Donald Trump will WIN BIG!

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
Continuing on page 3 the author of this thread writes:


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...8&postcount=38

All but #6 are subjective opinions of the author of this thread. But I have to ask why does the Defense of Marriage Act bother THall so much? (Surely we don't have a homosexualist in our midst do we?).

Make no mistake about it, Donnie Trump is a huge defender of the LGBTQueer movement, is that part of the appeal THall?

The above may be the queerest thing
you have ever said.
If you want to know what I think about
homosexuality, just read Leviticus 20:13

DOMA is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Some things are state's rights issues, they
are not and should not be touched by the FEDS.

DOMA in every state, would be much preferred,
provided we had an honest Supreme Court......

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't DOMA define marriage when it came to the federal government and allowed the respective states to not recognize faux marriage done in other states?

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. Until Section 3 of the Act was struck down in 2013 (United States v. Windsor), DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, had barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, effectively barring them from receiving federal marriage benefits. DOMA's passage did not prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex marriage, but it imposed constraints on the benefits received by all legally married same-sex couples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

So DOMA did support states that didn't want to acknowledge faux marriage, as well as defining marriage at the federal level.

While our Founding Fathers (who abhorred homosexuality) didn't write our constitution for anyone other than a moral and religious people, I agree (and I believe Ted Cruz does as well) that the best way to fight this on going culture war is to leave immoral things like homosexuality up to the respective states.

That being said:

You might find "The Donald Trump Files" interesting, as he is very pro homosexual.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4595610&postcount=1499

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Where was Cruz when Obama was saying
it was legal to drone Americans on American
soil? Hiding.

Provide a link please.

Cruz has his own list of contradiction and hypocrisies.
Non of these candidates are perfect.

And where was Donald Trump when Christians were being persecuted for standing up for God's institution of marriage and state sovereignty? (Kentucky passed a constitutional amendment by a whooping 70+ percent defining marriage between one man and one woman).

 

[zoo22]

You have been wrong about
everything concerning Trump.
It is rather obvious that you are
the one flailing around.

What are you dancing and prancing around about? I've "been wrong about everything concerning Trump"? Get a grip.

Okay, show us. You said it's very obvious, so you shouldn't have any trouble showing all of us how I've "been wrong about everything concerning Trump"? You're a gasbag.

If Trump wins by more than 2 percentage points
in New Hampshire, you leave.
If he does not win by 2 percent or more
then I will leave. Take that bet you coward.

:chuckle: What? You're such an epic tool. Why would I make that bet? I wouldn't be surprised if he does win NH. So what? Have I ever said otherwise?

All I've ever predicted is he's not going to win.

Look, I'd offered you a bet for you to stand behind your own words. You wouldn't take the bet. It's as simple as that. I said Trump wouldn't win, and I was willing to stand behind it.

I'd like to make a wager with THall: if Trump wins (at all, let alone "big"), I'll leave TOL. If Trump doesn't win (and of course Trump won't win), THall leaves TOL. No new registration, no sock puppets, just leave. Why? Because I can't stand THall; I think he's a blowhard.

Sounds good and fair to me. How about it? Heck, I'll throw in a donation to the charity of THall's choice on my way out.

By the way, which one of these dancers are you, THall?

THall dances for Trump

 

[rocketman]

I will bet you a lifetime membership that Trump
beats Cruz by more than 2.7 percent in the
New Hampshire primary.

Will you call that a big win for Trump?

That won't be any more of a surprise than Trump losing Iowa, in fact I would bet Trump wins and Rubio beats Cruz in NH. South Carolina is different animal altogether and I will bet Cruz takes SC as well.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

That won't be any more of a surprise than Trump losing Iowa, in fact I would bet Trump wins and Rubio beats Cruz in NH. South Carolina is different animal altogether and I will bet Cruz takes SC as well.

I'd read awhile back that Ted Cruz's stance against ethanol mandates is extremely popular in New Hampshire. This writer for the National Review states that as well.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430066/ted-cruz-new-hampshire-campaign-trail-thoughts

Cruz has many things going for him, I foresee more Cruz victories in NH and SC.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

What are you dancing and prancing around about? I've "been wrong about everything concerning Trump"? Get a grip.

Why are you against a Trump nomination zoo? It's a win-win situation for you liberals. If Mrs. Bill Clinton doesn't win the Presidency, one her fellow "New York values" liberals will.

