feasible....

"Makes you wonder what type of people voted for him (evangelicals LOL)."

I'm a devout Catholic, and voting for him was unpleasant, but very easy. If you vote based on Christian beliefs (a big driver of my voting logic), at the national level, it will likely be a long time before a democrat is more attractive to a true Christian, than a Republican. Every cycle, the democratic party gets further and further away from Christian values. Fortunately for democrats, there are fewer and fewer Christians.

I would have preferred a Republican of character. I think the relationship between the liberals and the media, makes it very difficult for a decent, gentle Republican, to stand a chance. Look at what they did to Bush (called him a liar to start his war, called him a racist despite what he has done for Africa), McCain (a racist whose adopted black daughter, liberals said came from an extramarital affair), and Romney (painted as a heartless plutocrat, who was called a sexist because he kept a notebook of resumes of talented women, that makes all kinds of sense). So we went with a guy, maybe the only guy, who could take all that left wing bile, suck it up, and spit it right back in their face, as effortlessly as breathing, without breaking a sweat. It's completely natural for him.

Your side created this. You guaranteed that we would nominate someone like this. Kind of ironic, no?

and you can bet Melania is a gold digger. How many poor, jerky, 80 year-olds do you think she dated?

The stock market is the silver lining for sure, I only wish I wasn’t as conservative as I am, but at almost 65, I don’t dare raise my risk level. Still watching the BS is painful.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are very wise not to risk it. I'm 47 and m risker than I should be, but I got lucky.

I agree with you 100%. It would be nice (and shouldn't be too much to ask) to get the benefits of this presidency, without the downside. But for the last 15 years, the media has been brutal to conservatives, and guys that aren't willing to throw elbows back (McCain and Romney), get painted as evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, deplorables. It shouldn't take a Trump to combat that. But it did.

That is the biggest bs garbage. True Christian? Ha. Democratic party gets away from Christian values and the Republicans don't? You need to re-look into the teachings of Jesus. Also, don't try to sell me that Catholicism represents "true Christian." Jesus taught to care for the poor, the weak, the needy, judge not, etc. Not only do most religious sects distort his teachings, the platform of the republican party is the antithesis of his teachings in endless ways. Calling oneself Christian does not make one a follower of the teachings of Jesus.

:claps:

"That is the biggest bs garbage"

Very easy to say. Not so easy to support with logic.

"Democratic party gets away from Christian values "

Hell, yes it does. The motto of the current democratic party is, "if it feels good, do it". You don't think that true Christians are more likely to identify with the Republican party, than the Democrat party?


"Also, don't try to sell me that Catholicism represents "true Christian." Jesus taught to care for the poor, the weak, the needy, judge not, etc"

Yes, Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, emphasize caring for the poor. On that you are 100% correct. However, you seem to assume that liberals/non-Christians care more about the poor than conservatives/Christians. There is zero evidence to support that. In fact, the one definitive study on the subject was called "Who Really Cares", was published in the New York Times (not a conservative publication), and it showed that conservatives give more time and money to charity, than liberals. Here is the study...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html

The Catholic Church isn't dedicated to helping the needy? Tell that to your neighbors who have received subsidized medical care at Catholic hospitals, subsidized education at Catholic schools, lodging at Catholic shelters, food at Catholic soup kitchens, etc... Last time I checked, the Catholic Church gave more money to help the poor, than any other organization except the US government.

"the platform of the republican party is the antithesis of his teachings in endless ways."

What the Democrats claim to be the GOP platform, absolutely is the antithesis of Christianity. But what liberals claim the GOP believes, is very different from what the GOP actually believes.

sanctity of life
the dignity and worth of the individual
individual freedom and responsibility
charity for the poor

The true GOP platform on these issues (as opposed to what MSNBC claims the GOP believes on these issues) is much more in line with Christianity, than the liberal platform. One need only look at the issue of abortion...but there are several other issues that make this clear. After the last few mass shootings, liberals are mercilessly attacking anyone who offers prayer for the families.

