Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

Serragon suggested a Trump debate thread without name-calling or character assassination. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45639&p=786252#p786250

Great idea.

Let's have a few basic rules:
1. No name-calling or character assassination or ad hominem.
2. No fallacies that often appear in debates such as false dichotomy or shotgun argumentation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies )
3. No moving on to the next topic until all parties withdraw or one side concedes.
4. Whoever asserts something must also prove it.

(The foregoing rules may be revised or added to as the need arises.)

Feelings are tender, but let's be mature.

I'll go first:

It is extremely frustrating that Trump supporters (with the exception of larsenb, as far as I know) continually fail to admit that the President is exercising military might in opposition to the Constitution and holy writ. Attached to this issue, and of even greater consequence, is that innocent people died in the attack.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast ... story.html
https://www.bustle.com/p/how-many-peopl ... toll-49771

To have an intellectually honest discussion, facts cannot be summarily dismissed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

My assertion is that Trump is an oath-breaker and a murderer.

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by iWriteStuff »

Silver wrote: June 1st, 2017, 12:53 pm
It is extremely frustrating that Trump supporters (with the exception of larsenb, as far as I know) continually fail to admit that the President is exercising military might in opposition to the Constitution and holy writ. Attached to this issue, and of even greater consequence, is that innocent people died in the attack.
Trump the candidate:
"What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria," said Trump as he dined on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. "You’re going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton.

"You’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk," he said.

Trump said Assad is much stronger now than he was three years ago and said getting Assad to leave power was less important than defeating Islamic State.

"Assad is secondary, to me, to ISIS," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... SKCN12P2PZ

Obama needs Congressional approval, but Trump?
"What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict?" Trump asked in one tweet. "Obama needs Congressional approval."

In another tweet, he wrote: "The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/ ... gn-policy/

Trump as President?
Trump made clear on Wednesday that the chemical attack "crosses many, many lines -- beyond a red line, many, many lines." And on Thursday night, he turned that rhetoric into action.
Seems like the constitution only applies to former presidents?

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Serragon »

I don't think it can be argued that Trump has not at times operated outside the constitution.

I would not classify what he is doing as murder. There is a great distinction between willfully taking the life of another and collateral damage that happens in war. I think it is legitimate to debate whether force should be used. Either it is morally correct to use force in a given instance or it is not. We shouldn't call someone a murderer because an innocent dies in said use of force.

Where I am left scratching my head, however, is why Trump appears to be singled out so much. He doesn't appear to be doing anything fundamentally different with regards to extra-constitutional practices than previous presidents of the last century.

It seems to me that the problem isn't Trump, but an entire government that exerts extra-constitutional control over the people. Each branch is guilty of this. Even the states themselves are guilty of ceding authority. Why is Trump called out by those on this board so much more than the rest of the government?

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by iWriteStuff »

Serragon wrote: June 1st, 2017, 3:20 pm I don't think it can be argued that Trump has not at times operated outside the constitution.

I would not classify what he is doing as murder. There is a great distinction between willfully taking the life of another and collateral damage that happens in war. I think it is legitimate to debate whether force should be used. Either it is morally correct to use force in a given instance or it is not. We shouldn't call someone a murderer because an innocent dies in said use of force.

Where I am left scratching my head, however, is why Trump appears to be singled out so much. He doesn't appear to be doing anything fundamentally different with regards to extra-constitutional practices than previous presidents of the last century.

It seems to me that the problem isn't Trump, but an entire government that exerts extra-constitutional control over the people. Each branch is guilty of this. Even the states themselves are guilty of ceding authority. Why is Trump called out by those on this board so much more than the rest of the government?
Good comment!

I think the reason he's called out so much here is because A) he promised to be different, to not start wars, to not go outside the constitution, to undo the things Obama/Bush/Clinton had done to make the world a worse place and B) there is an absolute refusal of some Trump supporters to acknowledge the fact that he's doing the exact same things, in some cases making a bad policy even worse. The further into his presidency he gets, the more promises he breaks. I was willing to give him the courtesy of a "wait and see", but as I've waited I've seen. It's not getting much better - it's getting worse.