Trump's "New York values"

 

[chrysostom]

Cruz has many things going for him, I foresee more Cruz victories in NH and SC.

new hampshire always rejects the iowa winner

 

[aCultureWarrior]

new hampshire always rejects the iowa winner

As shown in the National Review article that I linked above, there is much for the people of New Hampshire to like about Ted Cruz.

So when are you going to jump off the RINO bandwagon and back a true conservative?

 

[Ktoyou]

That won't be any more of a surprise than Trump losing Iowa, in fact I would bet Trump wins and Rubio beats Cruz in NH. South Carolina is different animal altogether and I will bet Cruz takes SC as well.

New Hampshire is a funny state, like Vermont. Rubio may win there, but in South Carolina, I think will go to Cruz. Hillary will also win there, but the socialist Bernie may take the strange Ds in New Hampshire?

If both states go to other than Trump. look for my prophesy to begin to unfold.

 

[Crucible]

And where was Donald Trump when Christians were being persecuted for standing up for God's institution of marriage and state sovereignty?

The state had the power to exercise that sovereignty and didn't. America is not built on a concept where you just vote and expect results in such matters. The state had the option to move for a secession or simply deny the Supreme Court.

But they didn't. Such things require might and the mighty didn't do anything, so gays are getting married there and that's that.

Also
That hardly counts as persecution.

 

[Mark M]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
Continuing on page 3 the author of this thread writes:


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...8&postcount=38

All but #6 are subjective opinions of the author of this thread. But I have to ask why does the Defense of Marriage Act bother THall so much? (Surely we don't have a homosexualist in our midst do we?).

Make no mistake about it, Donnie Trump is a huge defender of the LGBTQueer movement, is that part of the appeal THall?




Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't DOMA define marriage when it came to the federal government and allowed the respective states to not recognize faux marriage done in other states?

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. Until Section 3 of the Act was struck down in 2013 (United States v. Windsor), DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, had barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, effectively barring them from receiving federal marriage benefits. DOMA's passage did not prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex marriage, but it imposed constraints on the benefits received by all legally married same-sex couples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

So DOMA did support states that didn't want to acknowledge faux marriage, as well as defining marriage at the federal level.

While our Founding Fathers (who abhorred homosexuality) didn't write our constitution for anyone other than a moral and religious people, I agree (and I believe Ted Cruz does as well) that the best way to fight this on going culture war is to leave immoral things like homosexuality up to the respective states.

That being said:

You might find "The Donald Trump Files" interesting, as he is very pro homosexual.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4595610&postcount=1499

Interesting

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

And where was Donald Trump when Christians were being persecuted for standing up for God's institution of marriage and state sovereignty? (Kentucky passed a constitutional amendment by a whooping 70+ percent defining marriage between one man and one woman).

The state had the power to exercise that sovereignty and didn't.

I'm not sure what saying here. While numerous states (including Kentucky) passed constitutional amendments defining that marriage is between one man and one woman, the SCOTUS (judicial activist) ruling called Obergefell v Hodges went against the Constitution of the United States and said that those respective states didn't have the authority to define something as sacred as marriage.

America is not built on a concept where you just vote and expect results in such matters. The state had the option to move for a secession or simply deny the Supreme Court.
But they didn't. Such things require might and the mighty didn't do anything, so gays are getting married there and that's that.

The Supreme Court once again overstepped their authority. Donald Trump stood silent while Ted Cruz boldly took the side of religious liberty and states rights.

Also
That hardly counts as persecution.

If Kim Davis spending time in jail doesn't float your boat, pick from any of these 300 cases showing where the 'gaystapo' and their allies persecute people like Kim Davis who dare speak out against the LGBTQueer agenda.

http://barbwire.com/2014/07/07/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/


Ted Cruz has and will as President continue to defend religious liberty, Donald Trump won't stand silent as President, he'll throw fuel on the already out of control fire.

 

[Totton Linnet]

And the greater majority is still against it, your right though, the rejection of universal healthcare will decide the election.




What mood? socialism or socialized entitlements? We are not interested in expanding the government footprint we want to shrink it. Here's an idea :idea: how about I keep more of my money, that I earned and I will pay for what I want concerning health care, and others do the same. I don't work for to support the public, I work for to support my family...it is called liberty, you Brits would not understand the concept.



