Go Back To Somalia

[TheColonyEagle]

On 7/20/2019 at 12:02 PM, UNTLifer said:

Be careful. He is the intellectual, ethical and principled guidepost of GMG.com, even above the God he doesn’t believe in. That’s my issue with his posts. If you don’t share the same point of view/political standards then you are immediately beneath him. So funny yet so tiresome. 

I just wanted to make sure I didn't jump to a conclusion and make an assumption on what he was saying....I think I know but wanted to be clear.

I think what he's saying really falls under what I've read a lot. "How can a Christian vote for Donald Trump?" This is a very popular sentiment today. The logic being "Christians are supposed to be about morals and Donald Trump is immoral. So therefore: A Christian shouldn't vote for someone that is immoral."

I think the fallacy in this line of thinking comes from a misunderstanding of Christianity and their view on morality. More specifically: where do morals come from and is there such thing as a moral person?

To a Christian, morals come from an objective, unwavering absolute truth: the word of God presented in the Bible. A Christian's world view is shaped by the Bible, not what the Christian thinks. That's an important distinction. Objective world view vs Subjective world view. The tricky part comes when the Christian FAILS to uphold this standard. And here's another absolute truth, 100% of people, including 100% of Christians fail. Whether it's a preacher that has an affair, gets caught stealing money, a politician that "cloaks himself in the Bible" that gets caught in a bribery scandal, a Christian that lies, cheats on his taxes, dodges the draft, gets married 3 times, judges others, is a massive hypocrite...it's a guarantee. When it comes to the biblical standard of morals...of a "good person," the bible says there is no such thing as a good person. 

They don't exist. As for biblical standards of "good" there's not one human being on this planet that is good. 

True Christians know this.

So if the expectation is that a Christian needs to wait on a "good person" to run for office....they'll be waiting until Jesus returns and gets on the ballot (as an independent...I assure you). Because outside of one person in history, there is no such thing as a good and moral person when it comes to Biblical standards. It's the central reason for Jesus Christ ever being on this earth.

So knowing that...the question then becomes to anyone that doesn't have that world view: "What is a good person? What is a moral person? Where do morals come from?"

Without an objective, singular consistent place to go to define morals....the only place left to define morals.....is the individual.

Here's where it becomes tricky. This is where truth becomes subjective and crowd sourced. This is where a Christian might say: "there's no such thing as a moral person" and someone could say "yeah but Donald Trump is a real scoundrel." Ok...so where's the list of things we'll permit from a leader. What is better than others? Once the person hits 10 on the scoundrel list...then they're disqualified? Maybe 8? Who decides the standard? Now person A with one view of what is good has one set of expectations for a leader and person B with another view has a different set. What one person sees as immoral, another person doesn't have a problem with. There's no logic in this scenario.....it's chaotic.

"You do you"

Ok, that's fine and all but who is right? How do you know? I can decide what's moral for me...but then when that disagrees with what someone else thinks is moral for them..there's no standard. 

It's why I always marvel at the "moral superiority" charge. You can't be more "morally superior" than getting your morals from your own view on things vs from a book you didn't write.

So the comment: "How can a Christian vote for Donald Trump?" doesn't make sense to a true Christian. 

Christians aren't afraid of "bad people." Because we're all bad people.

To see things from a Christian world view is to see a BIG PICTURE. 

And no...I didn't think all this up on my own.....it came from a book I didn't write.

[MeanGreenTexan]

8 hours ago, TheColonyEagle said:

I just wanted to make sure I didn't jump to a conclusion and make an assumption on what he was saying....I think I know but wanted to be clear.

I think what he's saying really falls under what I've read a lot. "How can a Christian vote for Donald Trump?" This is a very popular sentiment today. The logic being "Christians are supposed to be about morals and Donald Trump is immoral. So therefore: A Christian shouldn't vote for someone that is immoral."

I think the fallacy in this line of thinking comes from a misunderstanding of Christianity and their view on morality. More specifically: where do morals come from and is there such thing as a moral person?

To a Christian, morals come from an objective, unwavering absolute truth: the word of God presented in the Bible. A Christian's world view is shaped by the Bible, not what the Christian thinks. That's an important distinction. Objective world view vs Subjective world view. The tricky part comes when the Christian FAILS to uphold this standard. And here's another absolute truth, 100% of people, including 100% of Christians fail. Whether it's a preacher that has an affair, gets caught stealing money, a politician that "cloaks himself in the Bible" that gets caught in a bribery scandal, a Christian that lies, cheats on his taxes, dodges the draft, gets married 3 times, judges others, is a massive hypocrite...it's a guarantee. When it comes to the biblical standard of morals...of a "good person," the bible says there is no such thing as a good person. 

