ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .


Is it normal to report a 20 year old missing in less than a day? 🤨

You’ll never get the truth because they have scrubbed his social media, and probably had a manifesto.
I've seen this at a couple of places. First time I think was yesterday. But nowhere have I seen it reported on how long he was missing.
Did he just not come home Friday night? Missing 2-3 days? Left the house that morning?
 
So why do you vote? It's rigged anyway.
Why is Trump even running for office??
Y'all are ridiculous and just sore losers.
GSsq-MsXAAAbeS3
 
I caught the tail end of it on the radio, but they were saying that the DEMS are moving all their money to the house races. I guess they feel they can keep the Senate, win the house and effectivlely handicap Trump.....
They ain't keeping the Senate. Pubs aren't losing any seats they hold & Justice will pickup WV. With Vance and VP, that's just enough for Pubs. Sheehy very likely to take out Tester also.

Net, House is their only chance. It won't surprise me if they win it. And MAGA will be happy. No Mike Johnson as Speaker.
 
Of course I suspect we will never know exactly how all of the stars aligned to allow a 20 year old kid to line up multiple shots at a past/likely future President.

What’s crazy to think is this event may well end up with more conspiracy theories and unanswered questions than Kennedy’s assassination.
 
You and science cannot answer the questions you demand of theists, which rejects your “ pretty good idea about things based on the realms of scientific knowledge” claim. You have a faith in science not yet discovered that it will substantiate your belief system. If pure faith is evil, you embrace evil.
It's interesting to me that EVERYTHING associated with liberalism is a fraud: their political ideologies, their "religion", all of it.

Why do they believe in such ludicrous alternate realities?
 
I just explained that. I’m technically an agnostic. 100% strict atheism claiming they 100% knew would be just as dumb as religion.

Being an agnostic is actually worse than being an atheist. The atheist says, "Yes, I have considered the so-called evidence but I don't believe any of it." The agnostic says, "Yes, there is some evidence there of a Creator but not quite enough to convince me. This Creator, if he exists, has failed to show me ENOUGH evidence to fully convince me he is here and therefore it is HIS FAULT for not being a good enough explainer."

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
 
I just explained that. I’m technically an agnostic. 100% strict atheism claiming they 100% knew would be just as dumb as religion.

So, we should disregard your comment that you are not an agnostic, but are an atheist? Okay. I won’t complain with the inconsistency, because you are moving in the right direction.
 
"WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE READING — This polling memo (h/t JMart) from BlueLabs Analytics is circulating among party officials still keen to convince JOE BIDEN to step aside and prevent his party from suffering what many fear will be a historic loss to DONALD TRUMP.

The topline findings from interviews with over 15,000 voters in seven battleground states:

  1. “Alternative Democratic candidates run ahead of President Biden by an average of three points across the battleground states. Nearly every tested Democrat performs better than the President. This includes Vice President [KAMALA] HARRIS who runs better than the President (but behind the average alternative).”
  2. “Some of the gains are coming from winning undecideds and those previously supporting a third party. However, alternative candidates are also pulling votes from Donald Trump. All candidates continue to hold the Democratic base.”
  3. “Voters are looking for a fresh face. Those more closely tied to the current administration perform relatively worse than other tested candidates.”
The data here opens a new front in the fight to replace Biden, strongly arguing that the best chance to defeat Trump is with a new Democratic nominee independent of the incumbent administration.

In other words: not Kamala Harris.

The strongest potential candidates are (in alphabetical order) Arizona Sen. MARK KELLY, Maryland Gov. WES MOORE, Pennsylvania Gov. JOSH SHAPIRO and Michigan Gov. GRETCHEN WHITMER. All four outpaced Biden “by roughly 5 points across battleground states.”"

Sure hope they can't pull this off.
 
You have an equation or something to prove that, Karl?

Or are you sure of that because NASA didn't find him sitting on a cloud?
God could easily solve this and reveal himself to everyone to easily prove it. I have a problem that we are told to have complete faith in something we don’t have complete evidence for when we were designed as humans to need evidence to believe things. Instead God (who loves us) is content with us burning forever just because we can’t get beyond human nature and believe something that we can’t see ? He could reveal himself and everyone would be on board. Seems simple to me. There are millions of people that are going to burn eternally because they believe in a different invisible person whose religion goes back even further?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dionysus444
What about literally every society throughout history that wasn't Biblical? Aka, the majority? Or any society where government was the source of moral codes, not religion? All of that was extremely myopic.
I’m game to know which government in history developed a lasting moral code.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WTF Cat
It's interesting to me that EVERYTHING associated with liberalism is a fraud: their political ideologies, their "religion", all of it.

