the White House. It would be, should I so cast a my vote for him, no more than a greater desire to deny either of the other two leftists the job. And THAT is due to the fact that there is absolutely nothing about how they intend to do the job that is good for the nation. I'm not greatly confident in Trump, just so much less so for those YOU'D happily and stupidly seek to elect.
So carry on with your usually biased links as if they mean anything upon which you can hang your dunce cap. It's not like trashing Trump offends me personally in any way.
I'm supporting someone who shares my values. You are too hard hearted to agree with humane values? So it is.
But you're supporting someone who is absolutely against your values: textbook definition of a hypocrite operating from corrupt faith.
"I'm supporting someone who shares my values."
No doubt, feo. No doubt at all. Those are selfish, self-serving values, not American values. The Democrat-socialists have abandoned American values long ago and wouldn't recognize them if they kicked them in the ass. I don't mean you in this case, but their own asses upon which they sit and from which their "values" originate.
In the meantime, I do not support Trump at all. As I said, which evidently is beyond your very limited ability to understand, is that my vote for Trump isn't an indication of my support for him, but a act of opposition to those very values with which you proudly claim to be in agreement. Of the three likely candidates, the two you're most likely to support push values that are confirmed anti-American values. I'm voting for the one I think least likely to impose the same amount. It's a long shot for sure. But to do nothing, to vote for another who has no chance or to vote as you do is to welcome the worst to our nation. That YOUR thing, not mine.
"my vote for Trump isn't an indication of my support for him, but an act of opposition to those very values.."
You make as much sense as an 18 year old Marxist wannabe.
"You make as much sense as an 18 year old Marxist wannabe."
That's actually pretty funny coming from a Marxist like you. Likely your comprehension skills are failing you once again. Let me know if you'd prefer I use smaller words.
Words are not the problem. It's that you cannot make or follow the sense of any two together.
Not that you've been able to demonstrate. But if it helps you to sleep at night to believe such a thing, why you just hold your teddy tightly and rest well.
"Not that you've been able to demonstrate."
You're confused. My role is to point it out; yours is to demonstrate the behavior. This in itself shows you don't know what words really mean. And, then, you trip over your own demonstration of senselessness:
"my vote for Trump isn't an indication of my support for him..."
You don't get a "no" vote on candidates. "Yes" or abstention are the only options. It's referenda where you get a yes or no vote, Idiot.
"You're confused. My role is to point it out; yours is to demonstrate the behavior."
You're obtuse. Your role is to act like a gentleman, the Christian you only assert you are without ever making the least effort to demonstrate it. If you truly believe I'm acting badly (racist or whatever other crap accusations you enjoy throwing around without example or basis), explain how. Make an actual case. Otherwise you're just being a bore. Indeed, you hide behind a false posture of being above it all, condescending as if your are in any way superior in intellect or character or knowledge. You're a complete fake as well as a false priest/Christian.
"You don't get a "no" vote on candidates."
That's true. All we get is to vote for one or another candidate appearing on the ballot. But voting for Trump does not mean I support him. Think (a strange proposition for you, I know. Just work with me if you can) of it this way:
You're standing in front of me and I'm giving you two choices of taking a right cross with all the speed and mass I can muster, which will pretty much disengage your jaw leaving you with weeks of eating through a straw. Here's your choices: You can take the shot with me wearing boxing gloves or without them. Either way, I'm blasting your jaw. Choose.
This is the type of choice we face in this election, but you're too stupid and corrupt to see it. YOU think Hillary is a person of what you laughingly call values you share. But rational people with actual values see about the same lack of them with either candidate. The driving into the wall analogy is often used here.
You can drive into the wall at 100mph or 120mph. Some will say you'll die either way, so they won't drive at all. But not driving is not a choice one has come election time. We're all going for the ride whether we like it or not. Trump will slam us into the wall at only 100mph and that means we have a slightly better chance of surviving than we do at 120.
It's that simple and really so simple even a simpleton like you should have been able to understand it without my explaining to you as if you're a three-year-old.