They don't exist. As for biblical standards of "good" there's not one human being on this planet that is good. 

True Christians know this.

So if the expectation is that a Christian needs to wait on a "good person" to run for office....they'll be waiting until Jesus returns and gets on the ballot (as an independent...I assure you). Because outside of one person in history, there is no such thing as a good and moral person when it comes to Biblical standards. It's the central reason for Jesus Christ ever being on this earth.

So knowing that...the question then becomes to anyone that doesn't have that world view: "What is a good person? What is a moral person? Where do morals come from?"

Without an objective, singular consistent place to go to define morals....the only place left to define morals.....is the individual.

Here's where it becomes tricky. This is where truth becomes subjective and crowd sourced. This is where a Christian might say: "there's no such thing as a moral person" and someone could say "yeah but Donald Trump is a real scoundrel." Ok...so where's the list of things we'll permit from a leader. What is better than others? Once the person hits 10 on the scoundrel list...then they're disqualified? Maybe 8? Who decides the standard? Now person A with one view of what is good has one set of expectations for a leader and person B with another view has a different set. What one person sees as immoral, another person doesn't have a problem with. There's no logic in this scenario.....it's chaotic.

"You do you"

Ok, that's fine and all but who is right? How do you know? I can decide what's moral for me...but then when that disagrees with what someone else thinks is moral for them..there's no standard. 

It's why I always marvel at the "moral superiority" charge. You can't be more "morally superior" than getting your morals from your own view on things vs from a book you didn't write.

So the comment: "How can a Christian vote for Donald Trump?" doesn't make sense to a true Christian. 

Christians aren't afraid of "bad people." Because we're all bad people.

To see things from a Christian world view is to see a BIG PICTURE. 

And no...I didn't think all this up on my own.....it came from a book I didn't write.

You jumped right in brother!

The great thing (well, one of the many great things) about God’s Word, is the explanations for what we should expect other brothers & sisters to act like.  Of course, this not coming from your own volition: Gal. 5:22-23, right?

As a fellow believer, if we observe Trump’s behaviors, it would appear he is living much more like Gal. 5:20-21, right?  I certainly don’t think we’re going to have a morally-perfect person run for political office... ever. 😂  Trump may or may not be racist, but he’s definitely petty, defensive, combative... and certainly immoral.  Speaking for myself, I could never bring myself to vote for him (or Hillary).

[LongJim]

Some pretty good stuff there. 

I'm kind of out on this thread now as its turned into virtue signaling and obfuscation, but essentially my issue with some of this is the idea that "you need to be as outraged as I am--and demonstrate it, because I say so--or you are one of THEM" attitude a lot of folks seem to have nowadays.  That's a little too Kim Jong-Il for my taste.  Not gonna work for me.

They will also blather on about "teams" and "sides" derisively,  while maintaining that if you don't agree with the depth and direction of their outrage--even if you may agree with them in principle--you are the same as those they are railing about.  In other words, you're not on THEIR team.

Not surprising really.  It's human nature for sure.  

[Censored by Laurie]

21 hours ago, TheColonyEagle said:

I just wanted to make sure I didn't jump to a conclusion and make an assumption on what he was saying....I think I know but wanted to be clear.

I think what he's saying really falls under what I've read a lot. "How can a Christian vote for Donald Trump?" This is a very popular sentiment today. The logic being "Christians are supposed to be about morals and Donald Trump is immoral. So therefore: A Christian shouldn't vote for someone that is immoral."

I think the fallacy in this line of thinking comes from a misunderstanding of Christianity and their view on morality. More specifically: where do morals come from and is there such thing as a moral person?

To a Christian, morals come from an objective, unwavering absolute truth: the word of God presented in the Bible. A Christian's world view is shaped by the Bible, not what the Christian thinks. That's an important distinction. Objective world view vs Subjective world view. The tricky part comes when the Christian FAILS to uphold this standard. And here's another absolute truth, 100% of people, including 100% of Christians fail. Whether it's a preacher that has an affair, gets caught stealing money, a politician that "cloaks himself in the Bible" that gets caught in a bribery scandal, a Christian that lies, cheats on his taxes, dodges the draft, gets married 3 times, judges others, is a massive hypocrite...it's a guarantee. When it comes to the biblical standard of morals...of a "good person," the bible says there is no such thing as a good person. 

