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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CFord is back!
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.
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.
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.
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.
to be fair, i think that was zen, not rouser. but your overall point still stands.
no. i don't think so.
A plea for mercy is a lecture? Interesting.
Sincere question, then: any particular reason why you continue to grace us all with your presence on a message board that...primarily discusses politics with a heavy dose of religion? If you're so enlightened as to be above it all, what's your purpose for being here?
It can be both. And as stated, if your sincere goal is mercy, better to save the lecture for another time. Maybe her goal was to disguise the lecture in a plea for mercy. If so, it appears as if she succeeded.
Sounds more to me like a bunch of hit dogs hollering.
I've asked another Christian poster this and now I'll ask you, too. How do you consider Jesus's own words to be "lecturing" in a negative connotation? As a person of Christian faith myself, that seems so antithetical to what I would believe that other Christians should/would feel. I'm not criticizing you- just trying to sincerely understand.
Since this is a #HypocrisyFreeZone, and our right wing posters are never hypocritical in any way, I am certain that Franklin Graham delivering that same exact sermon would have caused equal consternation on the right! I just know it!