How Christians reconcile supporting the devil

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Already told you...just another U.S. election...they happen like clockwork.    Big deal in Canada, I guess.

We have elections here as well, we just don't allow the Koch Bros. etc. to buy them.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Omni said:

We have elections here as well, we just don't allow the Koch Bros. etc. to buy them.

 

The Koch Bros. and Chinese seem to buy many things Canadian just fine.   

And the world doesn't seem to care as much about Canadian elections...no wonder the U.S. elections get so much more attention.

 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The Koch Bros. and Chinese seem to buy many things Canadian just fine.   

And the world doesn't seem to care as much about Canadian elections...no wonder the U.S. elections get so much more attention.

 

Just to set you straight,the election of a POTUS is not a Canadian thing. Granted electing a buffoon does seem to attract a lot of attention. but perhaps you should reflect a little as to the reason for that attention. I bet the SNL ratings have soared though with Alec Baldwin's portrayal of the hair.

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, Omni said:

We have elections here as well, we just don't allow the Koch Bros. etc. to buy them.

Well, to be fair to the US our politicians are just as monetized a commodity as anywhere else. 

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Well, to be fair to the US our politicians are just as monetized a commodity as anywhere else. 

We have limits on contributions here. Super Pac's have no limits.

[eyeball]

Influence is like rust, it never sleeps and the means of spreading it around are about as ethical and shady as a Wall Street wolf's financial instrument.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Just to set you straight,the election of a POTUS is not a Canadian thing. Granted electing a buffoon does seem to attract a lot of attention. but perhaps you should reflect a little as to the reason for that attention. I bet the SNL ratings have soared though with Alec Baldwin's portrayal of the hair.

 

Then why so much attention for Bush, Obama, and now Trump in Canadian media ?    Is it because they are Christians ?

Why is SNL and other American media so popular in Canada ?

 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Then why so much attention for Bush, Obama, and now Trump in Canadian media ?    Is it because they are Christians ?

Why is SNL and other American media so popular in Canada ?

 

SNL and Alec Baldwin do such a great job of tweaking Trump you can't help but laugh, especially because he's your idiot, not ours. Beyond that and as to media, Canadians tend to be much better at sampling various sources of information before coming to conclusions. I think we even watch a little Fox, although mostly for the entertainment rather than actual factual news. Megyn Kelly delivered the most recent folly with that gong show.

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

SNL and Alec Baldwin do such a great job of tweaking Trump you can't help but laugh, especially because he's your idiot, not ours. Beyond that and as to media, Canadians tend to be much better at sampling various sources of information before coming to conclusions. I think we even watch a little Fox, although mostly for the entertainment rather than actual factual news. Megyn Kelly delivered the most recent folly with that gong show.

 

Right...Canadians "sample" so much American media to forget just how crappy CanCon mandated productions really are.    The state broadcaster (CBC) gets subsidized to broadcast crap.  Canadians want American "content", and are willing to pay for it.    Top 30 television programs in English Canada are mostly American (Numeris).

Even the christian broadcasting is better in the USA.   Canadian christians/evangelicals know they can get better programming from the USA, even if it means decades old re-runs like "The Big Valley".

Edited December 2, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Right...Canadians "sample" so much American media to forget just how crappy CanCon mandated productions really are.    State broadcaster get's subsidized to broadcast crap.  Canadians want American "content", and are willing to pay for it.    Top 30 television programs in English Canada are mostly American (Numeris).

Even the christian broadcasting is better in the USA.   Canadian christians/evangelicals know they can get better programming from the USA, even if it means decades old re-runs like "The Big Valley".

Maybe try this little experiment: grab your channel flicker one day at news time and swith back and forth between Fox and CBC. (anyone as interested in all things Canada will know exactly how to find it) and see who delivers the more balanced approach. That's assuming you can actually define any of the dialogue from Fox since it seems most of the time all they do is all talk at the same time so you can't really hear anything. Try that and get back to us.  