But if that wasn't enough for you, it's not just Hillary that gets in should she win. The entire Democratic party gets in. That can't happen. They're what's wrong with the nation. You're proof of that.
Think if it this way. You can walk into the booth in solidarity with David Duke or you can object and refuse to join him. That's your choice. Jesus would plead with you not to make common cause with Messrs Trump and Duke and instead keep some integrity with your faith.
Problem is, your faith doesn't hold integrity.
Or, rather, this is your faith's integrity:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/david-duke-urges-his-supporters-to-volunteer-and-vote-for-tr?utm_term=.mua9aQ9kYB#.qe73Vv3P5e
"Think if it this way. You can walk into the booth in solidarity with David Duke or you can object and refuse to join him."
Thanks for again validating my opinion of you. That's very gracious. You are indeed a simpleton who cannot see beyond the superficial. I do not enter the voting booth in solidarity with Trump, but with the millions who cannot bear to see the nation led by yet another socialist destroyer as we have for the last 7.5 years. The best way to prevent another four years of such is to vote for the one person best positioned to do so. THAT person, while abhorrent in his own right, still provides a chance at survival that while is only better by degrees, is better nonetheless and the only option for doing so. There is nothing immoral about siding with a lesser evil to defeat a greater one, especially when there is no better option. There is none now.
As to what Jesus would do, you have no idea because of your weak understanding of the faith to which you claim to have studied for so long. While you arrogantly insist that He would plead with me against voting for Trump, He is likely equally, if not more so, aghast that anyone would see Clinton as a moral step up. Only a morally corrupt leftist like yourself and Dan would dare make such a suggestion. Only a morally corrupt person like either of the two of you would make such a pot-calling-the-kettle-black argument against Trump.
Thus, my vote for the only person who I see as truly standing in the way of a Clinton presidency is not only a display of true integrity...that I would make such a choice (should I actually decide to do so), but a display of my clearly better understanding of what makes America great (not sure that Trump really understands that) versus what will continue to erode her greatness (what Clinton and the left in general are responsible for).
As to Duke, I wouldn't care that someone like him, or an outright Mafioso, a flaming homosexual or even someone like you or Dan would vote for me. It would only prove that the principles and standards of American greatness that I espouse somehow resonates even with the worst of our lot. I wouldn't reject the endorsement of such people as the best available benefits even them. That's a collateral effect of good policy and ideology, not, as you would pretend, indicates corruption within either.
Try again, Sparky.
Please enlighten me more as to the principle you think Mr Duke is endorsing in Mr Trump that puts you in bed with him.
I don't think you'll find one. But you will pull some made up something from underneath all the bullshit you're dropping.
"Now, of course, the media immediately came out and said that this was 'anti-Semitic.' But of course, it's all true. We're not talking about something that's not true."
http://theweek.com/speedreads/634163/david-duke-image-trump-tweet-star-david-not-badge
"Please enlighten me more as to the principle you think Mr Duke is endorsing in Mr Trump that puts you in bed with him."
I couldn't care less what principle Duke is endorsing in Trump. Why would I? Duke's beliefs and understandings don't matter, and I'm sure they don't matter to Trump. Should Duke see something of value in Christ, would that indict Christ in your fevered imaginings? (Probably. That's how goofy you are.)
"But you will pull some made up something from underneath all the bullshit you're dropping."
Sorry, false priest. Bullshit is your stock in trade, being a false priest and all.
You quote Duke in your last "comment". Apparently you have great faith in Duke to suppose his words have any value. Only an idiot with his head up his feo would believe that Trump is anti-Semitic. Thus, you have very much in common with Duke. You're like soulmates. You both endorse someone because you each believe you share the values of the one you endorse. You both believe those values you perceive are laudable and good. You're both horribly and pathetically wrong.
You're such a hopeless clown.
Posted this to the other post, but as this one has so many comments by Dan and feo trying to indict Trump's character as being worse than Hillary's, I'm doing it again here.
