Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

[DOTR]

[


1) We don't believe sperm are sacred. We never have. The whole sperm thing is a left-wing attempt at dodging the issue of abortion by way of left-wing abysmal ignorance of basic reproductive biology. Just because you baby-killing mouthbreathers have spent the last 50 years shouting, "If you think abortion is murder, then you have to think masturbation is too!" does NOT in any way make your stupidity any part of OUR beliefs.

Who is "we"? Genesis 38 has been misinterpreted by Christians for centuries.

6 For his first son Er, Judah got a wife whose name was Tamar.

7 Er’s conduct was evil, and it displeased the LORD, so the LORD killed him.

8 Then Judah said to Er’s brother Onan, “Go and sleep with your brother’s widow. Fulfill your obligation to her as her husband’s brother, so that your brother may have descendants.”

9 But Onan knew that the children would not belong to him, so when he had intercourse with his brother’s widow, he let the semen spill on the ground, so that there would be no children for his brother.

10 What he did displeased the LORD, and the LORD killed him also.

I can't tell you how much I value your "wisdom" on how we are "misinterpreting" the Bible because we don't see it the way you do. I can't tell you, because it's impossible to measure negatives to that extent.

Again, who is "we"? Just you and your rice crispies? What do "we" believe this passage refers to?

Cecile you should recognize that she will never know what “we” means. Or rather she does...and feels hatred for it.
I know that’s not pleasant but it’s true.

I’m asking who she thinks she’s speaking for because the “sperm as sacred” issue has been long debated in religion.

Not in our religion. Go ahead and quote yours again.

 

[DOTR]

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a ******* moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

You have now fully conceded that you have no arguments whatsoever and the only thing you have is condescension and hate.

Your concession is noted.

Remember when you said Trump would lose and take the House and Senate with him?

No I don’t.

This will be fun...again.

 

[Seawytch]

Who is "we"? Genesis 38 has been misinterpreted by Christians for centuries.

6 For his first son Er, Judah got a wife whose name was Tamar.

7 Er’s conduct was evil, and it displeased the LORD, so the LORD killed him.

8 Then Judah said to Er’s brother Onan, “Go and sleep with your brother’s widow. Fulfill your obligation to her as her husband’s brother, so that your brother may have descendants.”

9 But Onan knew that the children would not belong to him, so when he had intercourse with his brother’s widow, he let the semen spill on the ground, so that there would be no children for his brother.

10 What he did displeased the LORD, and the LORD killed him also.

I can't tell you how much I value your "wisdom" on how we are "misinterpreting" the Bible because we don't see it the way you do. I can't tell you, because it's impossible to measure negatives to that extent.

Again, who is "we"? Just you and your rice crispies? What do "we" believe this passage refers to?

Cecile you should recognize that she will never know what “we” means. Or rather she does...and feels hatred for it.
I know that’s not pleasant but it’s true.

I’m asking who she thinks she’s speaking for because the “sperm as sacred” issue has been long debated in religion.

Not in our religion. Go ahead and quote yours again.

You're not Christian? I already told you what my religion is, it's irony. It'll never let you down.

 

[Lysistrata]

A state government deciding what is a marriage tramples on a right held by the individual. Why should people go through all this legal maneuvering when they could simply get a license and have a ceremony, civil or religious, so that the contract they made must be recognized by all levels of government, including the federal government?

Is there any legal document that a couple can execute that would bind the federal government to pay out Social Security surviver's benefits to a surviving partner and allow the couple to file a joint tax return? What legal document would prevent greedy relatives from challenging a surviving partner's right to inherit.or a partner's right to decide on treatment of a patient?

Why should any couple be forced into a legal morass when other couples have access to a simple, streamlined procedure that grants them all of these rights and more?

Why not use the term "marriage" on the civil level? What would be the point of not using it? If a couple wants to enter into addtional obligations, they can marry in a ceremony within their religious group that outlines their additional religious responsibilities. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. I know that Jewish people include a contract in their wedding customs.

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a ******* moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

You have now fully conceded that you have no arguments whatsoever and the only thing you have is condescension and hate.

Your concession is noted.

Really, have you encountered a more dreadful person on this board than Cecilie1200 ?

She certainly ranks among the most dreadful. She seems to want to force all of us into her fantasy world, which revolves around her prejudices and rejection of facts. She certainly knows absolutely nothing about how our legal system works. And there is her foul mouth and personal attacks. She's one of those folks who sticks her fingers in her ears and yells "LA LA LA LA" when you try to explain something to her. Totally dense.

 

[SweetSue92]

I always find it comical that progressives are far more judgemental than the people they are bitching about being judgemental.

Far less forgiving as well.

"Hate the sinner and the sin, and make sure they are ruined for life" The progressive mantra.

I'm not pro sex marriage, also anti abortion, beleive in God almighty...but I also know for a fact that evangelicals in the US are the biggest hypocrites and assholes in the world...or at least most of them. They preach and preach, and they thrive on hate racism and bigotry...and worse they voted overwhelmingly for the most evil **** in the world.

Newflash, Punkin: That isn't anything you KNOW. That's just a bunch of hatred and bitterness you FEEL, and you think it's knowledge because your bile has shortcircuited your brain . . . just like with any other vicious bigot.

Congratulations. You ARE the piece of shit you proclaim others to be.

Well here you are again without a reasonable argument just flinging insults, hate and bile all while accusing others of doing what you’re doing.

Here is no logical reason or to deny gays the right to marry but you want to do it anyway and you’re prepared to attack, vilify and denigrate anyone who tells you that your position is indefensible.

There is no cure for ignorant and stupid.

Well, here you are again, blithering about "reasonable arguments" as though you would know one when it fell on you.

Since you would have no way of knowing this, being you, I will explain that the only reasonable response a decent person can make to the spewing of hateful bigotry - REAL hateful bigotry, not the leftist version that consists of daring to disagree with them - is to tell the bigot in question that he's a hateful bigot. One does not dignify such garbage by pretending that it, or the person spewing it, are worthy of serious debate. Kinda like talking to you, actually.

Again, you spew hate, bile, and contempt, but there isn't a real reason you've provided that would indicate that your rights have been impugned by gay marriage.

All you have is intolerance and hate, all while fuming about intolerance and hate from the left.

hate, hate, hate, contempt, contempt and bile.

Who's just dead sick of this so-called "argument"? And who cares anymore? I stopped caring after about the second time I was called this while the liberal tears flowed. They don't seem to realize it has exactly the OPPOSITE effect they desire.

 

[SweetSue92]

A state government deciding what is a marriage tramples on a right held by the individual. Why should people go through all this legal maneuvering when they could simply get a license and have a ceremony, civil or religious, so that the contract they made must be recognized by all levels of government, including the federal government?

Is there any legal document that a couple can execute that would bind the federal government to pay out Social Security surviver's benefits to a surviving partner and allow the couple to file a joint tax return? What legal document would prevent greedy relatives from challenging a surviving partner's right to inherit.or a partner's right to decide on treatment of a patient?

Why should any couple be forced into a legal morass when other couples have access to a simple, streamlined procedure that grants them all of these rights and more?

Why not use the term "marriage" on the civil level? What would be the point of not using it? If a couple wants to enter into addtional obligations, they can marry in a ceremony within their religious group that outlines their additional religious responsibilities. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. I know that Jewish people include a contract in their wedding customs.

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a ******* moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

You have now fully conceded that you have no arguments whatsoever and the only thing you have is condescension and hate.

Your concession is noted.

Really, have you encountered a more dreadful person on this board than Cecilie1200 ?

Dozens. But that she's a "dreadful person" means she's exactly what I know her to be: a smart conservative Christian woman who doesn't tow your line.

You know who else are "dreadful people"? Black conservatives. Hispanic conservatives. Gay conservatives. Basically any conservatives other than White Christian Men, who I have been told you are waiting to die.

Small minded people, the entire lot of you.

 

[Lysistrata]

She has no facts and is completely ignorant of our Constitution and legal system. Add to that her foul mouth and name-calling. She wants all of us to live in a fantasy world of her making, a world of prejudice and disrespect of others. She portrays herself as a Christian, but her comments show a real desire to betray the basic values of this faith and drag it into the sewer. This warrants contempt.

 

[JoeB131]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Which kind of shows how fucked up Evangelical Christians are, doesn't it?

"He might be a creep who ***** porn stars, but he will never, ever judge my homophobia and racism! He'll encourage it!"

 

[DOTR]

I can't tell you how much I value your "wisdom" on how we are "misinterpreting" the Bible because we don't see it the way you do. I can't tell you, because it's impossible to measure negatives to that extent.

Again, who is "we"? Just you and your rice crispies? What do "we" believe this passage refers to?

Cecile you should recognize that she will never know what “we” means. Or rather she does...and feels hatred for it.
I know that’s not pleasant but it’s true.

I’m asking who she thinks she’s speaking for because the “sperm as sacred” issue has been long debated in religion.

