Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

---

That's some impressive tap dancing but the fact is she promoted the fund during the riots. The fund bailed out rioters. The fund also bailed out domestic abusers and murderers. You can't pretend she didn't use her position to help raise $35,000,000 for the organization, even if you are going to pretend she didn't donate her own money.

---

Yeah, she raised money during the riots. She didn't personally cause them, so that's one little difference between her and Trump.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

---

That's some impressive tap dancing but the fact is she promoted the fund during the riots. The fund bailed out rioters. The fund also bailed out domestic abusers and murderers. You can't pretend she didn't use her position to help raise $35,000,000 for the organization, even if you are going to pretend she didn't donate her own money.

---

Yeah, she raised money during the riots. She didn't personally cause them, so that's one little difference between her and Trump.

---

She was a far more vocal proponent of the riots than Trump ever was of Jan 6th. Want to compare videos of Trump telling people to protest peacefully with clips of her saying the riots shouldn't stop? Those riots happened because democrats encouraged them and funded them every time a criminal of the protected skin tone got hurt fighting their arrest.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

---

That's some impressive tap dancing but the fact is she promoted the fund during the riots. The fund bailed out rioters. The fund also bailed out domestic abusers and murderers. You can't pretend she didn't use her position to help raise $35,000,000 for the organization, even if you are going to pretend she didn't donate her own money.

---

Yeah, she raised money during the riots. She didn't personally cause them, so that's one little difference between her and Trump.

---

She was a far more vocal proponent of the riots than Trump ever was of Jan 6th. Want to compare videos of Trump telling people to protest peacefully with clips of her saying the riots shouldn't stop?

---

Riots, or protests?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

---

That's some impressive tap dancing but the fact is she promoted the fund during the riots. The fund bailed out rioters. The fund also bailed out domestic abusers and murderers. You can't pretend she didn't use her position to help raise $35,000,000 for the organization, even if you are going to pretend she didn't donate her own money.

---

Yeah, she raised money during the riots. She didn't personally cause them, so that's one little difference between her and Trump.

---

She was a far more vocal proponent of the riots than Trump ever was of Jan 6th. Want to compare videos of Trump telling people to protest peacefully with clips of her saying the riots shouldn't stop?

---

Riots, or protests?

---

You'll have to ask her, she didn't differentiate when she was egging them on. Edit; though I've been told that the actions s of one or two people in the crowd can indict the entire crowd, turning a protest into an insurrection, so there is no difference if the blm protests occurred during the blm riots.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

---

That's some impressive tap dancing but the fact is she promoted the fund during the riots. The fund bailed out rioters. The fund also bailed out domestic abusers and murderers. You can't pretend she didn't use her position to help raise $35,000,000 for the organization, even if you are going to pretend she didn't donate her own money.

---

Yeah, she raised money during the riots. She didn't personally cause them, so that's one little difference between her and Trump.

---

She was a far more vocal proponent of the riots than Trump ever was of Jan 6th. Want to compare videos of Trump telling people to protest peacefully with clips of her saying the riots shouldn't stop?

---

Riots, or protests?

---

You'll have to ask her, she didn't differentiate when she was egging them on. Edit; though I've been told that the actions s of one or two people in the crowd can indict the entire crowd, turning a protest into an insurrection, so there is no difference if the blm protests occurred during the blm riots.

---

"We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder. Make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fact-check-kamala-harris-said-protests-arent-going-stop/5678687002/

""They're not going to stop," Harris said at the time. "This is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not going to stop and everyone beware, because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November and they're not going to stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not and we should not.""

This is what that babbling moron said after HUNDREDS of protest/riots. If Trump had said the protests outside the capitol should not stop after Jan6th you would be crying your little self to sleep every night whining about insurrection. Oh wait. That's what you do anyway after he called for peaceful demonstrations.

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money.

---

Once again, a distinction without a difference. She publicly supported and helped raise money for funds that bailed out violent looters at the time that BLM "protestors" were burning down businesses, cars and causing property damage throughout the country - damage far greater than any destruction that occurred on January 6th BTW.

I am not interested in engaging in a moral equivalency argument with Trump, as his actions on January 6th were likewise terrible, but in your zeal to crap on Trump, we shouldn't downplay Harris' behavior.

Wangchung said:

---

""They're not going to stop," Harris said at the time. "This is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not going to stop and everyone beware, because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November and they're not going to stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not and we should not.""

This is what that babbling moron said after HUNDREDS of protest/riots. If Trump had said the protests outside the capitol should not stop after Jan6th you would be crying your little self to sleep every night whining about insurrection. Oh wait. That's what you do anyway after he called for peaceful demonstrations.

