I’m not giving him a pass but i’ll give him a lot of slack because I want conservative judges and restrictions on abortions and Capitalism. So it’s either Trump or if the Dems win then the next President may be chosen by the “Central Committee” rather then by free elections. Think i’m exaggerating ? I’m not.
No, while I have no problem being described as “devoted” to some things (e.g. a “devotee” of reason),
if Dave or you truly feel describing Trump supporters as devoted is the same as calling them ‘Zombies,’
I think it’d be best to just call you a Trump supporter, and then engage the substance.
My actual point was when one engages my perception of events with a bare assertion that what I’m devoted to is just elitist B.S. or to blind illusion, it doesn’t engage any of the substance of the actions
at issue that were raised, and thus leaves nothing interesting to chew on, except to quarrel with
the connotations of our word choices.
Yes, I suspect semantics is not Gabe’s point, and that he’s fine with putting it that many on the Christian right (and perhaps supporters on this site) appears to cut Mr. Trump so much slack that many appear to lack a balanced critique of both sides.
I think this remains true even as Dave repeatedly demands that we critics repeat more denunciations of our own side (which I have often done and repeated for him in a vain effort to encourage moving on to the substance of the reasons that some distrust this president’s approach).
In fairness, you Steve, have been an open and exemplary exception here, because you have repeatedly affirmed some of the reasons that turn off many to Trump’s approach to governing, and spelled out what is more important for you.
Oh Bob, you and your ‘substantial issues’ . I’ve been raising the real thing here for two years and you’ve ignored it. You don’t think the entire moral meltdown of the dems is ‘substantial’? The criminal behavior and nutty dossier, trumped-up charges, soliciting women to testify against Kavanaugh are not substantial?
You have ignored all the moral crimes that your party has committed for the past few years. Nary a peep.
Why should I be surprised that you and your Party masters want to change the focus?
I think that is substantial and worth talking about. Do you?
Just a commentary here. Democratic, Republican and Independent candidates, are really “reality show stars”. And they get the US population to vote for them, based upon “how much ratings they generate”. If we look at morals and ethics, ALL would fall significantly short.
But according to the BBC, it looks like the Democrats are calling for a “formal impeachment vote”.
And be careful, where you keep your underwear!
And here’s an interesting thought, from an email I received today.
Mind over matter. We are all the time either empowering ourselves or limiting our innate powers. Thoughts and beliefs have such decisive power over us and others. You visit a person having miraculous powers to heal you or solve your problem. You hear stories of healing and you feel convinced that he will heal you. You believe him. You grow deep faith. You are healed. Your problem solved. As such it is not the miracle of that person. It is miracle of your own mind deeply believing the person. Your thought, your belief, your hope creates the physical reality. Your sickness or a problem lingers because of lack of powerful thoughts and beliefs. Meditation gives you that power to create the miracle of Mind over matter.
Light your self belief!
~~Bodhi Shuddhaanandaa
So anything I take from the church, in the form of sacraments, etc…or from the wisdom, contemplative traditions of Yoga (1, 2 ); Zen (1, 2), Red Road ( 1, 2); Light ( 1, 2, 3, 4), helps me to see reality more clearly.
And this is from my Cross Cards, encouragement for today newsletter:
October 29, 2019
No Matter What
LYSA TERKEURST“Love the L ORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” Deuteronomy 6:5 (NIV)
I remember the day Art and I settled in our hearts we would choose to trust God’s love for us and pursue a relationship with Him, no matter what.
We were in the hospital with our middle daughter who was 6 weeks old. She had seemed a perfectly healthy baby until an allergic reaction landed us in the intensive care unit. The doctors told us on the fourth day of our visit that Ashley needed emergency surgery, and they did not expect her to survive.
They gave us five minutes to tell our baby goodbye.
My heart was shattered.
I so desperately wanted to scoop her up and run out of the hospital. I wanted to somehow breathe my life into hers. I wanted to take her place. I could handle my own death so much easier than the death of my child. Art prayed over Ashley, we both said our goodbyes, and then, with tears streaming down our faces, we let her go.
When Art took me outside to the hospital parking lot, I collapsed into his arms. He gently cupped my face in his hands and reminded me Ashley was God’s child to give and His to take back.
“Lysa, God loves Ashley even more than we do,” he gently told me. “We must trust His plan.”
Art then asked me to do something, and it changed my whole perspective on my relationship with God. “We have to get it settled in our hearts that we will love and trust God no matter the outcome of Ashley’s surgery,” he said.
At first, I resented Art’s desire to trust God in this way. I feared it might give the impression it was alright for Him to take Ashley.
With all my being, I wanted to hold on to my child and refuse God. Yet, though I was heartbroken, I also felt God’s compassion. I felt Him drawing me close and pouring out His tender mercy. God knew firsthand the pain we were feeling because He’d felt it Himself. I knew I ultimately had no ability to control my child’s future.
With tears pouring from our eyes, Art and I released our sweet Ashley to the Lord and promised to love and trust Him no matter what.
Anyway, a President has a group of “expert advisers”. It’s for him or her, to review with the “expert advisers”…what they plan on talking about, before they begin any foreign dignity conversations.
Sometimes this Democrat vs Republican feud, on this forum…brings to mind, the old Hatfield Vs McCoy feud.
And we need to call in a “professional mediator”, to settle the feud!
Am I in this group? If not, can I join? It sounds intriguing.
I can sing a mean bass, but I’ll never be able to grow my hair long again.
1 Like
You democrat/media prophets have been calling it the ‘beginning of the end’ for years now. You can almost feel the glee of the elite media, hoping against hope that they took down the President we elected. They are fools. And folks get their ‘news’ from these people? And are still dems?
Perception of a conservative who loves Trump’s economics and supreme court appointments:
ok, one man’s opinion which is fine
1 Like
And of course, the LA Times.
Today’s Star Witness against Trump’s phone call. Have you read the transcript of the call, btw? And for THIS the dims want to impeach the President? They do not give a damn about the country - just Orange Man Bad.
" On July 25, when the president called Zelensky to congratulate him on his party’s parliamentary victory, Vindman listened in on the call. He says: “I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’ s support of Ukraine.” Notably, the transcript of the call suggests that Trump did not “demand” an investigation of the Bidens.
Vindman goes on to say that he concluded that if Ukraine was seen as a partisan player in U.S. politics, that could undermine “bipartisan support” for better relations with Ukraine. “This would all undermine U.S. national security,” Vindman argues, substituting his views — or those of the “interagency” — for those of the president himself.
Vindman says that he reported his concerns to the National Security Council’s lead counsel. He denies being the so-called “whistleblower” or knowing the identity of the “whistleblower,” or wishing to speculate about such. He concludes with another policy view: “The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners.”
At no point does Vindman accuse the president of breaking the law, but of doing what he thought “inappropriate.”
The public will not see Vindman face questions from the committee, because it is being held behind closed doors and “in defiance of a White House edict not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry,” the Times reports, though it does not explain that the reason for the White House stance is that the House has not yet authorized the inquiry.
Only one copy of the transcript of Vindman’s testimony will be provided to Republican members of the committee, who will only be allowed to review the transcript with a Democratic staffer present to observe them at all times."
Dave, Though it’s never enough for you, I’ve repeatedly tried to accommodate your singular demand and offered grievous criticism of Democrats (as well as praise of Trump), and asked you to follow Steve and I in showing some reciprocity in a thread on the current president’s qualifications, by offering your own balanced criticisms of his character and actions.
But each time I observe the substance of today’s actions and events concerning the one currently in power, your only rebuttal to that assessment is to insist that you yearn for me to discuss more about the sins of others (i.e. admittedly tainted Democrats!), or to further present the substance of my own grievances of Obama, etc, etc., i.e. anything that would bolster your already long held resentments.
With all respect, decrying the sins of others does not change the truth of anything I have contended, and your consistent refusal to engage any case or facts that I actually set forth about Trump leaves me wondering if you guys are conceding that you seem to have nothing with which to challenge what I argue on its own merits.
It seems all you do is offer more attack pieces on others, dismiss all sources about any realties that challenge your affections, refuse to engage what I offer, accuse me of being unread, and leave me recognizing that Paidion’s perception of your one-sided devotion is unarguable.
Of course, there’s this story from the BBC today:
Perception of a conservative who loves Trump’s economics and supreme court appointments:
Does dismissing a conservative Fox & Nat’l Review contributor’s case because of who prints it confront any of its’ substance? It remains His argument, no matter if many papers print it (or Breitbart doesn’t).
I’d prefer evaluating his or any case on its merits or lack thereof, rather than ad hominem dismissal.
I personally find Goldberg’s main conclusion worthy that Trump’s insistence he did everything “perfect” makes it harder for conservative Senate Trump supporters to defend against the obvious. If you don’t, fine, answer it; don’t just denigrate where his reasoning was printed.
Here is a new video, with President Trump! 
Trump even brings up, some of his supporters - to defend him.
And even Bill Clinton showed up.
This sounds oh so substantial, solemn and meaningful, doesn’t it?:
" “The the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means, are directed to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President o the United States of America,” the resolution reads."
Then you make the mistake of reading further, and see what a sham it is:
" The resolution claims Republicans can submit any requests for witness testimony that may be relevant to the investigation. However, Democrats can turn down these requests, and let’s be honest, they most likely will since so far they have barred Republicans from inquiry records and have [directed witnesses not to answer Republican members’ questions](https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/29/schiff-directing-witnesses-not-to-answer-gop-questions/).
To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, [Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)] may submit to [Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)], in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation.
In the case that [Schiff] declines to concur in a proposed action of [Nunes] … [Nunes] shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision.
Therefore, if Schiff decides to turn down a witness request by Nunes, Nunes can only appeal to a committee run by Democrats.
According to the resolution, Schiff may make transcripts of depositions publicly available online, yet with redactions for classified and other “sensitive information.”
[Schiff] is authorized to make publicly available in electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by the Permanent Select Committee [on Intelligence] in furtherance of the investigation … with appropriate redactions for classified and other sensitive information.
Unfortunately, that means Schiff can classify whatever he deems to be “sensitive information” and redact any portion of a deposition that would hinder his ultimate agenda of impeaching Trump.
This resolution is clearly a public relations stunt by Democrats"
Trump insisted the president (Obama) get no credit for Bin Laden’s death.
But he rightly wants some for Bagdadi’s 
His demise is a triumph for our soldiers and Trump.
It is bittersweet that the key info to enable this came from our loyal Kurdish allies who faithfully
shed most of the blood alongside our effort, but whom in removing all protection, we betrayed
and led into slaughter that has orphaned so many of them from their families and homes.
I wonder what’s in the BBC news today?
1 Like
Hey -post the BBC articles first, THEN I can post mine! Let’s swap places for a change lol.
Emphasis on lol 
I would have left troops to help the Kurds because they are one of the few groups worth helping but there is a valid argument that the middle east is a sinkhole that you never get out of & there is never a good time to withdraw.
1 Like