Why do they believe in such ludicrous alternate realities?
Which is how they feel about you. Hence the divide in our country.
 
God could easily solve this and reveal himself to everyone to easily prove it. I have a problem that we are told to have complete faith in something we don’t have complete evidence for when we were designed as humans to need evidence to believe things. Instead God (who loves us) is content with us burning forever just because we can’t get beyond human nature and believe something that we can’t see ? He could reveal himself and everyone would be on board. Seems simple to me. There are millions of people that are going to burn eternally because they believe in a different invisible person whose religion goes back even further?
Very fair points. It’s also fair to say that the revealing has already happened and some don’t know about it.

I simply know this: I’ve never seen or heard of a better teacher of how to live than Jesus. How other cultures reconcile their beliefs with God is up to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDC888
Very fair points. It’s also fair to say that the revealing has already happened and some don’t know about it.

I simply know this: I’ve never seen or heard of a better teacher of how to live than Jesus. How other cultures reconcile their beliefs with God is up to them.

He did reveal Himself. Everybody was not on board.

They crucified Him.
 
"WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE READING — This polling memo (h/t JMart) from BlueLabs Analytics is circulating among party officials still keen to convince JOE BIDEN to step aside and prevent his party from suffering what many fear will be a historic loss to DONALD TRUMP.

The topline findings from interviews with over 15,000 voters in seven battleground states:

  1. “Alternative Democratic candidates run ahead of President Biden by an average of three points across the battleground states. Nearly every tested Democrat performs better than the President. This includes Vice President [KAMALA] HARRIS who runs better than the President (but behind the average alternative).”
  2. “Some of the gains are coming from winning undecideds and those previously supporting a third party. However, alternative candidates are also pulling votes from Donald Trump. All candidates continue to hold the Democratic base.”
  3. “Voters are looking for a fresh face. Those more closely tied to the current administration perform relatively worse than other tested candidates.”
The data here opens a new front in the fight to replace Biden, strongly arguing that the best chance to defeat Trump is with a new Democratic nominee independent of the incumbent administration.

In other words: not Kamala Harris.

The strongest potential candidates are (in alphabetical order) Arizona Sen. MARK KELLY, Maryland Gov. WES MOORE, Pennsylvania Gov. JOSH SHAPIRO and Michigan Gov. GRETCHEN WHITMER. All four outpaced Biden “by roughly 5 points across battleground states.”"

Sure hope they can't pull this off.
God help this country if Whitmer got it.
 
And I can postulate there’s a tiny teacup orbiting Jupiter, too small for our telescopes to see. You can’t prove me wrong! The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not everyone else to disprove.
Dion the defense attorney: Mister Smith, I know you say you saw the defendant fire his gun at point blank range at the victim. But DID YOU ACTUALLY SEE THE BULLET???? NO?!?!?! WELL, THERE, YOU SEE?!?! MY CLIENT IS NOT GUILTY!!!
 
Being an agnostic is actually worse than being an atheist. The atheist says, "Yes, I have considered the so-called evidence but I don't believe any of it." The agnostic says, "Yes, there is some evidence there of a Creator but not quite enough to convince me. This Creator, if he exists, has failed to show me ENOUGH evidence to fully convince me he is here and therefore it is HIS FAULT for not being a good enough explainer."

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
No, generally both of them say, "I have weighed all the evidence presented by many different hypotheses for the origin of the universe, and currently lean towards the one with the preponderance and most compelling evidence." Generally you find in America, especially with the older generations, a default position of the Abrahamic God or Christianity. You exhibit it here with your framing. That's not how it works; these aren't two sides of a coin, belief and nonbelief. There are hundreds of belief structures/religions/worldviews out there. It's on each one to present their evidence and then be judged equally. The Aztec story of Tecciztecatl and Nanahuatl sacrificing themselves to become the sun and moon is exactly the same as y'all's Genesis in terms of relationship to reality. All evidence must be presented and compared. The Abrahamic tradition doesn't get special treatment just because it happens to be favored by a majority of your current neighbors. Go to India or anywhere else and that wouldn't be the case, the default would be different.
 
Dion the defense attorney: Mister Smith, I know you say you saw the defendant fire his gun at point blank range at the victim. But DID YOU ACTUALLY SEE THE BULLET???? NO?!?!?! WELL, THERE, YOU SEE?!?! MY CLIENT IS NOT GUILTY!!!
The interaction of gun, bullet, and person are all observable physical phenomenon that will be gone over in court. People aren't convicted in America for praying someone else to death. You don't get to admit into evidence that God killed them with magic.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT