DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Presidential Election Campaigns 2016 part 4

Anyways, moving on from the man love/hate Muslim topic:

‘I don’t speak for Donald Trump,’ says RNC Chair Reince Priebus

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rnc-chair-reince-priebus-don-000000962.html

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said that if you want to know the specifics of Donald Trump’s immigration policy, you’ll have to ask the real estate magnate himself.

The GOP leader declined to spell out what his party’s presidential nominee planned to do about the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday.

This distancing comes after a week of Trump softening his anti-illegal-immigration stance, which had included calls for a deportation force to kick out every undocumented immigrant. The reality TV star now says that he will immediately deport violent criminals and put the rest through a fair but humane process.

On the morning news show, Chuck Todd asked Priebus what Trump’s position is specifically on undocumented immigrants.

“Well, you’re going to find out from Donald Trump very shortly,” Priebus said. “He’s going to be giving prepared remarks on this issue, I think, very soon. I don’t want to give a date.”

Todd replied, “We don’t know? I mean, it is sort of remarkable that we don’t know.”

“I don’t speak for Donald Trump. That’s what I do know,” Priebus said. Then he broke down what his party’s standard-bearer has promised to do about the U.S.-Mexico border and deporting violent criminals but declined to elaborate on the presidential candidate’s plans for nonviolent undocumented immigrants.

“Here is what I know: His position will be tough. His position will be fair, but his position is going to be humane,” he said. “He’s going to build and complete the border wall that was set in place in 2006 by Congress. It’s going to be paid for. I believe that he is going to — when he talks about deportation– he’s going to go after people here who are criminals and shouldn’t be here.”

Priebus conceded that Trump had simplified his immigration policy during the primaries but is now reflecting on it. Regardless, he said, Trump would be tougher on illegal immigration than any presidential candidate the U.S. has ever had and will be a “law and order president.”

Todd asked what Priebus thinks of political analysts who argue that Trump has backed down from his radical policy to something that’s more or less former presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s policy.

“No, I really don’t [think this is Bush’s policy], because I think that you’re not going to see an easy path to legalization. You’re not going to see that in a Donald Trump plan,” Priebus said. “That’s off the table. There is no method by which someone is here illegally that is going to become a citizen and jump the line as [Democratic presidential nominee] Hillary Clinton wants to do.”

Just as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, Priebus said people should focus on the real issue: the difference between the immigration policies of Clinton and Trump.

“She wants to put [President] Barack Obama’s immigration plan on steroids. She wants millions of people who are here illegally to cut the line,” Priebus said.

Todd pointed out that Donald Trump’s official campaign website still says he will end birthright citizenship and asked Priebus if that should be the Republican Party’s stance on this issue.

“I believe in the interpretation of the Supreme Court on the issue,” he replied. “I’m comfortable with [birthright citizenship]. I’m comfortable with it. I’m comfortable with it, with the Supreme Court rulings on the issue.”

Priebus added that a Republican presidential nominee is not obligated to toe the party line on every issue. He speaks with Trump every day and knows what he thinks about a lot of these issues, he said.

“This is a good and decent man that wants to do the right thing,” Priebus said.

And, your quote, from just a few posts up:



What's laughingly hilarious is how you state the above, but assume no one has read your posts.

I accept you for who you are: I guy that looks for race in any post. Oldcold, the guy that you state "I have his back", is the one that brought race into it.

Sorry bud. That's just how it is.

So having somebody's back = I love them?

They teach you that in the schools in Toledo? Gotta make sure I stay away from that area.

Once again, you show your ............lack of understanding.

It's sad, and it's getting old.

We've discussed it on here already.

I'm NOT from Toledo. Such a total failure on your part it's beyond pathetic.

Dude, I'm not from Toledo. I use Toledo as a reference, as in "I live 45 miles west of Toledo".

I told you that on the phone. I told you that on here.

What the hell goes on in your brain? Really. Why can't you understand things?

Dude, you have this made up thing about others, but sadly, you let it be your reality.

I know you aren't from Toledo.

It's easy to troll you though. So easy to get under your skin.

And just to make this perfectly clear. After your nasty ass comments to me on here in PM, on private message on FB, and then you bringing my wife into a discussion in a negative way a while back, you have everything coming to you.

You can call/tell me whatever you want, this is coming every time you say something t to me.

Hopefully you can stop posting to me, as well. I'm tired of discussing anything with you.

Nope, you don't, as you continue to say/insinuate I am.

