Thanks to Democrats, American pride plumbs historic low ahead of the July 4 holiday, new poll finds

[Kangaroo Feathers]

 

[Curious George]

Opinion ergo not fact.

That is not true either. It is my opinion water is wet, this does not mean that because it is my opinion it is not also a fact.

The president is a symbol whether you want to admit it or not.

Thus you isolate choices to whom is pleasing rather than policy.

No, i isolate choices to those who have integrity, dignity, and class. This means that those bringing shame to the office and nation are not selected.

Your standard must include more than Trump. Ergo smooth talkers that have done far worse things than Trump.

i agree that we have had other presidents and candidates who also lack class integrity and dignity. As far as worse than Trump, that is harder to say, but would make for an interesting conversation.

Not required for office. Again you isolate your choice based on pleasantries not policy.

Yeah i am not worried about "pleasantries." I am worried about a standard of moral character that is deserving of the authority bestowed.

Nope as people can do something called acting. Heard of it?

Still unrelated.

The whims of masses are to be ignored as it changes on a whim or some stupid tweet. Tyranny of the twitter majority.

Constituents are not to be ignored.

No your memory is just poor or you want to avoid the issue that polls are unreliable. What did the 2016 polls claim about the election? How overwhelming was the Hillary win? What happened?

Is it your claim that the poll in the OP is wrong? If it is I am not sure why we are discussing this. We are operating on the assumption that it is true. If you hold that in fact people are now more proud to be American and foreign opinion of America is at an all time high, our entire discussion is irrelevant.

Yup. Your view is dangerous.

Exactly what i think of yours.

 

[Shad]

That is not true either. It is my opinion water is wet, this does not mean that because it is my opinion it is not also a fact.

The president is a symbol whether you want to admit it or not.

The office not the person.

No, i isolate choices to those who have integrity, dignity, and class. This means that those bringing shame to the office and nation are not selected.

Ergo you could overlook good policy merely because you do not like their character or manners. You should read what the Founding Fathers wrote about the common citizen getting into office not the "well spoken" citizens.

i agree that we have had other presidents and candidates who also lack class integrity and dignity. As far as worse than Trump, that is harder to say, but would make for an interesting conversation.

Far worse than pro-slavery Presidents? Your history is isolated to what 30 years? Oh wait let me guess... they were well spoken then their policy mattered.

Yeah i am not worried about "pleasantries."

Yes you are as per your isolation of choice above. Try again.

I am worried about a standard of moral character that is deserving of the authority bestowed.

Deserve is it now? Like they are owed the office? Not earned? Thinks for an insight into your entitlement thinking. Only people that deserve rather than earned it can be president.

Still unrelated.

Wrong. How do you know the person is not acting without looking at action? Try again.

Definition of ACTING

Constituents are not to be ignored.

You are shifting context from global to national. I was addressing global as per treaties. Try again

Is it your claim that the poll in the OP is wrong?

Prove it is correct first.

If it is I am not sure why we are discussing this.

As you are using the poll for sampling bias.

We are operating on the assumption that it is true.

No. You are.

If you hold that in fact people are now more proud to be American and foreign opinion of America is at an all time high, our entire discussion is irrelevant.

As per the above you shift in context again. Foreign masses opinion means nothing as their governments are not doing anything nor can they vote. Let me know when some actually happens beside pandering. Nato disbanded? Sanction against the US? Anything other than whining?

Exactly what i think of yours.

I look at policy first not second. You do not know what acting is and isolate choice before looking at policy. Try again.

 

[Curious George]

The office not the person.

Correct and both are symbols

Ergo you could overlook good policy merely because you do not like their character or manners. You should read what the Founding Fathers wrote about the common citizen getting into office not the "well spoken" citizens.

I have. But I am not talking about being "well-spoken" vs. A common citizen. That is your strawman feel free to beat it as you wish.

Far worse than pro-slavery Presidents? Your history is isolated to what 30 years? Oh wait let me guess... they were well spoken then their policy mattered.

Lol, you misunderstood.

as far as

In other words you used the words "worse than Trump" i said I am hesitant to classify worse or better in this regard.

Yes you are as per your isolation of choice above. Try again.

Negative.

Deserve is it now? Like they are owed the office? Not earned? Thinks for an insight into your entitlement thinking. Only people that deserve rather than earned it can be president.

