$5.00
$30.00
$20.00
$15.00
Recommend
13 
 Thumb up
 Hide
139 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Why as a Christian, I am NOT even considering voting for Trump... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: eat_the_skittles [+] [View All]
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
mbmbmbmbmb
First the man offends my sense of humanity in general.

The latest offense, is the Skittles thing. It really got me upset. WTF?!?... refugees are PEOPLE!!

A friend posted response from some guy on Facebook that is trending that sums up how I feel about this comparison.

From a guy named Wayne Zachary:
Quote:


"If I gave you a bowl of skittles and three of them were poison would you still eat them?"

"Are the other skittles human lives?"

"What?"

"Like. Is there a good chance. A really good chance. I would be saving someone from a war zone and probably their life if I ate a skittle?"

"Well sure. But the point-"

"I would eat the skittles."

"Ok-well the point is-"

"I would GORGE myself on skittles. I would eat every single fucking skittle I could find. I would STUFF myself with skittles. And when I found the poison skittle and died I would make sure to leave behind a legacy of children and of friends who also ate skittle after skittle until there were no skittles to be eaten. And each person who found the poison skittle we would weep for. We would weep for their loss, for their sacrifice, and for the fact that they did not let themselves succumb to fear but made the world a better place by eating skittles.

Because your REAL question...the one you hid behind a shitty little inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor is, IS MY LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND TERRIFIED CHILDREN...

... and what kind of monster would think the answer to that question... is yes?"

#EatTheSkittles



Then a friend posted a link to this article which really articulates my deepest objections clearly!!

It really sums up everything I have been feeling as the election has progressed so well. I recommend reading it all.


Coming to Terms with Trump

Especially this part ... it bests puts into words why as a Christian I would not and will not vote for Trump under any circumstances I can currently imagine.



Quote:



In so doing, I have to admit that while I may view Hillary Clinton’s campaign as anti-American, I view Donald Trump’s campaign as un-American.

The American spirit eschews the idea of a strong man in Washington fixing all our problems. We are supposed to be against the imposition of values set by Washington and instead should embrace our heterogeneity as a people. Not only does Donald Trump not do that, but his views pervert the liberal order of things as much as Clintonian illiberalism. Clinton offers a tyranny of the minority and Trump offers a tyranny of the majority. Clinton offers neither safety nor freedom and Trump offers safety at the expense of freedom. While I see Clinton as having no virtue, I see Donald Trump corrupting the virtuous and fostering hatred, racism, and dangerous strains of nationalism.

More importantly, while I think Hillary Clinton will do long term damage to the country, I believe Donald Trump will do far more damage to the church, which must be my chief priority. A Clinton Administration may see the church besieged from the outside, but a Trump Administration will see the church poisoned from within.

...


Christians looking for a strong man to protect the church instead of the strongest man who conquered death is a terrible thing to see. Many Christian leaders are engaging in a kind of syncretism, trying to blend patriotism with Christianity. They seemingly argue that if the nation falls, the church falls and for the church to rise the country must rise. But Christ has already risen so the true church is in no danger of falling. The gates of hell shall not prevail.

Seeing men like Wayne Grudem and others beclown themselves trying to justify support of a man like Trump makes me weep for the shallow faith of a church more wrapped up in its Americanness than its Godliness.




34 
 Thumb up
2.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
North Dakota
flag msg tools
Thanks for the rent-free space in your head. Would have been nice if you'd cleaned it up a bit before you rented it out, though.
badge
I control your mind.
mbmbmbmbmb
I completely understand why Christians won't vote for Trump. One of my friends who is a retired pastor posts anti-Trump stuff every day on Facebook.

But given the reasons outlined in the piece above, I also can't understand why they'd vote for Hillary.

So . . . this 'graph near the end . . .

Quote:
I am without a candidate. I just cannot vote for either one. Whichever is elected, it is God’s will and as his holy and inerrant scripture commands, I will pray for my President as I pray for the current President. But I will not harm my witness nor risk Trump’s soul to serve my political desires.


That at least is the proper view. I cannot comprehend anyone who uses their Christianity as a reason not to support Trump and yet is determined to vote for Hillary.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:

That at least is the proper view. I cannot comprehend anyone who uses their Christianity as a reason not to support Trump and yet is determined to vote for Hillary.


