Another Credible Rape Claim Against Trump....

[Adrift]

I'm not sure I follow you.

If we aren't on America's and Trump's side, do you want us instead to be for Iran and China ... or for drug lords? There isn't really an alternative choice is there?

Or do we go with the Democrats, who have sought to disempower a duly elected president of the US? This is what the many accusers are trying to do. It all seems to be for political play. Is it your desire to promote such a banana republic form of government?

If Trump was found to have done anything of the accusers, did you support Bill Clinton, who was well-proven to doing this stuff and worse?

I'm not sure what you are advocating here. Please advise. Your position is very confusing.

I think his point is that we ought to be on Christ's side, or at least, be careful sidling up to the devil if he gets us what we want in the short term, because what he asks in the long term might cost us something of greater value.

His point aside, in a world where there are no alternative choices, we don't have to choose. We don't have to be part of the process if the process is so corrupt that it flies in the face of our values and beliefs. I don't have to select the lesser of two evils if it means supporting or defending an evil. And sure, no one running for office is going to be perfect, but there are some who seem more credible, just, and moral, and even a few who actually seem sincerely dedicated to Christ. Unfortunately they're just not running this election. In the meantime, we can refocus our attention on the ground floor, in the lives of people on the street, in our neighborhoods, the guy next door. In those closest to us without attempting to change the political landscape. Jesus did much the same, and he was able to change the entire political game from the bottom up (granted, it took the Roman empire a little time to catch up).

I'm not suggesting people have to do this or even necessarily that they should, but I'm saying that it is an alternative.

[oxmixmudd]

You're being silly. If it worked like that, then all a person has to do is find somebody with a worse reputation than themselves, and pile on.



How well do you know this woman, Jim? You only know what has been published.



So, how bout we wait for more facts?

Waiting for more facts is really all we can do. Most of what drives me in threads like this is what I see as the absurdity of assuming Trump is innocent and that this lady necessarily is just making it up. But none of us actually knows what the truth is.

Jim

[JimL]

You're being silly. If it worked like that, then all a person has to do is find somebody with a worse reputation than themselves, and pile on.



How well do you know this woman, Jim? You only know what has been published.



So, how bout we wait for more facts?

But who do you believe CP? The woman is very credible, she told people of the incident at the time when it allegedly happened. That's not proof in itself, but it's highly credible evidence, as you i'm sure know. She also writes an advice column wherein women, since the me/too movement, her readers, with the same dilemma as she herself claims to have had with Trump, have been asking her advice as to what they should do in that situation. That's why she says that she finally had no choice but to speak out. So, who do you believe? Trump, or his accuser?

[Cow Poke]

But who do you believe CP?

Not you.

[Cow Poke]

Waiting for more facts is really all we can do.

Most of what drives me in threads like this is what I see as the absurdity of assuming Trump is innocent and that this lady necessarily is just making it up. But none of us actually knows what the truth is.

Jim

Which is why I'll wait for the facts.

[MaxVel]

Waiting for more facts is really all we can do. Most of what drives me in threads like this is what I see as the absurdity of assuming Trump is innocent and that this lady necessarily is just making it up. But none of us actually knows what the truth is.

Jim

That sounds very fair and sensible. Sometimes though, you do come across as doing the opposite: assuming Trump is guilty, and the accusation against him must be true, because , Trump. It shouldn't be surprising that you get substantial push back when you do this.

[MaxVel]

Interesting. How then are so many Christians able to be on Trump's side with each and every accusation against him from each and every woman that claims he has assaulted her? Every Single One. Not one of these ladies is telling the truth they say. And yet the evidence exists in spades that this is the sort of person Donald Trump is. It does not pass credulity to me that people who have sworn allegiance to Christ and to moral purity can time and time again attack the woman claiming to have been assaulted and defend Trump without some sort of compromise of their moral character taking place. With Trump's character, it is nearly impossible for all of these women to be liars. There are just too many.

I do appreciate your effort to try to point out what I'm doing to provoke hostility. But the reality is there is nothing I can do that will lesson the hostility. Just watch and see. I'll try to avoid what you are pointing out. But it will make no difference.



