How can a Christian vote for Trump

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Did Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush, Barack Obama have any less political enemies than the Clintons? If so, what makes the Clintons so special that they possess more than everyone else? What's unique about them that they just happen to have an unusual amount of political foes?

Or could it be that after three decades walking like a duck, talking like a duck, and acting like a duck one gathers the idea that something is awry? Maybe, just maybe, the Clintons are masters at corruption. How did mafia kingpins go decades without jail time? Your argument is weak.

Over three decades of "walking, quaking, and talking like ducks".... and not a single Republican or investigation has been made to stick. lol

I'd say that it is over three decades of repeated political witch hunting. Remember, Democrats are not popular with the wealthy. Democrats seek to tax the wealthy and corporations. So, the wealthiest individuals in America have reason to politically destroy any popular Democrat. And they have the money to make accusations, spread them, and even pay people to make false statements. We've had Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama. Who faced the craziest and most scandalous accusations? The Democrats or the Republicans? To me it's obvious.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Let's say you're right. The fact remains four people died that didn't need to on her watch. She lied for weeks about what happened. She continually makes herself look bad she doesn't need anybody's help.

It wasn't our policy to deploy troops and engage in military actions in this context. There was a lot of confusion over who was attacking the embassy and why. This happens. It happened under the Bush Administration too:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers.

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Let's say you're right. The fact remains four people died that didn't need to on her watch. She lied for weeks about what happened. She continually makes herself look bad she doesn't need anybody's help.

I'm not sure what you mean by, she "lied". There definitely was quite a bit of confusion over what had happened. Here's a Benghazi timeline of events:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Aquila, Comey actually stated that if anyone else had done what she had done, there would have been consequences. He actually said that. She exhibited gross negligence in the mishandling of classified documents. Gross negligence is all that's required for her to be prosecuted, not intent. If it were anyone else, she would be in jail.

Not only did she exhibit gross negligence, she actually thwarted the investigation by deleting over 30,000 e-mails prior to handing the rest over to the FBI. And those she did hand over, were printed out, not digital, which strips out any header information that would have been of use to a real investigation.

Add to that, that within the 17,000 of those e-mails the FBI later recovered, they found classified information. According to her, supposedly every one of those e-mails were personal, not government related. That was a blatant lie, yet the FBI and Obama's Department of Injustice refuse to do anything about it.

What she did was criminal, and if it were anyone else she'd be in prison. This was not procedural, this was pathological.

Watergate Lawyer Blasts Republicans, Clears Hillary Of Any Wrongdoing Over Emails
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/08/2...-fbi-congress/

Fact check: 12 questions and answers about Hillary Clinton’s emails
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ails/86735856/

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Over three decades of "walking, quaking, and talking like ducks".... and not a single Republican or investigation has been made to stick. lol

I'd say that it is over three decades of repeated political witch hunting. Remember, Democrats are not popular with the wealthy. Democrats seek to tax the wealthy and corporations. So, the wealthiest individuals in America have reason to politically destroy any popular Democrat. And they have the money to make accusations, spread them, and even pay people to make false statements. We've had Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama. Who faced the craziest and most scandalous accusations? The Democrats or the Republicans? To me it's obvious.

Not a single investigation has stuck? Oh the self delusion! Bill Clinton was IMPEACHED. Only one of two in American history. He repeatedly lied under oath and was disbarred from practicing law. He paid Paula Jones $830,000 to settle out of court.

So you believe in our justice system Aquila? You believe the black lives matter movement is delirious? You believe that the folks on death row are 100% guilty? You don't believe that obstruction of justice occurs and that people that know people get off scott-free while others pay the price?

You have been brainwashed by the union. My dad repeats that same mantra: "the Republicans are for the rich, the Democrats are for the little guy." You understand that the Democrats are just as rich and cater just as much to the wealthy as Republicans? No you don't understand that. But maybe the light will go on for someone who reads this conversation.

