DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump’s job approval rating

He's forgetting/ignoring the simple fact that an official endorsement by a former POTUS would be the lead story on every major and minor news outlet in the country.

#crickets

Talk about faulty math....

Representatives for Obama would not comment on details of the Democratic ads or specify which campaigns talked to Obama before running them. They maintain that the former president’s increased profile on the airwaves has not yet caused any tension between his office and any campaigns.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/07/obama-democratic-campaign-ads-111953

It may not be an outright endorsement but you know what they say,
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck."

2+ (-23) = 7, according to conservatives.

Is Bloomberg paying Obama to endorse him or for being in his commercials?

Donna Halper, Professor of political communication, media historian, author, former reporter.
Answered Feb 8, 2020 · Author has 2.7k answers and 3.7m answer views
No, nor does he have to get permission to quote him. It should first be noted that Barack Obama has not officially endorsed anyone. However, because he is a public figure, snippets of his previous speeches can be used by other candidates (unless the person whose speech is being used objects to how it was utilized— for example, if Mr. Obama said X but Mike Bloomberg deceptively edited it to make it seem like he said Y, Mr. Obama could demand that the snippet not be used; in this case, he actually did praise certain policies of Mr. Bloomberg’s, and that is what the candidate is using in the ads). Meanwhile, it is unlikely Mr. Obama will say anything on behalf of any candidate until the Democrats officially select their nominee.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Bloomberg-paying-Obama-to-endorse-him-or-for-being-in-his-commercials

just saying...

These guys are Trump supporters. They jump to conclusions that if Obama doesn't sue the hell out of somebody he must approve of it. I mean they're so used to it because Trump sues the hell out of everybody.

Then they'll post BS in other threads about frivolous lawsuits.

The GOP should let him talk to a chair again at their convention.

Just found this on facebook and thought I'd share:

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A TRUMP SUPPORTER
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joes employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

These kind of "stories" make the Dems look bad. The party has changed a lot. They've become like the little boy who called "wolf."

Hard for me to stay the course when they are so disingenuous.

Bye.

Please provide factual empirical evidence to back your claims and provide further evidence to state you’re correct.

Until you do that...well, in the words of The Dude:

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Please provide factual empirical evidence that the post he was replying to is true: i.e. that liberals did all the things stated in some face book post. Liberals. Not just people - liberals.

That sounds like a Rush Limbaugh rant

Trump rallies massive crowd in India, inks military deal with Modi

President Trump drew the crowd of a lifetime to kick off his first official visit to India.

The president, who loves to play to a big audience, was met with a raucous ovation Monday as he addressed a crowd of more than 110,000 people in a joint rally with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Along with first lady Melania Trump, the visiting first family packed the world's largest cricket stadium, as the U.S. president declared America's love for the country and solidarity with its people -- and announced a military partnership with the Indian government.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rallies-massive-crowd-in-india-inks-military-deal-with-modi

India playing to his ego to get the terms they wanted... I'm sure it was an incredible deal for them.

I’d trade him to India for a bowl of curry. Okay, they can keep the curry. Just take him.

How can this be? The lefties have ben telling us for years that the World hates Trump.

Ad hominem. You never had an intelligent response to anything I said. All you did was profess to be a Christian and then call 75percent of what Jesus taught “evil”

So says the guy who said he’s a Christian and then said that much of what Jesus said was evil. Yes you did. Don’t deny it. If you had read your Bible, you would know that Jesus said exactly what I said. So you don’t even know what you profess to believe

This....


Not this...

'Macho Man' is welcomed like a Rock Star in India.

Lol ...India kneeling down to the feet of another monarch. Shocking isn’t it. The coronavirus at our door step and trump is vacationing again. Pfft the trump era.

Cool. I haven’t done that so it doesn’t apply to me.

Lol. That “cast the first stone” verse is the most abused, taken out of context verse in the Bible. Some Crazy libs don’t know the difference between words and stones, smh.

Nor do some of them know the difference between discernment and judging.

And every time these quote the Bible, they abuse it. Even those who quote it sincerely.