Jim

Well, there are at least some posters here who very reluctantly voted for Trump. They are not at all whole-hearted Trumpsters, but chose him as (in their minds) the least bad of their possible choices. I know that I personally couldn't have voted for Clinton with a clear conscience (others may reasonably feel differently) - to the best of my ability to judge, she is not at all trustworthy, and I can't support her policies. Would I then have voted for Trump? ... Maybe... more likely I wouldn't have voted at all.

I really do see this as an area of personal conscience - people should vote for who they are comfortable voting for. If someone says that they couldn't have voted for Trump without offending their conscience I have no beef with that. I think it's reasonable to try to persuade, with reason and evidence, someone to vote for a candidate, but ultimately it has to be something they are able to do and still look themselves in the mirror afterwards. That's why I think your approach doesn't work, and is counter-productive. AFAIK all the 'pro-Trump' posters you engage with here are people who take voting seriously, and would have given serious consideration to their choices before voting.

There weren't any easy choices in that election. Anyone here who voted no doubt did not do so lightly. (OK, there are a few idiots, you know who you are)


You accuse people who don't instantly agree with you on the latest Trump 'scandal' of abandoning their Christian principles and failing their moral duty - yet these people gave serious thought before God to their voting choice. Why are you surprised that they are offended by your judgmentalism? They are no doubt giving serious thought to the present matter.

I think they are also just as serious about their desire to know the facts of whatever the current issue is. If they feel they don't have enough evidence to make a decision, or they are skeptical of the evidence available, it is not right to judge them as morally guilty. They have to answer to God for their decisions, either way. If I accuse Trump of some failing that I hear about in the media, and he is not guilty, then I have done something wrong. That is just as wrong as refusing to accept his fault when he has one.


I suggest you focus on finding out the actual truth (not necessarily what the media reports) about the latest Trump 'scandal', whatever it is. If it's favourable to Trump, so be it. If not, likewise. If you do that I think you'll find a whole board (except for a few idiots) who will gladly join with you in that pursuit. I strongly believe that seeking the truth is what we are called to as Christians, and that we are also called to do what is right, not what is expedient.

[Cerebrum123]

Well, there are at least some posters here who very reluctantly voted for Trump. They are not at all whole-hearted Trumpsters, but chose him as (in their minds) the least bad of their possible choices. I know that I personally couldn't have voted for Clinton with a clear conscience (others may reasonably feel differently) - to the best of my ability to judge, she is not at all trustworthy, and I can't support her policies. Would I then have voted for Trump? ... Maybe... more likely I wouldn't have voted at all.

I really do see this as an area of personal conscience - people should vote for who they are comfortable voting for. If someone says that they couldn't have voted for Trump without offending their conscience I have no beef with that. I think it's reasonable to try to persuade, with reason and evidence, someone to vote for a candidate, but ultimately it has to be something they are able to do and still look themselves in the mirror afterwards. That's why I think your approach doesn't work, and is counter-productive. AFAIK all the 'pro-Trump' posters you engage with here are people who take voting seriously, and would have given serious consideration to their choices before voting.

There weren't any easy choices in that election. Anyone here who voted no doubt did not do so lightly. (OK, there are a few idiots, you know who you are)


You accuse people who don't instantly agree with you on the latest Trump 'scandal' of abandoning their Christian principles and failing their moral duty - yet these people gave serious thought before God to their voting choice. Why are you surprised that they are offended by your judgmentalism? They are no doubt giving serious thought to the present matter.

I think they are also just as serious about their desire to know the facts of whatever the current issue is. If they feel they don't have enough evidence to make a decision, or they are skeptical of the evidence available, it is not right to judge them as morally guilty. They have to answer to God for their decisions, either way. If I accuse Trump of some failing that I hear about in the media, and he is not guilty, then I have done something wrong. That is just as wrong as refusing to accept his fault when he has one.


I suggest you focus on finding out the actual truth (not necessarily what the media reports) about the latest Trump 'scandal', whatever it is. If it's favourable to Trump, so be it. If not, likewise. If you do that I think you'll find a whole board (except for a few idiots) who will gladly join with you in that pursuit. I strongly believe that seeking the truth is what we are called to as Christians, and that we are also called to do what is right, not what is expedient.

A while back I merely disagreed with oxmixmudd when he was saying Trump was the worst president ever, and for this I was labelled as someone who would "defend Trump at every turn". It appears that disagreement with him on any matter related to Trump means you must love Trump and everything about him. To me that is just crazy, and why I don't interact with him at all.