I've outlined some of my policy differences in other threads. I don't feel like I've personally attacked the guy so much as his policies and statements. There is a cognitive dissonance at work whenever someone perceives "their guy" is under attack, though, so some folks swoop in to defend him without considering whether what he's doing is really defensible. Sometimes it's not.

Why is Trump off limits but Obama and Clinton are not? Policy-wise, I haven't really seen much difference except in the level of defensiveness on these boards. Can we call a bad policy a bad policy or must we excuse it because "he's new" and still figuring out The Art of Governing?

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

The term 'murderer' simply refers to a person who murders. If there is an objection to calling Trump a murderer then that argument can be made. Definitions of murder and manslaughter are provided below, as is info on war crimes and, as a reminder, the oath of office of the President.

murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon).
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1303

manslaughter
n. the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" (an evil intent prior to the killing). It is distinguished from murder (which brings greater penalties) by lack of any prior intention to kill anyone or create a deadly situation. There are two levels of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter includes killing in heat of passion or while committing a felony. Involuntary manslaughter occurs when a death is caused by a violation of a non-felony, such as reckless driving (called "vehicular manslaughter").
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1209

"There is also practice which does not contain the adjective “serious” with respect to violations and which defines war crimes as any violation of the laws or customs of war.[5] The military manuals and legislation of a number of States similarly do not require violations of international humanitarian law to be serious in order to amount to war crimes.[6] However, most of this practice illustrates such violations in the form of lists of war crimes, typically referring to acts such as theft, wanton destruction, murder and ill-treatment, which indicates that these States in fact limit war crimes to the more serious violations of international humanitarian law.

Serious nature of the violation
A deductive analysis of the actual list of war crimes found in various treaties and other international instruments, as well as in national legislation and case-law, shows that violations are in practice treated as serious, and therefore as war crimes, if they endanger protected persons or objects or if they breach important values.

(i) The conduct endangers protected persons or objects. The majority of war crimes involve death, injury, destruction or unlawful taking of property. However, not all acts necessarily have to result in actual damage to persons or objects in order to amount to war crimes. This became evident when the Elements of Crimes for the International Criminal Court were being drafted. It was decided, for example, that it was enough to launch an attack on civilians or civilian objects, even if something unexpectedly prevented the attack from causing death or serious injury. This could be the case of an attack launched against the civilian population or individual civilians, even though, owing to the failure of the weapon system, the intended target was not hit. The same is the case for subjecting a protected person to medical experiments – actual injury is not required for the act to amount to a war crime; it is enough to endanger the life or health of the person through such an act."
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customar ... ul_rule156

Trump should have known, or at least the military advisors to whom Trump had free and unfettered access should have known, the accuracy statistics of the Tomahawk missiles. Some of the 59 missiles did not hit the base at which they were aimed. Unfortunately, those errant missiles killed noncombatants.

However, even the Syrian military personnel who were killed should still be alive because Trump was operating outside of the bounds of the US Constitution which he swore to defend. Article II, Section One, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Based on the material referenced above I continue to assert that Trump is a murderer and an oathbreaker.

Parenthetically, apparently eddie is not comfortable with the rules of debate. The rule forbidding ad hominem is intended to apply to the language the participants use toward one another. eddie is, therefore, welcome to start his own thread, create his own set of rules and make whatever claims he may.

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Serragon »

So the argument is that he is using force without proper authority. I agree that constitutionally he does not have that authority to act in this manner.

The problem is that according to the legislative and judicial branches, he does have the legal authority, as both the legislative and judicial branches currently base their actions/opinions on a century plus of post-constitutional law.

We both agree that his actions are extra-constitutional. But under our current implementation of government what he is doing is entirely legal. This is where I think calling him a murderer is a stretch.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

Serragon,
I concentrate on Trump's actions for at least the following reasons:
1. I can't change history so it does little good to attack Obama or Clinton (although a search of my posts will result in several comments against that pair of traitors)
2. Leading up to and after the election, I found that some Trump supporters were unable to accept any criticism of the man so I doubled-down on pointing out his traitorous actions
3. A simple list of Trump's policy ideas will show he is not a conservative. He has only lately become associated with the Republican Party which does not deserve our trust any more than the Democratic. Therefore, I attack the leader of the Republican Party to remind others that their loyalty is misplaced.
4. All the past administrations in our lifetimes have been chock full of the CFR and NWO and elite bankers. Trump has the same gang. Why would we expect the results of his administration to be one iota different?