They don't exist. As for biblical standards of "good" there's not one human being on this planet that is good. 

True Christians know this.

So if the expectation is that a Christian needs to wait on a "good person" to run for office....they'll be waiting until Jesus returns and gets on the ballot (as an independent...I assure you). Because outside of one person in history, there is no such thing as a good and moral person when it comes to Biblical standards. It's the central reason for Jesus Christ ever being on this earth.

So knowing that...the question then becomes to anyone that doesn't have that world view: "What is a good person? What is a moral person? Where do morals come from?"

Without an objective, singular consistent place to go to define morals....the only place left to define morals.....is the individual.

Here's where it becomes tricky. This is where truth becomes subjective and crowd sourced. This is where a Christian might say: "there's no such thing as a moral person" and someone could say "yeah but Donald Trump is a real scoundrel." Ok...so where's the list of things we'll permit from a leader. What is better than others? Once the person hits 10 on the scoundrel list...then they're disqualified? Maybe 8? Who decides the standard? Now person A with one view of what is good has one set of expectations for a leader and person B with another view has a different set. What one person sees as immoral, another person doesn't have a problem with. There's no logic in this scenario.....it's chaotic.

"You do you"

Ok, that's fine and all but who is right? How do you know? I can decide what's moral for me...but then when that disagrees with what someone else thinks is moral for them..there's no standard. 

It's why I always marvel at the "moral superiority" charge. You can't be more "morally superior" than getting your morals from your own view on things vs from a book you didn't write.

So the comment: "How can a Christian vote for Donald Trump?" doesn't make sense to a true Christian. 

Christians aren't afraid of "bad people." Because we're all bad people.

To see things from a Christian world view is to see a BIG PICTURE. 

And no...I didn't think all this up on my own.....it came from a book I didn't write.

most of this reads as a combination of moral rationalization and back-bending to shape religious conviction into political belief and a near complete and utter abdication of personal responsibility, ethic and values...probably more the latter because apparently a leader could live stream a rape and execution, but a true christian would say, "well I coveted my neighbor's wife the other day, so who am I to judge? I'm a 'bad' person too...that's the big picture here."

but to the bolded part...morality comes from experience and interaction within societies. animals have morality. moral superiority is believing that a book written by men (with some fun deleted chapters from women) about a man and propagated for 2000 years somehow supersedes personal experience and nature. 

[Censored by Laurie]

12 hours ago, LongJim said:

Some pretty good stuff there. 

I'm kind of out on this thread now as its turned into virtue signaling and obfuscation, but essentially my issue with some of this is the idea that "you need to be as outraged as I am--and demonstrate it, because I say so--or you are one of THEM" attitude a lot of folks seem to have nowadays.  That's a little too Kim Jong-Il for my taste.  Not gonna work for me.

They will also blather on about "teams" and "sides" derisively,  while maintaining that if you don't agree with the depth and direction of their outrage--even if you may agree with them in principle--you are the same as those they are railing about.  In other words, you're not on THEIR team.

Not surprising really.  It's human nature for sure.  

ya, I'm totally lobbying for GroupThink as opposed to simply pointing out inconsistencies. 

LongJim: "Read my comments in this thread.  I have not been silent or excused anything.  In fact, just the opposite."
reads: I spoke up about racism and made clear how I find it inexcusable. 

also LongJim: "I find my stress level is better managed when I don't worry about what the head clown writes on his twitter feed.  The public knew what they were getting when they elected him."
reads: meh.

also LongJim: "The public--goaded by the mainstream media--elected a "reality TV" star as President. Let that sink in.®Why anyone is very surprised at what comes out of his mouth is beyond me."
reads: it's idiocracy and people are dumb. tell me when he says something intelligent...then I'll be surprised

I don't exactly find it dictatorial to ask for consistency from your own statements.  

[LongJim]

1 hour ago, Censored by Laurie said:

...

I admire your tenacity.   Keep fighting the good fight.