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Omni said:

Maybe try this little experiment: grab your channel flicker one day at news time and swith back and forth between Fox and CBC.

 

I don't think you understand....I can't watch Canada's state broadcaster (CBC) even if I wanted to....on any cable tier.   American consumers do not clamour for the CBC on cable.....far more Canadians watch Fox and Fox News in Canada.   Sports networks...yes (hockey ?)...but not much else because CTV and Global just regurgitate what I already have in my own country.   Most popular program in English Canada is American of course (Big Bang Theory).

Canada has nothing to rival American choices for news/sports/finance/premium cable channels or streaming media networks.  

Getting back to Christians, they have to seek out dedicated American media for their Canadian values.

 

 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I don't think you understand....I can't watch Canada's state broadcaster (CBC) even if I wanted to....on any cable tier.   American consumers do not clamour for the CBC on cable.....far more Canadians watch Fox and Fox News in Canada.   Sports networks...yes (hockey ?)...but not much else because CTV and Global just regurgitate what I already have in my own country.   Most popular program in English Canada is American of course (Big Bang Theory).

Canada has nothing to rival American choices for news/sports/finance/premium cable channels or streaming media networks.  

Getting back to Christians, they have to seek out dedicated American media for their Canadian values.

 

 

Moldavia probably has something that would rival Fox news. Obviously you are not going to take up the challenge I have presented. It's a small world Americans choose to live in it seems. I guess that's why their travellers sew Canadian flags on their backpacks.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

Moldavia probably has something that would rival Fox news. Obviously you are not going to take up the challenge I have presented. It's a small world Americans choose to live in it seems. I guess that's why their travellers sew Canadian flags on their backpacks.

 

Way off topic for sure....sorry but Canada lost the media war decades ago.   FOX News does just fine in Canada....Canadians voluntarily pay for it...not forced to pay taxes for FOX as is the case for the crappy CBC.

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Omni]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Way off topic for sure....sorry but Canada lost the media war decades ago.   FOX News does just fine in Canada....Canadians voluntarily pay for it...not forced to pay taxes for FOX as is the case for the crappy CBC.

 

You're right, way off topic. But you can't get much crappier than Fox/Faux I'm pretty sure. Poor Megyn Kelly.

[Rue]

The Devil as defined in Islam and Christianity is very similiar. Its considered an entity, an independent decision making entity that rivals and questions "God" and whose role is to seduce and bring people over under its control by tricking them into exercising their free choice to reject God.

I come from a school of thought similiar to Hindus, Bhuddists, Gnostic Christians, Kabbalah Jews, Taoists, where we define evil as not an actual living entity but the negative energy within us that clashes with the positive energy within us.

We see this negative energy as a necessity. Without it and its constant battle or tension with positive we would have no fuel so to speak for our energy or soul our spirit whatever you want to call it to continue on its path, always changing in shape and meaning as it encounters new challenges and comes up with new purposes or lessons learned from those challenges.

We see for example Adam and Eve as codes for the negative and positive forces in all cells in all life. We don't think science and religion are completely dettached.

We believe for example the theory of light is a way of proving the existence of "God" or what we would say is a never ending movement of energy transmuting in shape as it moves along many paths.

So when I hear conventional discussions of evil like many others such as myself, we necessarily believe as the gnostic Christians believe Jesus may have said no different than many other healers and theorists of life, that the battle between good and evil rages within us, and when we do good without expecting anything in return we heal the world and pass on positive ripple effects that effect many and vice versa when we do bad, we pass on a negative ripple effect that can hurt and harm many. We can't necessarily see the total outcome of our good and bad because where we find ourselves is in an illusion, a thing we call a moment of time-time is something we invented in this physical material world to help us explain what would otherwise be chaotic movement and chaos. It gives order and sequential sense to the movement of things all around us.

Evil to me is a relative world. Evil and good are connected and one without the other does not exist-its from the two clashing and balancing one another we can learn about both by examining the contrast between the two. Without contrast, if we only had positive and not negative or vice versa, we would not understand it. Its the contrasting of the opposites that helps us learn what both are.

