Mueller report will be 'devastating' for the president: Frequent Trump defender

[rogue06]

From what I've seen of your theology, I suspect you actually do run with a pretty fringe Christian crowd, so it doesn't surprise me that you would encounter people like this.

But I'd be curious what they really believe. For instance, would you lump me into that group if I said that God can use Trump to achieve His ends (just as He can use any of us), but that I don't believe that Trump was hand-picked or ordained by God for that purpose?

Politics aside, from what I've seen his theology ranges from middle-of-the-road to conservative

[Cow Poke]

Politics aside, from what I've seen his theology ranges from middle-of-the-road to conservative

Yeah, his obsession/fixation on the evils or Trump aside, Jim sees pretty solid theologically.

[One Bad Pig]

Very keen:



And some interesting history:



https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/02/o...ell/index.html

Meh. This IS Trump we're talking about. I'm fairly certain he'd be attacking Mueller regardless, because that's how he rolls.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, his obsession/fixation on the evils or Trump aside, Jim sees pretty solid theologically.

I dunno, I've seen him dig up some shockingly poor exegesis, but maybe that was just a one off, so my criticism in this regard might be unfair. We all have our moments. As my theology professor used to say, some day, God is going to correct everybody's theology.

[Charles]

As my theology professor used to say, some day, God is going to correct everybody's theology.

And even that statement will be corrected.

[Charles]

Meh. This IS Trump we're talking about. I'm fairly certain he'd be attacking Mueller regardless, because that's how he rolls.

Ok. So he will rather go for personal attacks than deal with the facts?

[One Bad Pig]

Ok. So he will rather go for personal attacks than deal with the facts?

Not what I said. Care to try again?

[rogue06]

And even that statement will be corrected.

by know-it-alls such as yourself?

[Mountain Man]

And even that statement will be corrected.

[Sparko]

So how did this "conspiracy" morph from "Trump was working with Putin to steal the election" to "Trump was working with Russians to build a hotel during his campaign?" and how is it even relevant since he was working on that deal long before his run for president?

How does building a hotel equate to Russians hacking our election? Are they that desperate for hotels over there?

[One Bad Pig]

So how did this "conspiracy" morph from "Trump was working with Putin to steal the election" to "Trump was working with Russians to build a hotel during his campaign?" and how is it even relevant since he was working on that deal long before his run for president?

How does building a hotel equate to Russians hacking our election? Are they that desperate for hotels over there?

When your pet conspiracy theory is sinking fast, you grasp at anything that looks as if it might float.

[Sparko]

When your pet conspiracy theory is sinking fast, you grasp at anything that looks as if it might float.

Trump is just trying to help homeless immigrants to Russia by building them a hotel to stay in.

[Charles]

Not what I said. Care to try again?

It was your response to this:

If the Trump associates that Mueller has continued to knock down were indeed innocent, the President might be spending his time presenting facts to prove the case rather than attacking Mueller and the investigation. And we all know that when you're attacking investigators, you're losing.

So the point made in the text was that Trump should focus on facts if they spoke in favour of his case. And your response was:
"Meh. This IS Trump we're talking about. I'm fairly certain he'd be attacking Mueller regardless, because that's how he rolls. " And then you don't want to admit he goes for personal attacks rather than facts...

[Charles]

So Mueller seeks no prison time for Flynn. It is going to be interesting to get more details on what he provided.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7e7_story.html

[One Bad Pig]

It was your response to this:



So the point made in the text was that Trump should focus on facts if they spoke in favour of his case. And your response was:
"Meh. This IS Trump we're talking about. I'm fairly certain he'd be attacking Mueller regardless, because that's how he rolls. " And then you don't want to admit he goes for personal attacks rather than facts...

I don't want you to put words in my mouth, Charles. Instead of doubling down on what you've already been told is an incorrect representation of what I posted, you could maybe ask me for clarification. As it happens, I mean that Trump is thin-skinned, and tends to attack those whom he perceives as attacking him.