Really? We have to say this? We have to acknowledge that Hillary isn't your candidate? Doesn't carry your values?
OK. Let's say for the record, even though it's obvious to the most casual observer, Hillary Clinton is not your candidate. You will not, repeat, NOT, be voting for her because of your values.
Good?
Now, will you be voting for Mr Trump even though he is an affront to your values? Apparently so.
"Really? We have to say this? We have to acknowledge that Hillary isn't your candidate? Doesn't carry your values?"
No. That should be quite obvious by now, even to a complete idiot such as yourself.
"Now, will you be voting for Mr Trump even though he is an affront to your values? Apparently so."
Yes, because Hillary's is more so. Are you that stupid that you still can't get this simple point of logic and reason? Two scumbags...one is worse for America than the other. I vote, not for the lesser scumbag, but for the result that by doing so the greater scumbag won't be president. Being a scumbag yourself, which you prove by your admission that you share Hillary's "values" (itself a punchline that still makes me laugh), but too much a simpleton to understand (what? too nuanced?), I'll be happy to find another way to explain it if, as you sit in your own waste, you remain confused.
So you prefer the stripper to the pimp, huh? You sound like a liberal bending your values until you touch the nearest body. So much for all your professed conservative values. So much for the straight faith you think you had. Sellout.
My conservative values are intact. They include being willing to suffer to avoid greater suffering. You simply throw in with the worst and say you share their values, which in fact are no values at all. As I said to Dan, it is akin to accepting 400 deaths to prevent 4000 when no viable third option exists. You, on the other hand, want the 4000 dead and are happy to see them die...because you're a scumbag.
I wish it weren't so, but you continue to prove it.
You're not suffering anything, coward, because you don't have anything in the line. It's your neighbor you neglect, the immigrant, the poor, the oppressed. Did Jesus ever say sacrifice 499 of them for 4000? You think he had a utilitarian ethic? Why do you?
Lay down your life, Marshall. You know who said that. But you deny him and support an immoral war monger who cheats his neighbor like an unrepentant tax collector.
Corrupt faith, cheap heart, no guts.
feo,
"You're not suffering anything, coward, because you don't have anything in the line."
First, you know nothing about my life, so to suppose you can legitimately state whether or not I'm suffering in any way is the type of arrogance your buddy Dan would deride.
Secondly, there is no American who has nothing on the line with regard to the outcome of this coming election. Indeed, it's stupid, more than naïve, to suggest such a thing, because it's true of every election cycle that something will change to the detriment of everyone, regardless of whether or not one (like you) is smart enough or perceptive enough to realize it.
"It's your neighbor you neglect, the immigrant, the poor, the oppressed."
So you desperately need to convince yourself. Most likely you're projecting, knowing that you do nothing yourself. If all I ever did or will do from this point forward is to vote for the most conservative candidate available, I'll be doing more for all those groups than you could by giving away all your time and money, simply because fewer people will be among those groups with the right people in positions of leadership and governance.
"Did Jesus ever say sacrifice 499 of them for 4000?"
No. Nor did I ever so much as hint at such a thing. But your pathetically desperate need to portray me as evil and hateful requires your deceitful question of my intention in using that analogy of choosing between two bad options when no viable third option exists.
"But you deny him and support an immoral war monger who cheats his neighbor like an unrepentant tax collector."
You just can't stop lying, can you, false priest? I guess that's what being a false priest is all about. Lying with impunity and malice aforethought. But I've come to expect that from you. It's who you have shown yourself to be.
You say that your conservative values are intact. Whatever they are they cannot be your Christain values. You march ahead with your utilitarian - and Communist for that matter - commitment to sacrifice 400 for 4000.
Jesus won't be with you.
Once again, you sad and pathetic lost soul, what you fail to understand was that I presented an analogy to help your wee mind understand the dilemma of people better than you, who are faced with two horrible choices, with no viable third option.
But, as you prefer, in your deceit and desperation, to portray my analogy as a choice I'd be willing to make, I'll put it to you to make the choice.
