USA Trump's 100 days in office

[Lamb]

@tango @Lamb

OK, fair enough. But look at this diagnosis and this has nothing to do with liberal politics or liberal bias.

MSN

Explain how this is wrong. Don't compare him to Biden. It's got nothing to do with it as even Democrats had come to the light on his mental condition.

The author of that article claims the following about Trump:

"malignant narcissistic personality disorder, hyper manic temperament, and dementia."

Some of that "proof" is more opinion than medical diagnosis.

My dad is about Trump's age and you'd be surprised to hear how my dad talks. That generation is different from the younger ones and they're going to tell you what is on their mind, whether it hurts your feelings or not. That generation also has a sense of humor that the younger ones have difficulty understanding and my dad's jokes cannot be said out in public because it causes offense.

I looked up that doctor from the article...he's a psychologist from Baltimore. Baltimore is a Democrat city so that doctor already comes in with a bias. Oh and here's more information about that doctor...he's written a book about Trump back in 2017. I can't take him seriously.

 

[Frankj]

No, it does not. The Lord is the only one who is entitled to take lives.

We are only given the right to defend ourselves and our brethren by restricting the freedom of those who want to harm us and by trying to rehabilitate them. Killing people was never given to us as a right, nor should it have been given.

What Bible are you using?

Does it not contain Exodus 21:12, Exodus 21:16, Leviticus 20:10, Leviticus 24:16, Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:15-16, Leviticus 20:11-12, Deuteronomy 18:20, Deuteronomy 17:2-5 and Deuteronomy 21:18-21?

Or you simply among those that believe the Bible is not really the true Word and Law of God and that man has the right to change what it says, effectively making his word overrule that of God?

Where did you acquire the authority to define and judge God? Who was it that gave it to you?

 

[Frankj]

The author of that article claims the following about Trump:

"malignant narcissistic personality disorder, hyper manic temperament, and dementia."

Some of that "proof" is more opinion than medical diagnosis.

My dad is about Trump's age and you'd be surprised to hear how my dad talks. That generation is different from the younger ones and they're going to tell you what is on their mind, whether it hurts your feelings or not. That generation also has a sense of humor that the younger ones have difficulty understanding and my dad's jokes cannot be said out in public because it causes offense.

I looked up that doctor from the article...he's a psychologist from Baltimore. Baltimore is a Democrat city so that doctor already comes in with a bias. Oh and here's more information about that doctor...he's written a book about Trump back in 2017. I can't take him seriously.

FWIW, it is considered both unethical and (in some cases) illegal for any Medical professional to diagnose a person without actually having personally seen and interviewed him.

Also FWIW, no medical person who has actually examined Trump for cognitive functioning and physical condition has come up with anything near what is being claimed against him.

In today's world of deceit far too many people accept that something is true simply because someone they want to believe said it is true (called seeking out your leaders -Rabbi's, Preachers- with itching ears in the Bible when describing the latter days).

We need to be careful of what we judge about others because the Bible, Jesus himself, has warned us that those standards we use to judge others will be the very standards by which we will be judged ourselves.

FWIW and IMO, nothing more than that.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

What Bible are you using?

Does it not contain Exodus 21:12, Exodus 21:16, Leviticus 20:10, Leviticus 24:16, Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:15-16, Leviticus 20:11-12, Deuteronomy 18:20, Deuteronomy 17:2-5 and Deuteronomy 21:18-21?

Or you simply among those that believe the Bible is not really the true Word and Law of God and that man has the right to change what it says, effectively making his word overrule that of God?

Where did you acquire the authority to define and judge God? Who was it that gave it to you?

If you're going to use the TaNaKh to justify your Christianity, you're going to run into a lot of issues. You won't even be able to justify being pro-life because the TaNaKh seems to imply that live begins at first breath and that a fetus inside a woman's womb does not qualify as "life":

"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…" (Exodus 21:22-24)

Not to mention the fact that you will have a difficult time justifying why you don't stone your kids for disobeying you and why you don't keep all the laws from the Mosaic list.

I am using the New Testament, where Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek when we are persecuted, practice non-violence, and pray for our enemies.

You know, Jesus, the guy who subtly abolished the "lawful" death sentence that the Pharisees had given to the woman caught in adultery.

 

[Frankj]

To begin with, I don't 'justify' my Christianity since it doesn't need to be justified.

Secondly, we're talking Torah here. the first five books of the Bible, not Tanakh which is the entirety of the Hebrew Bible that is a rough equivalent to the Old Testament but not exactly the same but with Torah the same in both Bibles.

Jesus taught forgiveness for the adulteress as she was repentant, but he followed up by saying "Go and sin no more" which obviously means that the law was still in effect, not that he had abolished it.

Further, he said "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." which indicates that the Law was still and will continue to be until all is fulfilled (and all prophecy is certainly not fulfilled at this time).