Not in our religion. Go ahead and quote yours again.

You're not Christian? I already told you what my religion is, it's irony. It'll never let you down.

No your religion is not irony. If it were you would have more interesting posts.
You don’t belong here.

 

[ptbw forever]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Which kind of shows how fucked up Evangelical Christians are, doesn't it?

"He might be a creep who ***** porn stars, but he will never, ever judge my homophobia and racism! He'll encourage it!"

I can’t wait until you and all the other scum are sliced up into many tiny pieces during the civil war that is coming up in 2020.

You may think you are safe treating Christians like shit despite all the charities only existing because of Christians, but that is why people like me exist. To do what Christians are too nice to do.

 

[ptbw forever]

She has no facts and is completely ignorant of our Constitution and legal system. Add to that her foul mouth and name-calling. She wants all of us to live in a fantasy world of her making, a world of prejudice and disrespect of others. She portrays herself as a Christian, but her comments show a real desire to betray the basic values of this faith and drag it into the sewer. This warrants contempt.

A disgusting little ***** like you has no room to talk.

 

[martybegan]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

My word for people like this is fake Christians. Being a religious conservative and a Trump supporter is a oxymoron. You cannot be both. Franklin Graham's niece has rebuked Graham for his support of Trump, correctly pointing out you cannot forgive someone who has not admitted to his sins. Morality does not end at abortion. Morality is also compassion for people who are running in fear for their lives. Try remembering the Bible story of the Good Semaritin. Trump has the distinction of being rebuked by Jesus Christ.

And yet the only other alternative to them is the party of "bake that ******* cake, peasant"

And you wonder why they hold their nose and vote from Trump.

The racist Republican Party is no choice. It is a immoral choice. Christians should have compassion for people fleeing in fear of their lives not consorting with white supremacists and neo-nazis.

Bullshit. sorry, but why don't they try to fix what's wrong in their own country? Either by democratic means or force.

We, as a nation get to set our immigration policy, not someone trying to cross our border illegally.

 

[martybegan]

It's Constitutional. The Constitution is mute on marriage, and thus it is left to the States. You could try the whole 14th amendment route, but SSM is not equal to opposite sex marriage, as SSM is a recent creation of only the last few decades. It is a new concept.

Dumbshit. The 14th Amendment applies to everyone. If you want a heterosexual marriage, nobody is stopping you. Same-sex marriage does not effect you in any way. I don't lose any sleep over how many times that trump or gingrich have been married. How do the marriages of people you don't know effect you? You people who fret about the lives of people you don't know are just kooks.

The 14th amendment's equal protection under the law is not absolute. If it was I would be able to sue NY to allow me to own guns as easy as people can in Texas, or say Arkansas, as the 2nd gives me the RKBA uninfringed.

SSM is a concept from only the past few decades, as such the proper way to deal with it would be to get State legislatures to allow it State by State, and then force all States to recognize them, under full faith and credit, as is done now One doesn't have to meet other requirements, (age, cousin status, etc) is a State you move to if you already have a license from another state that has different ones. SSM in that case, after the license is issued, would be equal, and thus protected.

The issue is forcing States to issue a license that really isn't equal, unlike mixed-race marriages, which have plenty of precedent going back millenia, and were only banned for a relatively short period of time, thus making something that was equal in violation of the 14th.

The issue is not of forcing states to do anything except to recognize the rights belonging to each individual citizen of the state, which are not subject to majority rule.

So NYC should not be allowed to have a law which requires me to wait 3-6 months and pay over $500 in fees just to keep a handgun in my own apartment?

Isn't that infringement of the 2nd amendment, and thus not subject to "majority rule"

I think you're safe now that Republicans passed a law that lets the mentally ill run around with loaded weapons.

Nice lie.

Sorry, but just because someone has their finances taken in Trust doesn't mean the person is mentally incompetent.

That was the crux of that legislation. It requires a court to determine a person is mentally deficient, not some bureaucrat at the social security administration.

 

[martybegan]

They had a primary, he won the primary.

Only the Democrats feel the need to rig their primary, but I have a feeling the RINO's and Never Trumpers wish they had rigged the Republican one.

Describe, in detail, how the Democratic primary was “rigged”.

Superdelegates.

Name 1 election where superdelegates have changed the nominating process. In theory they could but in actual practice they never have.

2016
Primary vote
Clinton 54%
Sanders 42%

Delegate count from state primaries
Clinton 2205 54.4%
Sanders 1845 45.4%

Hillary Clinton had enough delegates to win without the superdelegates. In 2008, the superdelegates leaned heavily towards Clinton but Obama peeled them away as he won state after state. The process is not rigged.