No, lol. As in there character is not undeserving.

Wrong. How do you know the person is not acting without looking at action? Try again.

Definition of ACTING

Still missing the point.

You are shifting context from global to national. I was addressing global as per treaties. Try again

No i am discussing both domestic and foreign relations. You made a generalized statement, I pointed out your error. I need not try again.

Prove it is correct first.

Lol, no.

As you are using the poll for sampling bias.

Not really. I am assuming what the OP suggested is true. If you want to take exception to the OP based on whether the OP is factually correct, then you need to take that up with the OP (not me).

No. You are.

That is correct, I am. If you are not willing to do so then you need to speak with the OP.

As per the above you shift in context again. Foreign masses opinion means nothing as their governments are not doing anything nor can they vote. Let me know when some actually happens beside pandering. Nato disbanded? Sanction against the US? Anything other than whining?

I think you are naive to believe that foreign opinion doesn't matter.

I look at policy first not second. You do not know what acting is and isolate choice before looking at policy. Try again.

You are free to do so. I would encourage you to consider character as well.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Other than the fact you really, really want him to be, what has Trump done to make you think he is Christian, baby or otherwise, in any meaningful sense of the word? funny how "but that was nearly a decade ago" and "well he might be a baby Christian" weren't adequate when Trump and his supporters were attacking Obama and the Clintons, huh? It's almost as if... this were a bull****, ad hoc excuse some evangelical plucked from his *** and you all leapt on like drowning rats on a floating corpse to avoid dealing with the ocean of evidence against him. Good thing I'm not cynical, I guess. Life long patterns of behaviour don't suddenly vanish when they become convenient to ignore. And quite a few of his scandals are much more recent than "a decade removed from the present", although I understand the cognitive dissonance that inspires will make you prone to look hard the other way.
Repentance is a fairly foundational aspect of Christianity. Has Trump ever expressed a skerrick of conscience inspired remorse, let alone a desire to atone, about anything?

Are you speaking as a fellow born again Christian, or as a skeptic, when you presume to tell Trump or me or anyone how to "be Christian"?

Would you like me to start threads telling skeptics on this forum how to behave? Because they consistently misbehave here.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Are you speaking as a fellow born again Christian, or as a skeptic, when you presume to tell Trump or me or anyone how to "be Christian"?

Would you like me to start threads telling skeptics on this forum how to behave? Because they consistently misbehave here.

Couldn't answer my questions, huh? I accept your tacit admission that there is no evidence that Trump is a Christian in any meaningful sense.

 

[Shad]

Correct and both are symbols

Nope as the person leaves but the office remains

I have. But I am not talking about being "well-spoken" vs. A common citizen. That is your strawman feel free to beat it as you wish.

Wrong.

Definition of WELL-SPOKEN

Lol, you misunderstood.

as far as

Wrong again. "that is harder to say" It is actually very easy to say he isn't. Try again.

In other words you used the words "worse than Trump" i said I am hesitant to classify worse or better in this regard.

Nope. See the above.

Negative.

Wrong. You are flip/flopping "No, i isolate choices to those who have integrity, dignity, and class." Ergo well spoken as a primary, policy is secondary. Try again.

No, lol. As in there character is not undeserving.

Again deserving and undeserving is the wrong word choice. No one deserves the office as the US is a representative republic.

Still missing the point.

Wrong. You are just ignoring the fact that people can lie and act. You have no counter to that point. You have no criteria nor method to detect the acts from the genuine. Try again.

No i am discussing both domestic and foreign relations. You made a generalized statement, I pointed out your error. I need not try again.p

Nope as I was specific as per use the word treaties, UN and Nato. You shifting context in the reply. Try again.

Lol, no.

So you have no idea if the poll is accurate you just accept it as such. Hilarious

Not really. I am assuming what the OP suggested is true. If you want to take exception to the OP based on whether the OP is factually correct, then you need to take that up with the OP (not me).

You are accepting it as true. I am talking to you. It is your point to defend. Try again.

That is correct, I am. If you are not willing to do so then you need to speak with the OP.

You are accepting it as true. I am talking to you. It is your point to defend. Try again.

I think you are naive to believe that foreign opinion doesn't matter.