I believe negative energy like positive energy can get trapped and coagulate or build up but like water held back by a dam, eventually it will break through and head to where it was going to naturally flow.

Taoists for example explain that flow of water and say mankind has never learned they can not hold the movement of life like water still, eventually it goes back to whence it came and/or goes where its destiny calls.

So yah I look at Trump and I see a man full of flaws who has embraced certain hedonistic or materialist values to get where he is. He lives in a here and now world where he believes power comes in the moment from controlling others and imposing upon them his beliefs or values or desires There are millions of Donald Trumps.

They embrace their ability to acquire and control material goods and use that to get others to do their bidding as signs of power and wealth

We all have Trump in us. All of us have wanted things in the moment and grabbed at them and resisted sharing them with others.

We live in a world where we are taught to grab and not share certain things because we have been conditioned to believing sharing would be weakness.

Trump is an Alpha chimp in particular pack of monkees called Americans. Putin is another. I have no idea how the hell Justin Trudeau became an alpha chimp but he did.

The world of homo sapiens is just packs of apes or monkees and each pack or country or nationality or whatever label you want to give the pack has its alpha monkey.

Corporations are tribes of monkeys and they call their alpha ape the CEO.

The Catholic church monkees call their Alpha ape the Pope and so on.

Is Trump evil. Sure. He's an ape. We all are. We all have primal instincts that make us part evil. If we don't repress them we can be consumed in evil. Primal drive for incest, cannibalism, killing, etc., they all must be repressed. So we create religions to preach rules on how to repress our primal dark urges to rape and pillage, etc.

Trump like us all has two identities battling each other out.

The entire world has two personalities struggling within to determine the outcome of destiny.

 

[dre]

On 12/2/2016 at 1:37 PM, Omni said:

We have limits on contributions here. Super Pac's have no limits.

Yeah but contributions are only a small part of influence peddling.

For example take a look at Bruce Carson... he traded influence to help a company get lucrative contracts in return for the companies promise that 20% of the profit would go to his fiance.

There were over 12000 meetings between lobbyists and government officials last year. And those were just the registered ones, there were probably many many more. And we don't know what was said at a single one of those meetings. The best way to get someone to do something is to offer them some kind of reward or quid pro quo, and there's a million ways to do that. My guess is that somewhere around half of them find a way to make an extra little on the side.

[Omni]

1 hour ago, dre said:

Yeah but contributions are only a small part of influence peddling.

For example take a look at Bruce Carson... he traded influence to help a company get lucrative contracts in return for the companies promise that 20% of the profit would go to his fiance.

There were over 12000 meetings between lobbyists and government officials last year. And those were just the registered ones, there were probably many many more. And we don't know what was said at a single one of those meetings. The best way to get someone to do something is to offer them some kind of reward or quid pro quo, and there's a million ways to do that. My guess is that somewhere around half of them find a way to make an extra little on the side.

Yes it seems that the control of what leaders do gets farther out of voters hands with each election cycle. I have tried to ween myself off the ongoing nonsense until at least Jan. 21 to see what kind of gong show ensues.   

[blackbird]

On 2016-10-16 at 7:21 AM, Argus said:

Donald Trump is about as far from being a Christian, about as far from a man who upholds Christian values and virtues as it's possible to find in a western country. I could easily make the case that Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy, was a far better representative of Christian virtues, through his long years of dedicated support for the downtrodden, his campaigning for womens rights and the rights of minorities and those improperly convicted in jails. 

Purely on his own self-admission, and on his own representation, without taking into account what others say, Trump is a hedonist of the first order, a selfish, wretched, covetous adulterer and sinner who has never shown any interest in helping others, but only in satisfying his own lust and narcissistic desire for fame and adulation. By all accounts, and by simple observation, a cruel and intolerant man with a mean streak a mile wide, it seems impossible that anyone who actually believes in Christian ideals would be anything but repulsed by Donald Trump. Yet any number of prominent political Christian leaders have endorsed him.