Back at you, but I don't troll anyone.


Never done any of that. But, nice try at ........whatever you're trying. Anger issues much? Disillusion much?


You're tired of posting/replying to me cause you get made to look foolish often times, as I do often times.

But bud, cj didn't say anything about muslims being a race.

Your buddy, oldcold, did. The guy that "I have his back" - whether he's right or wrong - you have his back.







Only thing I'm surprised by in your post full of lies is you didn't say I attempted to dis your kids.

You even apologized for your comments

"I want to apologize for the personal stuff. I crossed the line. I'm sorry."

That was in July 2015. You wrote me a very nasty message about my PSTD on Facebook. I can screen shot the message to your pm if you want.

Here's the thing, I had let it go, but then you did it again.

And then you had brought my wife into one of the discussions about finances. As a matter of fact, Vers had to check you on it as well.


......you know what? As I'm writing this, I realize how petty as crap this is. It's absolutely sad that two grown ass men are arguing with each other like an episode of gossip girl.

I'm done talking to you bro.

There is a huge difference between attacking Christianity and not allowing people to use a religion as a weapon to discriminate against people different than themselves. Or maybe Christians just translates it differently.

There is a difference between discriminating against behavior, and discriminating against people.

We all discriminate against behaviors.

One thing I would say to encourage Christians is this:

Even though Christianity is on the wane in the US and throughout Europe, it is exploding,in the form of United Methodist Church membership and participation, in Africa, West Africa, the Congo, South Korea and throughout Asia. There are more than 7 million members of the United Methodist Church throughout Africa, and over 1.5 million in South Korea alone.

Those of us who are Christians (and I know I am guilty of this) tend to look at the US and think that this world is in decline, and that judgement cannot be far off. However, Christianity is growing rapidly in other parts of the world, even as we see the influence of Christianity on the decline here at home.

Even China boasts over 23 million Christians.

Obviously there are challenges ahead for the Christian Church, but it is not all gloom and doom as it all too often seems to be here at home.

I've heard every excuse in the world why Christians have a right to discriminate against others.

Let me ask you a simple question YTown.......

When you see a cake at a wedding, does it ever enter your mind that the person who baked the cake knows the people, supports the people or agrees with any sins the couple may have committed?

We are all human and as such we all sin. EVERY Christian KNOWS this! So no matter who they bake a cake for, they know that couple are both sinners. Whether you see their sin or not, they are human and they are sinners.

Baking a cake for someone who is getting married means your're baking a cake for a sinner. Sometimes convicts who just left prison. If you wish to not service sinners, you need to have a questionnaire before doing the baking. What you propose is picking one sin and using your religion to discriminate. It's not that complicated.

If a person believes that anyone who engages in sex outside of the bounds the Bible sets, than it is wrong to force that person to go against their beliefs.

If a man and his girlfriend move in together and want cakes celebrating their unmarried union, then I believe that a baker should be free to decline.

I think that a baker can make a cake for someone, but to force the baker to display a message, or to force him to take part in a ceremony that they do not believe in is wrong.

I can love people while not agreeing with their behavior. For example, I love my nephew, but I do not love the way he treats the girls who have been involved with him.

For some reason we have decided that what a person does is who they are, and thus we have to support their behavior, even if we believe it to be sinful. I cannot. I cannot support people who live together in a sexual relationship outside of marriage, period. I cannot support any marriage that is contrary to what Jesus taught us in the Bible. That is my right, because I have the protected Constitutional right to freedom of religious expression. I hope that those who make sinful choices will change their behavior, repent before the Lord, and accept the rule of Jesus Christ in their lives.

I never understood that logic either Pit. You could be selling something to a child rapist and never know it. However, that's not gonna stop you from selling something to them.

It's because of mentalities like yours why there will always be a separation between church and state. We'd turn into a Christian version of the Middle East if leaders followed your mentality.

But I think a business has the right to serve whom they will and whom they will not without explanation. I have "fired" customers before when they became too big of a pain in the butt. I have refused to serve customers before because I had a bad feeling about them or simply because I didn't like them. The idea of sin never entered into it at all.

I am a retired sign maker. I refused work from the Pagen MC simply because I didn't want to promote whatever it is they are into. I didn't, and still don't, know what their agenda is/was. But I wasn't going to second-guess myself later. Neither would I make signs/banners promoting someone's political views, (Impeach the President, for instance), even if I agreed with their premise. I just wasn't getting into it.