---

90+% of the 2020 protests were peaceful. There was only one protest at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and it was a violent one due in large part to Donald Trump. Of course any reasonable person would be alarmed if he called for it to continue.

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

""They're not going to stop," Harris said at the time. "This is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not going to stop and everyone beware, because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November and they're not going to stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not and we should not.""

This is what that babbling moron said after HUNDREDS of protest/riots. If Trump had said the protests outside the capitol should not stop after Jan6th you would be crying your little self to sleep every night whining about insurrection. Oh wait. That's what you do anyway after he called for peaceful demonstrations.

---

90+% of the 2020 protests were peaceful. There was only one protest at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and it was a violent one due in large part to Donald Trump. Of course any reasonable person would be alarmed if he called for it to continue.

---

90% were peaceful? You told me that two guys planned an insurrection so that meant everyone there was guilty of insurrection on Jan 6th. Now suddenly you get to divide the violent attendees from the peaceful attendees of the BLM riots in effort to call the riots peaceful? Typical.

Counting events, not participants.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

""They're not going to stop," Harris said at the time. "This is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not going to stop and everyone beware, because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November and they're not going to stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not and we should not.""

This is what that babbling moron said after HUNDREDS of protest/riots. If Trump had said the protests outside the capitol should not stop after Jan6th you would be crying your little self to sleep every night whining about insurrection. Oh wait. That's what you do anyway after he called for peaceful demonstrations.

---

90+% of the 2020 protests were peaceful. There was only one protest at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and it was a violent one due in large part to Donald Trump. Of course any reasonable person would be alarmed if he called for it to continue.

---

i thought it was violent due to Ray Epps.. you and your stories!

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

""They're not going to stop," Harris said at the time. "This is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not going to stop and everyone beware, because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November and they're not going to stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not and we should not.""

This is what that babbling moron said after HUNDREDS of protest/riots. If Trump had said the protests outside the capitol should not stop after Jan6th you would be crying your little self to sleep every night whining about insurrection. Oh wait. That's what you do anyway after he called for peaceful demonstrations.

---

90+% of the 2020 protests were peaceful. There was only one protest at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and it was a violent one due in large part to Donald Trump. Of course any reasonable person would be alarmed if he called for it to continue.

---

i thought it was violent due to Ray Epps.. you and your stories!

---

Ha, good point.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Counting events, not participants.

---

Nope. By the standards you set when calling Jan 6th an insurrection based on a couple people who made some texts then every blm protest that saw any violence is a riot. Funny how we have zero private texts or emails published from the perpetrators of the 500+ riots...

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Counting events, not participants.

---

Nope. By the standards you set when calling Jan 6th an insurrection based on a couple people who made some texts then every blm protest that saw any violence is a riot. Funny how we have zero private texts or emails published from the perpetrators of the 500+ riots...

---

Any violent event was a violent event, BLM included.

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Counting events, not participants.

---

Nope. By the standards you set when calling Jan 6th an insurrection based on a couple people who made some texts then every blm protest that saw any violence is a riot. Funny how we have zero private texts or emails published from the perpetrators of the 500+ riots...

---

Any violent event was a violent event, BLM included.

---

If that's the case then you can stop you "90% of the blm protests were peaceful!" tripe. Over 500 of them were violent. People actually were murdered for protecting their stores, protecting others and protecting themselves by BLM rioters. Cops were actually assassinated in their cars by blm. Parades have been run through by blm and subways in Brooklyn shot up by blm. All after Kamala funded and participated in a fundraiser for their bail and said they shouldn't stop. The worst you've got from Jan 6th is a protestor armed with a mob got herself shot. The meme is off topic a bit but the pictures are from the democrat sponsored and organized blm riots.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/?amp=true

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/?amp=true

---

Love your links.
"ACLED warns in the report that the U.S. "is at heightened risk of political violence and instability going into the 2020 general election," citing trends in mass shootings, violent hate crimes and police killings. The authors of the report say the Trump administration has exacerbated tensions caused by racial inequality and police brutality. President Donald Trump and high-ranking members of his administration have frequently generalized protesters as violent anarchists."
Biased group funded by bureaucrats and foreign governments says blm violence is Trump's fault. Great find. Nothing from Rolling Stone or Vox?

So peaceful. Only a racist would claim otherwise.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/?amp=true

---

Love your links.
"ACLED warns in the report that the U.S. "is at heightened risk of political violence and instability going into the 2020 general election," citing trends in mass shootings, violent hate crimes and police killings. The authors of the report say the Trump administration has exacerbated tensions caused by racial inequality and police brutality. President Donald Trump and high-ranking members of his administration have frequently generalized protesters as violent anarchists."
Biased group funded by bureaucrats and foreign governments says blm violence is Trump's fault. Great find. Nothing from Rolling Stone or Vox?