The GOP is FAR from perfect on these issues, in particular, the GOP (and Christianity) can be rigid on some social issues. But if you ask whether liberalism or conservatism more closely aligns with true Christian principles? Not even close. Not remotely close. The DNC despises true Christian principles.

"Calling oneself Christian does not make one a follower of the teachings of Jesus"

100% true. But actually behaving in a way that is consistent with those principles, does make one a Christian. Those principles are far more welcome on the political right, than on the left.

Very well said Jim.

Only the Sith believe in absolutes Jim.

So you're saying that Jim (and Christians and Muslims) and absolute zero are Siths?

Well said. Not accurate. Big business and profits over public health, the environment (public health issue). Individual rights claim as a way to discriminate against others. Sanctity of life- if you are referring to abortion- maybe; sanctity of life when you are talking about the right to clean water and air, health care, food quality, no.

The abortion/religion connection is somewhat bogus as well. Most people don't like abortion. The difference is whether a women makes that decision for herself or if Jim decides. Is it sad so many babies are aborted? Sure. What about the 50% of fertilized eggs that don't successfully implant? Sad. What about for those that do? Another 20% end fail in the first trimester.

In US, the numbers come out to about 12 million fertilized eggs per year. 6 million pregnancies 4 million live births. more than a million each miscarriages and abortions of choice. 9 out of 12 million fertilized eggs are not born and only about 1 million of those is due to the choice of the woman.

Having 1 kid, no kid, or 30 kids is a personal choice. I won't tell you or anyone else how many you should have. If republicans and so concerned about how many fertilized eggs become live births, they might also focus on improving reproductive health rather than defunding planned parenthood.

Not a single real piece of evidence that republicans value life more than democrats. Totally bogus.

I don't know if Jesus was a true Christian. But there is no evidence that he believed that government, especially secular government, should be responsible for either the physical or spiritual life of individuals. He seems to have preached that individual responsibility nonsense that the GOP spouts.

Now that is comical. Good one :humpty:

"Big business "

What does this mean, exactly? There is a liberal myth that republicans are happy to let businesses maximize profits even if it means slaughtering their employees and selling their organs on the black market. It's not true. Republicans are less hostile to business than democrats, that's typically true. I've never heard a republican call for a repeal of labor laws to let business run amuck. So I have no idea what your point is when you say "big business". I have news for you. Big business isn't bad. I have worked for big business my whole life, they employ thousands of Americans, generate wealth for shareholders, and give a ton of money to local charities.

"Individual rights claim as a way to discriminate against others"

Certain rights are guaranteed in the constitution, even if liberals are offended by them. Hurt feelings do not trump the Constitution. Do you agree?

"Sanctity of life- if you are referring to abortion- maybe; sanctity of life when you are talking about the right to clean water and air, health care, food quality, no"

You are making these crazy assumptions, for example, that Republicans don't like clean water and air. I spend a lot more time outdoors than most people. I think we have a responsibility to safeguard these beautiful ecosystems that give us so much. We need honest research about such things, and common sense reaction to them. I don't know any part of the GOP platform that endorses pollution. But we aren't a bunch of fanatical tree huggers, either. The right answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

"The abortion/religion connection is somewhat bogus as well"

The hell it is. Most conservatives are anti-abortion, most liberals are pro-abortion.

"Is it sad so many babies are aborted? Sure. What about the 50% of fertilized eggs that don't successfully implant? Sad. What about for those that do? Another 20% end fail in the first trimester. "

Nonsensical comparison. The latter events, while sometimes tragic, are natural. Abortion isn't. Apples and oranges. I happen to believe all life is precious, which is why I oppose both abortion and the death penalty, for the same exact reason.

"only about 1 million of those is due to the choice of the woman. "

What the heck, what's a million babies slaughtered in the womb each year, why cry over spilled milk. No reason to get so worked up.

Democrats are in favor of snuffing out a million lives a year. And you are trying to claim that this platform, more closely embraces Christianity? That's taking some liberties, boy.

"If republicans and so concerned about how many fertilized eggs become live births, they might also focus on improving reproductive health rather than defunding planned parenthood."