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Serragon »

Silver wrote: June 1st, 2017, 4:48 pm Serragon,
I concentrate on Trump's actions for at least the following reasons:
1. I can't change history so it does little good to attack Obama or Clinton (although a search of my posts will result in several comments against that pair of traitors)
2. Leading up to and after the election, I found that some Trump supporters were unable to accept any criticism of the man so I doubled-down on pointing out his traitorous actions
3. A simple list of Trump's policy ideas will show he is not a conservative. He has only lately become associated with the Republican Party which does not deserve our trust any more than the Democratic. Therefore, I attack the leader of the Republican Party to remind others that their loyalty is misplaced.
4. All the past administrations in our lifetimes have been chock full of the CFR and NWO and elite bankers. Trump has the same gang. Why would we expect the results of his administration to be one iota different?
I agree with all of these points except #4. I simply don't have enough knowledge in that area to even have an opinion on that topic.

I am not a Trump supporter, but there are a few things I enjoy about him:

1. He sends the Left into hysterics over very minor things.
2. He is willing to engage topics that other politicians will not, such as immigration and Jihad/Islamism. I don't always agree with his ideas or solutions, but I appreciate he is willing to admit these are actual problems. We are actually having debates around ideas that without him would never be happening.

I feel that overall we are better off having him as president than Hilary Clinton. This does not mean that I do not have concerns about him or wish another republican had made it through the primaries.


Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

Is it too much to ask the two Trump supporters, eddie and DesertWonderer, to abide by a simple set of rules?

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

Returning to the topic of murder, it is clear that the average soldier or grunt or airman or sailor who is following orders and who may accidentally kill a noncombatant is not guilty of murder. That burden falls on leadership.

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Serragon »

I think we are just going to disagree on these actions as being murderous. From the definition you posted the actions do not constitute murder, as they are clearly considered legal actions by the government. This is not to say they are moral, right, or constitutional; but they are legal.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by larsenb »

I think it is time to move on to another topic. Serragon made a reasonable reply to your allegation that Trump was a murderer, etc. You've already opened several threads pursuing this accusation. So why still another thread for you to pursue your particular fixation?

I'm impressed with Trump's recent rejection of the Paris Climate Treaty. This is wonderful, from my point of view. Any contrary views or support of Trump on this decision??
But Silver, I'm not calling you a name, I'm simply describing your behavior . . . . as I see it. Your calling Trump a murderer, IS name calling.
Last edited by larsenb on June 2nd, 2017, 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

larsenb wrote: June 1st, 2017, 5:50 pm I think it is time to move on to another topic. Serragon made a reasonable reply to your allegation that Trump was a murderer, etc. You've already opened several threads pursuing this accusation. So why still another thread for you to pursue your particular fixation?

I'm impressed with Trump's recent rejection of the Paris Climate Treaty. This is wonderful, from my point of view. Any contrary views or support of Trump on this decision??
For you, larsenb, I will move on. However, I think your use of the term "fixation" falls under ad hominem and request that you avoid bringing that sort of argument to this thread. As to the attention I give Trump's murders, the crime is serious enough to warrant the discussion.

Further, I reject your claim of victory on the Paris Climate Treaty as it merely falls under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Until that onerous treaty is overturned, there is nothing to celebrate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... ate_Change

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by iWriteStuff »

I'm guessing my comment was too mild to merit a response. I'll try harder to inflame next time. Or have I landed on enough "foe" lists to deserve the title of Invisible Man now? If so, I humbly request The Creator will change my title accordingly. :)

The Paris thing is a slight win. The saber rattling, unconstitutional bombing, health insurance fiasco, and military industrial complex budgets are all huge fails. What happened to candidate Trump the isolationist who decried all foreign wars? What happened to sane tax policy that doesn't favor only the few? What happened the "bigly easy" health insurance reform that isn't a zombified revisiting of Obamacare with especial punishment for the old and unemployed? Why did we just fund Planned Parenthood in our budget "deal"? Do we have a super majority or not? If so, why can't we enact good policies instead of Gadianton nightmares?

