Proof of the shrinking American brain.

[ThePilgrim]

All I can say is wow!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/08/06/which-presidential-candidate-leads-among-evangelicals-right-now-its-donald-trump/

[John81]

What is wrong with OB? Earlier today I typed a message in another thread and it disappeared when I clicked Submit Reply. I just spent a good bit of time typing a message here and it too disappeared when I clicked Submit Reply.

[Gorship]

Last night I couldn't keep a connection to ob, if I switched my IP on my VPN I could get in briefly then shut down again. Very odd. Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[Miss Daisy]

Trump has name recognition on his side. I'll be watching debate tonight.

[John81]

Trump has name recognition on his side. I'll be watching debate tonight.

That helps, plus he stands out from the crowd because he speaks plainly rather than in rehearsed, canned sound bites like most of the candidates.

During the last two presidential elections the candidates leading the polls early on quickly faded away once the actual primaries began.

Trumps performance in the debate will be closely watched. A good showing will likely boost his poll standings. If he does very badly it's likely some of those lifting his poll numbers up now will turn to one of the other candidates which they think did well in the debates.

I watched the early debate with the 7 candidates and I plan to watch at least the first part of the prime time debate.

[John81]

To start with, regarding the debates, I didn't care for the "gotcha" questions the moderators asked which were clearly designed to place the candidates in a bad situation. I also didn't care for the attempts to get some of the candidates to go after one another. Questions such as that seem more like the moderators attempting make news rather than get at the issues.

That said, I think Carly Fiorina did well in the early 7 candidate debate. Rick Perry often seemed stuck on rehearsed lines and had a bit of a stumble in answering a question. A few of the others had either some decent answers or some decent personality that came forth, but not really both. Fiorina may have helped her candidacy but the others might not have helped themselves too much.

In the prime time debate it was obvious the moderators were out to get Trump, and to take some digs at a couple of the other candidates as well. Trump may have done well enough to please his core supporters but likely didn't win any new ones. Cruz and Huckabee sounded good, but at least in the case of Huckabee it seemed the people responded more to his personality than substance. This has been a big problem with voters for a long time now.

Some of the pundits say they think Rubio did well. Myself, I thought he did okay, but nothing outstanding. Rand Paul had a few good points but overall I don't think he came off well. Carson seemed a little sluggish until towards the end when he got some good ones in. Jeb Bush and Christ Christie were about like always, two liberal leaning Republicans trying to sound like conservatives.

We'll have to wait and see how things play out, some potential voters won't make up their mind until they listen to their favorite talking heads tell them what to think. Most of the candidates did okay, I didn't see any total fall downs or any "this is the one" moments. A few of the candidates did stand out to one extent or another. It's possible Fiorina, Cruz and Huckabee made some gains. Some of the other did well enough they may see a bit of gains too. It might be more interesting, and telling, to see who (if anyone) loses a lot of support.

Still a long ways to go in this election cycle so a lot can happen between now and the six months leading up to the caucus in Iowa in about six months.

[EKSmith]

To start with, regarding the debates, I didn't care for the "gotcha" questions the moderators asked which were clearly designed to place the candidates in a bad situation. I also didn't care for the attempts to get some of the candidates to go after one another. Questions such as that seem more like the moderators attempting make news rather than get at the issues.

That said, I think Carly Fiorina did well in the early 7 candidate debate. Rick Perry often seemed stuck on rehearsed lines and had a bit of a stumble in answering a question. A few of the others had either some decent answers or some decent personality that came forth, but not really both. Fiorina may have helped her candidacy but the others might not have helped themselves too much.

In the prime time debate it was obvious the moderators were out to get Trump, and to take some digs at a couple of the other candidates as well. Trump may have done well enough to please his core supporters but likely didn't win any new ones. Cruz and Huckabee sounded good, but at least in the case of Huckabee it seemed the people responded more to his personality than substance. This has been a big problem with voters for a long time now.

Some of the pundits say they think Rubio did well. Myself, I thought he did okay, but nothing outstanding. Rand Paul had a few good points but overall I don't think he came off well. Carson seemed a little sluggish until towards the end when he got some good ones in. Jeb Bush and Christ Christie were about like always, two liberal leaning Republicans trying to sound like conservatives.

We'll have to wait and see how things play out, some potential voters won't make up their mind until they listen to their favorite talking heads tell them what to think. Most of the candidates did okay, I didn't see any total fall downs or any "this is the one" moments. A few of the candidates did stand out to one extent or another. It's possible Fiorina, Cruz and Huckabee made some gains. Some of the other did well enough they may see a bit of gains too. It might be more interesting, and telling, to see who (if anyone) loses a lot of support.

Still a long ways to go in this election cycle so a lot can happen between now and the six months leading up to the caucus in Iowa in about six months.

