Trump47 First Week & Beyond Catch-All

[finesse]

"Render unto Caesar"
Or, not a Gospel, but

Romans 13: 1-2
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."

In other words: FOLLOW THE LAW.

Yay ,Paul, the biggest fraud in the ancient world.

Always been hard for me to figure out why Jesus said this

And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

and according to most Bible scholars, there are no words of his in the Bible after Acts and Paul took total precedence.

 

[Ramrouser]

^^^^^This is where the downward spiral begins.^^^^^

Whatever you want to find in the Bible, you can find. Not that you're wrong, by any means, but the argument for enforcing a national border, because it's a law, can be supported by the Bible depending on how you interpret specific verses.

Christians can go back and forth and never come to agreement.

Agree. I didn't want to go down that path. Plus that is my argument about Bodde lecturing to POTUS using her selected Biblical passages.

 

[BlueSteel]

Where are the Democrats? Trump's flanks are exposed on the January 6 pardons!!! Attack, Attack and Attack some more!!!!!

Many of these are violent criminals with prior records no less who can now get their guns and do who knows what. They violently attacked the capital police. Point it out. Point it out.

Why do we let them get away with the "Justice Department was weaponized" argument as the Speaker just used. Point out that to go after violent criminals is their job. Emphasize the word "violent". It will break thru.

And the word "violent" will help inoculate the counter on the Biden pardons. Not easy, but can be done.

Because the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

 

[UNCatTech]

Is this 2015? - because we've been having this same discussion about Trump for 10 years. We get it, he's often crude, rude and counterpunches on Twitter/X. Even a lot of his supporters don't particularly like it but it's part of the package.

So, because it's been a decade it's acceptable?

There are good conservative candidates out there, why didn't the party run one of them?

If it's only about issues one of them should have had equal chance to win.

It's sad that this is what we have as a leader in this country. Not because of policy, those are subjective and neither party has a monopoly on good or bad ideas, but because he 8s a reprehensible piece of shit who only cares about himself and is an international embarrassment to thus country. That and his rhetoric continues to divide the country further.

 

[ZenMode]

So the guy who voted for the felon says follow the law.

I just fucking can't with you

The interesting part is that you can more or less use Biden's argument for pardoning Hunter to categorize Trump's felony convictions. The fundamental basis of what Trump did is generally a misdemeanor offense.

 

[StrangePackage]

The interesting part is that you can more or less use Biden's argument for pardoning Hunter to categorize Trump's felony convictions. The fundamental basis of what Trump did is generally a misdemeanor offense.

Actually the interesting part is where you think anybody here still takes you seriously after your performance the last couple months.

 

[CFordUNC]

Agree. I didn't want to go down that path. Plus that is my argument about Bodde lecturing to POTUS using her selected Biblical passages.

But your entire argument is nonsensical because the "selected Biblical passages" that she used were the ones of Jesus's own words! Jesus, the guy upon whom the entire faith is founded! She wasn't using any ol' Biblical passages. She was using the ones where Jesus Christ Himself preached mercy and compassion for the marginalized and downtrodden.

I am in no position to judge yours or anyone else's Christian faith or lack thereof, but how in the world can you claim to follow Christ if you take issue with a Bishop using Christ's own words?

 

[UNCatTech]

I thought that has been answered long ago.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with POTUS hearing the message and teachings of Christ. That's the purpose of a religious service he was attending. Bodde used selective messages of Christ to support HER political beliefs and to lecture the POTUS at a ceremonial service as part of the Inauguration.

Many don't like it when Evangelical preachers use selective verses of Christ to support THEIR conservative beliefs. In many cases, I don't either.

She could have preached the sermon - with the same teachings - and left our the activist lecture and it would have had greater effect. Why not let the listener connect the dots? Instead, she went all Joy Reid on POTUS.

Which verses support treating people so poorly? I thought all of God's messages were inclusive and lead us to help and respect one another.

Pretty sure Jesus would have been considered a woke activist if he were to appear today. He'd probably be crucified by the maga cult.

 

[lawtig02]

"Render unto Caesar"
Or, not a Gospel, but

Romans 13: 1-2
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."

In other words: FOLLOW THE LAW.

Like Jesus did in Matthew 12? Of course, what he said to the Pharisees there made them decide to kill him, so I can understand why it would rub you the wrong way, too.