There is a choice you have no way of avoiding. One choice is bad because it results in the death of 400 people. But the other choice is worse, because it results in the death of 4000. Normal people, like me, do not want to be faced with such a choice, but there is no other way. One way or the other, death will occur and the only choice YOU have is how many. What are you going to do? Let 4000 die so that you can pretend you're noble? Really? Let's see your answer, oh highly educated and well read one!
"Communist"!! What an idiot you are!
God, what a puny little mind you have:
Choice #3: Vote for the libertarian candidate.
Choice #4: Vote for the Green Party candidate.
Choice #5: Write in your candidate.
Choice #6: Conscientiously object and leave your vote for President blank.
Blank is a concept you know well. Conscientious will be new to to you.
You're just a special kind of stupid, aren't you, little feo? All choices 3-6 result in a Democratic victory unless every opponent of Hillary votes the same way I do in numbers sufficient to overwhelm her supporters. Thus, as I said, and as is true, there is no viable third option if the goal is to prevent 4-8 more years of what we've suffered through the last 8 years. For you, however, I strongly encourage you to adopt choice #6, because you're just too stupid to be allowed to vote.
It doesn't matter who wins if you vote your faith in good conscience. God's will be done.
But you're determined to be a sellout. Paul says, let Marshall be accursed if he follows a gospel other than what he first preached.. You've already admitted that Trump is opposed to the gospel.
Sellout.
"It doesn't matter who wins if you vote your faith in good conscience."
It does matter, especially if the result is something that could have been avoided or mitigated by choosing the lesser of two evils. But you're so corrupt, you think voting for Hillary is a sign of morality. You've sold out long ago and now call evil good. You ignore the corruption of Hillary and pretend Trump's requires one must vote for someone else. You're a card-carrying hypocrite, whereas I am not following a false gospel simply for choosing that lesser of two evils to prevent the harm that will surely follow the election of the worse...the worse you fully endorse as the manifestation of your own values. Talk about condemning yourself!!
Don't pretend we have the same standards, Marshall. You have you Judaizing heresy to live by and I have the liberating truth.
I'm just pointing out that you are selling out your own standards. Doesn't matter that Hillary doesn't meet them. Doesn't matter that people of compassionate reason would hate her if she did.
You're not voting for her.
You're voting for guy that loves Elton John, went to his wedding; said Hillary would make a great President in 08; loves having Catrlyn Jenner use the girls bathroom at his headquarters... etc., etc.
Such is your commitment to your standards. Built on faith? Bullshit. Sellout.
"Don't pretend we have the same standards, Marshall."
There's no chance of that happening, false priest. The very notion is laughable. You don't have standards. "Standards" would be the moral law of Leviticus which Paul tells us is how we identify sinful behaviors. To live according to God's moral law, by definition, means one has "standards".
YOU, on the other hand, share the same lack of standards epitomized by Hillary. Her standards include the demonizing of victims of her husbands sexual assaults and harassment. Her standards include the belittling of those tasked with serving her in her official status. Her standards include support for abortion and homosexuality. Her standards include lying to the families of victims of terrorist murderers. Her standards include the wanton mishandling of classified documents, the result of which is threatening even more lives of Americans, and purposely shielding communications from FOIA access. Her standards include accepting foreign funds from hostile actors.
I could go on.
In the meantime, the best chance at preventing such "standards" from metastasizing and permeating our government and culture further is another with low standards of his own. That isn't selling out my standards. That's fighting to block yours. What's more, every other candidate up for election or reelection who is more true to conservatism will be getting my support as well for the same purpose. It's not my fault that the GOP has allowed this buffoon to represent them. I can only play the hand I was dealt. As I said, but you're to stupid and/or deceitful to accept, is that there is no other viable third alternative. No third party candidate, no stay at home option...there is nothing that does anything more than to make it easier for the greater of two evils to prevail. While you embrace that evil, I oppose it and am willing to employ the only means available to thwart her advances.
