Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

URN wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Well, I have done so already, but I will do so again.

Religion through the ages has changed greatly as we become more and more aware of our world and universe. We don't have organized religions that pray to Zeus anymore or a Sun God for example. As strongly as some religious people today feel that their religion is the RIGHT one, so too did people from the past. It is ridiculous to believe it will not continue to change, and as I have already mentioned, we see changes even in short blocks of time (United Methodists moving from a very liberal denomination worldwide to a more and more fundamentalist view in just the last 20 years).

A lot of religion is borne out of a need to explain what they didn't understand at the time...plagues of locusts, a big flood, why sometimes it isn't good to eat shellfish, etc. Today, although we know a lot more about how things work than in biblical times for example, Christians will say...well, how was the universe created, and if you believe in the Big Bang, what created that? And they pose other like questions. My answer to that is that just because we might not have all the answers, that doesn't mean that THE answer is that there is an omnipotent God in the sky overseeing all.

As more and more people are accepting of science over magic and fairy tales, (and they will be) religion as we know it will eventually disappear. We have already seen a rise in Unitarian Universalism, an extremely liberal "church" that asserts no magical God. This kind of thing will continue.

Do not take my view as a condemnation of religious people, because it isn't. Being "religious" also has its own meaning to each individual person, some who believe in magic and the fairy tales and some who don't but yet ascribe to the teachings of Jesus for example as something good to follow, understanding that he was a mortal man.

So, back to my comment that you asked about - "religion as we know it will disappear." Evidence of past religions disappearing shows this is highly likely, and anyone who believes religion WON'T change as we know it, has a screw loose.

You have a quite naive understanding of religion.

Flagpole wrote:

Dr. Feelgood wrote:

Alan, we know he's wrong and he knows he's wrong. Someone as insecure as him never admits that he or she is wrong, that's his M.O. and always has been.

Once they say one thing that they end up knowing to be wrong, they have a fall back...none of us will be alive then so you can't prove me wrong. That my friend is insecurity. It's not about anyone else but himself feeling that he's never wrong. I've dealt with patience like him before. Most end up in a bad place.

1) I am not insecure in the slightest. I'm too old and too successful with HUGE biceps to be be insecure about anything.

2) About this religion thing, no, I do not know that I am wrong. Like I said before, we can't have a discussion about right or wrong here, because none of us will be alive long enough to see the long term evolution of religion. You can BELIEVE that I will be wrong, but you can't make a definitive statement about it, just as I can't do that about you and your belief.

3) What an odd thing to think that I brought this subject up just so I couldn't be proven wrong. It's just an opinion, brother. Religion as we know it will eventually disappear if humans are on this earth for long enough. Not even an out-there prediction as we have history as a guide here. You can agree with that or not, but it can't be declared to be "wrong".

4) Doctors don't misuse "patience".

P wrote:

The Fokus wrote:

While I agree with your general conclusion, I think you are reaching but not as far as Flagpole who's simply a loon.

Mueller's report will likely leave much open to interpretation and be a series of findings with no conclusion drawn by Mueller. He will leave it up to the politicians to haggle out the end result and both sides will spin the evidence Mueller puts forth to their advantage. I don't think we see any further indictments of anyone close to Trump although, again, there may very well be evidence of either criminal or unethical maneuvers by people such as Trump Jr. and Kushner.

Trump will be able to scream "No collusion!!!!" to his heart's content because Mueller was never going to make a determination of anything referred to as "collusion" even if he had a recording of Trump talking to Putin thanking him for interfering with the election.

As someone who wants the boob out of office tomorrow if possible, he will have to be voted out in 2020 as he will never be successfully impeached and any impeachment proceeding will likely work against the Democrats. The Party should put a lid on the few knucklehead and junior elected officials of the Democratic party who call for impeachment as all it will do is fire up Trump's base and bring them to the polls come 2020.

I know the anti-Trump crowd is looking for the slam dunk but it just isn't there and it won't be there in the future either.

I am largely in agreement with you and Alan.

I am also concerned that this woman may well end up winning the election for Trump in 2020:

https://goo.gl/images/WDHKx2

P wrote:

The Fokus wrote:

While I agree with your general conclusion, I think you are reaching but not as far as Flagpole who's simply a loon.

Mueller's report will likely leave much open to interpretation and be a series of findings with no conclusion drawn by Mueller. He will leave it up to the politicians to haggle out the end result and both sides will spin the evidence Mueller puts forth to their advantage. I don't think we see any further indictments of anyone close to Trump although, again, there may very well be evidence of either criminal or unethical maneuvers by people such as Trump Jr. and Kushner.