Since I am not in a battleground state... Washington is going for the Dems regardless of who is running... I am free to vote for Johnson as a protest vote and currently plan to do that.

However... I would vote for Hillary if I was in a state I thought might go for Trump and my vote mattered.

Not only because in the long run I think she is a more moral person than Trump, though God knows that is a bar so low it requires tunneling to get under so that isn't saying much, I also think she is more competent and less dangerous to the world all around.

But the strongest reason I would vote for her over Trump is the long term health of the CHURCH matters to me more than this election does in the big picture. And as the author of that article pointed out... Trump has a capacity to help continue to poison the Church from within. Which is a far worse thing than just another 4-8 years of battling against external threats to our religious freedom.

I fear that which can destroy souls more than that which can merely destroy lives.





10 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
Not only because in the long run I think she is a more moral person than Trump


clever, I thought you were serious until this.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
But the strongest reason I would vote for her over Trump is the long term health of the CHURCH matters to me more than this election does in the big picture.

Neither Trump or Clinton are religious, so I don't see what your religious nonsense has to do with anything.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Any Christian that refuses to vote for Trump based on religious reasons, who in turn votes for Hillary, is a complete idiot.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


People that don't want what "the church" has to offer deserve protection from it as well.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corey Hopkins
United States
Converse
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
My faith has led me to vote for Democrats long before now, but it is especially disheartening to see fellow Christians vote for such a hateful person in such large numbers.

I am convinced that if Jesus were alive today, he would give Trump a biblical ass-kicking.

22 
 Thumb up
0.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This was the funniest ( or most misguided and foolish ) statement in the piece quoted by the OP:

Quote:
Trump offers safety at the expense of freedom.


LOL, in what known universe does Trump offer safety ? With all the hatred, fear, and discrimination he foments and fosters it would hardly be a safer world with Trump as POTUS. We'd be an even bigger target for everyone that hates America.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
Not only because in the long run I think she is a more moral person than Trump


clever, I thought you were serious until this.


I am gravely serious. Though I am sure you already both know that and understand the concept of "relative" comparison.

Still I will elaborate just in case I am wrong.

If I say I prefer to use horse dung to fertilized my garden because it smells better than cow dung I am not saying either smells good nor denying the reality that they are both dung.

There are several criteria upon which I think Clinton is likely to be more moral than Trump. If you actually wanted to know which and why they matter to me I might consider discussing it. But it isn't worth my time to type it up just to refute general snark.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
But the strongest reason I would vote for her over Trump is the long term health of the CHURCH matters to me more than this election does in the big picture.

Neither Trump or Clinton are religious, so I don't see what your religious nonsense has to do with anything.


I am not sure how you mean this so it is difficult to respond effectively.

Clearly my "religious nonsense" is going to have a serious impact on MY goals, ethics and world view so that is going to effect what I think is important in a candidate.

Also you do realize that non-relgious people can and do have an effect on religious people, right? Even in day to day life, very well in terms of the ability of government to craft laws that impact individuals.

So I don't see how that they personally are not religious (even if it were entirely true, which I doubt. I think the Clintons are moderately religious) doesn't mean I shouldn't have reasonable fears about their impact upon people and groups who are more religious than they are.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
mbmbmbmbmb
jonb wrote:
This was the funniest ( or most misguided and foolish ) statement in the piece quoted by the OP:

Quote:
Trump offers safety at the expense of freedom.


LOL, in what known universe does Trump offer safety ? With all the hatred, fear, and discrimination he foments and fosters it would hardly be a safer world with Trump as POTUS. We'd be an even bigger target for everyone that hates America.


I disagree. With an immoral use of power we could certainly make our nation slightly safer for our citizens. I don't think that is the right way to handle things for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be effective.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
jonb wrote:
This was the funniest ( or most misguided and foolish ) statement in the piece quoted by the OP:

Quote:
Trump offers safety at the expense of freedom.


LOL, in what known universe does Trump offer safety ? With all the hatred, fear, and discrimination he foments and fosters it would hardly be a safer world with Trump as POTUS. We'd be an even bigger target for everyone that hates America.


I disagree. With an immoral use of power we could certainly make our nation slightly safer for our citizens. I don't think that is the right way to handle things for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be effective.