Based on your comparing words to stones - I'd hazard a guess that it is you who fails to understand the verse. You certainly fail to understand humor.

I understand the verse ( you don’t) and I understand humor, but that was an abuse of the Bible, sacreligious, and profane.

If you understood the verse, you would know that It means that Jesus was the only one there that had the spiritual and moral authority to throw stones, but that He did not come to condemn but to save. But the second time around, you can be sure it will be much different for those who reject the truth. The second time around, He comes as the Lion instead of the Lamb. Therefore we warn people.

That is not throwing stones

Yeah - not getting the verse at all.

Sounds like you're another Universalist. You must go to the same church as Pit or a similar one.

Let's hear your expert exegesis on the verse.

Jesus- "Let Him who without sin cast the first stone."

Everyone leaves.

Jesus- "What, has no one condemned you?"

Woman- "No man, Lord."

Jesus- "Neither do I condemn you, GO AND SIN NO MORE."
Notice JESUS DID NOT JUDGE THE SIN, but he JUDGED THE SIN. That flew right over your head, didn't it.


He also said in another place that He did not come to condemn, but to seek and save the lost.

BUT the same Jesus said in another place to other people...

UNLESS YOU REPENT, you will PERISH.

Now saying that unless people repent they will perish. He also said that He will return to judge the world and those who trust Him will be saved and those who reject Him will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

First coming- to save

Second coming- to judge.

Read your Bible, and stop twisting it. If you don't believe the Bible, at least use it accurately.

Google is your friend. You can search yourself.

In your original post about the subject you wrote "Some Crazy libs don’t know the difference between words and stones, smh." indicating that harmful words couldn't be considered stones. . . . the verse is not just about throwing physical objects that are "stones".

But I didn't use the bible. You judged others use of it. And you did it inaccurately. I pointed that out. Now you are accusing me (inaccurately) of misusing the bible.

Can't make this stuff up.

So good to see yet another thread get derailed by superstition.

Jesus said "I do not condemn you, go and sin no more"

Notice he did not condemn the woman, but he condemned the action.

He also said that those who fail to repent of condemned actions will perish.

Same things the apostles taught, same things I taught, same thing gooey liberals call throwing stones.

Because they don't know the Bible.

1. The others you refer to abused the Bible in a meme.

2. You pointed out no inaccuracies in my use of the verse. You asked me to google it. I don't need to google anything. I actually READ and Study the Bible.

Ontological Naturalist. Promotes the most absurd proposition of all.

If you guys don't want to hear the Bible, don't abuse it. I did not quote the Bible, somebody misused it. So blame that person.

I didn't bring up bible verses, I brought up Pitdawgs contradictory beliefs and positions because he chose to be rude. a third person brought the Bible in by abusing it. A fourth person then tried to make the Bible say something it didn't say.

au contraire.

Look - endlessly repeating the same thing or quoting scripture does not make you correct.

You said liberals don't know the difference between words and stones. That is NOT what the verse is about. You've almost said as much yourself in the post 2 above. . . . . so you were incorrect. That's the beginning and end of my involvement with anything biblical. I am not trying to use the bible to be funny or otherwise. I am not claiming to know a different or better or more correct interpretation of the verse .... I am saying you are wrong to claim the verse is about physical objects called stones ... and that someone was wrong for not knowing the difference between a stone and words.

Please don't try to change the argument.

If I have to keep reading all the bible posts, I might have to get stoned myself.

I don't need to Google anything. I know exactly what the passage says, I know the literary context, I know the historical context, I know the grammatical context, I understand the cultural context, and I have translated the Gospel of John as well as all three Johanine epistles from Greek to English. I also know things that I will not state here. Your interpretation of the text is wrong.

Read the verse in it's context and then tell me it is not talking about physical objects when Jesus says "stones".

I am so very pleased for you. Well done.

Perhaps you need to work on your written communication of that understanding. . . because when you write : "Some Crazy libs don’t know the difference between words and stones, smh." it relays the complete opposite of what you claim to be true.