I look at what government does not the whims of the masses. Any treaties ended? Nato disbanded? Yawn.

You are free to do so. I would encourage you to consider character as well.

Character is secondary to policy. Hence I do not isolate my choices before hitting policy. Your method is flawed.

Hypothetical if someone was an *** but checked all the policy boxes you support you would ignore that candidate for not speaking the way you want. Yawn

 

[Curious George]

Nope as the person leaves but the office remains

That means nothing here.

Wrong.

Definition of WELL-SPOKEN

No i was correct.

Wrong again. "that is harder to say" It is actually very easy to say he isn't. Try again.

I was correct there too.

Nope. See the above.

Yep. See previous posts

Wrong. You are flip/flopping "No, i isolate choices to those who have integrity, dignity, and class." Ergo well spoken as a primary, policy is secondary. Try again.

Incorrect. I also isolate choices to good policy.

In other words i do not support people with bad policy and i do not support those who lack integrity, class, and dignity. I would however support someone who was not well spoken who did in fact have class, dignity, integrity and good policy.

Again deserving and undeserving is the wrong word choice. No one deserves the office as the US is a representative republic.

Does anyone not deserve the office?

Wrong. You are just ignoring the fact that people can lie and act. You have no counter to that point. You have no criteria nor method to detect the acts from the genuine. Try again.

No i was right here too.

Nope as I was specific as per use the word treaties, UN and Nato. You shifting context in the reply. Try again.

I specifically stated "treaties" "UN" and "Nato?"

So you have no idea if the poll is accurate you just accept it as such. Hilarious

For sake of conversation, yes.

You are accepting it as true. I am talking to you. It is your point to defend. Try again.

No it is not. Accepting as true is very different than asserting as true in this case.

You are accepting it as true. I am talking to you. It is your point to defend. Try again.

Yes to discuss a point. If you want to discuss that point, i will do so. If, however, you want to discuss the veracity of the poll, take it up with the op.

I look at what government does not the whims of the masses. Any treaties ended? Nato disbanded? Yawn.

And you are free to do so. I think it is shortsighted

Character is secondary to policy. Hence I do not isolate my choices before hitting policy. Your method is flawed.

Poor character or poor policy will bar my support.

Hypothetical if someone was an *** but checked all the policy boxes you support you would ignore that candidate for not speaking the way you want. Yawn

Define ***. If you think this is just about how they speak we are still not connecting

 

[ecco]

That's a reference to Luther's Nuremberg Laws that Hitler used as a basis to crack-down on Jews.

Googling your "Luther's Nuremberg Laws" brings up...

Berlin exhibit highlights how the Nazis exploited Martin Luther’s legacy"
​

Which is what I said:

Another very charismatic leader, Adolph Hitler, with help from the writings of Protestant Martin Luther, told the good German Christians that God hated Jews and they believed him.​

However, Hitler himself believed that any religious belief was a sign of weakness, which is why the NAZI's were bent on replacing it with a Nordic theology whereas Hitler would in essence be the prototype of a warrior-god.

More apologetics nonsense. Hitler believed in the same God Luther believed in. Show me evidence for your assertion.

What some people are not aware of is that after the "Final Solution" was complete, next it was the Catholic Church in Europe, and that process had already begun at the end of the Third Reich.

Seriously?!? Two-thirds of Germans were Catholics, one-third Protestants.
But, again, I'm sure you have something to back up that assertion too.

 

[ecco]

Would you like me to start threads telling skeptics on this forum how to behave? Because they consistently misbehave here.

If I, a skeptic, started referring to you in the way that HerrTrump has referred to other people, I would be banned from RF.

 

[Shad]

That means nothing here.

Actually it does. When the person leaves office their legacy is not projected on to the next person. Ergo Trump can not claim credit nor fault for what Obama did. The next POTUS can not claim nor fault for what Trump did. Besides how many presidents in US history do you think by your standard, for argument sake, were positive or negative. What is the cumulative results? For example is every POTUS before Lincoln mark as a net negative or positive?

No i was correct.

Nope. You are just ignoring the definition

I was correct there too.

Nope as I pointed out your error is your assumption. Try again.

Yep. See previous posts

You have no point.

Incorrect. I also isolate choices to good policy.

You are backpedaling now contradicting yourself. Your flip/flop has been acknowledged.