When you earlier said "We are only given the right to defend ourselves and our brethren by restricting the freedom of those who want to harm us and by trying to rehabilitate them." where do you find that in the New Testament and wouldn't your statement that "Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek when we are persecuted, practice non-violence, and pray for our enemies." indicate that we are not?

Perhaps as a Theist You might be better served by talking about whatever god you actually serve, whatever or whoever that is, than trying to bend the Christian triune God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit to your way of thinking and substituting something of your creation in place of what he truly is to justify your own thinking.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

To begin with, I don't 'justify' my Christianity since it doesn't need to be justified.

Well, the Bible contradicts you on that one: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." (1 Peter 3:15)

I don't perceive a lot of meekness in your tone.

Secondly, we're talking Torah here. the first five books of the Bible, not Tanakh which is the entirety of the Hebrew Bible that is a rough equivalent to the Old Testament but not exactly the same but with Torah the same in both Bibles.

The Torah is part of the TaNaKh. Why pick and choose?

Jesus taught forgiveness for the adulteress as she was repentant, but he followed up by saying "Go and sin no more" which obviously means that the law was still in effect, not that he had abolished it.

So, would you support a redesign of the judicial system that would spare all criminals of punishment if they show repentance?

Also, we are not told whether that woman followed Jesus' command of never sinning again. We are not told anything about her life after the incident.

Further, he said "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." which indicates that the Law was still and will continue to be until all is fulfilled (and all prophecy is certainly not fulfilled at this time).

Alright. How many of the 613 laws have you broken since becoming a Christian?

When you earlier said "We are only given the right to defend ourselves and our brethren by restricting the freedom of those who want to harm us and by trying to rehabilitate them." where do you find that in the New Testament and wouldn't your statement that "Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek when we are persecuted, practice non-violence, and pray for our enemies." indicate that we are not?

It's not explicitly stated anywhere, but we can infer it from various verses. Even if we allow others to persecute us, we still have a duty to protect those around us because we are called to love each other and love implies seeking the good of others. Can't really seek the good of others if you allow them to be harmed by people who, for whatever reason, serve evil forces.

Perhaps as a Theist You might be better served by talking about whatever god you actually serve, whatever or whoever that is, than trying to bend the Christian triune God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit to your way of thinking and substituting something of your creation in place of what he truly is to justify your own thinking.

I became a theist after seeking the Christian God with all my heart for several years. I couldn't handle his game of hide and seek.

 

[Frankj]

Well, the Bible contradicts you on that one: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." (1 Peter 3:15)

I don't perceive a lot of meekness in your tone.

The Torah is part of the TaNaKh. Why pick and choose?

So, would you support a redesign of the judicial system that would spare all criminals of punishment if they show repentance?

Also, we are not told whether that woman followed Jesus' command of never sinning again. We are not told anything about her life after the incident.

Alright. How many of the 613 laws have you broken since becoming a Christian?

It's not explicitly stated anywhere, but we can infer it from various verses. Even if we allow others to persecute us, we still have a duty to protect those around us because we are called to love each other and love implies seeking the good of others. Can't really seek the good of others if you allow them to be harmed by people who, for whatever reason, serve evil forces.


I became a theist after seeking the Christian God with all my heart for several years. I couldn't handle his game of hide and seek.

I think you are using a different definition of justify than I am, By justify I mean, as the dictionary defines it, to prove it right. Christianity is a matter of faith, not proof, and sanctify means setting something apart as being sacred, not proving it true. The word of God is sacred, not needing proof for those who accept it and salvation through Jesus blood is the same.

You say you left Christianity, so why are you here? Is it that you are intellectually a Theist but still in your heart longing for Christ? I was a prodigal too once, and far more seriously so than you are (or at least seem to be). But I found out that God doesn't let go of you easily once you've sought him, to belong to him, no matter how hard you try to get away from him to go somewhere else.

It's a wide road vs. narrow road thing.

We cannot walk the narrow road without the power of God behind us to direct us to it and keep us on it, and we cannot know the power of God until we first give up on the power of ourself, Our Lord is a jealous God that will not allow other gods to be put ahead of him, so seek him and his kingdom first and you will find him, this has been promised to us and God always does what he has promised no matter how difficult it may seem to us as he does.

May your day be blessed, may the protection of God be upon you as you traverse it.

 

[The Jason]

The author of that article claims the following about Trump:

"malignant narcissistic personality disorder, hyper manic temperament, and dementia."

Some of that "proof" is more opinion than medical diagnosis.

My dad is about Trump's age and you'd be surprised to hear how my dad talks. That generation is different from the younger ones and they're going to tell you what is on their mind, whether it hurts your feelings or not. That generation also has a sense of humor that the younger ones have difficulty understanding and my dad's jokes cannot be said out in public because it causes offense.