 

[UNCatTech]

"Render unto Caesar"
Or, not a Gospel, but

Romans 13: 1-2
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."

In other words: FOLLOW THE LAW.

So, I take it, you never exceed the speed limit?

I'm fairly sure that Jesus didn't want leaders to inact laws that punished people for trying to support their families and provide a better life.

Do you feel the same about business laws that promote fair business practices by not allowing fraud?

 

[Ramrouser]

So, because it's been a decade it's acceptable?

There are good conservative candidates out there, why didn't the party run one of them?

If it's only about issues one of them should have had equal chance to win.

It's sad that this is what we have as a leader in this country. Not because of policy, those are subjective and neither party has a monopoly on good or bad ideas, but because he 8s a reprehensible piece of shit who only cares about himself and is an international embarrassment to thus country. That and his rhetoric continues to divide the country further.

There was a contested Republican primary with numerous conservative candidates running against him. He won. Trump wasn't handed the nomination unlike Kamala.

 

[superrific]

The interesting part is that you can more or less use Biden's argument for pardoning Hunter to categorize Trump's felony convictions. The fundamental basis of what Trump did is generally a misdemeanor offense.

But we all know he committed other felony offenses. The documents case was a slam dunk until he got a judge to carry his water. He committed multiple felonies on J6 and got bailed out by lackeys on the Supreme Court.

The man is a serial felon, without a doubt. His list of crimes is long.

 

[superrific]

"Render unto Caesar"
Or, not a Gospel, but

Romans 13: 1-2
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."

In other words: FOLLOW THE LAW.

Is that what you told your boss Ray, who very much did not follow the law and got indicted for it. And even if he somehow gets off because Fani got horny, it doesn't change what he did. Which was the opposite of following the law.

Also, I don't think you understand what the "render unto Caesar" passage actually means. It certainly does not mean uncritically follow the law. Nor do you understand the significance of "the authorities that exist are appointed by God."

 

[CFordUNC]

"Render unto Caesar" = paying taxes, something which many Republicans seem to take as an unconscionable affront!

 

[superrific]

Plus that is my argument about Bodde lecturing to POTUS using her selected Biblical passages.

Again, can you please explain what is wrong with that? Even if she was misleadingly quoting scripture (she wasn't), in what universe is it a problem for a bishop to speak to the president about her values and exhorting him to do better?

 

[ZenMode]

But we all know he committed other felony offenses. The documents case was a slam dunk until he got a judge to carry his water. He committed multiple felonies on J6 and got bailed out by lackeys on the Supreme Court.

The man is a serial felon, without a doubt. His list of crimes is long.

We know that his actual felony conviction is tenuous, at best.

 

[superrific]

We know that his actual felony conviction is tenuous, at best.

No. You think that, but your opinion doesn't mean much given that you have no idea how the law works.

 

[CFordUNC]

We know that his actual felony conviction is tenuous, at best.

Was he not tried by a jury of his peers, one that was convened by both the prosecution and the defense, one that heard weeks worth of evidence against him, and ultimately decided to unanimously convict?

 

[Ramrouser]

Again, can you please explain what is wrong with that? Even if she was misleadingly quoting scripture (she wasn't), in what universe is it a problem for a bishop to speak to the president about her values and exhorting him to do better?

The Bishop CAN speak to the President about her opinions but others have the right to criticize her. Never said Trump was King and not subject to criticism. I'm expressing my opinion that her sermon was not effective for the point she was trying to get across and not appropriate given the ceremonial setting.

You, and others, disagree. So be it.

 

[CFordUNC]

I'm expressing my opinion that her sermon was not effective for the point she was trying to get across and not appropriate given the ceremonial setting.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm not criticizing your opinion- I'm trying to understand and learn from it. When you say that her sermon was not effective, why do you feel that is the case? As a Christian, how is any sermon that preaches Christ's message of love, unity, compassion, and kindness ineffective? Secondly, why was it not appropriate for a Bishop of a religious institution to give a religious sermon inside of a religious house of worship? If it's not appropriate in that time and setting, where in the world is it appropriate?

My contention is that because you don't like the Bishop's apparent political views since they don't align with your own, you don't like that she implored the President to follow Christ's teachings. I think that is a very hypocritical position to take, especially as someone who claims to be a church-going Christian, but you're absolutely entitled to take it. And the rest of us are entitled to call it out as very Pharisee-esque.