Josh wrote:Bootstrap wrote:Josh, it feels like you take it personally when people criticize Trump. Is that true? If so, why?
I don’t take it personally. I do think there’s a complete lack of perspective that many, many people exist who are decent, reasonable people who voted for Trump, are glad he won, and feel he is representing them well. Many of these people voted for Obama once or twice.
The elitism displayed by those who can’t fathom the above could possibly be true is what disturbs me.
I also do take it personally when Christians (and particularly Anabaptists) want a president who is a cup that is clean on the outside, but don’t seem nearly as concerned with the inside. I’m not really sure why a mass murderer who doesn’t use foul language is somehow preferable, but that does seem be the consensus here.
not that my thots matter,
i find Josh consistent in his response to any topic where he questions the (status quo.) Trump is not an exception.
I don’t always agree or understand you, Josh, but, i appreciate your sincere effort in attempting to seek both truth and Truth. this is not always the comfortable path. but, in time, it usually ends better than (other paths.) Jesus did not say He came to make us comfortable.
i barely pay attention to the Muller controversy.
as a spectator, trying to unravel fact from fiction on some of these matters, is not a good investment of time. as has been stated on this forum, on other cases in the past, the public does not have full facts. we are definitely baited to take sides, to dig in for that side! but, often, important facts are not made available (sometimes, ever) .. eventually, one side feels vindicated, the other red-faced, or angry, or both.
various questions were asked of hillary that were dismissed, continue to be dismissed, not
magnified. presently, libs hold the mainstream magnifying glass. the math is basic.
there is so much rampant bias.
the only thing we can be sure of would be we can be sure of nothing.
regarding
for-profit corporate abortion - (because, for-profit is the unspoken, but, “operative phrase) -
just listening to obama, then hillary, formally “cast their lots” with for-profits on this, making it a party platform (not unlike Trudeau is doing in Canada) - this, alone, was the final deal-breaker (for me.)
no other campaign promise can erase grisly from that scenario.
there may be Dems who would not support this.
so far as i can detect, they are not allowed to speak, they are not allowed high office. policies are set from the party’s top, alignment+loyalty are required, and rewarded, from there. i see this in Illinois politics all the time. the Chicago DNC cannot be discerned from DC DNC. it’s as tho they all read their assigned scripts, then, go home and forget about it. in my mind, to a bizarre extent.