The Republican National Committee platform declares porn "a public health crisis." And now will nominate a strip club owner who gleefully speared in the cover of Playboy.
Sellout.
Even if I conceded I was selling out (which is a stretch considering my constant and consistent explanation regarding why I would vote for Trump, not to mention how my vote for him does not indicate support for him when it is a means by which to prevent a far worse outcome), my concession would do nothing to contradict that your admission that you and Hillary share the same values means that you are given over to your corruption. Siding with evil to fight evil does not make me evil. It makes me desperate and determined to defeat evil. You're too evil to understand this very basic concept. May God forgive you.
"... why I would vote for Trump, not to mention how my vote for him does not indicate support for him..."
Even a jabberwocky can't make nonsense like this.
"Even a jabberwocky can't make nonsense like this."
You mean, you're not smarter than a fictional entity and can't understand plain English. The fact is that you don't misunderstand me at all. Instead, you prefer to pretend my clearly stated and logical opinion makes no sense because you can't defend your own support for a scumbag. You share your scumbag's "values" and you know that indicts you as being a scumbag as well. So despite my clear and unambiguous position that I would very much prefer to vote for a person of better quality, you have (among your many other desperate needs) the desperate need to believe I'm actually supporting Trump, rather than the truth, that I'm opposing something much worse.
But you go ahead and continue telling yourself whatever you need to tell yourself in order to try and convince yourself that you are somehow morally and intellectually superior...because evidently you're that pathetic that you need to do so. How incredibly sad!
"... how my vote for him does not indicate support for him..."
That you can't observe how insanely nonsensical this is... Is solely due to a profoundly dysfunctional level of denial that keeps you as safe as a suicide vest. You use your faith to threaten. And deny the clear truth that someday, it will blow up.
You keep saying this. What you don't say is why it is so. Enlighten me, false priest, and perhaps I will see the light. I deny nothing. In fact, I'm quite up front with the ramifications for either choice.
YOU, however, believe Hillary to be a superior choice. That's not even denial, which at least would garner you sympathy for the mental dysfunction required to believe she's a better choice for president. That's complete capitulation with the dark side. The question is whether or not you began as evil or simply lost you way at some point in your life to become evil.
You claim to share the same values as Hillary. I do NOT claim to share the same values as Trump. The profound level of denial resides in you, not me. YOU think Clinton will be good for the nation. I don't think either will be, but know that Hillary won't be and couldn't possibly be unless she was struck by lightening and woke up a moral and virtuous conservative.
The fact is as follows: Barring something remarkable happening at the GOP convention, Trump will be the GOP nominee. Nothing remarkable will happen at the Democratic convention, so Clinton will be the Dem nominee. That means one of these two idiots will be the next president. As a patriotic American with common sense and an awareness of the realities, it is my duty to do whatever I can to prevent Clinton from winning the election. That means I must vote for Trump. As much as you so desperately need to believe this constitutes support for Trump, despite all my explanations of what my true intentions are, denying Clinton is far more important than giving a flying rat's ass about the accusations of a false priest (not to say that there's any reason to give a flying rat's ass about what you think anyway). I only care about doing the right thing, which is often dirty, ugly, about as feo as one can get without becoming a feo one's self.
Seriously? You need a grammar lesson in prepositions? Actually, we are not surprised.
From the Greek, pro.
Oh, wait. You can't read Greek.
Oh wait. You don't read.
Doing some drunk blogging, I see.
"... how my vote for him does not indicate support for him..."
Too funny that you don't it. Prepositions matter, too, Marshall. As as the fact that your vote will be counted on his side and not taken away from anyone else. Pretty simple. But then...
"for" from the Greek, "pro"
Which tells us what a sellout you are on your own faith.
"Too funny that you don't it."
Too funny that you can't hold your liquor.
"As as the fact that your vote will be counted on his side and not taken away from anyone else. Pretty simple."