FWIW the man who gives the order to kill is at minimum an accomplice.

User avatar
kittycat51
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1791
Location: Looking for Zion

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by kittycat51 »

Although we ALL agree with this commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (murder) , in October Conference 2001 just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, President Hinckley stated in his talk:
We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty (see Alma 48:10).
Is our country not at war? War with terrorists no matter the shape or form.

I believe that no matter the person who runs and becomes president who proclaims promises of this or that, they actually get in and go crap (can I type this?) this is a lot harder than I thought it would be. With the huge power that the gadiantons hold on this world and breathing down your neck at every turn, things would be outright difficult. Yes Trump has picked some questionable people and done some crazy things, but I have never seen the left so heck bent on ruining him, more than any other president. If that doesn't scream the gadiantons are AGAINST him I don't know what does?

(I AM curious Silver; did you type this much discontent against Obama when he was president? I don't recall.)

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by eddie »

Silver wrote: June 1st, 2017, 5:18 pm Is it too much to ask the two Trump supporters, eddie and DesertWonderer, to abide by a simple set of rules?
HERE IS YOUR RULE; No name calling or character assignation


"My assertion is that Trump is an oath-breaker and a murderer."

What's it gonna be, will you please follow your own rules? Thats MESSED UP!

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by eddie »

Syrian chemical attack survivor has an incredible message for Trump and anti-Trump protesters
Justin Haskins Apr 8, 2017 7:05 pm
Syrian chemical attack survivor has an incredible message for Trump and anti-Trump protesters
Syrian Kassem Eid appears on CNN's "Newsroom" on April 7, 2017, to praise President Donald Trump's strike against Syria. (Image source: YouTube)

A survivor of a 2013 chemical-weapons attack by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad praised President Donald Trump on Friday for choosing to order a missile strike against an airbase in Syria.

Trump, many congressmen, and members of the intelligence community have said Assad is responsible for chemical attacks made against civilians in northern Syria on Tuesday. In the attack, at least 86 people were killed, including 28 children. The Turkish Health Ministry reported on Thursday the nerve agent used in the attack was sarin.

Special: Black Storm: Curse on the Caliphate has the answers.
On Thursday, Trump ordered the launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles against an airbase belonging to the Syrian government. Trump claimed in a statement on the attack that there “can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and ignored the urging of the UN Security Council.”

Assad’s government has denied it is responsible for the chemical-weapons attack.


Speaking on CNN’s “Newsroom,” Kassem Eid, a survivor of a chemical attack launched by Assad in 2013, said he was “overwhelmed” with joy when he learned of Trump’s attack.

“I saw the news. I cried out of joy,” Eid said. “I jumped. I thanked God. I don’t know, I was overwhelmed. We’ve been asking for protection. We’ve been asking for consequences for more than six years. And today, for the first time, it happened. For the very first time we see Assad held accountable—just for once—held accountable for his crimes against humanity.”

“I was overwhelmed,” Eid said. “I felt grateful for President Trump. I felt grateful for the United States. I felt grateful for each and every person who lobbied and called, kept on talking until someone actually listened.”



CNN host Brooke Baldwin asked Eid whether he agreed critics of Trump who say the president is being hypocritical by defending Syrians in once instance and temporarily refusing to let Syrian refugees enter the country.

“With all due respect,” Eid said. “With all due respect, I didn’t see each and every person who was demonstrating after the travel ban. I didn’t see you three days ago when people were gassed to death, when civilians were gassed to death. I didn’t see you in 2013, when 1,400 people were gassed to death. I didn’t see you raising your voice against President Obama’s inaction in Syria that led us refugees, that made us refugees get kicked out of Syria.”

“If you really care about refugees, if you really care about helping us, please help us stay in our country,” Eid continued. “We don’t want to come to the United States. We want to stay in our country. We want to stay in our country, with all due respect. This is hypocrisy. If you really care, if you really care, help us stay in our country.”

