Trump and Evangelical religion pro's and con's. Should Religion even be involved in the election?

That you will suck up and regurgitate anything.
Nope. If I did that, I would claim the election was stolen.

There have been too many irregularities brought to light. Never adjudicated in court; the judges throw out the cases so idiots like you can claim no irregularities have ever been found.

If the election was above board, why balk at investigations? Surely the Democrats would like Americans to know America has free and fair elections.

You just make sure you don't question your masters.
 
Democrats can’t prevent an impartial validation if Republicans came forward with actual evidence and specific charges against any person who committed voter fraud of any kind that cost Don Trump the election.

The nonexistence of evidence is what prevents the validation that the Democrats stole the election from Don Trump.

Our system of government depends upon the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

That Principle applies to the Democratic Party. The Democrat party is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on you MAGA..
Kinda tough to prove a case in court when the judges refuse to let the evidence to be presented, innit?

That does not equate to "the election was not stolen".
 
1) "Should Trump be using God and Religion to win the presidency"?
2) "Knowing who Trump is and hearing the above video, should the Evangelicals be supporting Trump"?
Of course we've never heard Biden or Pelosi invoke God, have we?!

BTW, "who is Trump"? You seem to know his soul, or believe you do.
 
Of course we've never heard Biden or Pelosi invoke God, have we?!

BTW, "who is Trump"? You seem to know his soul, or believe you do.
Until you show detailed examples of what you mean, I cannot comment back at you. I did ask Google to show me where "Biden or Pelosi" had invoked God and nothing came out other than to say that following "God's" path is the way to do. I saw nothing about either claiming that God was looking after them or even less, that God had chosen them to be the saviors of the nation.

I know who Trump is. I asked the question of "who is Trump" to see who on the right actually sees the man for who he is.

You see, when Trump says that "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any support", it does mean that they don't know that he could actually shoot a Republican on 5th Ave and still not lose any support or that they don't know him at all.
 
Last edited:
Kinda tough to prove a case in court when the judges refuse to let the evidence to be presented, innit?


Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives for almost 2 years. If you had evidence you could take it there. why didn’t you?
 
You and God. You know the souls of people you've never met.

Another libtard invoking God for politics -- exactly what he accuses Trump of doing

You know, this insulting habit that the people here have is truly disgusting.

As far as Trump, He has been in the news, on video, on TV thousands of times. I have seen videos of everything he has ever said and read articles on everything he has ever done. I have seen him act the way he acts and do what he does over and over again. I have already read articles on psychology experts that have given their interpretations of who Trump is.

Simply stated, I don't think I have ever met anyone (other than perhaps my wife) that I know more about than Trump.

In addition, he has never shown any morals, ethics, principles or humanity in his entire life. He is an open book narcissist.

If you are not able to see that yourself, then you are either blind-by-choice or an absolute idiot.
 
You know, this insulting habit that the people here have is truly disgusting.

As far as Trump, He has been in the news, on video, on TV thousands of times. I have seen videos of everything he has ever said and read articles on everything he has ever done. I have seen him act the way he acts and do what he does over and over again. I have already read articles on psychology experts that have given their interpretations of who Trump is.

Simply stated, I don't think I have ever met anyone (other than perhaps my wife) that I know more about than Trump.

In addition, he has never shown any morals, ethics, principles or humanity in his entire life. He is an open book narcissist.

If you are not able to see that yourself, then you are either blind-by-choice or an absolute idiot.
Correction:

You have been fed a carefully-crafted vision created by people who want you to hate Trump. You've been manipulated, and you lack the wit to question your programming.

Dance, little monkey.
 
Can you show us where God says we have to give money to the government and let them do the feeding and housing?
If you're not doing the feeding and housing, then the government can do it. We pay our taxes and at a national scale, our government, which is essentially a management tool, develops the infrastructure to feed and house everyone who is hungry and homeless. Church charities or "Goodwill", aren't enough, apparently, otherwise, we wouldn't have so many homeless people.
 
If you're not doing the feeding and housing, then the government can do it. We pay our taxes and at a national scale, our government, which is essentially a management tool, develops the infrastructure to feed and house everyone who is hungry and homeless. Church charities or "Goodwill", aren't enough, apparently, otherwise, we wouldn't have so many homeless people.
People would have more money to voluntarily donate to charity if the government didn't take so much of it by threat of violence.