In other words i do not support people with bad policy and i do not support those who lack integrity, class, and dignity. I would however support someone who was not well spoken who did in fact have class, dignity, integrity and good policy.

Backpedaling.

Does anyone not deserve the office?

No one deserves an office in government which uses an electorate to determine who holds said office. It is pure entitlement to think otherwise.

No i was right here too.

Wrong. You are just deny a whole industry and that people can lie. You are divorced from reality.

I specifically stated "treaties" "UN" and "Nato?"

I am pointing out public opinion has not changed anything fundamental in geo-politics globally. IE Evidence that the masses opinion results in action by their government.

No it is not. Accepting as true is very different than asserting as true in this case.

You just accept an assertion made by someone else without question. Yawn

Yes to discuss a point. If you want to discuss that point, i will do so. If, however, you want to discuss the veracity of the poll, take it up with the op.

You are defending it. Your burden

And you are free to do so. I think it is shortsighted

Ergo you do not look at results just words. There is a word for that. Gullible.

Poor character or poor policy will bar my support.

Backpedaling

Define ***. If you think this is just about how they speak we are still not connecting

A S S. Trump is an one or say jerk due to the filter.

You are still ignoring policy. Look at Obama. Well spoken yet lied repeatedly (hint that is called acting). Toppled Libya yet blasted Bush for Iraq. Trump has topple no nation and the left is freaking out over Trump having harsh words for Iran.

 

[Curious George]

Actually it does. When the person leaves office their legacy is not projected on to the next person. Ergo Trump can not claim credit nor fault for what Obama did. The next POTUS can not claim nor fault for what Trump did. Besides how many presidents in US history do you think by your standard, for argument sake, were positive or negative. What is the cumulative results? For example is every POTUS before Lincoln mark as a net negative or positive?

And none of that means the person is not a symbol of America. You are simply wrong.

Nope. You are just ignoring the definition

No, your definition just has no bearing.

Nope as I pointed out your error is your assumption. Try again.

No, i am certain i was correct.

You have no point.

Lol

You are backpedaling now contradicting yourself. Your flip/flop has been acknowledged.

No, nothing i have said here contradicts what i have said earlier. There is no backpedaling necessary. Sorry i don't match up with your strawman though.

Backpedaling.

See above

No one deserves an office in government which uses an electorate to determine who holds said office. It is pure entitlement to think otherwise.

Yes but can they be undeserving?

Wrong. You are just deny a whole industry and that people can lie. You are divorced from reality.

I would suggest lying has an impact on integrity.

I am pointing out public opinion has not changed anything fundamental in geo-politics globally. IE Evidence that the masses opinion results in action by their government.

And you go right on ahead thinking that.

You just accept an assertion made by someone else without question. Yawn

For sake of discussion, why not?

You are defending it. Your burden

Nope, that is precisely what i am not doing here. I am not defending the ops veracity.

Ergo you do not look at results just words. There is a word for that. Gullible.

Again with your strawman

Backpedaling

Thos has already been explained supra

A S S. Trump is an one or say jerk due to the filter.

Having no filter doesn't bother me in the slightest. It is what people say without a filter that I take issue.

You are still ignoring policy. Look at Obama. Well spoken yet lied repeatedly (hint that is called acting). Toppled Libya yet blasted Bush for Iraq. Trump has topple no nation and the left is freaking out over Trump having harsh words for Iran.

You for some weird reason want to make this about being well spoken vs. Not well spoken. Lying comprises integrity. I take issue with a president that continually lies.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Couldn't answer my questions, huh? I accept your tacit admission that there is no evidence that Trump is a Christian in any meaningful sense.

I do not know the President and was reporting what I've heard.

It would be affirming to find Trump is NOT a Christian, yet hard to understand why he picks Pence-favored candidates, and stands against abortion et al, so strongly, without this in place.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I do not know the President and was reporting what I've heard.

Heard from who? Anyone who knows him any better than you do?

It would be affirming to find Trump is NOT a Christian, yet hard to understand why he picks Pence-favored candidates, and stands against abortion et al, so strongly, without this in place.