Brother John have you ever though about being a reporter, this very well makes more sense then anything I've read in the news and well put together as well .thanks brother.

God bless

[Invicta]

I avoided this debate.

[EKSmith]

very interesting about the evangelicals. I wonder if they are talking about Bobby Jindal he says his first religion was Hindu until he became a evangelical catholic ?Scott Walker on the other hand was a SB and the church turned to liberal and joined a nondenominational evangelical church for their daughters sake.? And Ben Carson says he was baptized twice into the seventh day Adventist church.while Jeb Bush ,Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, and Chris Christie are Catholics. Leaving Carly Florina as the only Episcopalian though she's not active in the church but once in a while.Jim Gilmore is a united Methodist, Rick Perry's independent Methodist. Donald Trump and Rand Paul Presbyterians, and Mike Huckabee , Ted Cruz, and Lindsey Graham are Southern Baptist, the other feller (I can't remember his name )he's Anglican.

Oh yeah Thomas Jefferson ,raised a Anglican but later had no affiliation with them and is listed only as a Christian.

 

God bless brother

 

 

 

[Covenanter]

Trump seems to be an honest man ..... 

Quote:

BAIER: Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single-payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies….You’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, and Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors. And you said recently, quote, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

TRUMP: You’d better believe it.

BAIER: — they do?

TRUMP: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.

TRUMP:  I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why?

She didn’t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn’t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world. It was.

[John81]

Trump seems to be an honest man ..... 

Quote:

BAIER: Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single-payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies….You’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, and Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors. And you said recently, quote, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

TRUMP: You’d better believe it.

BAIER: — they do?

TRUMP: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.

TRUMP:  I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why?

She didn’t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn’t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world. It was.

His outspokenness is the main reason the Republican leadership, media and others want him silenced.

The head of the RNC told Trump he needed to stop talking about certain things, change his tone, and follow the guidance of the Republican leadership or the RNC would work against him.

This is also the reason the Republican leadership and many Republican politicians in DC don't like Cruz and want to see him done away with; because of his more open and honest speaking. Similar is true also of Rand Paul but in regard to other matters.

Ever since Ronald Reagan one the nomination in 1980 against the wishes of the Republican leadership, the RNC has worked very hard to make sure only candidates on their approved list might have a real shot at the nomination and presidency. They have done this to the point of willingly sacrificing any real chance to win the presidency just to have their way.

Honesty and truth, and men who can't be bought off, are not wanted by the RNC, DNC, or the media.

[EKSmith]

Donald Trump, can't be trusted.

He identifies his policies more as a Democrat.

He has always been pro abortion, until recently.

He says don't defund planned parenthood.

He's pro assault weapon ban.

He's for the US Army in Iraqi and for taking their oil.

He keeps all the bibles he's given in a special place outside the city ?

He only goes to church on Christmas and Easter.

He's gone bankrupt four times

He has a incoherent set of polices, which on his website is only one. immigration reform.

He's self centered, and loves bulling people by his arrogance.

He says make America great again. How could this possibly happen with immigration reform.?

He's a businessman , mm bush was the first president to have a degree in business.that worked out well.

The polls have him leading with 25% yet 53% of registered Republican voters say they would not vote for him.?

He's a progressive Republican.

Our just maybe he's wolf in sheepskin for the democratic party leading the way for Hillary.

He's not got my vote.

Ted Cruz is the only candidate that has given his testimony that he is a born again Christian, testifying that Jesus is his Lord and Savior. He's the only candidate that has stood before the government testifying that this Nation needs to turn to Jesus and repent of its sins and stood strong when he was mocked. He's the only candidate that stands for the truth and has fought to reveal the lies of the politicians to the American people . he's the only candidate that has vowed on day one as our president to resend all that Obama and Washington has done to our Nation and bring charges against them, but with the Republican party not liking him it may seem impossible, but all things are possible with God.

In Prayer Gods will be done

God bless

 

 

 

[John81]

While there are some things about Cruz I like, there are also similar things to those in Trump's resume. Cruz has shifted his positions in some of those areas as well.

The sad thing is, not a person running for president right now has a totally consistent track record over the past ten or more years. They have all shifted positions. Changing positions isn't always a bad thing, but we have to dig deep to try and figure out just why they changed their position, if the reason leads us to believe it's a meaningful, lasting change, a politically expedient change, a meaningless change.

Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat and some of the things he put into effect in California as governor were of the liberal/progressive stripe. He moved away from much of that and ran for president as a conservative.

Unfortunately, the political climate in America today, and the way the election system is rigged, those who seriously want to try and win the White House have to shift positions, straddle fences, speak one way to one audience, another to the next; campaign more to the Left or Right for the primaries and then campaign more to the ever fluctuating Center for the general election.

