Former RNC chair: was no one in the room with Trump?

War is war. Death happens and can't be avoided. There isn't intent to murder millions. I guess that's the distinction that needs to be made.

This is an interesting situation.

I often find myself having negative feelings towards people who won't criticize Trump even when he does something that pretty clearly was a mistake.

Generally speaking, I'm more attracted to the overall Democratic platform then the Republican won. Keeping in mind, of course, that since there are only two main parties in the USA there are going to be some things that I agree or disagree with in each party.

So maybe we can learn from each other!

There are some conservative/Republican commentators that I like to listen to. David Brooks and George Will come to mind. They are both conservative and intelligent, though neither is a trump supporter.

What is something that the Democratic party generally endorses that you disagree with?

Ask any veteran who served in the dozens of wars and armed conflicts Congress has engaged the USA in. They can help you learn who I mean.

I could go on and on with things like Judicial appointments and trade, but how any decent person, let alone Christians, could support Dems is beyond me!

Democrats will burn the American flag while stepping over a police officer choking on a sandwich as they make their way to a gay pride parade prior to having an abortion and protesting the execution of a child rapist. All the while accompanied by illegal aliens, Islamic terrorists and NAMBLA members.

Well, if you are interested in having a calm rational discussion about your statement above, please pick a particular issue and we can discuss it.

Umm. How bout addressing the issues I already raised?

Like. How “rational” is it to support people who dismember babies in the womb, suck out their remains, and then sell whatever body parts are left?

Is that the rationality you wanna talk about?

let's start here.
"First and foremost democrats are not only anti life..."

Okay, let's talk about abortion.
first I will say that I believe it is wrong to kill a baby inside of its mother.

At the same time, and counter-intuitively, making laws against abortion might not be the best approach to actually reducing the number of babies killed.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30380-4/fulltext

I have no doubt that other people will cite studies that show different findings. In the end, though, the situation leads me to believe that it's not a simple black-and-white issue.

Add to the situation this verse
Ecclesiastes 6: 3. If a man fathers a hundred children, and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not filled with good, and moreover he has no burial; I say, that a stillborn child is better than he: 4. for it comes in vanity, and departs in darkness, and its name is covered with darkness. 5. Moreover it has not seen the sun nor known it. This has rest rather than the other.

So while I agree that it is morally wrong for a woman to kill her unborn baby, it is probably better for the unborn baby to be killed than to be born to a mother who would consider killing it.

let's start here.
"First and foremost democrats are not only anti life..."

Okay, let's talk about abortion.
first I will say that I believe it is wrong to kill a baby inside of its mother.

At the same time, and counter-intuitively, making laws against abortion might not be the best approach to actually reducing the number of babies killed.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30380-4/fulltext

I have no doubt that other people will cite studies that show different findings. In the end, though, the situation leads me to believe that it's not a simple black-and-white issue.

Add to the situation this verse
Ecclesiastes 6: 3. If a man fathers a hundred children, and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not filled with good, and moreover he has no burial; I say, that a stillborn child is better than he: 4. for it comes in vanity, and departs in darkness, and its name is covered with darkness. 5. Moreover it has not seen the sun nor known it. This has rest rather than the other.

So while I agree that it is morally wrong for a woman to kill her unborn baby, it is probably better for the unborn baby to be killed than to be born to a mother who would consider killing it.

It's also quite despicable of you to say quality of life is a valid reason to do this.

You had asked what are some of the differences that Democrats and Republicans have.

That said, I can safely and honestly say I've never knowingly voted for a candidate whose open platform included something I felt was morally wrong.

Which statement of mine are you referring to?


Do you believe that greed is morally wrong?

It's not a trail, so I doubt that applies. But no, neither side should do it. But Dems get before the people acting all self righteous when they are doing the same thing they are accusing the president of. But that's typical of Dems.

I already agreed that killing an unborn baby is wrong.

I didn't come up with the quality of life argument.


Do you agree with this scripture?
Ecclesiastes 6: 3. I say, that a stillborn child is better than he.

You're right... Dems absolutely do that... but um... so do Republicans. More often than not, Republican and Democrat politicians tell the truth when they attack the other. Both do the same tactics and make distinctions without any meaningful difference to justify their hypocrisy.

I'm glad you see it on one side (the Democrat side), but I pray you're able to see it on the other side as well.

I already agreed that killing an unborn baby is wrong.

I didn't come up with the quality of life argument.


Do you agree with this scripture?
Ecclesiastes 6: 3. I say, that a stillborn child is better than he.

Conservatives have had a majority in the Supreme Court multiple times and refused to change the Roe vs Wade decision. Why has it not changed? Yes, we know technically that Supreme Court Justices are "neutral", or suppose to be anyways, but are not appointed based off of their neutral/objective positions, but instead because they are heavily biased in favor of the president's ideology. In fact, many people didn't like Trump but voted for him because they felt the Supreme Court appointees was the most important reason to go ahead and vote for him over Hillary.

Why haven't they changed it? Why has there not been pressure on these "Conservative" justices? We can poke fingers and curse/rebuke all the Democrats, we can call them "baby killers", but the justices the conservative people champion are doing absolutely nothing to change it. Democrats, even the biggest pro-choicers are incapable of changing Roe vs Wade... but your conservative justices CAN. Why not poke at them? Why not call them baby killers?

It's easy to say you're "pro-life" just as it's easy to say you're a Christian... but action is needed, not just empty words.

You'll never vote again if you are waiting for a politician that is free of greed. LOL

WE, don't get to determine how one's life will turn out!

You are justifying having a baby shredded to pieces because he MIGHT turn out to have a wasted life?

Talk about playing God! You have a very warped way of rationalizing.