Richard Nixon, a Republican, faced the most accusations and resigned in disgrace. He would've been impeached and convicted. He knew it. He was caught red-handed lying. That was 1974. Hillary was actually a part of that effort to remove Nixon from office. Fast forward to now. FBI Director Comey repeatedly admitted Hillary lied, yet made up the fact that because she "didn't mean to" essentially, there weren't any grounds to prosecute her. Tell me Aquila, what's the difference between Nixon and Hillary?

And where are the crazy scandals against Obama? Or Jimmy Carter? Again, your partisanship either causes you to be blind, or you deep down know she's as corrupt as it gets but since she's on your team you don't give a rip what she's done.

[shazeep]

or something, ya. yikes.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not sure what you mean by, she "lied". There definitely was quite a bit of confusion over what had happened.

so i am going to have to go dig up some verified truth as to this satanic person you are vetting. ok. sure won't be a problem. Should i start with the rapist she got off, knowing he was guilty? From her lips? Or is that too far back, you want more recent, or what. Call it.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're mistaken. There was no evidence of "criminal" wrong doing. The error was procedural.

Whatever you say, Aquila. You spin it how you want to in order to make yourself feel better. I'll stick with Comey's explanation and detailed charges against her.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're mistaken. There was no evidence of "criminal" wrong doing. The error was procedural.

can't figure out if just Stockholm Syndrome, or what

Ah, her first case, defending a child rapist, how apropos.

The recordings, which date from 1983-1987 and have never before been reported, include Clinton’s suggestion that she knew Taylor was guilty at the time. She says she used a legal technicality to plead her client, who faced 30 years to life in prison, down to a lesser charge. The recording and transcript, along with court documents pertaining to the case, are embedded below.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/

[Pressing-On]

Back to the topic of the thread - Donald J. Trump

Glad to see the students at Liberty University standing against the orange-haired totalitarian.

A statement issued late Wednesday by the group Liberty United Against Trump strongly rebuked the candidate as well as the school’s president, Jerry Falwell Jr., for defending Trump after he made extremely lewd comments about women in a 2005 video. The students wrote that Falwell’s support for Trump had cast a stain on the school’s reputation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-donald-trump/

Liberty United Against Trump

In the months since Jerry Falwell Jr. endorsed him, Donald Trump has been inexorably associated with Liberty University. We are Liberty students who are disappointed with President Falwell’s endorsement and are tired of being associated with one of the worst presidential candidates in American history. Donald Trump does not represent our values and we want nothing to do with him.

A majority of Liberty students, faculty, and staff feel as we do. Donald Trump received a pitiful 90 votes from Liberty students in Virginia’s primary election, a colossal rejection of his campaign. Nevertheless, President Falwell eagerly uses his national platform to advocate for Donald Trump. While he occasionally clarifies that supporting Trump is not the official position of Liberty University, he knows it is his title of president of the largest Christian university in the world that gives him political credentials.

Associating any politician with Christianity is damaging to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But Donald Trump is not just any politician. He has made his name by maligning others and bragging about his sins. Not only is Donald Trump a bad candidate for president, he is actively promoting the very things that we as Christians ought to oppose.

A recently uncovered tape revealed his comments bragging about sexually assaulting women. Any faculty or staff member at Liberty would be terminated for such comments, and yet when Donald Trump makes them, President Falwell rushes eagerly to his defense – taking the name “Liberty University” with him. “We’re all sinners,” Falwell told the media, as if sexual assault is a shoulder-shrugging issue rather than an atrocity which plagues college campuses across America, including our own.

It is not enough to criticize these kinds of comments. We must make clear to the world that while everyone is a sinner and everyone can be forgiven, a man who constantly and proudly speaks evil does not deserve our support for the nation’s highest office.

Jesus tells a story in the Bible about a man who tries to remove a speck of dust from his brother’s eye, while he has a log stuck in his own. “You hypocrite,” Jesus says, “first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

We Liberty students are often told to support Donald Trump because the other leading candidate is a bad option. Perhaps this is true. But the only candidate who is directly associated with Liberty University is Donald Trump.