---

The numbers have been widely published. I can find a link saying grass is green too if you want.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/?amp=true

---

Love your links.
"ACLED warns in the report that the U.S. "is at heightened risk of political violence and instability going into the 2020 general election," citing trends in mass shootings, violent hate crimes and police killings. The authors of the report say the Trump administration has exacerbated tensions caused by racial inequality and police brutality. President Donald Trump and high-ranking members of his administration have frequently generalized protesters as violent anarchists."
Biased group funded by bureaucrats and foreign governments says blm violence is Trump's fault. Great find. Nothing from Rolling Stone or Vox?

---

The numbers have been widely published. I can find a link saying grass is green too if you want.

---

I'm not sure "widely published" carries the weight you think it does.

It was widely published that hunters laptop was Russian disinformation, Trump was a Russian agent, Nick Sandman was a white supremacist, Kyle Rittenhouse was a a white supremacist, hookers peed on Trump, bounties were placed on US soldiers...

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters. Harris wasn't ignorant of that fact.

Unfortunately, this appears to be yet another pointless hair splitting exercise.

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/?amp=true

---

Ah yes, the largely peaceful argument.

I wonder what percentage of the Jan. 6th protestors were non-violent.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/?amp=true

---

Ah yes, the largely peaceful argument.

I wonder what percentage of the Jan. 6th protestors were non-violent.

---

A riot is not mostly peaceful. A riot and nine peaceful protests are.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.

---

The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.

---

I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).

---

The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.

---

I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/?amp=true

---

Ah yes, the largely peaceful argument.

I wonder what percentage of the Jan. 6th protestors were non-violent.

---

A riot is not mostly peaceful. A riot and nine peaceful protests are.

---

Well, there you go. The BLM "protests," which caused only $1-$2 billion in damages from arson and vandalism and was the most expensive act of civil disobedience in US history were "mostly peaceful." And by that same vein, January 6th was mostly peaceful. Interesting take.

Wangchung said:

---

So weird that the only conservative mainstream media outlet has their employees private texts and emails published.

---

Damn lawyers...

Porteroso said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Suppose a Christian believes Democrats will be better stewards of the planet consistent with Biblical teaching. Going to hell?

The point is voting patterns don't make you a Christian anymore than being heterosexual makes you a Christian.

---

so much enjoying the spectacle of a neverTrumper making the case on the importance of avoiding subjective, self-serving morality judgments in the ballot box.

---

He's saying outright obvious truths. Are you saying you think you can tell who is Christian by how they vote?

---

JR can.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Hiroshima/Nagasaki scenario is the kind of false dilemma that often presents itself when you try to apply the trolley hypothetical to real life. A negotiated surrender would have avoided both tragic outcomes. However, it would not have secured our post-war hegemony in the way we desired.

Things get even messier when you consider that elections aren't surprises or one-time events. We all gather to watch this absurd scenario every four years. At some point, reasonable people have to ask who's tying all these people to the tracks and why. Who is this Whiterock, and why is he telling us we have no choice? For that matter, why is his company busy laying tracks and recruiting "volunteers" in countries all over the world? What's his angle? As repulsive as "virtue posturing" may be, there is something worse. Exploiting the misery of others while accusing them of hypocrisy is doubly hypocritical.

---

How many straw man can you pack into a single post? Thereo was no indication that Japan was prepared to negotiate a surrender.

---

Of course there was.

Quote:

---

The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, andfor manythat the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, Truman's chief of staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… In being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement 11 days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that "the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air."

Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that "the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan." Adm. William "Bull" Halsey Jr., the commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [The scientists] had this toy, and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…"

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he "voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." He later publicly declared, "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Even the famous hawk Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, the head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that "the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."

The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan's emperor would be allowed to stay as a figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion could begin.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/tnamp/

---

---

Major reading comprehension error, counselor.

Each one of those statements was an assessment by an American military commander that the use of nuclear weapons was unnecessary because Japan was already defeated. Pointedly NOT one of those statements by any of those commanders indicated they were aware that Japanese political or military leaders were prepared to surrender.

Everything about the war to that point, after wave upon wave of kamikaze attacks and other examples of Japanese divisions fighting effectively to the last man, was that surrender would, in fact, not happen, that we would have to invade the home island, which would involve staggering 7-digit casualties on both sides.

It is simply amazing how you ignore and/or recreate as needed to suit your impulses.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Hold on a second. Am I "preaching another Gospel. Faith + vote for your preferred candidate" or not?