And after people have felt the effects of being forced to pay for socialized heath care the greater majority want the entire thing scrapped...except for the takers of society, we have an entire generation that want a freebie....but, it aint free for a larger portion of society.

Majority of Americans reject this outlook....so lose another lection

 

[Totton Linnet]

....I really did not want to see Hillary win

 

[ok doser]

....I really did not want to see Hillary win

expectations were that she'd take this in a walk

the fact that is was this close tells her she's got serious problems

 

[annabenedetti]

What mood? socialism or socialized entitlements? We are not interested in expanding the government footprint we want to shrink it. Here's an idea :idea: how about I keep more of my money, that I earned and I will pay for what I want concerning health care, and others do the same. I don't work for to support the public, I work for to support my family...it is called liberty, you Brits would not understand the concept.

It's called indifference towards those who aren't as fortunate as you. "I, my, I want..."

There are a lot of people who don't get to "pay for what [they] want concerning health care." The young man I referenced earlier, he's the only one on his employer's health care, he has a private policy for his wife and kids, and that premium was a thousand dollars a month. No one should have to pay 1000k to get basic health insurance for their family. That's what needs to be fixed. There needs to be a better way. I suspect that some of the loudest critics of universal health care are likely the ones with the best insurance package from their employers.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman
What mood? socialism or socialized entitlements? We are not interested in expanding the government footprint we want to shrink it. Here's an idea how about I keep more of my money, that I earned and I will pay for what I want concerning health care, and others do the same. I don't work for to support the public, I work for to support my family...it is called liberty, you Brits would not understand the concept.

It's called indifference towards those who aren't as fortunate as you. "I, my, I want..."

There are a lot of people who don't get to "pay for what [they] want concerning health care." The young man I referenced earlier, he's the only one on his employer's health care, he has a private policy for his wife and kids, and that premium was a thousand dollars a month. No one should have to pay 1000k to get basic health insurance for their family. That's what needs to be fixed. There needs to be a better way. I suspect that some of the loudest critics of universal health care are likely the ones with the best insurance package from their employers.

Surely you're not implying that everything isn't peachy keen under B. Hussein Obama's HUGE bureaucratic "Affordable Health Care Act" are you anna?

As I told your buddy zoo: It's a win-win situation for you liberals if Donald Trump gets the Republican nomination, because if Mrs. Bill Clinton should lose, you'll still have a socialist in the White House.

https://reviveusa.com/trump-ill-create-universal-health-care-i-have-a-heart/

A President Ted Cruz will repeal "Obamacare" and turn healthcare over to the free market so that every person will have a choice as to what's best for them.

 

[annabenedetti]

Surely you're not implying that everything isn't peachy keen under B. Hussein Obama's HUGE bureaucratic "Affordable Health Care Act" are you anna?

The concept was good, the execution of it wasn't so good. But then, we're kind of late to the idea, so there's a pretty steep learning curve to overcome.

BTW, the young man I've been talking about is paying that exorbitant health care premium in the free market system you'd like Cruz to get us back to.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The concept was good, the execution of it wasn't so good. But then, we're kind of late to the idea, so there's a pretty steep learning curve to overcome.

The concept of a huge bureaucratic federal government having total control over peoples' health care and the economy can never be a good thing anna.

BTW, the young man I've been talking about is paying that exorbitant health care premium in the free market system you'd like Cruz to get us back to.

If this "young man" that you're speaking of lives in the United States, by law he is obligated to abide by the rules of "The Affordable Healthcare Act".

Back to Donald Trump: Notice in the article I posted how he says

“If somebody has no money and they’re lying in the middle of the street and they’re dying, I’m going to take care of that person."
https://reviveusa.com/trump-ill-create-universal-health-care-i-have-a-heart/

Trump isn't talking about individual charity, he's talking about how as President he would use government (taxpayer) money to supposedly take care of that person (i.e. get them hooked and keep hooked on a government handout).

Again: Donald "New York values" Trump is your kind of politician anna.

 

[rocketman]

Majority of Americans reject this outlook....so lose another lection

You are absolutely wrong, a mere 37% want universal healthcare while 59% want the feds out of healthcare and out of their pockets so, I am not sure where you are getting your numbers Totty but, you might want to read up on it, you can start with the most recent query, this is from Jan.2016.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law