Of course, back then the idea of discrimination didn't pop into every head of those I turned down. It seems in these times, when everyone is offended by anything and feels their offense deserves to be justified, if I were to refuse a customer and that customer happened to be Muslum for instance, he could go on a rant about me not doing his work because of his religion which would have had nothing to do with it. However, even if it did, that should be my right. Just because I make signs doesn't mean I should be forced to make a sign for absolutely everybody who wants one. If that hurts my business that's my problem, not theirs.

I ranted too much.

There is a difference between providing a service for somebody you know is a sinner (everybody) and actually participating in something you view as a sinful act.

By your logic, if you allow your friend and his wife to come spend the weekend in your guest room, you should also allow your friend and his mistress to come spend the weekend in your guest room... since you have previously opened up your guest room to sinners and all, what difference does it make?

The difference in society now is that every bodies beliefs are exposed to be public eye. People with backwards beliefs can't hide in little inner circles anymore. It get put out into the open.

It's just like with crime. If you're a crook, everybody will know you're a crook. Purp said it best:

That's not entirely true. There are a lot of people out there who are familiar with all of the media and social media and who have become rather adept at hiding their true beliefs and showing a much better outward appearance than what lies beneath... One person in particular comes to mind....

Well you're trying to compare public business to a private residence.

Did you use your religious beliefs to specifically target a certain group?

A Christian baker will deny a gay couple for "one specific sin" when they could easily be baking cakes for convicted rapists, child molesters or any other twisted individual in our society.

That's putting a target on someone's back. Not denying sinners.

My values are just as valid as anyone else's. Just because a Christian believes in following the teachings of Jesus Christ, (which anyone who calls himself a Christian should strive to do) does not eliminate them from the public discourse, nor does it exclude their values as a potential matter of public policy.

Then if you wish to avoid serving sinners, refuse all sinners. But it seems the goal is only to refuse one sin. Which makes them a target of your religion.

No thoughts on trump flip flopping on immigration, guys?

Hillary: What difference does it make now, anyway?

Kerry: I was for it before I was against it.

Hillary: No classified e-mails were sent. I mean, no e-mails marked classified at the time were sent or received. Except those that I forgot to delete.

Heck swish........no I'm going to go on a youtube binge watching politicians lie and/or screw up.

I especially like the George W ones.

And that senator that was afraid guam would flip over if we sent more marines.

There's a bunch, bunch, bunch of them.

And I wanted to go to bed early tonight..........

So...... Your post didn't mention trump. Ya know the guy I'm talking about.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

Trump.


Happy?

That is not what I am saying.

A baker can bake a cake, but catering an event, or making a cake that has a message they disagree with, which has to be delivered, are a different situation. The presence of the delivery truck could be interpreted as approval of the event. Baking a cake is fine. Decorating it with a message that the baker disagrees with on religious grounds is not. Forcing the baker to do something that they disagree with on religious grounds is just wrong.

The only reason this one comes up in this case is that it is so obvious. However, other events that violate the Bible could also come into play as well.

I also want to add: We are all sinners, and as such, deserving of the wrath of God at the judgement. It is only through the loving sacrifice of Jesus Christ that we are saved.Jesus never said "accept that I died for you, and then disregard everything I ever said or did". He said that we must accept Him as Lord and Savior. That means that we should not be looking for opportunities to live in a sinful situation. We should strive to avoid sin. For a single man like me, that means avoiding sex outside of marriage. Could I slip? Sure. We all make mistakes. However, does the Lord want me to blatantly disobey Him, and live in a sexual relationship with a woman? Of course not. Jesus came and paid the price for my sins. I am going to do my best not to shove my sins in His face as a "thank you". I also am not going to encourage others to do so .... especially if they purport to be Christians. I think that people living together outside of marriage is an affront to the Lord. I cannot say that such behavior is acceptable, because the Bible tells me it is not. However, in this situation, a case such as the baker encountered, would probably never occur.

In the end. we each have to follow the dictates of our faith and conscience. The world today does its best to try and get people to disregard both, but that does not mean that the Christian should. We are saved only through the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross, and our obedience to Him. We repent of our sins, which means we turn away from them. It is impossible to repent, and live a sin at the same time. However, that is not the message the world teaches today. The world says that we should just accept every sinful activity, and participate enthusiastically. That is not a message, though, that a Christian should help perpetuate. If we are Christians, then we should live as Christians, in obedience to Christ.