purplepizza117 wrote:

D: Kasich's out too.

Diabolical wrote:

Ironically, Trump might yet fail to reach 1237 delegates by the convention. Since Ted Cruz is such a crafty candidate, his "suspension" can be re-enabled practically overnight if he sees a last minute trend against Trump in California or some rebellion against trump by the delegates after the first round of voting in the convention.

If the Donald does manage to squeak through to the first vote threshold, it will have been one of the worst totals in Republican history. And since many of the populist independents and Democrats that voted for him in many of the various open primaries will have abandoned him now that their deed of disrupting the Republican party is done, they will return to Hillary in the fall.

So Trump is doomed. But really, does it matter? Donald J. Trump is basically a Hillary in Republican clothing. He is really more like a convergence of Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton morphed into a single person. Think about it.

So the choice of president in America will between Hillary and a Hillary wannabe.

I'm still going to vote for Ted Cruz in the Oregon primaries (the mail-in ballot is already here and sitting on the desk in front of me). I hope he'll get a strong showing by those who've already voted and those seeking a moral victory. Early on, after analyzing the various candidates, I chose Ted Cruz for president while there were still about 15 candidates and I cheered every time he won a state and jeered every time the comb-over (Trump) pranced up on the stage to wave his hands like a monkey on speed and babble about how everyone sucks except for him and how everyone's a liar but him.

Yeah, dance monkey...dance.

I threatened to leave the Republican party in 2000 before the dubya got the nomination. I threatened again in 2006 when the Republicans threw away Congress and paved the way for Obama two years later. I threatened to leave the Republican party for a third time when Huckabee was denied the nomination by the populist ironically-calm wacko, John McCain and the lightweight waffler who would leave the race too late, Mitt Romney. I threatened yet one more time when Romney ran again and pushed out the obvious heir to the 2010 tea party, Rick Santorum, in 2012.

Now, this time around, Huckabee tried, Santorum tried, and the too-young-to-run Marco Rubio tried too early in his career to run for president and were each quick to leave. Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, and even Jeb Bush were decent candidates yet none were good enough. For the first time since I voted for him in 2008, Mike Huckabee disappointed me by supporting the Donald. But Ted Cruz assumed the mantle of the Right Wing Conservative Republican. I still think if we had only closed primaries in America, then Trump would not be winning and Ted Cruz would be. But lets let the Democrats and independents choose our Republican nominee.

We are fools to allow this to happen. I will not support a party of fools anymore.

I am leaving the Republican party. This is my fifth threat to do so. The difference is, that after I submit my vote for Ted Cruz on the mail-in-only Oregon balloting system, I am going to register as an independent. The two party system is broken...truly broken.

We need four parties...nay, I say five parties: one for the green/socialist uber liberal anarchist lefties, the very left-leaning Democrats, the slightly left-leaning fence-sitting populists, the mostly moderate Republicans, and the right wing conservatives Constitutionalists. There is actually a Constitution Party in Oregon. And I agree with almost every aspect of their platform except one, they were and still are anti-war libertarians when it comes to national defense. Other than that, they are the best kind of conservatives, actually caring about reducing the federal government and returning us to the founding father's originally intended union.

Well, that's another one of my soapboxes. Live with it.

oceanhawk wrote:

Need as many parties as people want!

needs to be easier to make parties.. just the money!...

if Money was out of politics, there would be more parties I think..
Id say their will be.... A socialist party, Liberal party, 2 conservative parties, and a libertarian party( I am aware there is already one.. but yea.. kinda miss and match..)


I think cruz isnt a great candidate.. he denies evolution took place, and wants to kick all the immigrants out..
Trump just wants them to come in legally, and record be taken.. and they come into America in a fair process..

Diabolical wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Need as many parties as people want!

needs to be easier to make parties.. just the money!...

if Money was out of politics, there would be more parties I think..
Id say their will be.... A socialist party, Liberal party, 2 conservative parties, and a libertarian party( I am aware there is already one.. but yea.. kinda miss and match..)