What "immoral use of power" do you envision Trump using that would make us safer ?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
First the man offends my sense of humanity in general.

The latest offense, is the Skittles thing. It really got me upset. WTF?!?... refugees are PEOPLE!!

A friend posted response from some guy on Facebook that is trending that sums up how I feel about this comparison.

From a guy named Wayne Zachary:
Quote:


"If I gave you a bowl of skittles and three of them were poison would you still eat them?"

"Are the other skittles human lives?"

"What?"

"Like. Is there a good chance. A really good chance. I would be saving someone from a war zone and probably their life if I ate a skittle?"

"Well sure. But the point-"

"I would eat the skittles."

"Ok-well the point is-"

"I would GORGE myself on skittles. I would eat every single fucking skittle I could find. I would STUFF myself with skittles. And when I found the poison skittle and died I would make sure to leave behind a legacy of children and of friends who also ate skittle after skittle until there were no skittles to be eaten. And each person who found the poison skittle we would weep for. We would weep for their loss, for their sacrifice, and for the fact that they did not let themselves succumb to fear but made the world a better place by eating skittles.

Because your REAL question...the one you hid behind a shitty little inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor is, IS MY LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND TERRIFIED CHILDREN...

... and what kind of monster would think the answer to that question... is yes?"

#EatTheSkittles



Would you eat the skittles if you could save 12 times as many lives by settling the refugees in safe zones in the middle east and not eat the skittles? Or would you rather risk 11 lives for every one you could save by settling them in the US at 12 times the expense?
#EatingTheSkittlesKills12TimesMore
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
mbmbmbmbmb
Altair IV wrote:


People that don't want what "the church" has to offer deserve protection from it as well.


We already have a built in separation of power that protects people from "the church" who don't want to directly influenced by it.

It doesn't protect all people completely from having to co-exist with their neighbors who might have different values from them*, but it does keep any official "Church" from having political or legal powers over their lives.

So I don't know what your point is in terms of my OP. Are you just taking cheap shot at me and generally religious bashing or am I missing some actual point you wanted to make that is relevant to my post?


*Please recall as I have pointed out many times in the past, we all have to endure some discomfort and even sometimes hardships when the shared values of a larger culture when those values differ from our own. Chinese people who really enjoy eating dog meat and insects cannot enjoy those parts of their culture if they move here not because of religious people but because of how we at large feel about our pets. A great many moral and ethical often just general taste driven restrictions get coded into our laws based on what people want their culture at large to be like. Why they want things that way is a purely secondary issue most of the time.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
Ami. Geek.
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
Quote:

a shitty little inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor


Here is my problem with this, and with many of the emotionally charged hyperbolic statements about Trump (and probably Hillary to be fair). It's not true. There is nothing insensitive, dehumanizing, nor racist about the metaphor. He's just pointing out the risk of accepting a bowl full of refugees when there is a chance 3 of them might be terrorists. It's actually quite apt.

The main response to the Skittles metaphor is even more apt, IMO. I think it's a great response, save the emotional vitriol at the end. I'd like for people who really love the Skittles metaphor to see it, because I agree that taking compassion on these people is worth the risks. But what I don't think is great is accusing Trump, because of this metaphor, of being either racist, dehumanizing, or insensitive.

Suggesting that there may be terrorists if you accept thousands upon thousands of Muslims into the country isn't racist. It's actually very likely and anybody that denies this just plain hasn't been paying attention.

It's not dehumanizing to use a metaphor to explain the concept of a zero risk tolerance mindset. It's not about Muslims being candy in a haha funny sort of way. It's a metaphor to explain risk. It's silly to say this in any way dehumanizes anybody.

It's not insensitive to suggest that there may be terrorists hiding in the midst of tens of thousands of Muslims from a part of the word that breeds and harbors terrorists. It may be an uncomfortable truth, but it's not insensitive.

It's not necessary to attack Trump for things like this. There are plenty of things to attack him for, such as suggesting that we should kill the families of terrorists to send a message. That's some exceptionally broken and un-Christian thinking right there. Wanna call that insensitive and dehumanizing? Be my guest. Like I said, plenty of reason to dislike Trump. More than plenty.

I just wish people would be precise in their criticisms, because the last thing we need is to make things even worse by giving into the hate and the hypocrisy and the self-delusion of propagating damaging falsehoods.

Let's just be honest.
10 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Hathorn
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
Quote:

a shitty little inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor


Here is my problem with this, and with many of the emotionally charged hyperbolic statements about Drumpf (and probably Hillary to be fair). It's not true. There is nothing insensitive, dehumanizing, nor racist about the metaphor. He's just pointing out the risk of accepting a bowl full of refugees when there is a chance 3 of them might be terrorists. It's actually quite apt.

The main response to the Skittles metaphor is even more apt, IMO. I think it's a great response, save the emotional vitriol at the end. I'd like for people who really love the Skittles metaphor to see it, because I agree that taking compassion on these people is worth the risks. But what I don't think is great is accusing Drumpf, because of this metaphor, of being either racist, dehumanizing, or insensitive.

Suggesting that there may be terrorists if you accept thousands upon thousands of Muslims into the country isn't racist. It's actually very likely and anybody that denies this just plain hasn't been paying attention.

It's not dehumanizing to use a metaphor to explain the concept of a zero risk tolerance mindset. It's not about Muslims being candy in a haha funny sort of way. It's a metaphor to explain risk. It's silly to say this in any way dehumanizes anybody.

It's not insensitive to suggest that there may be terrorists hiding in the midst of tens of thousands of Muslims from a part of the word that breeds and harbors terrorists. It may be an uncomfortable truth, but it's not insensitive.

It's not necessary to attack Drumpf for things like this. There are plenty of things to attack him for, such as suggesting that we should kill the families of terrorists to send a message. That's some exceptionally broken and un-Christian thinking right there. Wanna call that insensitive and dehumanizing? Be my guest. Like I said, plenty of reason to dislike Drumpf. More than plenty.

I just wish people would be precise in their criticisms, because the last thing we need is to make things even worse by giving into the hate and the hypocrisy and the self-delusion of propagating damaging falsehoods.

Let's just be honest.

Let's be honest then. Why use a metaphor at all? Is isn't necessary. This isn't a complex situation that Donald Jr. is describing. He could just as easily have said refugees instead of skittles.

It's the use of a metaphor, particularly a comparison to candy, and not the argument (which is a good argument) that dehumanizes.
12 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
Ami. Geek.
mbmbmbmbmb
JohnnyOffice wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
Quote:

a shitty little inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor


Here is my problem with this, and with many of the emotionally charged hyperbolic statements about Drumpf (and probably Hillary to be fair). It's not true. There is nothing insensitive, dehumanizing, nor racist about the metaphor. He's just pointing out the risk of accepting a bowl full of refugees when there is a chance 3 of them might be terrorists. It's actually quite apt.

The main response to the Skittles metaphor is even more apt, IMO. I think it's a great response, save the emotional vitriol at the end. I'd like for people who really love the Skittles metaphor to see it, because I agree that taking compassion on these people is worth the risks. But what I don't think is great is accusing Drumpf, because of this metaphor, of being either racist, dehumanizing, or insensitive.

Suggesting that there may be terrorists if you accept thousands upon thousands of Muslims into the country isn't racist. It's actually very likely and anybody that denies this just plain hasn't been paying attention.

It's not dehumanizing to use a metaphor to explain the concept of a zero risk tolerance mindset. It's not about Muslims being candy in a haha funny sort of way. It's a metaphor to explain risk. It's silly to say this in any way dehumanizes anybody.

It's not insensitive to suggest that there may be terrorists hiding in the midst of tens of thousands of Muslims from a part of the word that breeds and harbors terrorists. It may be an uncomfortable truth, but it's not insensitive.

It's not necessary to attack Drumpf for things like this. There are plenty of things to attack him for, such as suggesting that we should kill the families of terrorists to send a message. That's some exceptionally broken and un-Christian thinking right there. Wanna call that insensitive and dehumanizing? Be my guest. Like I said, plenty of reason to dislike Drumpf. More than plenty.

I just wish people would be precise in their criticisms, because the last thing we need is to make things even worse by giving into the hate and the hypocrisy and the self-delusion of propagating damaging falsehoods.

Let's just be honest.