This despite the fairly obvious fact he has spent as little time in church as possible, has never read the bible, nor understands it (nor cares about it), and has, up until his run for president, taken positions entirely at odds with the social values Christians believe in, including a long history of supporting abortion.

Principled Christians, of course, do not support Trump. Christianity Today, the magazine founded by Billy Graham, in an editorial last week said “Enthusiasm for a candidate like Trump gives our neighbors ample reason to doubt that we believe Jesus is Lord. They see that some of us are so self-interested, and so self-protective, that we will ally ourselves with someone who violates all that is sacred to us.”

The editorial criticized the Republican nominee in biblical terms. Quoting a list of sins that St. Paul condemns — “sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry” — Crouch wrote, “this is an incredibly apt summary of Trump’s life to date.”

The fact so many self-described Christians continue to endorse Trump seems, to me, to lay bare their hypocrisy, and to raise the question of what kind of commitment their religion has when it can be ignored for perceived political gain.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/10/11/christianity-today-blasts-trump-questions-support-for-someone-who-violates-all-that-is-sacred-to-us/

Answer is quite simple.   There were only two candidates to choose from.   In the minds of many christians Hillary Clinton was not a good option.  She supports policies that are basically anti christian.  Trump may not be a perfect candidate but he did make promises that resonate with many christian beliefs far more than the Democrats.  One example is Hillary is a strong supporter of abortion which has killed something like eight million unborn babies in the last number of years.  Trump said he is pro life and opposes abortion.  He promised to appoint a pro life judge to the supreme court and that is what he is doing.  The general anti christian stance of the Obama administration has turned many to the only other choice there is, that is, Trump in hopes that America's christian values will receive more respect.  If you're not a christian and don't believe in these values, then you will more than likely prefer Hillary or some other democrat.  Christians do not see Trump is the "devil".  That is far fetched hate speech.

[blackbird]

Perhaps calling Trump the devil is hate speech or more likely just a complete mis-characterization of the man.  Trump has his accusers but he denied all the allegations and said he had mis-spoke.  Whether he groped some women 10 or 20 years ago I don't know.  Some of his accusers were associated with the democratic party.  The point is his alleged behavior has no bearing on his electoral promises.  His personal behavior, whatever it was, do not define the policies he has talked about and which are the things which will have a major impact on America and as many believe, make America safe.  Things such as protecting America from Islamic terrorists, deporting illegal aliens who are criminals or suspected criminals, building the wall, changing Obamacare, reducing taxes, strengthening the military, bringing jobs and companies back to America and stopping the draining of companies and jobs to Mexico and China.  These promises appealed to a wide swath of Americans who distrusted Clinton and believed she would do nothing and just continue more of the same.  That's basically why people who supported him were not going to be convinced to vote based on allegations against his personal life.  They wanted someone who promised to go in and shake up the establishment and make some major changes.

Edited March 27, 2017 by blackbird

[segnosaur]

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

Perhaps calling Trump the devil is hate speech...

It may be hyperbole. I don't think it rises to the level of "hate speech", since I doubt anyone thinks Trump is literally Satan.  (If he were, I'd actually have more respect for him, since Satan does something useful... he punishes wrongdoers.)

...or more likely just a complete mis-characterization of the man.

Errr... not really. We have more than enough evidence to suggest that he is a racist, bigot, and sexist. That he regularly lies more frequently than his political opponents.

 

Trump has his accusers but he denied all the allegations and said he had mis-spoke.  Whether he groped some women 10 or 20 years ago I don't know.  Some of his accusers were associated with the democratic party.

And some were not. And even if you ignore the groping, you have his multiple divorces, his infidelities, and things like walking into the dressing rooms at beauty pagents.

The point is his alleged behavior has no bearing on his electoral promises.  His personal behavior, whatever it was, do not define the policies he has talked about...

It is true that policies should be considered more important than personal behavior. There are 2 issues here though:

- Personal behavior may serve as a guideline about how well a person will follow through with his policies. Are they claiming they're for "family values" but have multiple divorces? Then they are hypocritical and you will need to judge their policies appropriately.