It's called appealing to wedge issues and single issue voters. Trump can behave as he pleases, so long as he pays lip service to curtailing abortion, he (or at least, his handlers) know that this alone is sufficient to secure him millions of votes. If you think Trump personally has any opposition to abortion, I think you've been played. His crazy inaccurate descriptions of abortion procedures alone indicate he has little direct interest in the matter.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If I, a skeptic, started referring to you in the way that HerrTrump has referred to other people, I would be banned from RF.

You're right! Trump must be an atheist and not a Christian. Thanks for clarifying!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You're right! Trump must be an atheist and not a Christian. Thanks for clarifying!

I doubt Trump is an atheist, either. I doubt he's much of anything. He doesn't seem the spiritual contemplative type.

 

[Shad]

And none of that means the person is not a symbol of America. You are simply wrong.

Nope it is misplacing the symbol of the office with the person.

No, your definition just has no bearing.

You are just in denial as I refuted your point. Yawn

No, i am certain i was correct

Lol .

Nope. What is acting again?

No, nothing i have said here contradicts what i have said earlier. There is no backpedaling necessary. Sorry i don't match up with your strawman though

See above.

Wrong. You put smooth talking as a primary before policy. You posted it. You are in denial again and backpedaling as I refuted your poor logic.

Yes but can they be undeserving?

Nope as people elect official

I would suggest lying has an impact on integrity.

So Obama lacks integrity then but you were fooled by smooth talking from his lips

And you go right on ahead thinking that.

I look at what actually is happening. You aren't. Try again.

For sake of discussion, why not?

Bad-faith arguments that is why.

Nope, that is precisely what i am not doing here. I am not defending the ops veracity.

You are defending the poll. More so I have rejected your for argument sake point

Again with your strawman

Wrong as per you using words instead of policy as a primary criteria which you then backpedaled as it made you look illogical

Thos has already been explained supra

Still backpedaling as I exposed your poor logic

Having no filter doesn't bother me in the slightest. It is what people say without a filter that I take issue.

Contradiction. How do you know someone lacks a filter without them speaking?

You for some weird reason want to make this about being well spoken vs. Not well spoken. Lying comprises integrity. I take issue with a president that continually lies.

Wrong. I am just pointing out your sloppy logic.

 

[ecco]

It would be affirming to find Trump is NOT a Christian, yet hard to understand why he picks Pence-favored candidates, and stands against abortion et al, so strongly, without this in place.

Herr Trump went after two major voter blocks: The Ultra-Religious and the Dissafected Under Educated lower middle class. Those two groups are not mutually exclusive.

Bringing on Pence and promising anti-abortion judges got the first crowd. Xenophobia ensured votes from the second group.

What's hard to understand?

 

[ecco]

You're right! Trump must be an atheist and not a Christian. Thanks for clarifying!

I was referring to things like calling you ignorant or calling you stupid or making fun of your disabilities or calling you little something or other. I know you got that.

Nice try at deflection even though it failed.

 

[Curious George]

Nope it is misplacing the symbol of the office with the person.

I am sorry you believe that it is "misplacing the symbol," but that does not change the fact that the person is also a symbol.

You are just in denial as I refuted your point. Yawn

Nah, you are just in denial about your definition's irrelevance.

Nope. What is acting again?

The definition of acting has no bearing, this has already been explained.

Wrong. You put smooth talking as a primary before policy. You posted it. You are in denial again and backpedaling as I refuted your poor logic.

No i did not. Quote me.

Nope as people elect official

That they are elected does not entail that they are not undeserving.

So Obama lacks integrity then but you were fooled by smooth talking from his lips

Not sure what you are going off about and how you think I was fooled?

I look at what actually is happening. You aren't. Try again.

And you go right on thinking that as well.

Bad-faith arguments that is why.

There are no bad faith arguments here.

You are defending the poll. More so I have rejected your for argument sake point

No, I am not defending the poll, this has been explained. I am however assuming the truth of the poll in this discussion.

Wrong as per you using words instead of policy as a primary criteria which you then backpedaled as it made you look illogical

No i merely suggested that lacking integrity, class, and dignity ought to be disqualifying. I can't help it if you strawman doesn't fit.

Still backpedaling as I exposed your poor logic

Lol, perhaps you exposed your poor comprehension.

Contradiction. How do you know someone lacks a filter without them speaking?

What? No, you have missed the point.

Wrong. I am just pointing out your sloppy logic.

Or you are pointing out your sloppy comprehension.