Government has solved very few problems. Usually it makes them worse. And there's nothing so eternal as a temporary government program.
 
View attachment 308301. Weir, Robert W. The Embarkation of the Pilgrims. Architect
of the Capitol. Commissioned 1837, placed 1844 in United. States Capitol Rotunda.

ding said: Again... the establishment clause in the first amendment was written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the states had at the time the constitution was ratified.

NotfooledbyW said: They allowed “religions” or “no religions at alll” which is multiculturalism. You are a very confused Christian. You think the framers required states to establish Christian State religion.

That’s a fallacy.

ding said: Again... each state was able to establish their own state religion. It was up to the states to decide. The national government was forbidden to interfere.

NotfooledbyW said: You say America was founded as a Christian Nation not a multicultural nation. For America to be a Christian nation there has to be a mandatory requirement for the states to establish a Christian State religion. There is no such mandate in the Constitution.

ding said: The culture was Christian. Overwhelmingly so.

NotfooledbyW said: The extent of Christian culture during the second half of the 18th Century can only be objectively measured by the percent of the population who professed their faith publically through membership in a Church. Less than 20% of British Colonists belonged to a church.

The men however found their religion in a tavern



Taverns in North America date back to colonial America. Colonial Americans drank a variety of distilled spirits. As the supply of distilled spirits, especially rum, increased, and their price dropped, they became the drink of choice throughout the colonies.[1] In 1770, per capita consumption was 3.7 gallons of distilled spirits per year, rising to 5.2 gallons in 1830 or approximately 1.8 one-ounce shotsa day for every adult white man.[2]That total does not include the beeror hard cider, which colonists routinely drank in addition to rum, the most consumed distilled beverage available in British America. Benjamin Franklin printed a "Drinker's Dictionary" in his Pennsylvania Gazette in 1737, listing some 228 slang terms used for drunkenness in Philadelphia.

The Vera Cruz Tavern in Vera Cruz, Pennsylvania
The sheer volume of hard liquorconsumption fell off, but the brewing of beer increased, and men developed customs and traditionsbased on how to behave at the tavern. By 1900, the 26 million American men over age 18 patronized 215,000 licensedtaverns and probably 50,000 unlicensed (illegal) ones, or one per 100 men.[3] Twice the density could be found in working class neighborhoods. They served mostly beer; bottles were available, but most drinkers went to the taverns. Probably half of the American men avoided saloons and so the average consumption for actual patrons was about half-a-gallon of beer per day, six days a week. In 1900, the city of Boston, with about 200,000 adult men, counted 227,000 daily saloon customers.[4]

Colonial America to 1800​


Taverns in the colonies closely followed the ordinaries of the mother country. Taverns, along with inns, at first were mostly known as ordinaries, which were constructed throughout most of New England.[5]These institutions were influential in the development of new settlements, serving as gathering spaces for the community. Taverns here though served many purposes such as courtrooms, religious meetings, trading posts, inns, post offices, and convenience stores.[6]The taverns in the North and the South were different in their uses as well unlike the central ideal tavern in England. The ones in the South that are closer to the frontier were used as inns and trading post from those who were headed into the unknown lands to settle.[7] The multiple functions of public houses were especially important in frontier communities in which other institutions were often weak, which was certainly true on the southern colonial frontier.[7] They were supervised by county officials, who recognized the need for taverns and the need to maintain order, to minimize drunkenness and avoid it on Sundays if possible, and to establish the responsibilities of tavern keepers. With those profits came progress, which improved the new homelands with the use of taverns as well as breweries.[8] The original structure of these taverns were log cabins, typically a storey and a half high with two rooms on each floor. The ground floor could be used by the public, and the upper floor had the bedrooms and was somewhat removed from the public.