Eid’s incredible message conflicts with what many critics of Trump have said about Syrian refugees, including Hillary Clinton, who recently said during a speech in Houston Trump can’t “in one breath speak of protecting Syrian babies and in the next, close America’s doors to them.”



On Friday, Trump asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a decision against Trump’s temporary travel ban made by a federal judge in Hawaii.

“To be sure, this order has been the subject of heated debate,” the Department of Justice wrote in its opening brief filed with the appellate court. “But the precedent set by this case will long transcend this order, this president, and this constitutional moment.”

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Ezra »

The scriptures have told us that the secret combination would get above us in our days. And that because of their position and money they would get away with murders and other sins.

So serrogon it may be legal in our current political climate to murder people if your the president. But it doesn't make it right and just or justified by God.

The president of the USA is just a child of God. just like any of us. We are all equals in the judgement that is on our heads by our actions come judgement day.

When given authority it just happens that it's the tendency of almost all men to immediately start practicing unrighteous dominion over our fellow men.

Scripture doesn't only apply to lds. They apply to all men and woman. They will be judged on it the same as us.

The rules layed down by God on righteous dominion are thus.

D&c 121

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

Trump obviously doesn't have the priesthood. But it still applys that no power over other can or ought to be maintained except by persuasion long suffering and so on.

If any power is used outside of that then that person has over stepped their righteous dominion and moved into unrighteous dominion. And as God said in verse 38

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

By any means of unrighteous dominion over others that individual is fighting against God.

God having instructed us clearly that

D&c 98


4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

So all men who are on this land must obey God. Upholding the constitution and constitutional laws of the land. Anything eles will come evil.


Trump has not done these things. By Gods words he is fighting against him and is bringing about evils.

If I was president of the USA or not if I ordered others to be killed and they were killed. And that dominion being unrighteous as I did not do as God commanded me. I would be held accountable at the judgement seat for the deaths of those men woman and children. The soldiers at my command would be less guilty then I would be. But still be judged for their works as well. King David as an example.

So trump is a murder. He is not following the constitution. By gods words in scripture he is fighting against him and bringing about evil.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

eddie wrote: June 1st, 2017, 7:38 pm
Silver wrote: June 1st, 2017, 5:18 pm Is it too much to ask the two Trump supporters, eddie and DesertWonderer, to abide by a simple set of rules?
HERE IS YOUR RULE; No name calling or character assignation


"My assertion is that Trump is an oath-breaker and a murderer."

What's it gonna be, will you please follow your own rules? Thats MESSED UP!
eddie, you're not reading my posts. You've admitted as much in other threads. However, it's critical in this thread that you read and analyze each post.

I've already explained above that the no name calling rule applies to the way the participants address each other, and not to the topic of discussion. For example, if we were discussing a person who had committed perjury and I called him a liar there would be no rule infraction. I understand you disagree with me about Trump, but in a debate it is your task to prove me wrong or persuade me to your way of thinking.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

kittycat51 wrote: June 1st, 2017, 7:01 pm Although we ALL agree with this commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (murder) , in October Conference 2001 just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, President Hinckley stated in his talk:
We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty (see Alma 48:10).
Is our country not at war? War with terrorists no matter the shape or form.

I believe that no matter the person who runs and becomes president who proclaims promises of this or that, they actually get in and go crap (can I type this?) this is a lot harder than I thought it would be. With the huge power that the gadiantons hold on this world and breathing down your neck at every turn, things would be outright difficult. Yes Trump has picked some questionable people and done some crazy things, but I have never seen the left so heck bent on ruining him, more than any other president. If that doesn't scream the gadiantons are AGAINST him I don't know what does?

(I AM curious Silver; did you type this much discontent against Obama when he was president? I don't recall.)
The obvious problems with you applying President Hinckley's General Conference comments to this debate are:
1. Were the 9/11 hijackers from Iraq? From Afghanistan?
2. Once US troops were committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think that President Hinckley approved (would still approve) of the length of the engagements?
3. Was President Hinckley aware that the attacks in NY & at the Pentagon were false flag attacks?
4. Was President Hinckley aware when he made those comments in General Conference that military actions were taken to buoy up the status of the petrodollar?