[oxmixmudd]

A while back I merely disagreed with oxmixmudd when he was saying Trump was the worst president ever, and for this I was labelled as someone who would "defend Trump at every turn". It appears that disagreement with him on any matter related to Trump means you must love Trump and everything about him. To me that is just crazy, and why I don't interact with him at all.

I dont know the specifics to which you refer, but I have several times made the mistake of making a general comment to an individual that is not being hostile was not clear that the comment is really addressing not that individuals posts but rather the composite effect of a discussion with 3 or more people that is on the whole very hostile or over the top defensive of Trumps latest nasty act.

From your description, it sounds like that may be the case there. And so ill apologize for that.

I find it has been very difficult to deal with large groups of people attacking me personally at one time. Sometimes i get confused as to who is who and who has said what nasty or absurd thing. Im not excusing it, but it has taken time for me to develop skills that can handle that, and in the meantine I hit out at some that did not deserve it.

I am trying to be more careful to avoid that mistake in the future.

Jum

[Cow Poke]

Well, there are at least some posters here who very reluctantly voted for Trump. They are not at all whole-hearted Trumpsters, but chose him as (in their minds) the least bad of their possible choices....

[Cow Poke]

I dont know the specifics to which you refer, but I have several times made the mistake of making a general comment to an individual that is not being hostile was not clear that the comment is really addressing not that individuals posts but rather the composite effect of a discussion with 3 or more people that is on the whole very hostile or over the top defensive of Trumps latest nasty act.

From your description, it sounds like that may be the case there. And so ill apologize for that.

I find it has been very difficult to deal with large groups of people attacking me personally at one time. Sometimes i get confused as to who is who and who has said what nasty or absurd thing. Im not excusing it, but it has taken time for me to develop skills that can handle that, and in the meantine I hit out at some that did not deserve it.

I am trying to be more careful to avoid that mistake in the future.

Jum

With that in mind, I'll be more diligent in being more civil to you.


Cuw Puke

[JimL]

Not you.

That's not what I asked you, though I knew you not to be sincere enough to give an honest answer anyway. Your "waiting for all the facts" before you can form a belief with respect to Trump has proven that.

[oxmixmudd]

Well, there are at least some posters here who very reluctantly voted for Trump. They are not at all whole-hearted Trumpsters, but chose him as (in their minds) the least bad of their possible choices. I know that I personally couldn't have voted for Clinton with a clear conscience (others may reasonably feel differently) - to the best of my ability to judge, she is not at all trustworthy, and I can't support her policies. Would I then have voted for Trump? ... Maybe... more likely I wouldn't have voted at all.

I've said this before, but it probably bears repeating. I don't fault anyone who when faced with the rock and a hard place choice of Hillary or Trump, they decided Trump was the lesser of two evils. That part of it was a situation that was difficult for all of us.

The problem for me comes when people vehemently and without any sort of shame defend the despicable actions and policies that continuously seem to come from the fellow that won.

It would seem to me that if this were are true rock and a hard place choice, very few would actually be comfortable with what is going on and our discussions would tend to be more about what can be done to keep him on a decent track rather than looking under every rock and crevice for some semblance of an excuse for him.

That has just basically blown my mind. It would be similar to seeing a Christian that was normally against abortion or violations of national security vote for Hillary and then to 'give her a chance' turn around and defend almost to the death her use of her private email server, or third trimester abortions, or her dealings with Iran.

You'd be going : "why is this person defending so many obviously immoral things - where did their commitment to what is good and true run off to"?


Jim

[Cow Poke]

That's not what I asked you, though I knew you not to be sincere enough to give an honest answer anyway.

I'm always sincere enough to give an honest answer. I just don't suffer :trolls: very well.

Your "waiting for all the facts" before you can form a belief with respect to Trump has proven that.

And this is a good example of why I don't take you seriously - you spew forth this sort of nutcase garbage on a regular basis. You're a , Jimmy, and by far the DUMBEST one I've ever encountered.

[JimL]

I'm always sincere enough to give an honest answer. I just don't suffer :trolls: very well.



And this is a good example of why I don't take you seriously - you spew forth this sort of nutcase garbage on a regular basis. You're a , Jimmy, and by far the DUMBEST one I've ever encountered.

You don't get to decide who is or who isn't dumb CP, you voted for and still defend and support Trump. You can't show yourself to be any dumber than that.