While I oppose nearly everything about Obama, he's actually one of the few candidates who has been pretty clear about most of his positions and intentions while running for office and while in office. He's actually gone to great lengths to "fundamentally transform America" through liberalism/socialism and with actually very little opposition from the so-called GOP "opposition party".

If only we could manage to elect a true Christian who is a true traditional conservative who would actually do all they could to do what they promised during the elections.

[Saved41199]

I could not support any of the candidates. Due to my own reading of scriptures, I lean more heavily towards social justice. (This is gonna get me fried here, but hear me out). I find that if I must hold a pro-life position, it must be a consistent pro-life position. That means looking at EVERY person as a beloved and unique creation of God. If I am to be pro-life, it means that I believe that everyone deserves housing, food, education, clothing and medical care. If it could be accomplished through the churches, then that would be best, however, there are very few churches with the resources necessary to do this. If it can be accomplished at the local level, then that would be good. Personally, I'd prefer to see it top down coming from DC. A standard group of regulations, and a standard time-frame. 

I work at a school that does professional retraining, helping people either join or re-join the workforce. There needs to be more of what I do, We teach people marketable job skills, geared to our area. I am in favor of this...and while people are in training, providing them everything else they need to be successful. A year or two of support pays off in the long run. 

As regards healthcare, I am fully in favor of single payer, universal health care. Maybe it's because I know way too many people who are terrified that loss of a job would mean the loss of their healthcare. Also, think about this one...if you didn't have to stay saddled to a job for healthcare, would you branch out? Would you perhaps go into ministry full time or start a charity or a non-profit? How much could you do if you didn't have to worry about keeping health insurance? 

[Ukulelemike]

9 hours ago, Saved41199 said:

I could not support any of the candidates. Due to my own reading of scriptures, I lean more heavily towards social justice. (This is gonna get me fried here, but hear me out). I find that if I must hold a pro-life position, it must be a consistent pro-life position. That means looking at EVERY person as a beloved and unique creation of God. If I am to be pro-life, it means that I believe that everyone deserves housing, food, education, clothing and medical care. You say you learn this from scripture, but I wonder then what scripture you speak of. None of this is to be found in scripture. The only people that God ever GAVE everything to was Israel, but that was after 40 years of obedience training in the desert and 15 years of war, (ie, taking it away) with the current residents. It also entailed obedience to God's laws, or it was taken away.  If it could be accomplished through the churches, then that would be best, however, there are very few churches with the resources necessary to do this. Again, unscriptural; churches see to the physical needs of believers, not 'the community'. This is a common flaw, based primarily out of Catholicism, who sought, like the government does now, to control every aspect of the lives of the community, and in doing so, taight them to rely on the church for everything.  The only thing we owe the community is the gospel of Jesus Christ. If it can be accomplished at the local level, then that would be good. Personally, I'd prefer to see it top down coming from DC. Again, unscriptural-even God didn't designate the seeing to all the needs of the nation to the king. The king protected through battle, not through welfare. The Lord, rather instructed EVERYONE to help their neighbor. But even here, there was a demand, expecially in the NT, that if a man wouldn't work, neither should he eat. If a man is capable of working, but refuses, there is no help for them-let them starve. Otherwise, let them work and see to their needs, and learn to help others when there is a NEED. A standard group of regulations, and a standard time-frame. 

I work at a school that does professional retraining, helping people either join or re-join the workforce. There needs to be more of what I do, We teach people marketable job skills, geared to our area. I am in favor of this...and while people are in training, providing them everything else they need to be successful. A year or two of support pays off in the long run. And this is a good thing-in fact, under Clinton, or maybe Bush, I am not sure, welfare was given a 2-year limit, and part of it was to train people in new job skills-this is great, it is a hand-up, not a hand-out. But that all kind of went away because ultimately, the government wants cradle-to-grave control.

As regards healthcare, I am fully in favor of single payer, universal health care. Maybe it's because I know way too many people who are terrified that loss of a job would mean the loss of their healthcare. Also, think about this one...if you didn't have to stay saddled to a job for healthcare, would you branch out? Would you perhaps go into ministry full time or start a charity or a non-profit? How much could you do if you didn't have to worry about keeping health insurance? I work full time and already have a fulltime ministry. Would I like it otherwise? Sure, but single-payer, ie, government insurance, has a proven record of failures, especially in thie country-read about the big problems in the VA: that is basically single-payer insurance, and people wait sometimes up to a year to be seen, even for serious things, because it is mismanaged terribly; now imagine that bad management running ALL the medical care in the country. No thanks.

Please understand, I am not frying you-you are clearly sincere, but sincerely wrong, scripturally and legally. The more the government has gotten their hands in things, the worse, ultimately, things have gotten in those areas.