Trump will be able to scream "No collusion!!!!" to his heart's content because Mueller was never going to make a determination of anything referred to as "collusion" even if he had a recording of Trump talking to Putin thanking him for interfering with the election.

As someone who wants the boob out of office tomorrow if possible, he will have to be voted out in 2020 as he will never be successfully impeached and any impeachment proceeding will likely work against the Democrats. The Party should put a lid on the few knucklehead and junior elected officials of the Democratic party who call for impeachment as all it will do is fire up Trump's base and bring them to the polls come 2020.

I know the anti-Trump crowd is looking for the slam dunk but it just isn't there and it won't be there in the future either.

I am largely in agreement with you and Alan.

I am also concerned that this woman may well end up winning the election for Trump in 2020:

https://goo.gl/images/WDHKx2

Runningart2004 wrote:

P wrote:

I am largely in agreement with you and Alan.

I am also concerned that this woman may well end up winning the election for Trump in 2020:

https://goo.gl/images/WDHKx2

You’re giving her, AOC, and the young progressive and socialist-light wing far too much credit. The election wasn’t that long ago so these new faces get to spread their wings a bit and the media takes notice. They will have their 6-12mo of spotlight before the adults in the room tell them to sit down and STFU while we go win an election. They have no power, none, zilch, zero. Freshmen gonna be freshmen. The only ones who have to navigate landmines are those in Congress. Biden, Beto are largely free and clear of being stuck in “gotcha” moments in the current Congress.

I think Biden and Beto are talking about who’s going to announce and when. They are both running.

My bet is that Beto announces this week in Austin during SXSW. It runs through the 17th. Then Biden announces a couple weeks later.

Once those two announce Sanders becomes the 3rd wheel. Beto has that same grass roots feel that Sanders has, just with a more moderate more ELECTABLE tone.

I don’t worry about Beto being able to survive a primary battle because I think he will be able to really increase turnout in his favor vs the usual hardcore progs that take to the polls in primaries.

As far as the actual primaries go.....Beto will struggle in the northeast but kill everywhere else.

Alan

Flagpole wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

You’re giving her, AOC, and the young progressive and socialist-light wing far too much credit. The election wasn’t that long ago so these new faces get to spread their wings a bit and the media takes notice. They will have their 6-12mo of spotlight before the adults in the room tell them to sit down and STFU while we go win an election. They have no power, none, zilch, zero. Freshmen gonna be freshmen. The only ones who have to navigate landmines are those in Congress. Biden, Beto are largely free and clear of being stuck in “gotcha” moments in the current Congress.

I think Biden and Beto are talking about who’s going to announce and when. They are both running.

My bet is that Beto announces this week in Austin during SXSW. It runs through the 17th. Then Biden announces a couple weeks later.

Once those two announce Sanders becomes the 3rd wheel. Beto has that same grass roots feel that Sanders has, just with a more moderate more ELECTABLE tone.

I don’t worry about Beto being able to survive a primary battle because I think he will be able to really increase turnout in his favor vs the usual hardcore progs that take to the polls in primaries.

As far as the actual primaries go.....Beto will struggle in the northeast but kill everywhere else.

Alan

You may be right about Beto, though I do not have a favorite yet, and even when I do, I will be lukewarm, because contrary to what some here think, I don't just toe the party line, and overall, I don't get giddy over any politician.

I do think Sherrod Brown would make an interesting Vice Presidential candidate now that he has decided not to run for the top job.

Of course, I am far and aware more interested in what happens to our criminal, serial lying President.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

Runningart2004 wrote:

P wrote:

I am largely in agreement with you and Alan.

I am also concerned that this woman may well end up winning the election for Trump in 2020:

https://goo.gl/images/WDHKx2

You’re giving her, AOC, and the young progressive and socialist-light wing far too much credit. The election wasn’t that long ago so these new faces get to spread their wings a bit and the media takes notice. They will have their 6-12mo of spotlight before the adults in the room tell them to sit down and STFU while we go win an election. They have no power, none, zilch, zero. Freshmen gonna be freshmen. The only ones who have to navigate landmines are those in Congress. Biden, Beto are largely free and clear of being stuck in “gotcha” moments in the current Congress.

I think Biden and Beto are talking about who’s going to announce and when. They are both running.

My bet is that Beto announces this week in Austin during SXSW. It runs through the 17th. Then Biden announces a couple weeks later.

Once those two announce Sanders becomes the 3rd wheel. Beto has that same grass roots feel that Sanders has, just with a more moderate more ELECTABLE tone.

I don’t worry about Beto being able to survive a primary battle because I think he will be able to really increase turnout in his favor vs the usual hardcore progs that take to the polls in primaries.

As far as the actual primaries go.....Beto will struggle in the northeast but kill everywhere else.

Alan