Yes, we are fighting terrorists. We are also financing those same terrorists via the CIA, oil and poppy sales. The attacks against us now are what Ron Paul calls "blowback."

Gadiantons scream. That's what they do. They also kill each other. Is it your claim that Goldman Sachs and Rothschild are not part of the NWO?

Finally, I have already mentioned in an earlier post in this very thread why I am spending so much time trying to warn my fellow LDSFFers.
posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=786324#pr786308

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

Serragon wrote: June 1st, 2017, 5:01 pm
Silver wrote: June 1st, 2017, 4:48 pm Serragon,
I concentrate on Trump's actions for at least the following reasons:
1. I can't change history so it does little good to attack Obama or Clinton (although a search of my posts will result in several comments against that pair of traitors)
2. Leading up to and after the election, I found that some Trump supporters were unable to accept any criticism of the man so I doubled-down on pointing out his traitorous actions
3. A simple list of Trump's policy ideas will show he is not a conservative. He has only lately become associated with the Republican Party which does not deserve our trust any more than the Democratic. Therefore, I attack the leader of the Republican Party to remind others that their loyalty is misplaced.
4. All the past administrations in our lifetimes have been chock full of the CFR and NWO and elite bankers. Trump has the same gang. Why would we expect the results of his administration to be one iota different?
I agree with all of these points except #4. I simply don't have enough knowledge in that area to even have an opinion on that topic.

I am not a Trump supporter, but there are a few things I enjoy about him:

1. He sends the Left into hysterics over very minor things.
2. He is willing to engage topics that other politicians will not, such as immigration and Jihad/Islamism. I don't always agree with his ideas or solutions, but I appreciate he is willing to admit these are actual problems. We are actually having debates around ideas that without him would never be happening.

I feel that overall we are better off having him as president than Hilary Clinton. This does not mean that I do not have concerns about him or wish another republican had made it through the primaries.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by eddie »

Silver wrote: June 1st, 2017, 8:56 pm
eddie wrote: June 1st, 2017, 7:38 pm
Silver wrote: June 1st, 2017, 5:18 pm Is it too much to ask the two Trump supporters, eddie and DesertWonderer, to abide by a simple set of rules?
HERE IS YOUR RULE; No name calling or character assignation


"My assertion is that Trump is an oath-breaker and a murderer."

What's it gonna be, will you please follow your own rules? Thats MESSED UP!
eddie, you're not reading my posts. You've admitted as much in other threads. However, it's critical in this thread that you read and analyze each post.

I've already explained above that the no name calling rule applies to the way the participants address each other, and not to the topic of discussion. For example, if we were discussing a person who had committed perjury and I called him a liar there would be no rule infraction. I understand you disagree with me about Trump, but in a debate it is your task to prove me wrong or persuade me to your way of thinking.
:)) :-w In other words, you can trash the President, but no name calling toward anyone who does the trashing. Is it ever a good thing to call some one a liar?
President Trump is not running a popularity contest, he will not be popular to the left, he is changing things, and thats what the American people want.

Are not the children of Syria God's children? Are they not innocent? I can't see where these atrocities should be accepted, so brace up Silver and i write, its gonna get worse before it gets better. Innocent people will die, there will be wars and rumors of war. A hero dies once, a coward a thousand times.
Trump is a hero, he left a lifestyle where he could retire, he is almost 70 years, but he stepped up to the plate, twist and turn the facts all you want, cry for some children and not the others, I don't admire men who won't defend their nation, who won't give our new President a chance. He is setting a precedent that should have been set long ago! Obama said, please dispose of your chemical weapons, and they said SURE, we will. Obama said he drew a line, pffft. He gave Iran nuclear capabilities, he apologized for America. We have done more for the world than any other country on earth. This nation is full of good Christian people, people who don't call names like murderer and liar. Dazzling us with your rhetoric means nothing, I will watch and evaluate for myself. You don't set my rules.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

eddie wrote: June 1st, 2017, 10:35 pm
Silver wrote: June 1st, 2017, 8:56 pm
eddie wrote: June 1st, 2017, 7:38 pm
Silver wrote: June 1st, 2017, 5:18 pm Is it too much to ask the two Trump supporters, eddie and DesertWonderer, to abide by a simple set of rules?
HERE IS YOUR RULE; No name calling or character assignation


"My assertion is that Trump is an oath-breaker and a murderer."