Earliest hotels​

Larger taverns provided rooms for travelers, especially in county seats that housed the county court. Upscale taverns had a lounge with a huge fireplace, a bar at one side, plenty of benches and chairs, and several dining tables. The best houses had a separate parlor for ladies because the other part was unclean, as well as an affable landlord, good cooking, soft, roomy beds, fires in all rooms in cold weather, and warming pans used on the beds at night. In the backwoods, the taverns were wretched hovels, dirty with vermin for company; even so, they were safer and more pleasant for the stranger than camping by the roadside. Even on main highways such as the Boston Post Road, travelers routinely reported the taverns had bad food, hard beds, scanty blankets, inadequate heat, and poor service. One Sunday in 1789, President George Washington, who was touring Connecticut, discovered that the locals discouraged travel on the Sabbath and so he spent the day at Perkins Tavern, "which by the way is not a good one."[9]

Locals​



Taverns were essential for colonial Americans, especially in the rural South, where colonists learned current crop prices, engaged in trade, and heard newspapers read aloud. For most rural Americans, the tavern was the chief link to the greater world and played a role much like the city marketplace of medieval Europe.

Taverns absorbed leisure hours, and games were provided. Horse races often began and ended at taverns, as did militia-training exercises. Cockfights were common. At upscale taverns, the gentry had private rooms or even organized a club. When politics was in season or the county court was meeting, political talk filled the taverns.

Taverns served multiple functions on the Southern colonial frontier. Society in Rowan County, North Carolina, was divided along lines of ethnicity, gender, race, and class, but in taverns, the boundaries often overlapped, as diverse groups were brought together at nearby tables. Consumerism in the backcountry was limited not by ideology or culture but by distance from markets and poor transportation. The increasing variety of drinks served and the development of clubs indicates that genteel culture spread rapidly from London to the periphery of the English world.[7]

Business​

In the colonial era, in certain areas, up to 40 percent of taverns were operated by women,[10][11]especially widows. Local magistrates, who had to award a license before a tavern could operate, preferred widows who knew the business and might otherwise be impoverished and become a charge to the county.[12]The main reason was that taverns started to become upper-class establishments, which called for more experienced proprietors.[1]Only licensed ordinaries, though, were usually allowed to sell alcohol for consumption with fixed measures for fixed prices.[5] Women and children were not usually welcome as fellow drinkers. In some instances, women and children were welcome in taverns but it was mostly a place reserved for men. If women were found in a tavern, they were typically considered prostitutes. Women would come into taverns to look for their husbands or would come with their fathers or brothers; otherwise, women were not allowed.[13] The drinkers were men, and indeed, they often defined their manliness by how much alcohol they could drink at a time. The public held standards like keeping an orderly house, selling at prices according to the law, and not slandering other tavern keepers to avoid bad reputations.[7]

^^^Raving lunatic screed.
 
Trump has been "using" the Evangelicals and quoting God as a way to get elected. and recently with the attempted assassination attempt he experienced, according to Trump, God is watching out for him and that is the reason why he was not killed. In addition, Megan Kelly tried to confirm that by making the case that Trump was shot at 6:11pm and that is meaningful on a biblical basis............In reading Ephesian 6:11 where it says "Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes." Megan Kelly says that it means that Trump has the "full armor of God" on his side and the Democratic "devils" were the ones trying to kill him.

Nonetheless, this video makes the very good case that the opposite meaning is most likely to be the case, quoting other 6:11's verses in the Bible. See this and have a good laugh



I have 2 questions for you:

1) "Should Trump be using God and Religion to win the presidency"?
2) "Knowing who Trump is and hearing the above video, should the Evangelicals be supporting Trump"?

Not your call.
 
15th post
People would have more money to voluntarily donate to charity if the government didn't take so much of it by threat of violence.

Government has solved very few problems. Usually it makes them worse. And there's nothing so eternal as a temporary government program.
Civil government solves many problems and our feeding and housing of the poor isn't a question of choice, but of obligation.
 
Civil government solves many problems

It creates more than it solves


and our feeding and housing of the poor isn't a question of choice, but of obligation.

YOUR obligation.

Your other obligation is to keep your grubby little paws off of MY work and MY money.

I help who I want. It's not your call.

Right now i'm trying to help my kids get through college. They have first priority. Sorry.
 
Civil government solves many problems and our feeding and housing of the poor isn't a question of choice, but of obligation.

The War on Poverty After 50 Years

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.
Looks like poverty won the war on poverty.

Of course, winning the war was never Johnson's goal.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom