And a perfect example of proper "Christian" behavior we see here. Not only does it tie into the original poster's point, it also shows WC's preferred way to deal with anyone with a different point of view. I sure hope you don't try to convince others that you are a Christian, you sure don't act like one, based on your "threat". It isn't very "Christian".

He isn't attempting to say that Trump may or may not have done some good economy wise, he is merely pointing out that the economy wasn't in the toilet as Trump claims. If you wish to post a more recent version, feel free.

Forget it dude, you are pissing into the wind, TRUE Trump supporters don't want you trying to confuse them with the facts, they will only ignore anything you say that contradicts what Trump and Trump friendly media tells them.

Just remember, when dealing with them, Obama bad, Trump good, anything you say other than that isn't going to be heard, as Padremike has just shown you.

For more level headed individuals, Democrats, fence riders, and Republicans, you can present facts and if they are legitimate facts, they may well be taken into consideration.

Why would Trump say anything at all about Cohen's father-in-law if it isn't meant as a threat, of some form of retaliation? It has been suggested that Trump has personal knowledge that Cohen's father-in-law, has broken some laws, what those laws are, I do don't know what they are, but Trump allegedly does.

If you can think of any non-shady reason for Trump to end his tweet with feel free to enlighten us.

Of course as I see it, any such vague threat, unless it can be proven to absolutely be an ominous threat, isn't really impeachable, even if it does show that Trump is trying to tamper with a witness, he doesn't make any specific threat there, just a vague threat.

Okay, then I am sure you have an example of his not living up to Christian teachings then? Also, it is not our place to judge another, that is for your deity to do, your job is to live up to your deity's teachings and leave the judging of others to your deity.

He was merely pointing out, for your own benefit, the teachings of the new testaments portion of your Bible, so that you may have a closer walk with your lord. And lest we forget, it will make for a happier existence for you if you kick h**e out of your "heart". Hatred poisons one, makes them unhappy. That might explain why your lot always seems so angry.

Wow, the h**e and anti-Christian sentiment in the majority of the posters in this thread, most of which I am certain TRY to pretend they are Christians. If only they could see past their hatred, perhaps they may see the point of this thread.

The point of this thread (that you ALL missed) is not HIM making light of Christianity, it is YOUR hypocrisy in not practicing what Christianity preaches even as you call yourselves Christians.

Thank you, i have looked into that article and further researched a linked article, source is mildly left leaning but tends to back their claims with fact and limits the use of "loaded" words (meant to sway opinions) and is considered a reliable source (except for those at the extremes, left wing nut jobs as well as right wing nut jobs).

Here is one thing that stood out to me in the linked article I followed from your link (also a CNN story):



Each poster will have to decide for themselves the meaning of that quote from the CNN article I followed from Lonewolf's link, either Pelosi is using tried and true Trumpian tactics of making unsupported claims that later turn out to be false but Trump supporters continue to believe despite them being proven to be fallacies/lies, or she has sufficient cause to KNOW they did it but can't reveal how she KNOWS.

Making statements without showing corroborating evidence comes off as questionable at best and gives your opponent fodder for tossing bias claims back at you. It is always best to offer up backing sources, but then there is the other side of the coin, the fact that regardless of the validity of the claim or the reliability of the supporting evidence, true Trump supporters will not be swayed.

Still, I say including backing sources is the best practice, even if it has no chance of swaying the opposition, it will go a long way towards cementing support among your side and can help sway the fence riders like myself.

Source?

Trumps own words, where he speaks on high tech devices, he says for entry points, while I won't question whether they need upgraded equipment at entry points, he has not offered high tech devices along the length of the wall. That is where high tech detection is needed, entry points have agents present that can see what is going on around them, walls lack the eyes to do the same.

The wall shown in your article hasn't kept many out, way too easy to climb especially with the hand grips mounted to mount those warnings onto, the warnings that are ALL crooked due to being a semi-stable foothold for them to stand on as they swing one leg over the wall. That wall is easy to climb for even the not so athletically inclined, perhaps they should have shown a picture of a wall that isn't so frequently climbed over.

The wall that Trump is leaning towards isn't as easily climbed, though it has been shown to be somewhat easy to cut through and as shown, is NOT insurmountable and lest we forget, in areas where there are border walls in place, many tunnels have been dug, kinda like a large scale version of that Whack-a-Mole game, maybe the border patrol calls it "Whack-an-Immigrant".


Border walls by themselves are not all too effective, there MUST be higher tech detection in place as well. Trump has offered higher tech devices to go with the wall but ONLY at entry points, while perhaps entry points need upgraded equipment as well, that is for border patrol to answer, but we need high tech devices ALL along the border to detect breaches/attempts at breaching. Unless that is included, I can't support the wall.

You ask for one? I am feeling generous today, I shall give you three, 2 Republican trolls and a well meaning Republican trying to get their view points out there. the two trolls are fullspinzoo and Sicilianthing and the well meaning Republican is proud republican. They all three post nearly entirely to entirely from conservatively slanted media and post quite a few topics per day.

Much of what the two trolls post appears to range from very right wing to what I would call wing nut, ultra conservative drivel, which is why I have chosen to completely ignore any topic posted by them for quite some time now. I do still read proud republican's posts as they are not trying to troll this BB (at least I believe they aren't) and everyone's TRUE opinion matters.



P.S. fullspinzoo's name should be a bit of a spoiler alert as to their intentions, I caught it early on as I am sure most do.

There has been quite a bit of r****t comments and/or h**e speech, from some conservatives, while the 1st amendment does NOT restrict r****t remarks and/or any type of h**e speech, there are many, from both sides of the isle, as well as us that align with neither party, that think perhaps it should.

Since I am aligned with NEITHER party, I will not defend either party for trying to deny the other party of their constitutional rights. All I am doing is pointing out that NEITHER party should be making the false narrative that their opposing party is the ONLY party guilty of not respecting the Constitution.

Yes, I mistakenly said 2nd amendment when I meant the 1st amendment, that was my faux pas. I have seen several Republicans implying that Democrats shouldn't have any right to free speech, granted by the 1st amendment, when they didn't agree with Republican ideologies.

As for the statement regarding Trump having spoken out about what he called a "r****d" e*******l college, he first spoke out against it in 2012 when he incorrectly thought it cost Mitt Romney the e******n in 2012, he again spoke out against the "corrupt", "r****d" e*******l college while he was campaigning in the 2016 e******n.


"But Mr Trump has actually spoken out against the E*******l College system which has now guaranteed him a place in the Whitehouse."*



*Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-e******ns/donald-trump-e*******l-college-twitter-disaster-democracy-comments-us-e******n-2016-a7408836.html

You are correct, I meant the 1st amendment, the one related to free speech, several Republican members of this site have shown much contempt of that 1st amendment as it pertains to Democrats having the right to free speech when they do not agree with Republican ideologies.

As for during the campaign, Trump did in fact say that the E*******l college was "r****d" and that it should be done away with as it was so "corrupt".



Edit: Added the quotation marks to "corrupt" so as to show that I personally have no opinion on whether or not it truly is "corrupt".