Well, there's no doubt that you're pretty simple. But what counts is intent. My intention is to prevent the worse of two evils from winning the presidency. My support is for the nation and its people.
"Which tells us what a sellout you are on your own faith."
What it tells you and the frog in your pocket is neither here nor there. More telling is your inability to have a legitimate point, to say nothing of your inability to prove it. But then, as one who has sold out his country and faith by admitting a shared set of values with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, this is not surprising.
Your vote counts for him. It doesn't do anything else. You are for a Olayboy swinger and his nude posing third wife.
Jesus wouldn't do that.
All this time, as long as you've been blogging, with hubris, arrogance and hate, you've claimed your faith is truer than anyone's.
All of a sudden the best you can say is that you are voting with liberal-like justifications not for a good man but for a bad one. All you can say is that you're just like me.
And from what are now all these years of admitted lies the single shining truth emerges which was always going to be true.
You are a sellout to your Lord.
"Your vote counts for him."
Did you figure that out all by yourself? It also counts as a vote against Hillary. In other words, not that other words would ever make the obvious clear to you, each vote for Trump cancels out a vote for Clinton.
"Jesus wouldn't do that."
Says the putz who supports a woman who attacks the sexual assault victims of her horn-dog husband, who lies to the families of Benghazi victims she did nothing to protect, who supports the easy access to infant murder, who supports the sexually immoral. The fact is you have no idea what Jesus would do because you have no idea who Jesus is.
All your are saying here is that you are no better than me. Which heaven knows but you've always needed to think that your faith was better, stronger, wiser, truer. And all that skyscraper of bullshit has fallen down on you. You admit that your values fall to expediency and a need to win.
Ted Cruz has more guts and principles than you do. And he's one of the worst assholes of all time. Puts you in perspective.
"All your are saying here is that you are no better than me."
I don't believe I ever felt the need to say anything like that. Why would I say something so blatantly untrue. YOU'RE the false priest, not me. Yeah, I'm a sinner. That's no secret. But "no better" than you? Get serious. You proudly share Hillary's "values"...such as they are. I'd be ashamed to admit such a thing openly even if I did share her, or for that matter, Trump's values. That alone would make be better than you. Only an idiot proclaims his idiocy.
"...you've always needed to think that your faith was ."
That's only by default...a matter of consequence. In allowing you to expose your own corrupted faith which isn't better, far weaker, clearly stupid and absolutely false, mine can't help but be better, stronger, wiser and truer by comparison.
"You admit that your values fall to expediency and a need to win."
My values are such that I'm willing to endure cheap and dishonest mischaracterizations of my by cheap and dishonest people like you in order to do what is best for the nation, who will win should Hillary lose. It's called "taking one for the team"...the team being the USofA.
"Ted Cruz has more guts and principles than you do."
Very possibly true. I have no accurate way to ascertain that.
"And he's one of the worst assholes of all time."
He's got nothing on you. Puts YOU in perspective clearly.
How strange to hear you admit it. Your faith is indeed taking one for the team. You put nation ahead of Christ. I can't do that. That's why any policies that don't have in mind the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the orphaned, the widow isn't gospel. You've turned your back on the gospel.
Sellout.
"How strange to hear you admit it. Your faith is indeed taking one for the team."
Now you're just lying again. It comes so easily and naturally to you, doesn't it, false priest? I didn't say my faith is taking one for the team. I said I was should I suffer the false accusations from liars like you for voting for the only one with any chance of preventing Hillary's success.
"You put nation ahead of Christ."
Not at all. I certainly would be if I joined you in voting for Hillary. But to prevent her success, there is less chance that the country will move further away from Christ or I will at least have helped slow the process. It's pretty far gone as it is thanks to people like you, but whatever I can do to help turn it around, I'll do to the best of my ability. You're already given over to your sin.
"That's why any policies that don't have in mind the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the orphaned, the widow isn't gospel."
Giving lip service to those policies isn't gospel, either, and leftist policies don't at all get anything done to benefit those people (not without adding to their number).
False priest.
Post a Comment