[TheColonyEagle]

1 hour ago, Censored by Laurie said:

most of this reads as a combination of moral rationalization and back-bending to shape religious conviction into political belief and a near complete and utter abdication of personal responsibility, ethic and values...probably more the latter because apparently a leader could live stream a rape and execution, but a true christian would say, "well I coveted my neighbor's wife the other day, so who am I to judge? I'm a 'bad' person too...that's the big picture here."

but to the bolded part...morality comes from experience and interaction within societies. animals have morality. moral superiority is believing that a book written by men (with some fun deleted chapters from women) about a man and propagated for 2000 years somehow supersedes personal experience and nature. 

So it seems we're setting the bar here of what is acceptable from a moral standpoint. Somewhere below a rude tweet up to a filmed rape? Your stretch there is kind of moot because a rapist wouldn't be a leader because they would be in prison. (I mean....we've never elected a rapist anyway right?) 

So as for morality coming from experience and interaction within societies? Who says? Who is the arbiter of all things moral that says that's the standard? 

If morality comes from experience and interaction....whose experience and interaction within society does it come form? Would you like me to dictate to you a morality based on MY experience and interaction within society? I'm guessing you would have a problem with that. I sure don't want you dictating to me because evidently, if I don't think like you then I'm a bad person? A racist? I support racism? That's the whole point of this view on subjective morality. It delves us into chaos. It's like a quarterback competition...when you have 3 QBs you have no QBs. (Boom! Sports!)

And the snake I saw eating another snake on the internet the other day didn't seem to be very moral or concerned with his fellow snake to me. He just looked hungry.

I'll pose this to you. What is the moral standard you think we should hold our elected officials to? Where is the line? Is there an objective line we can all agree on? Or is it just what you personally think everyone should think? That's an honest question. I'm curious what you think.

I can't figure out if you're just trolling. The title of  your thread is such a hot button issue...part of me thinks you put it here just to stir it up. If you're serious, debates like this are good...I learn from them. But in my experience, most people shut them down.

[Rudy]

Speaking of inconsistencies, calling anyone who does not distance themselves from a president's tweets a racist, yet saying you agree with a congresswoman's antisemitic views. 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Rudy

[ADLER]

At least I know that all people that make generalizations are idiots.

[HoustonEagle]

On 7/21/2019 at 10:11 PM, TheColonyEagle said:

I just wanted to make sure I didn't jump to a conclusion and make an assumption on what he was saying....I think I know but wanted to be clear.

I think what he's saying really falls under what I've read a lot. "How can a Christian vote for Donald Trump?" This is a very popular sentiment today. The logic being "Christians are supposed to be about morals and Donald Trump is immoral. So therefore: A Christian shouldn't vote for someone that is immoral."

I think the fallacy in this line of thinking comes from a misunderstanding of Christianity and their view on morality. More specifically: where do morals come from and is there such thing as a moral person?

To a Christian, morals come from an objective, unwavering absolute truth: the word of God presented in the Bible. A Christian's world view is shaped by the Bible, not what the Christian thinks. That's an important distinction. Objective world view vs Subjective world view. The tricky part comes when the Christian FAILS to uphold this standard. And here's another absolute truth, 100% of people, including 100% of Christians fail. Whether it's a preacher that has an affair, gets caught stealing money, a politician that "cloaks himself in the Bible" that gets caught in a bribery scandal, a Christian that lies, cheats on his taxes, dodges the draft, gets married 3 times, judges others, is a massive hypocrite...it's a guarantee. When it comes to the biblical standard of morals...of a "good person," the bible says there is no such thing as a good person. 

They don't exist. As for biblical standards of "good" there's not one human being on this planet that is good. 

True Christians know this.

So if the expectation is that a Christian needs to wait on a "good person" to run for office....they'll be waiting until Jesus returns and gets on the ballot (as an independent...I assure you). Because outside of one person in history, there is no such thing as a good and moral person when it comes to Biblical standards. It's the central reason for Jesus Christ ever being on this earth.

So knowing that...the question then becomes to anyone that doesn't have that world view: "What is a good person? What is a moral person? Where do morals come from?"

Without an objective, singular consistent place to go to define morals....the only place left to define morals.....is the individual.

Here's where it becomes tricky. This is where truth becomes subjective and crowd sourced. This is where a Christian might say: "there's no such thing as a moral person" and someone could say "yeah but Donald Trump is a real scoundrel." Ok...so where's the list of things we'll permit from a leader. What is better than others? Once the person hits 10 on the scoundrel list...then they're disqualified? Maybe 8? Who decides the standard? Now person A with one view of what is good has one set of expectations for a leader and person B with another view has a different set. What one person sees as immoral, another person doesn't have a problem with. There's no logic in this scenario.....it's chaotic.

"You do you"

Ok, that's fine and all but who is right? How do you know? I can decide what's moral for me...but then when that disagrees with what someone else thinks is moral for them..there's no standard. 

It's why I always marvel at the "moral superiority" charge. You can't be more "morally superior" than getting your morals from your own view on things vs from a book you didn't write.

So the comment: "How can a Christian vote for Donald Trump?" doesn't make sense to a true Christian. 

Christians aren't afraid of "bad people." Because we're all bad people.

To see things from a Christian world view is to see a BIG PICTURE. 

And no...I didn't think all this up on my own.....it came from a book I didn't write.

Christians have supported a long list of atrocities over the centuries.  Always being able to point to verse that justifies their abhorrent beliefs at the time.  The same can be said for almost all religions. While I understand that Christianity has evolved over time I wonder why so many believers are willing to forgive the past yet still believe that the exact same text should provide them a moral compass in the present.

Generally when having a discussion with someone and they turn to religious text to support their argument I just politely move on down the road.  Would they be accepting of me supporting my argument with quotes from the Little Mermaid?  I actually have a deep belief in "God" but I spend no time trying to define this entity and find no direction in passages written by men that, for most subjects, would have the modern day equivalent of a 5th grade education.  

I should not find it surprising that the majority of Christians support Trump but somehow I do.  Which speaks to my own lack of intelligence I suppose.  

 

 

[meangreenacct]

I feel like so much of the point is being missed here. To me, it was clear based on the words he used in that tweet that he was referring to more than just Rep Omar. Telling people who were born here to go back to where they came from, in my opinion (which isn't worth anything to anyone) is racist. He is implying that non-white people are "other" or "foreign" and that to me is unacceptable. Chuck Schumer says things need to change, Nancy Pelosi complains about the state of things, no one tells them to go back to where they came from. The entire Replublican party had a pity party and B*tch fest when Obama was President, they weren't told to go back where they are from. That's the difference. Frankly Trump has spent the last 4-6 years before he was President constantly criticizing America - so who is he to tell people if they don't like it leave. There is nothing more American than using your freedom of speech to say "XYZ sucks, we need to change that". Funny to see people who wrap themselves in the flag and act like they sleep with a constitution under their pillow engaging in this kind of talk.

[THOR]

6 hours ago, ADLER said:

At least I know that all people that make generalizations are idiots.

i don't totally disagree with you, but generalizations are there for a reason, just like stereotypes. more often than not, they fit

[ADLER]

4 hours ago, THOR said:

i don't totally disagree with you, but generalizations are there for a reason, just like stereotypes. more often than not, they fit

Thor, it was a joke. I was making a generalization myself about people that make generalizations.

 

.

Edited July 24, 2019 by ADLER

[Censored by Laurie]

On 7/22/2019 at 10:44 PM, TheColonyEagle said:

So it seems we're setting the bar here of what is acceptable from a moral standpoint. Somewhere below a rude tweet up to a filmed rape? Your stretch there is kind of moot because a rapist wouldn't be a leader because they would be in prison. (I mean....we've never elected a rapist anyway right?) 

So as for morality coming from experience and interaction within societies? Who says? Who is the arbiter of all things moral that says that's the standard? 

1. If morality comes from experience and interaction....whose experience and interaction within society does it come form? Would you like me to dictate to you a morality based on MY experience and interaction within society? I'm guessing you would have a problem with that. I sure don't want you dictating to me because evidently, if I don't think like you then I'm a bad person? A racist? I support racism? That's the whole point of this view on subjective morality. It delves us into chaos. It's like a quarterback competition...when you have 3 QBs you have no QBs. (Boom! Sports!)

And the snake I saw eating another snake on the internet the other day didn't seem to be very moral or concerned with his fellow snake to me. He just looked hungry.

2. I'll pose this to you. What is the moral standard you think we should hold our elected officials to? Where is the line? Is there an objective line we can all agree on? Or is it just what you personally think everyone should think? That's an honest question. I'm curious what you think.

3. I can't figure out if you're just trolling. The title of  your thread is such a hot button issue...part of me thinks you put it here just to stir it up. If you're serious, debates like this are good...I learn from them. But in my experience, most people shut them down.

I've broken my response down to the three points I note in the quote above. 