Because our president has led the world to believe that Liberty University supports Donald Trump, we students must take it upon ourselves to make clear that Donald Trump is absolutely opposed to what we believe, and does not have our support.

We are not proclaiming our opposition to Donald Trump out of bitterness, but out of a desire to regain the integrity of our school. While our president Jerry Falwell Jr. tours the country championing the log in his eye, we want the world to know how many students oppose him. We don’t want to champion Donald Trump; we want only to be champions for Christ.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Watergate Lawyer Blasts Republicans, Clears Hillary Of Any Wrongdoing Over Emails
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/08/2...-fbi-congress/

Fact check: 12 questions and answers about Hillary Clinton’s emails
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ails/86735856/

Uh, did you even check that second link? I'm not going through the first one, as I don't want to waste my time reading the 7,000 (!) page report.

As for the second link:

the National Archives and Records Administration requires all work-related emails to be properly preserved. Federal rules required Clinton to preserve work emails and turn them over before leaving office, but she did not turn over her emails until 21 months after she left office.

That's a crime. She violated the law.

Was she allowed to use a private server?

No.

Why exactly do you believe she used a private e-mail server? Could it have anything to do with the e-mails she failed to turn over?

Did Clinton seek government approval to use a private server for her personal email account?

No.

At the very least, it's a violation of policy.

No other secretary of State maintained a private server that was used for government business.

I ask again, why do you believe she would use a private server?

Clinton’s office disclosed in March 2015 that her private server had a total of 62,320 emails. It said at that time that her lawyers went through the emails and identified 30,490 work-related emails and 31,830 private emails.

She allowed her lawyers to go through potentially classified e-mails. Her lawyers had neither the security clearance, or the need to know.

Clinton gave the State Department the 30,490 work-related emails totaling roughly 55,000 pages. She said she deleted the others. “I didn’t see any reason to keep them,” she said at a March 10, 2015, press conference.

Let's assume for a moment, that every one of those e-mails were truly personal and not work related. Even if that were true (which it's not), she thwarted a federal investigation by destroying evidence before it could be reviewed. Why do you think she did that?

However, Comey said Clinton had multiple servers during her four years as secretary of State, and not all of her work-related emails were turned over to the State Department. The FBI recovered “several thousand work-related emails” that were not provided to the State Department, and he said it was possible they included some of the emails “deleted as ‘personal’ by her lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her emails for production in late 2014.”

Gee, Comey said that she failed to turn over work-related e-mails that were later recovered. It's a federal crime to lie to investigators.

Comey said the FBI “found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them in some way.”

Don't buy it. But even if you believe that, the fact that she deleted the information before it could be reviewed by investigators, is in and of itself a crime. Any of the rest of us lowly peons would be thrown in jail for doing that.

Yes. More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received, Comey said. The FBI director said “a very small number” of the emails containing classified information “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information,” contrary to Clinton’s claims that none was marked classified.

So, Hillary is either incompetent, has memory loss or was intentionally lying. Take your pick, none of them make her look good.

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey said.

Extremely careless. Extremely careless in handling of sensitive, highly classified information. That's gross negligence. That's all that's required for prosecution.

The FBI director said the lack of direct evidence that Clinton’s server was successfully hacked by “any foreign power or other hostile actors” doesn’t mean it wasn’t.

In other words, they just don't know if the server was hacked or not. That's gross negligence. He went on to say:

we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

They don't know, but they admit it's possible.

Comey said, “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

This is the money quote. Anyone else would have been prosecuted, but not Hillary.

That report cited the case of Jonathan Scott Gration, a former ambassador to Kenya, who ignored instructions in July 2011 not to use commercial email for government business and resigned in mid-2012 when the department initiated disciplinary action against him.

So, someone else does the exact same thing Hillary does, and gets prosecuted. Hillary does it and gets a free pass.

Maybe you should check your sources more carefully, before you post them.