Got links to the data presented?

Democratic Convention 2016

Where are the superdelegates?

Where is their voting given, hard total or floor?

 

[martybegan]

Considering the male gender doesn't have a "choice" anyway in this situation, I honestly don't care.

There are plenty of pro-life women who understand exactly the point you are making, and they are still pro-life. Why do you have to frame this as a "all-men" vs "all-women" conflict?

Oh, right, because hacks gotta hack.

Being a male and a trump supporter, caring is probably too much to ask of you.

As for the supposed “conflict”, it’s a construct of your imagination. About 90% of catholic women practice contraception which was and likely still is antithetical to Church teachings. Women pretty much know the score when it comes to a bunch of people in state capitols making their healthcare decisions. This is why the contraception is used in the first place.

It’s a pretty easy scenario to understand. I’m sure if you try, you could too.

You equate caring with government overreach, or following progressive matras, typical.

Why did you have to shift to contraception of Catholics? I stated there are plenty of pro-life women, and you saw fit to ignore that?

Dodge, duck dip, dive, and dodge.

The fact that there are "pro-life" women adds nothing. The issue deals only with conditions inside a female' body. Presumably these women exercise autonomy. But plenty of women exist that are not "pro-life" and Big Government is trying to steal their autonomy.

It subtracts from the whole this is a "men vs. women" motif progressives try to play. Plenty of women are pro-life, particularly in places like Alabama and other Southern/midwestern States.

"Big Government" is really only at the federal level. What States do is more local annoying government, at least as long as they stay within the Constitution.

Big Government exists at every level. As I said, "pro-life" women are immaterial to any discussion of the rights of other women to personal autonomy, and also to freedom to choose their beliefs. "Pro-life" women are clearly exercising these very rights.

The States, by the Constitution have broad legislative powers, with the exceptions of rights given in their own Constitutions and rights given in the Federal Constitution (applied against the States via the 14th). Sorry, but Abortion is not a right in the constitution, nor is SSM, but RKBA is, and of course progressives attack the one that is explicit.

 

[martybegan]

The Republicans could not find someone who was not a mass adulterer who lies every time he opens his mouth and defrauds seniors of their retirement nest eggs and worships a KGB thug.

They could not find an honest, decent man who is also against abortion anywhere in the whoooooooooooooole party!

They had a primary, he won the primary.

Only the Democrats feel the need to rig their primary, but I have a feeling the RINO's and Never Trumpers wish they had rigged the Republican one.

Describe, in detail, how the Democratic primary was “rigged”.

Superdelegates.

Superdelegates don't "rig" the system. Those are the primary rules all candidates agree to. All voters that wanted to were allowed to vote for Bernie. 3 MILLION fewer did than voted for Hillary. A far greater margin than between Clinton and Obama.

The delegate system is set up similar to the EV system, so you do have a "dead vote" component.

 

[martybegan]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

You left out "Pretend". You left out Muslims, Hindus, etc as they will not support Trump.

A true Christian would not stand for the lying, disregard fir marriage, cheating, lying, bigotry, hate, greed, stealing of children, opulence, and Trump's overall amorality.

You don't get to decide who is a "True" Christian.

Isn't that what you're doing when you say homophobes have a valid biblical argument but racists don't?

I am saying the statements that homosexuality is sinful are far more explicit than anything you can find extolling racism.

Kind of like how the 2nd amendment is explicit, but you have to do mental and legal acrobatics to find "rights" to Abortion and SSM.

 

[martybegan]

so if 1 state has 10x the population of another state, that should give them greater voice in our government?

how is *that* american?

Yes, obviously.

Congress is elected based on the population.

Every State gets two Senators.

Thus, people in small states have more say that people in larger states.

You think that Delaware & California should get equal votes?

Yes. California as a State can make whatever laws it wants for people in their State via the State government. Why should California, New York, and even Texas be able to make rules for everyone, when it comes to things inside a State, when small States don't want it?

This is a symptom of the federal government doing things outside it's scope and Constitutional mandate.

You mean like PA laws that protect gays along with race and religion? Okay!

PA laws that apply to actual PA's, and of course the States are still bound by the right to free exercise.

As always the government has to have a compelling reason to deny free exercise, and butt hurt is not a compelling reason.

My, my...such a study in contradictions you are. You're all for states rights...until its an issue you disagree with like gays being protected equally with race and religion.