What's it gonna be, will you please follow your own rules? Thats MESSED UP!
eddie, you're not reading my posts. You've admitted as much in other threads. However, it's critical in this thread that you read and analyze each post.

I've already explained above that the no name calling rule applies to the way the participants address each other, and not to the topic of discussion. For example, if we were discussing a person who had committed perjury and I called him a liar there would be no rule infraction. I understand you disagree with me about Trump, but in a debate it is your task to prove me wrong or persuade me to your way of thinking.
:)) :-w In other words, you can trash the President, but no name calling toward anyone who does the trashing. Is it ever a good thing to call some one a liar?
President Trump is not running a popularity contest, he will not be popular to the left, he is changing things, and thats what the American people want.

Are not the children of Syria God's children? Are they not innocent? I can't see where these atrocities should be accepted, so brace up Silver and i write, its gonna get worse before it gets better. Innocent people will die, there will be wars and rumors of war. A hero dies once, a coward a thousand times.
Trump is a hero, he left a lifestyle where he could retire, he is almost 70 years, but he stepped up to the plate, twist and turn the facts all you want, cry for some children and not the others, I don't admire men who won't defend their nation, who won't give our new President a chance. He is setting a precedent that should have been set long ago! Obama said, please dispose of your chemical weapons, and they said SURE, we will. Obama said he drew a line, pffft. He gave Iran nuclear capabilities, he apologized for America. We have done more for the world than any other country on earth. This nation is full of good Christian people, people who don't call names like murderer and liar. Dazzling us with your rhetoric means nothing, I will watch and evaluate for myself. You don't set my rules.
Let the record show that I tried to debate in a civil manner but couldn't get the cooperation necessary to make this thread different from the others.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by eddie »

Silver wrote: June 1st, 2017, 10:42 pm
eddie wrote: June 1st, 2017, 10:35 pm
Silver wrote: June 1st, 2017, 8:56 pm
eddie wrote: June 1st, 2017, 7:38 pm

HERE IS YOUR RULE; No name calling or character assignation


"My assertion is that Trump is an oath-breaker and a murderer."

What's it gonna be, will you please follow your own rules? Thats MESSED UP!
eddie, you're not reading my posts. You've admitted as much in other threads. However, it's critical in this thread that you read and analyze each post.

I've already explained above that the no name calling rule applies to the way the participants address each other, and not to the topic of discussion. For example, if we were discussing a person who had committed perjury and I called him a liar there would be no rule infraction. I understand you disagree with me about Trump, but in a debate it is your task to prove me wrong or persuade me to your way of thinking.
:)) :-w In other words, you can trash the President, but no name calling toward anyone who does the trashing. Is it ever a good thing to call some one a liar?
President Trump is not running a popularity contest, he will not be popular to the left, he is changing things, and thats what the American people want.

Are not the children of Syria God's children? Are they not innocent? I can't see where these atrocities should be accepted, so brace up Silver and i write, its gonna get worse before it gets better. Innocent people will die, there will be wars and rumors of war. A hero dies once, a coward a thousand times.
Trump is a hero, he left a lifestyle where he could retire, he is almost 70 years, but he stepped up to the plate, twist and turn the facts all you want, cry for some children and not the others, I don't admire men who won't defend their nation, who won't give our new President a chance. He is setting a precedent that should have been set long ago! Obama said, please dispose of your chemical weapons, and they said SURE, we will. Obama said he drew a line, pffft. He gave Iran nuclear capabilities, he apologized for America. We have done more for the world than any other country on earth. This nation is full of good Christian people, people who don't call names like murderer and liar. Dazzling us with your rhetoric means nothing, I will watch and evaluate for myself. You don't set my rules.
Let the record show that I tried to debate in a civil manner but couldn't get the cooperation necessary to make this thread different from the others.
NOT

Post Reply