1. your experience. my experience. but more, thousands of years of human and societal experience. morality (clearly) isn't absolute. there are cultural variations, personal variations. I'll also add, divinity arose from morality, not the other way around.  I understand this is contentious to a religious person, but I suppose the only true way of knowing would be a mass suicide of believers and non-believers and finding out together whats on the other side. 

2. as I mentioned above, morality isn't absolute, so no...there won't be an objective line. murder and rape? pretty well past the line, I'd say universally. blatant racism, especially from a position of power? I find that pretty morally reprehensible, but we've also seen in this country decades of moral (and/or biblical) rationalization for race superiority, so clearly that doesn't meet everyone's bar. 

but...this is actually bogging a bit from my point. my personal morality vs. yours isn't what I initially based this post on...rather it's the shifting/inconsistency in the conservative morality.
I didn't coin "Moral Majority". I didn't push forward the idea that conservatism is also tied to family values, sanctity of marriage, virtuous behavior, prudence, Christian principles et al.
I didn't set the conservative morality bar, conservatives did. so for me it's been interesting/funny/scary and above all hypocritical to see it continue to shift to rationalize the behavior of their elected leader. which leads me to...

3. sure, I definitely wanted to throw rocks at these hornets on here, but I could do that any time...more here I was legitimately curious if blatant racism was actually going to be the thing that re-establishes some semblance of a moral line. it hasn't. 

[Censored by Laurie]

On 7/23/2019 at 4:14 AM, Rudy said:

Speaking of inconsistencies, calling anyone who does not distance themselves from a president's tweets a racist, yet saying you agree with a congresswoman's antisemitic views. 

always glad when you grab the stool and hop up to the counter. 

as I said previously...criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. the language and tropes Omar used did toe and possibly cross the line of anti-Semitism, and she subsequently apologized...but that still doesn't change the fact that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. 

[meangreenacct]

1 minute ago, Censored by Laurie said:

always glad when you grab the stool and hop up to the counter. 

as I said previously...criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. the language and tropes Omar used did toe and possibly cross the line of anti-Semitism, and she subsequently apologized...but that still doesn't change the fact that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. 

Yea - the later point people clearly don't get. Just as criticism of America isn't inherently un-American, but when someone has a D next to their name and does it, stop the presses and listen for our founding fathers rolling over in their grave.

 

On your point number 3 in the reply above...blatant racism can't be the line for people who will never recognize blatant racism (except for say the rare circumstance where some average white kid doesn't get into their preferred college and the cries of affirmative action and reverse racism are deafening).

[MeanGreenTexan]

4 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

...more here I was legitimately curious if blatant racism was actually going to be the thing that re-establishes some semblance of a moral line. it hasn't. 

I think (hope?) there are more people like me than the ones you see on social media & other news outlets shouting "Send her back" and whatnot.  I think most people (like, greater than 95%) believe racism is wrong.  The other 5% can be dismissed as racist a-holes, not representative of the norm.  But that 5% can be made to look like 50% if framed correctly.  I think media has done a fantastic job of that.  From there, you have the argument that "if you don't say anything, you're with them", which I could not disagree with more.  Again, I think most people can agree that racism is wrong, and don't feel the need to grandstand on social media or anywhere else to state something that's so plainly obvious.

So to the bolded above, for the majority of people, I don't believe the racism moral line has moved, outside of the trend towards racism is wrong that has been going on for over a half century now.  It's certainly not doing a U-turn simply because Trump is saying Trump things.  Sadly though, these kinds of unchecked remarks are emboldening that fringe ~5% or so to get louder, which makes it easier to frame.

[FirefightnRick]

On 7/17/2019 at 6:26 PM, HoustonEagle said:

When comparing the treatment of Trump to Obama you are creating a false equivalence.  

At no time during Obama's presidency was he accused in court of raping a 13 year old child.  

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits?irgwc=1&content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C%20Ltd.&ad_group=33330X1169095X6dba162cea1f9939e661fd64b79a1020&keyword=ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate#fullscreen

Trump was. Along with 21 other sexual assault allegations.  

At no time did videos surface of Obama partying with a guy that has been found guilty of raping children. 

Of all the garbage accusations against Trump posted in this thread this one tells me how desperate the left has become.

 

Sorry for being so late to the party

 

Rick

[ColoradoEagle]

On 7/24/2019 at 9:56 AM, MeanGreenTexan said:

I think most people (like, greater than 95%) believe racism is wrong.

Do you, by chance, work for SMU counting attendance?