Trump47 First Week & Beyond Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 34K
  • Politics 
Ramrouser said:
"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.
Click to expand...
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."
 
"Render unto Caesar" = paying taxes, something which many Republicans seem to take as an unconscionable affront!
 
Ramrouser said:
Plus that is my argument about Bodde lecturing to POTUS using her selected Biblical passages.
Click to expand...
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?
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...

We know that his actual felony conviction is tenuous, at best.
 
ZenMode said:
We know that his actual felony conviction is tenuous, at best.
Click to expand...
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?
 
superrific said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ramrouser said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CFordUNC said:
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?
Click to expand...
Why don't we wait until the appellate process is completed before we issue a definitive opinion on his ultimate guilt. Trump's obviously been convicted of felonies by the trial court. We'll see if there were errors of law by the trial judge.
 
Ramrouser said:
Why don't we wait until the appellate process is completed before we issue a definitive opinion on his ultimate guilt. Trump's obviously been convicted of felonies by the trial court. We'll see if there were errors of law by the trial judge.
Click to expand...
That's totally fair and fine. We have our system of justice for a reason. I completely agree that if there were errors of law by the trial judge, the conviction should be nullified. All I'm saying is that as it currently stands this very moment, the POTUS is a felon who was convicted by a jury of his peers that was selected by his prosecution and his defense team equally, and then made their verdict after hearing weeks of evidence. If that changes at the appellate level, he is, of course, no longer convicted felon Donald Trump, 47th POTUS.
 
Ramrouser said:
The Bishop CAN speak to the President about her opinions but others have the right to criticize her. 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.
Click to expand...
You've said a lot more than that on this thread, but whatever. It's still not right for the president to lash out at her as he did. Of all our presidents, only Trump would do that. In related news, Trump is by far the worst president in the country's history and it's not close.

The only reason you think the sermon to be ineffective is that you know, like everyone else, that Trump won't listen and doesn't care. That's not a Budde problem. That's a Trump deficiency.
 
CFordUNC said:
That's totally fair and fine. We have our system of justice for a reason. I completely agree that if there were errors of law by the trial judge, the conviction should be nullified. All I'm saying is that as it currently stands this very moment, the POTUS is a felon who was convicted by a jury of his peers that was selected by his prosecution and his defense team equally, and then made their verdict after hearing weeks of evidence. If that changes at the appellate level, he is, of course, no longer convicted felon Donald Trump, 47th POTUS.
Click to expand...
But he is still a felon. That his appointed judges ran interference for him to prevent a trial doesn't change the reality of what happened.

In Florida, they never even made a serious argument that he didn't do it. They knew he did. That's why they spent so much time on procedural bullshit.
 
Ramrouser said:
Why don't we wait until the appellate process is completed before we issue a definitive opinion on his ultimate guilt. Trump's obviously been convicted of felonies by the trial court. We'll see if there were errors of law by the trial judge.
Click to expand...
But that deprives them of their right to refer to him as a convicted felon. They sold their souls to try to prevent him from being president again. Being able to call him a convicted felon is all they have left. To be completely honest, if I had invested all the emotion they had and still lost, I would be calling him a convicted felon too. I don't want to be hypocritical about that. I know it will be overturned on appeal, but until then I admit he is a convicted felon.
 
CFordUNC said:
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?
Click to expand...
It's my opinion that the Bishop would have been more effective (from her perspective) to preach the message of Christ (love, compassion, empathy, etc.) without the lecture. Let him hear the message and let him connect the dots and perhaps, change his mind. No one (certainly not Trump) responds well to being lectured to and told what to do and what not do. Why not be a bit more subtle and less MSNBC.

As I have said, it was a religious service in the National Cathedral as part of the official Inauguration ceremony. I'm expressing an opinion that a lecture to POTUS in that setting is not appropriate for a Bishop presiding over an official setting.

She chose to lecture and nag POTUS and be a liberal hero for a day. That's her right I get it. Trump and his party, for their part, sat there and were respectful.
 
It seems the reason Ramrouser finds the sermon inappropriate and a lecture is because the good Bishop was defending the gay/LGBTQ community.
That’s where it crossed the line for Ram and Calla and their ilk.
 
Callatoroy said:
But that deprives them of their right to refer to him as a convicted felon. They sold their souls to try to prevent him from being president again. Being able to call him a convicted felon is all they have left. To be completely honest, if I had invested all the emotion they had and still lost, I would be calling him a convicted felon too. I don't want to be hypocritical about that. I know it will be overturned on appeal, but until then I admit he is a convicted felon.
Click to expand...
Brother, it's far from all "they" have left. For starters, the moment he was sworn in on Monday, with every passing second, his second and final (lame-duck) is term is ever closer and closer to its conclusion. If absolutely nothing else, "they" can simply work to run out the clock to the best of "their" ability. Secondly, there are a whole heck of a lot of EO's that have already been issued and still more coming down the pike that are going to prove to be quite reductive in the quality of lives of a whole heck of a lot of Americans, many of whom voted for him. This week is as popular as he'll ever be.
 
Ramrouser said:
It's my opinion that the Bishop would have been more effective (from her perspective) to preach the message of Christ (love, compassion, empathy, etc.) without the lecture. Let him hear the message and let him connect the dots and perhaps, change his mind. No one (certainly not Trump) responds well to being lectured to and told what to do and what not do. Why not be a bit more subtle and less MSNBC.

As I have said, it was a religious service in the National Cathedral as part of the official Inauguration ceremony. I'm expressing an opinion that a lecture to POTUS in that setting is not appropriate for a Bishop presiding over an official setting.

She chose to lecture and nag POTUS and be a liberal hero for a day. That's her right I get it. Trump and his party, for their part, sat there and were respectful.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Well, I won't keep pestering you about this and I appreciate your willingness to engage. I will just say that I think that if you are a Christian as you claim to be, you should be a lot more introspective as to why you consider being spoken to about the words of Christ to be "lecturing", "nagging", or political posturing so as to be a "liberal hero." I've read the transcript of her entire speech. The sermon was simply a call for compassion, in my view, not a decree on how to legislate. She asked for the President to remember the words of Christ and to have mercy and compassion on all of the people- especially LGBTQ and immigrants- who are currently afraid for their safety. If you find that to be harmful, lecturing, nagging, inappropriate, politically-motivated, etc. I would sincerely implore you to take a look inward and figure out why your political allegiances are overshadowing your supposed spiritual ones. I don't mean that as a lecture or admonishment of my own, and I say it fully cognizant of my own need to do the exact same many times over.
 
GreyBeard said:
It seems the reason Ramrouser finds the sermon inappropriate and a lecture is because the good Bishop was defending the gay/LGBTQ community.
That’s where it crossed the line for Ram and Calla and their ilk.
Click to expand...
Don't know what you're talking about. I've never expressed any anti gay opinions at any point in my discussions on this Board. I'm pro gay marriage and have a libertarian viewpoint on the vast majority of LGBTQ issues.
 
superrific said:
Literally last week, you were arguing that the government was censoring free speech when it asked a social media company to remove COVID disinformation.

Now your standard for free speech is "did you get arrested or sent for re-education the next day"? Even in Cultural Revolution China, the consequences weren't always next-day. Government retribution is not delivered by FedEx. How is it possible that you don't know this? But hey -- you didn't know anything about jurisdiction, and then you looked it up when called out and maybe you learned something. It can happen.
Click to expand...
to be fair, i think that was zen, not rouser. but your overall point still stands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top