You seem to be all over the place.

---

Yes you are. You say that if I vote wrong I need to do some self examination because I may not really be saved. IOW, faith +vote right. But if I vote right no self examination necessary
Below is a quote from your post from 2-3 pages ago:

"The idea that Christians can do and say anything they want (and vote how they want) because they are saved sounds eerily similar to the Gnostics, who believed that salvation was a mere get-out-of-jail free card. They believed how you live doesn't matter. And that's just not what Christ says in the Gospels.

I would respectfully submit that if you believe you are saved, but continue to make poor choices and decisions that you know to be contrary to your purported faith, you might need to do some self-examination, and ask yourself have you truly accepted Christ's grace. Again, how we vote doesn't affect our eternal security, but it might be a sign of where we are in our relationship with Christ, if at all."

---

I've said that how one behaves may be a sign of where they are in their faith, or if they even have a faith. Again, that is not a controversial subject, and one supported by the verses quoted above. Unfortunately, you seem to continue to either confuse or purposefully misinterpret those comments to allege that I am saying how one votes is a prerequisite to salvation. As I have tried to tell you, you're getting the order confused. Faith precedes both fruit and works. And fruit and works are a sign of faith.

---

And if my behavior includes voting Democrat, it may be a sign that I have no faith. And if I have no faith I'm not a Christian.

I'm not misinterpreting what you say, I'm quoting you word for word.

---

Indeed, if one votes for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, one may not be a Christian, may be immature in his or her faith, or may be misguided, subscribing to a warped and erroneous view of Christianity. That is elementary and basic Christian theology.

---

If I vote for a Democrat, am I voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity, and I may not be a Christian?

---

Two part question, two part answer:

1. Yes, voting for today's Democrat party means voting for policies that are the antithesis of Christianity. This should be self-evident to any believer, as pointed out above.

2. Yes. As pointed out above, when a heart change is not accompanied by a behavioral change (faith that leads to fruit/works), that is a sign that one may not be Christian. It could also mean that one is saved, but has erred in their beliefs, or is immature in their faith. There are several possibilities.

---

You are adding works (voting preference) to the Gospel.

---

Sorry, but that is again a false and erroneous statement, and demonstrates a fundamental understanding of basic Christian theology on the subject of works and fruit. I'd suggest pulling out the Pauline letters and looking at the verses I've quoted in this thread. Paul does a much better job of explaining it that I could.

---

We disagree on your theology. I'd suggest you do a little self examination.

---

I would suggest you take the advice given out and use it for yourself. It could be your theology that is flawed. It may or may not be..

---

So, do you think your voting history is dispositive of Christianity?
Suppose a Christian believes Democrats will be better stewards of the planet consistent with Biblical teaching. Going to hell?

The point is voting patterns don't make you a Christian anymore than being heterosexual makes you a Christian.

---

so much enjoying the spectacle of a neverTrumper making the case on the importance of avoiding subjective, self-serving morality judgments in the ballot box.

---

I see you understand theology as well as you do politics

---

I keep my politics and my theology separate. Quite the fools errand to conflate the two.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's no evidence that she donated money. Even if she did, so have many other people who don't support violence but do support peaceful protests and better treatment for low-income defendants. That includes J6 defendants, who should also be entitled to bail if they're not flight risks or a danger to the community. There's nothing wrong with advocating for that, nor does it mean you support the insurrection.

---

Factcheck? Haha, sure, she just risked her reputation and future political aspirations and promoted the fund that bailed out violent blm rioters, domestic abusers and murderers but couldn't be bothered to donate a dime. "We didn't SEE her do it so we rate it false!" Pull the other one.

---

The issue isn't whether she donated, but whether she paid specifically to bail out rioters, as you implied. She did not. Nor did any of her efforts support freeing any rioters who were accused of murder.

You're basically telling us that paying someone's bail is an endorsement of their crime. It really isn't. Paying someone's bail because of the crime they did? Sure, that would be endorsing. Not what happened.

---

That's some impressive tap dancing but the fact is she promoted the fund during the riots. The fund bailed out rioters. The fund also bailed out domestic abusers and murderers. You can't pretend she didn't use her position to help raise $35,000,000 for the organization, even if you are going to pretend she didn't donate her own money.

---

Yeah, she raised money during the riots. She didn't personally cause them, so that's one little difference between her and Trump.

---

Except that Trump exhorted his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" while Kamala said this about ongoing riots:

"They're not going to stop," Harris said at the time. "This is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not going to stop and everyone beware, because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November and they're not going to stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not and we should not."