- If someone is judging policy over personality, then they actually need policies to judge. Most of what Trump said was incredibly vague... he was going to "Fix health care" but gave no plans on how to do it. He was going to "defeat ISIS" but said he was going to keep his plans hidden. In the absence of policies, all you have to go on is personality and past actions.

That's basically why people who supported him were not going to be convinced to vote based on allegations against his personal life.  They wanted someone who promised to go in and shake up the establishment and make some major changes.

I think this comic says it all:

 

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

It may be hyperbole. I don't think it rises to the level of "hate speech", since I doubt anyone thinks Trump is literally Satan.  (If he were, I'd actually have more respect for him, since Satan does something useful... he punishes wrongdoers.)

 

 

Errr... not really. We have more than enough evidence to suggest that he is a racist, bigot, and sexist. That he regularly lies more frequently than his political opponents.

 

 

And some were not. And even if you ignore the groping, you have his multiple divorces, his infidelities, and things like walking into the dressing rooms at beauty pagents.

 

 

It is true that policies should be considered more important than personal behavior. There are 2 issues here though:

- Personal behavior may serve as a guideline about how well a person will follow through with his policies. Are they claiming they're for "family values" but have multiple divorces? Then they are hypocritical and you will need to judge their policies appropriately.

- If someone is judging policy over personality, then they actually need policies to judge. Most of what Trump said was incredibly vague... he was going to "Fix health care" but gave no plans on how to do it. He was going to "defeat ISIS" but said he was going to keep his plans hidden. In the absence of policies, all you have to go on is personality and past actions.

 

 

I think this comic says it all:

 

Judging Trump by his personal behavior has nothing to do with his policies and how he will govern.   Lots of people have divorces and often there are good reasons for it.  Women (or men) who are abused should get divorced.  Abuse of all kinds is prevalent in the world; many people should get out.  Staying in marriage when there is abuse is contributing to the abuse.  It is pharisaical to judge divorced people.  You do not know them or their circumstances.

Supporting Hillary and the democrats which endorse and defend abortion (8 million abortions in a short number of years) and being judgmental about Trump's personal life is very Pharisaical and hypocritical.  Hillary also attacked the women whom Bill Clinton assaulted.

[bush_cheney2004]

35 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Judging Trump by his personal behavior has nothing to do with his policies and how he will govern.....

Supporting Hillary and the democrats which endorse and defend abortion (8 million abortions in a short number of years) and being judgmental about Trump's personal life is very Pharisaical and hypocritical.  Hillary also attacked the women whom Bill Clinton assaulted.

 

Spot on post....Governor Bill Clinton's personal behavior and conduct involved assaulting several women as a repeating character trait, but his partisan defenders looked past all of that.   He remained the darling U.S. president in Canada as well, despite these demonstrable shortcomings (lawsuits settled out of court).

 

[segnosaur]

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Judging Trump by his personal behavior has nothing to do with his policies and how he will govern. 

I've already dealt with that in my previous post, when I pointed out that 1) he HAD no policies (or at least very few that were concrete, instead relying on vague promises), and 2) personal behavior may be an indication about how reliable the person will be in carrying out his policies.

Lots of people have divorces and often there are good reasons for it. Women (or men) who are abused should get divorced.

Yes there can be good reasons for divorce. There are problems here however:

- There is no evidence that abuse was an issue (at least against trump.. if trump was an abuser himself then that hardly means his divorce makes him "moral")

- Many hardcore religious types are against all divorce, and even ones that think divorce is acceptable in some situations probably wouldn't think those situations were met in Trump's case.

- Trump was unfaithful in at least one of his marriages

All indications are that Trump simply wanted to "trade up" to a new model of wife.

Supporting Hillary and the democrats which endorse and defend abortion (8 million abortions in a short number of years) and being judgmental about Trump's personal life is very Pharisaical and hypocritical.