Let's be honest then. Why use a metaphor at all? Is isn't necessary. This isn't a complex situation that Donald Jr. is describing. He could just as easily have said refugees instead of skittles.

It's the use of a metaphor, particularly a comparison to candy, and not the argument (which is a good argument) that dehumanizes.


The entire purpose of using an analogy or metaphor is to get you to come at the problem from a different angle so that you think about it in a different way than you currently are.

I'm not suggesting that it's objectively wrong to try to argue the point without an analogy, but I don't see what the big deal is. There is no need to overreact and try to make it anything more than a bad analogy (or a good one if you happen to agree with it). That kind of emotional, knee-jerk reaction is one of many layers that only serves to stir up hatred and shut down healthy debate.

I'm fatigued at trying to resist the divisive hatred that is tearing this country apart. If we continue to go down this path, there is no coming back.

To the conservatives, I say stop giving the liberals a reason to immediately discount everything you say. To the liberals, I say stop giving the conservatives a reason to immediately discount everything you say.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
First the man offends my sense of humanity in general.

The latest offense, is the Skittles thing. It really got me upset. WTF?!?... refugees are PEOPLE!!

A friend posted response from some guy on Facebook that is trending that sums up how I feel about this comparison.

From a guy named Wayne Zachary:
Quote:


"If I gave you a bowl of skittles and three of them were poison would you still eat them?"

"Are the other skittles human lives?"

"What?"

"Like. Is there a good chance. A really good chance. I would be saving someone from a war zone and probably their life if I ate a skittle?"

"Well sure. But the point-"

"I would eat the skittles."

"Ok-well the point is-"

"I would GORGE myself on skittles. I would eat every single fucking skittle I could find. I would STUFF myself with skittles. And when I found the poison skittle and died I would make sure to leave behind a legacy of children and of friends who also ate skittle after skittle until there were no skittles to be eaten. And each person who found the poison skittle we would weep for. We would weep for their loss, for their sacrifice, and for the fact that they did not let themselves succumb to fear but made the world a better place by eating skittles.

Because your REAL question...the one you hid behind a shitty little inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor is, IS MY LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND TERRIFIED CHILDREN...

... and what kind of monster would think the answer to that question... is yes?"

#EatTheSkittles



Would you eat the skittles if you could save 12 times as many lives by settling the refugees in safe zones in the middle east and not eat the skittles? Or would you rather risk 11 lives for every one you could save by settling them in the US at 12 times the expense?
#EatingTheSkittlesKills12TimesMore


Safe zones in a war torn area? Remember Srebrenica? That was a "safe zone" too as one remembers. Nice try

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Henry
United States
Manvel
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
sfox wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
But the strongest reason I would vote for her over Trump is the long term health of the CHURCH matters to me more than this election does in the big picture.

Neither Trump or Clinton are religious, so I don't see what your religious nonsense has to do with anything.

Huh? Hillary's quite religious.

Hillary Clinton, Longtime Christian

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias Strobe
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Listen to your sidekick and eat the pennies.
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
Any Christian that refuses to vote for Trump based on religious reasons, who in turn votes for Hillary, is a complete idiot.


You're not religious, correct? So what the fuck do you know about it?

Seriously, you guys sure know a whole lot about everybody else's religious beliefs.

Drew1365 wrote:
I cannot comprehend anyone who uses their Christianity as a reason not to support Trump and yet is determined to vote for Hillary.


Well, you could actually listen to what they have to say and take them at face...

...oh nevermind.
17 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
Ilthuain wrote:

Well, you could actually listen to what they have to say and take them at face...

...oh nevermind.


Who are you and what have you done with whats-his-face?

Is he in danger?

Blink twice if you can hear me.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg
United States
Pleasant Hill
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not voting, I am praying. I wish Obama could take a 3rd term because these two options have to be the worst in our history.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
For BJ.....
mb
jeremycobert wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
Not only because in the long run I think she is a more moral person than Trump


clever, I thought you were serious until this.


You really are a piece of work, ain't ya?

Love to read your take on Trump and Johnson are both Democrats.

Darilian
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb

I don't know how any Christian, whether secular or fundamentalist or anything in between, could support Trump. Everything he espouses seems antithetical to Christian values of all stripes.
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.