I think cruz isnt a great candidate.. he denies evolution took place, and wants to kick all the immigrants out..
Trump just wants them to come in legally, and record be taken.. and they come into America in a fair process..

I think the Donald should have just ran as a third party candidate anyway. Most of his supporters were either non-Republicans who snuck in to vote in several state's open primaries. Many of his supporters actually like and support his bullying rhetoric and he's successfully given a voice to the "angry white male" that liberals hate the most. But we (white males) aren't all angry bullies.

I'd much rather have a moral leader who hasn't just switched parties less than a year ago for the convenience of running for a crowning achievement in a long career of power plays and deal makings (many of which were crooked or unethical). Trump was a liberal progressive democrat for most of his adult life but changed in the past year to reflect his new-found beliefs that he claims to have. I don't believe a single word he says and I don't want another womanizer as my president. Bill Clinton brought terrible shame to the honor of the office and Trump will do so as well.

[*tongue in cheek] On the bright side, if elected, the Donald might actually hold the Miss Universe contest in the White House which would be interesting...or maybe the Miss America contest would be more appropriate.

I am, however, what you would call a social conservative. I'm a Bible-thumping Christian, first, and my faith colors everything I say and do. I want and expect only a leader that shares my core beliefs even if they disagree with some of the non-critical particulars.

(This next part is very long and not meant for casual reading nor disinterested readers. I do not hesitate to lay it all on the line and I know that what I have written could be mocked. So be it.)

Display Spoiler

Though I'd prefer a Christian leader that denies the lies of evolution, I would swallow the bitter pill and maybe vote for a Christian leader that believed the heresy of a guided-evolutionary interpretation of creation if they were to espouse -- firmly -- the love of Christ AND their competition is a non-believer. However, this is a difficult thing for me to accept since I find it difficult to understand how someone could believe in Christ and yet not believe in what Christ Himself proclaimed.

At this time, I do not believe that Donald J. Trump is a born-again Christian. No born-again Christian would say (what Trump said) that they have "never asked God for forgiveness" because they claimed they haven't done anything wrong. No, a born-again, genuine, Christian acknowledges that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." They could never claim to be born-again without having to admit they have sinned and that they needed the forgiveness of God. If they do, then they don't understand Christianity and they are not a Christian even if they think they are.

A Christian must humble himself before God and before man. And by both action and words, Donald J. Trump has indicated that he has done neither. If he lies about his faith, then Trump is quite capable of lying about anything and everything else. He admits to being a "deal maker" and this really signals that he does whatever he wants and rubs the right elbows to get whatever he wants. That is a person that has no convictions and will compromise what is right for the sake of convenience.

There ARE moral absolutes. If anyone denies this, they are lying and their own words are, by reason of logical deduction, self-defeating and pointless. If there are no moral absolutes, then I can go and do anything that I define as moral. That would mean that anyone could justify any crime, any deed, any amoral behavior and call it "good". This is important: that a leader must have morality or they are a wicked leader. And I firmly believe that Barack is a wicked leader and that either Hillary or Donald would be a wicked leader as well. Bill Clinton was a wicked leader and I will leave it to others to imagine whether any other recent Presidents were wicked also.

I supported Ted Cruz because he was an honest, trustworthy, man of God who openly proclaimed his humility before God and confessed that Jesus Christ was his savior and forgave him his sins. Ted Cruz testifies to his faith and I believe him. I know he is disliked in the Senate, and -- frankly -- I consider that a badge of honor when considering how few Christians there are in the Congress.

However, that we -- as a Christian nation -- would elect non-believers to the office indicates how true it is that the Church in America has waned and has not followed the will of God. For God raises whom He wills to lead the nations and he raises "bad" leaders to punish other nations or even their own. Bill Clinton was raised by God to punish other nations and I firmly believe that Obama was raised by God to punish America. And we have been severely punished before the eyes of the world.