Anoother demonstrable false, bullsh*t lie. The GOP plans to de-fund Planned Parenthood, called for every cent that was formerly going to PP, to go to other women's health centers that don't do abortions.

See, this is what your side does. If the GOP wants to fund actual health care but not elective abortions, you know you cannot win that argument. So you lie, and claim that we oppose women's health. There is zero truth to that. But your side frames it this way, so that your position doesn't seem as evil as it actually is.

Try to follow along. We favor the funding of women's health. That does NOT include elective abortions. Am I going too fast for you?

All you did, was recite MSNBC bumper stickers. Little truth or logic. But that's liberalism.

You said the following two things.

(1) only about 1 million of those (unborn deaths) is due to the choice of the woman.

And then,

(2) Not a single real piece of evidence that republicans value life more than democrats

Your side advocates for the right to slaughter a million unborn babies every single year. My side opposes that. And you don't concede, that means my side values life more than your side.

I also posted a study which says that conservatives are also more charitable (not by much at all) than liberals.

That's quite a bit of evidence that my side has more empathy for the voiceless and the vulnerable. Which is why I like my side.

Again a simpleton response. There are another other 9 million babies that aren't born. A variety of health care issues that would help those unborn are ignored or negatively impacted directly or indirectly by republican supported policies. I think women are smart enough to make their own decision. Looking at the posts and responses of people in this forum only reinforces that I should trust women and their doctors, not the crowd who voted in Captain Traffic Cone.

The tendency of conservatives to be more charitable is directly related to tithing. Muslims would come out as one of the most charitable sub-groups in a such type of analysis.

Your side is delusional if it thinks there is evidence that it has more empathy for the voiceless and vulnerable.

Love the fetus, care less about the baby. Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor and the most vulnerable amongst us. At least we don't have to hear about "compassionate conservativism" any longer.

The thing that makes me laugh about the whole thing is Pres. Trump is making fun of Warren for lying yet lies more than any other politician in history (probably more than 99.9% of people). His base eats it up though.

"Again a simpleton response"

I am a very simple guy.

"There are another other 9 million babies that aren't born"

You are talking about natural miscarriages and abortion, as if they are the same thing. Natural miscarriages do not happen because of a legislative mandate. Abortions do. We can't legislate who has miscarriages. Jeez.

"A variety of health care issues that would help those unborn are ignored or negatively impacted directly or indirectly by republican supported policies."

I notice that despite your opinion that there are a variety of such issues, you didn't specify any. I'm not sure much helps the unborn more, than being protected from slaughter. For example, availability of prenatal vitamins, doesn't do an aborted fetus a lot of good that I can see.

"I think women are smart enough to make their own decision. "

See, there is the dishonest framing of the issue again. My opposition to abortion, doesn't mean I think women are stupid. My wife is ten times smarter than me in every imaginable way. And I don't think she has the moral right to elect an abortion. But I know she's smarter than me.

Liberals FRAME this as about how conservatives view women - again, they like to gframe things in a dishonest way. It's not. If it was, why are so many women opposed to abortion? The only issue, is the rights (or lack thereof) of the fetus.

Pro-life folks are pro-life, because they have empathy for the fetus. But I have never, not once, ever - heard a liberal say "I respect that pro-life people have empathy for the fetus, but I think it's misplaced empathy". Liberals never say that, because as usual, the truth makes there side look evil. So they say we are opposed to women's health. It's obviously dishonest, but it sounds better to liberals, than admitting the ugly truth about what the two sides actually believe.

Liberals do this (demonize the opposition) all the time. If you think white cops are usually heroes, you hate blacks. If you are anti-abortion, you hate women. If you want secure borders, you hate Hispanics. If you think the bill of rights applies to bakers who are opposed to gay weddings, you hate gays. If you are worried about jihadists, you hate Muslims. If you think Social Security needs to be fixed, you hate old people. If you think there are limits to how much we can spend, you hate poor people. It never ends. Never.

"The tendency of conservatives to be more charitable is directly related to tithing. "

I thought you said Christians didn't care about the poor? So why do they tithe? You can't have it both ways! Which is it?

"Your side is delusional if it thinks there is evidence that it has more empathy for the voiceless and vulnerable"

Pretend you are an unborn baby with some health issues. God asks you whether you'd prefer to be placed in the womb of the head of the RNC or the head of the DNC. You going to claim that you wouldn't have a very strong preference?

I provided factual evidence that Republicans have more empathy (the issue of abortion, and charitable giving) You have provided zero evidence that I am wrong. You have slogans like "big business", and "profits before people". Bumper sticker slogans that dishonestly demonize conservatives. That's 90% of what liberalism is - dishonestly distorting what it is, that conservatives actually believe.

"Love the fetus, care less about the baby"

And your evidence of this, is what, exactly?

"Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor '

Not sure how doubling the standard deduction hurts the poor, most of whom utilize the standard deduction. It may help the rich more...but that's not the same thing as hurting the poor.

"The thing that makes me laugh about the whole thing is Pres. Trump is making fun of Warren for lying yet lies more than any other politician in history (probably more than 99.9% of people). His base eats it up though"

Most of the conservatives here have criticized Trump for his many shortcomings. I'm not to blame for his personal behavior. I am to blame for the public policy he advocates.

Character wasn't on the ballot in 2016. It was a choice of two morally bankrupt reptiles. I won't begin to claim Trump is more ethical than Hilary. I am quite comfortable debating that conservatism (which he advocates for, at least at the moment) is more ethical than liberalism (which she advocates for). I'm holding all the cards in that debate.

One says that it hurts and another says it doesn't help them as much. You guys might want to get together and have a little "Team Meeting" so you can get on the same page.

when people consider those of one party or the other a "team" or a "side" there should be no wonder why our political climate is so decisive.

There is a huge difference between a bill that hurts the poor, and a bill that helps the poor, but helps the rich more.

If the feds passed a law that said everyone gets a 10% raise tomorrow, that helps the rich more than it helps the poor. That doesn't mean it hurts the poor.

Bottom line Repub. policies hurt the poor and benefit the rich.

So the divisiveness isn't because liberals believe that conservatives hate everybody. And the divisiveness has nothing to do with the way liberals play the race card. Rather, the divisiveness comes from people who admit that today, there are two distinct political camps, and that most of us fall into one or the other.

Gotcha.

Agreed on both statements but the independent analysis say that on average the poor will pay more in taxes than they pay now while the rich will pay less in taxes than they pay now.

Who here demonstrates the hate you do? The tenor of this forum changed when you started posting here. Look at the hate you spew in almost all your posts.

You may want to talk to this guy too then....

"The Repub. budget and tax bill which both hurt the poor (as I stated below)"

You can state that the earth is flat. Doesn't make it so.

"Every analysis that I have seen says the tax bills hurt the lower income people (some said below 35K, others up to 125K in yearly income) and benefit the rich. "

And SOME of the ones that I have seen, claim it will help the poor and the middle class, and also help the rich.

"If the end result is that someone making less money pays more in taxes and someone making more money pays less in taxes that shows where the Repub. priorities are. "

If that's what happens, I agree with you. I don't know, that's what is going to happen. And neither do you.

Why can't you tell me, how doubling the standard deduction, fails to help the people who utilize that deduction, none of whom are wealthy?

""Your team/side" voted for him when they had many other choices - woman, more conserv, less conserv, minorities"

True. Your team also voted for an ethically bankrupt lizard.

"Bottom line Repub. policies hurt the poor and benefit the rich"

Well with such convincing supporting data, that's a compelling argument.

"Bottom line, 2+2=5".

See what I di dthere.

Sorry Paul, I spent half my life living near New Haven, and the other half working near Hartford. Liberal cities in a liberal state. There is zero evidence that liberalism has helped these people. I have seen firsthand what a generation of pure liberalism has done.

After 40 years of voting for Democrats, the fatherlessness rate among blacks has more than doubled.

Fat lot of good liberalism has done for poor people.

I'm not saying conservatism eliminates poverty either.

Gee, that's a tough one.

Oh wait, it's easy. You said I don't care about babies, and you and Zimmy are saying I support policies that hurt poor people.

It's OK when liberals do it. It's only problematic when I do it.