I looked up that doctor from the article...he's a psychologist from Baltimore. Baltimore is a Democrat city so that doctor already comes in with a bias. Oh and here's more information about that doctor...he's written a book about Trump back in 2017. I can't take him seriously.

Calling Trudeau a governor and Canada a 51st State (with seriousness even) is way beyond a thick skinned old man. Where is the accountability? I mean, if someone talked to most people like that, it would be a fight, even in WWII days or even Civil War days

I would teach my own kid to have guts and not be a square, but also to not be a punk. I mean, imagine if any of us had Trump's attitude. There would be a strong reaction, and not just from WOKE types.

Note: my dad talked like Trump, but he knew to draw the line at certain things. Some things were too rude.

 

[Lamb]

Calling Trudeau a governor and Canada a 51st State (with seriousness even) is way beyond a thick skinned old man. Where is the accountability? I mean, if someone talked to most people like that, it would be a fight, even in WWII days or even Civil War days

I would teach my own kid to have guts and not be a square, but also to not be a punk. I mean, imagine if any of us had Trump's attitude. There would be a strong reaction, and not just from WOKE types.

Note: my dad talked like Trump, but he knew to draw the line at certain things. Some things were too rude.

He says it in jest, not serious at all about that.

 

[The Jason]

He says it in jest, not serious at all about that.

OK, then why is one Canada's major politicians wanting European nukes for Canada? Is she just an uptight square?

 

[Lamb]

OK, then why is one Canada's major politicians wanting European nukes for Canada? Is she just an uptight square?

I don't know. What has she said?

 

[just_legalism]

Eh yeah I mean the govt seems more efficient, but we're dealing with a tyrant here. He will be out of office soon though, so no worries. According to Newsweek, he's on Epstein's list

 

[Frankj]

Eh yeah I mean the govt seems more efficient, but we're dealing with a tyrant here. He will be out of office soon though, so no worries. According to Newsweek, he's on Epstein's list

Two things, what makes him a tyrant and why is it only Newsweek claiming he is on Epstein's list?

 

[just_legalism]

Just the way he's going about things, man. Do you think Newsweek is not credible? I thought it was one of the more credible news sources!

@Frankj

 

[Frankj]

Just the way he's going about things, man. Do you think Newsweek is not credible? I thought it was one of the more credible news sources!

@Frankj

So basically (1) 'he is because I want him to be' and (2) 'it's true because I want it to be true'?

Maybe what being 'on the list' infers is to be examined here and the implication of a resulting behavior.

Newsweek is really no more credible than the sources it is based on and I don't see them listed for evaluation.

I use different and standards for analyzing behavior and determining truth than you do. For me, an accusation by itself falls short of the mark, I need to see more. I withhold my judgment until more is presented to be evaluated.

Particularly when very inflammatory accusations and statements are being made during very touchy times, I have no desire at all to contribute to an attitude that can lead to seriously evil results.

 

[The Jason]

Eh yeah I mean the govt seems more efficient, but we're dealing with a tyrant here. He will be out of office soon though, so no worries. According to Newsweek, he's on Epstein's list

I doubt if MAGA would care because there's always a excuse for whatever he does.

So basically (1) 'he is because I want him to be' and (2) 'it's true because I want it to be true'?

Maybe what being 'on the list' infers is to be examined here and the implication of a resulting behavior.

Newsweek is really no more credible than the sources it is based on and I don't see them listed for evaluation.

I use different and standards for analyzing behavior and determining truth than you do. For me, an accusation by itself falls short of the mark, I need to see more. I withhold my judgment until more is presented to be evaluated.

Particularly when very inflammatory accusations and statements are being made during very touchy times, I have no desire at all to contribute to an attitude that can lead to seriously evil results.

There is plenty of bias, but I wasn't born yesterday when it comes to Epstein.

But, ultimately, it's the MAGA apologetics for conquering Canada and Gaza which pretty much drives home the fact Trump is as out of his mind as Nero.

 

[Frankj]

I doubt if MAGA would care because there's always a excuse for whatever he does.

There is plenty of bias, but I wasn't born yesterday when it comes to Epstein.

But, ultimately, it's the MAGA apologetics for conquering Canada and Gaza which pretty much drives home the fact Trump is as out of his mind as Nero.

That's your opinion.

Don't present it as fact.

 

[Lamb]

Eh yeah I mean the govt seems more efficient, but we're dealing with a tyrant here. He will be out of office soon though, so no worries. According to Newsweek, he's on Epstein's list

The Democrats had Epstein's files for years now...if Trump was vaguely involved in anything on that Island, they would have already gone after him.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

The Democrats had Epstein's files for years now

How do you know?

 

[just_legalism]

@Lamb I would argue that, rather than them not having anything substantial on Trump, that they too are on the list, and did not publish for that reason