State's rights end at the rights of US Citizens via the Federal Constitution and their own Constitutions. The 14th Amendment has incorporated the bill of Rights to the States, the issue is progressives use the 14th to make additional crap up.

The right to free exercise is explicit in the constitution, I find no such right to a cake from a specific baker.

 

[martybegan]

The 14th amendment's equal protection under the law is not absolute. If it was I would be able to sue NY to allow me to own guns as easy as people can in Texas, or say Arkansas, as the 2nd gives me the RKBA uninfringed.

SSM is a concept from only the past few decades, as such the proper way to deal with it would be to get State legislatures to allow it State by State, and then force all States to recognize them, under full faith and credit, as is done now One doesn't have to meet other requirements, (age, cousin status, etc) is a State you move to if you already have a license from another state that has different ones. SSM in that case, after the license is issued, would be equal, and thus protected.

The issue is forcing States to issue a license that really isn't equal, unlike mixed-race marriages, which have plenty of precedent going back millenia, and were only banned for a relatively short period of time, thus making something that was equal in violation of the 14th.

Same sex marriage is not a concept which began only in the last few decades. It may be rare, but there is evidence of same sex unions as far back as ancient Rome.

As a mainstream legal construct is is only a creation of the past few decades.

The "evidence" isn't about State sanctioning, it's about people buggering others of the same sex, which of course has occurred throughout the millennia.

Even in those cases the relationships were not seen as equal to heterosexual relationships, which had the required ability to procreate, and back then since infant mortality and life spans were so short, procreating had to be done "early and often" to assure enough people in the next generation to continue a given culture/tribe/family/nation etc.

It's about a bit more than "people buggering other of the same sex." I said it was rare, certainly not a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that the concept of same sex marriage is not only from the past few decades, as you stated.

One or two random cases does not a precedent make. The current concept of it being equal to opposite sex marriage, or that there was even something besides opposite sex marriage is a new construct.

I didn't make any claims about precedent. Again, I simply pointed out that your statement saying the concept of same sex marriage has only begun in the last few decades is false. If you said that the concept of same sex marriage as an equal legal contract to opposite sex marriage is recent, that would probably be accurate. On the other hand, there were apparently some tribes in Africa in pre-colonial times that allowed women to marry and treated it similarly to opposite-sex marriages.

History of Same Sex Marriage

For the purposes of this thread, how about 'same sex marriage is a recent idea in the US'?

The concept as a broad mainstream reality is recent. Sorry but 1-2 maybe sort of probable cases does not make a case for precedent.

In Africa, those cases probably involved widows or women from families with no men, and it had to do with property, not sex.

There is a similar concept found in the Balkans, (Albania I think), but again that has all to do with keeping family property in the family.

If all you are going to do is nit-pick, when my statement is 98% accurate, then go play somewhere else.

 

[martybegan]

Jesus' teachings were based on the OT, and the NT written by his followers after his death.

Inspiration by God or Man for this is up to your own views and beliefs.

So suddenly you've gone from "every word in the Bible is the sacred word of God", to "some parts of the Bible, like the entire New Testament, upon which Christianity is founded, is to be ignored". Here's a clue, Jackass. MEN wrote the Old Testament too. It was written by the prophets, as a history of the Jewish peoples. Within its pages you can find stories of daughters having sex with their fathers, fathers willing to murder their children as sacrifices to God, and God inflicting the Trials of Job upon a man who dared to disobey him.

Jesus teachings weren't based on the Old Testament. The Old Testament prohibits sins and punishes those who sin. Jesus teachings are all about love and the foregiveness of sins. God gave a list of things you shouldn't do, and homosexuality was not along them. Jesus gave a list of things to do, which was to love God, and to love one another. Jesus opposed wealth, and the pursuit of wealth. His Kingdom was the spirtual world. Wealth and money are secular concepts and Jesus was clear that the secular pursuit of money imperilled your immortal soul. One need only to read the Sermon on the Mount to appreciate how utterly different the teaching of Jesus were to the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament.

Still not a reason to say "bake that ******* cake, peasant"

And religion is not a valid reason to refuse to bake the ******* cake, asshole!

It is plenty enough of a valid reason, as people have the right to free exercise, and the government only has the ability to deny that for compelling reasons. And even then it must rectify it in the least intrusive method possible.

This is not a compelling reason, and fining someone hundreds of thousands of dollars and/or forcing them out of business is not the least intrusive method.

You only want this because you hate religious people. Fess up, it's good for the soul.

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

Some, those who are not hypocrites, surely have abandoned Trump.

You don't get to decide that. And where would they go? the party of "Bake that ******* cake, peasant"?