But don't blame America. Blame the Church. We (corporately) did not put our whole faith in God and did not fully trust Him to do His will. We tried to force His will and counter lawless judicial opinions from the Supreme Court and lawless rules passed by Congress and the more localized jurisdictions. We tried to pass citizen initiatives that would block amoral behavior. We tried to elect genuine Christians that would "turn it around" from the inside. But we did not lay the problems of our society at the foot of the Cross. And so God is punishing the nation as well as the Church for decades of disobedience.

When this nation ultimately falls into the dustbin of history, it will be the Church that is blamed by the secularists and the non-believers. And they will be right. And, it is because of our lack of obedience to God, that there has been a successful rise of secularism in this nation and -- had we been completely faithful and trusted God to deal with the problems of our society, there would not be legalized abortion, nor gay marriage, nor legalized sodomy and homo-sexual behavior, nor rampant drug use, nor rampant divorces, nor rampant course-ness and crudeness.

If the Church had been completely faithful, there would not be the misinterpreted concept of "separation of Church and State" and God would be in the public square. There would still be prayer in School and the Bible would have been chief among all curricula while evolution would be a passing notion barely mentioned as a false religious teaching by non-believers. The rampant violence found among rioters and the rampant cases of brutality, insensitivity, and even racism (in all its forms) would ne'er be found.

Truly, where the Church remains faithful, God blesses their lands with great abundance and the Lord delights in bringing prosperity on His people and their nation(s). That is why America was able to rise from a simple rebellion against England to being a seed for spreading the faith of Christianity to the entire world through the missions of our ministry. It is by the rich blessings of God that we, as a Christian nation and obedient to God, were able to overcome the spread of Nazism and fascist ideals in Europe and the Pacific in WWII.

*continued in the next post due to length...

Diabolical wrote:

Well, I don't speak for the Catholic faith, but as a protestant, I have a differing opinion about the way scriptural principles should be heeded by society.

I actually agree with you that Religion sets back progress in countries and politics...but that's only because "religion" does not mean what it used to. Religion used to mean the Christian faith. But it has been redefined to mean any belief system that one adheres to. Thus, what used to be known only as paganism is today -- at best -- called "false religion" and at worst called just a religious ideology. Even atheism as well as evolution are both religions by the current definition of the word.

Any system where one puts their faith in something that cannot be observed in the physical world is a religion. by this overarching definition. However, the religion of old, which singly defined Christianity in it's truest form, is perfectly valid in uniting Church and state when the faith is adhered to with heartfelt passion, wisdom, and a steadfast love.

Also, to be fair to the Catholic Church, the organization has done lots of positive things in the past. Their only main failing is putting faith in the created rather than the creator. Mary, the mother of Jesus was a virgin when she gave birth, but did not remain so afterwards when she then knew her husband Joseph and gave birth to other children who were Jesus' half-siblings by birth. And the Pope, and the ministry, do not have the power to forgive sins, only Jesus has the power to forgive for it is His blood that washes white as snow.

That being said, the Catholic Church was the only real representative of God's Church on earth for a long period between the end of paganism's Dark Ages and the middle ages. Once, however, when the protestant movement began translating the Bible into the language of the people, they were able to discern that the Catholic papacy had been largely professing a lie to the ignorant masses who never knew the true meaning of salvation. But, to their credit, the masses who believed were taught that Jesus died for their sins and many of them did put their faith in Him even if it was partially in ignorance. Thus they were justified and, though now in the grave, they await the resurrection of the faithful at the time of the coming Rapture.

oceanhawk wrote:

No to be fair, it actually does a lot of good.. in terms of religion, and keeps people with a good sense of morality
Although they have their history.. we all do..

But I think they hiding a lot of stuff anyway... cough cough Vatican archives

Diabolical wrote:

You know, I'm fed up with the whole election process anyway.

I'm voting for Pedro.