Yes, Hillary and the democrats were pro-choice. Supposedly Trump was anti-abortion.  For some far-right religious people, that may be enough to justify voting for Trump, regardless of all of Trump's other immoralities.  However:

- Trump has not always been anti-abortion, and at various points he has been pro-choice http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/11/carly-fiorina/fiorina-trumps-abortion-flip-flop/

- Trump's plans may actually increase the number of abortions in some cases. Granted, this may not matter to your regular hard-right religious voter, who probably isn't too smart to begin with. https://www.thenation.com/article/trumps-anti-abortion-order-is-actually-likely-to-increase-abortions/

- Even if someone on the religious right abortion is a key issue, Trump supporters still voted for a bigoted (see: Trump's statements on black people) con-man (see: Trump University) who is far less moral than Clinton. I doubt that if Jebus existed, he'd support calling black people lazy or conning innocent people out of money.  In theory those on the religious right should be criticizing Trump over these issues, saying "we are voting for him over the abortion issue even though we disagree with everything else". But they're not doing so... instead, they are spending their time talking about how god is working for Trump, or similar idiocy.

[blackbird]

45 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

I've already dealt with that in my previous post, when I pointed out that 1) he HAD no policies (or at least very few that were concrete, instead relying on vague promises), and 2) personal behavior may be an indication about how reliable the person will be in carrying out his policies.

 

 

Yes there can be good reasons for divorce. There are problems here however:

- There is no evidence that abuse was an issue (at least against trump.. if trump was an abuser himself then that hardly means his divorce makes him "moral")

- Many hardcore religious types are against all divorce, and even ones that think divorce is acceptable in some situations probably wouldn't think those situations were met in Trump's case.

- Trump was unfaithful in at least one of his marriages

All indications are that Trump simply wanted to "trade up" to a new model of wife.

 

 

Yes, Hillary and the democrats were pro-choice. Supposedly Trump was anti-abortion.  For some far-right religious people, that may be enough to justify voting for Trump, regardless of all of Trump's other immoralities.  However:

- Trump has not always been anti-abortion, and at various points he has been pro-choice http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/11/carly-fiorina/fiorina-trumps-abortion-flip-flop/

- Trump's plans may actually increase the number of abortions in some cases. Granted, this may not matter to your regular hard-right religious voter, who probably isn't too smart to begin with. https://www.thenation.com/article/trumps-anti-abortion-order-is-actually-likely-to-increase-abortions/

- Even if someone on the religious right abortion is a key issue, Trump supporters still voted for a bigoted (see: Trump's statements on black people) con-man (see: Trump University) who is far less moral than Clinton. I doubt that if Jebus existed, he'd support calling black people lazy or conning innocent people out of money.  In theory those on the religious right should be criticizing Trump over these issues, saying "we are voting for him over the abortion issue even though we disagree with everything else". But they're not doing so... instead, they are spending their time talking about how god is working for Trump, or similar idiocy.

What difference does it make if Trump was once not opposed to abortion if he is opposed to it now.  He said in the campaign he is opposed to abortion.  That what matters on that issue.  People change and he evidently did.  Didn't he cut funding to a big abortion organization?  He appointed a judge who might be pro life.  I didn't say I agree with every single thing he said.  Nobody is perfect.   I much prefer him to Clinton who I don't trust.  The thing is the main platform of Trump I strongly agree with.  I think I already listed them earlier.  That is what matters, not some comment he made or didn't make or something in his personal life.  The big things are the policies that will actually make a difference and make America a better and safer place.  The spillover effect of some of his policies could benefit Canada as well.  Maybe he will be able to deport a lot of criminals.  Maybe he will be able to make an impact on the flow of illegal drugs and criminals from Mexico.  Clinton was not willing to do anything.  Useless.

Yes there are hard core christians who are opposed to any divorce.  It is pharisaical.  People like to put other people down to try to make themselves look good.   They should read Luke 17 or 18 about the pharisee and the publican.  All are sinners.  Trump is probably no bigger a sinner than most people.  Some people's sins are in secret; others are open for all to see.  Again it has nothing to do with policies and governing for the most part.

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by blackbird

[segnosaur]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What difference does it make if Trump was once not opposed to abortion if he is opposed to it now. 

 

If a person is changing their stance so often in a short period of time (from pro choice to anti-abortion to sometimes pro-choice but not really) then it suggests that their attachment to a policy may not be as strong as you might think.

Didn't he cut funding to a big abortion organization?

Go read the link I provided. It talks about Trump signing an order ending funding for any family planning organization that even TALKS about abortion to women in the 3rd world. The problem is, without access to birth control, women often end up with unwanted pregnancies and end up having an abortion when simple access to birth control might have prevented that.

This is typical of the religious right... engage in a knee-jerk reaction (ban funding abortions!) without realizing that the real world is much more complex than that. Provide a complete range of family planning (including birth control and abortion), and ultimately the number of abortions go down as women gain more control over their reproductive life.

 

He appointed a judge who might be pro life.

He probably is. Of course, the democrats may fillibuster so who knows whether he'll actually make it.

I much prefer him to Clinton who I don't trust.

You see, this is why Trump supporters are often held in such low regard.

Trump has lied more often than Clinton. If you look at Politifact, you'll see them at almost polar opposites; most of Trump's statements are rated as false/pants on fire, where as more of Clinton's statements are rated as true/mostly true. (And lies make baby Jebus cry.) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

And yes, there are some issues with the Clinton foundation, but they pale in comparison to the Trump foundation. Whatever "scandal" you can find that Clinton was involved with, if you poke around you can find Trump was involved in problems that were far worse.

Yet here you are, saying that you "don't trust Clinton".

Fine if you think abortion is wrong. Just remember that you are voting for someone who plans to enact racist policies. I guess saving babies are good until they grow up to be minorities, in which case you can start to abuse them. Is that what you really think Jebus would want?

The big things are the policies that will actually make a difference and make America a better and safer place.

And once again... you are falsely assuming that Trump actually had policies that will make America better/safer. As I pointed out, most of his election promises were completely vague (He'll bring in a great health care plan but has no idea how to do so), contradictory, or even counterproductive. (Did you know that his muslim ban will actually kill more americans than it saves? http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-ban-medical-20170201-story.html

The spillover effect of some of his policies could benefit Canada as well.

Or more likely it will drag us down too,..

- His economic deregulations may sound good in the short run, but he could be setting us up for another 2008-style economic meltdown that could affect the entire global economy. Likewise, his economic protectionism is something seen by most businessmen/economists as a huge mistake.

- His environmental policies (in particular those involving global warming) will affect the entire globe

Maybe he will be able to make an impact on the flow of illegal drugs and criminals from Mexico.  Clinton was not willing to do anything.  Useless.

Fact: People in the U.S. illegally actually engage in less crime on a per-capita basis than natural born Americans.

Fact: Clinton did have policies to tackle drug addiction, which makes more sense as a way to stop the illegal drug trade over anything Trump suggested.

Trump's suggestion of building a wall is stupid both economically and environmentally, and building a wall will mean the government will have to seize the property of hundreds of Americans. Does that sound like something Jebus would approve of?

Yes there are hard core christians who are opposed to any divorce.  It is pharisaical.  People like to put other people down to try to make themselves look good.   They should read Luke 17 or 18 about the pharisee and the publican.  All are sinners.  Trump is probably no bigger a sinner than most people.

Not sure about you, but I've never engaged in fraud (see: Trump University), or bribery (see: Pam Bondi). I certainly can't say that I'm not a sinner... but I think its pretty clear that Trump is a bigger sinner than I am, and probably a bigger sinner than the vast majority. (He is certainly a bigger sinner than Clinton.)

Some people's sins are in secret; others are open for all to see.

I'm pretty sure if someone's sins involve multi-million dollar fraud, and/or huge bribes to political figures, your sins are going to be pretty visible regardless of who you are.