Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: I heard on local radio news today, that some republican higher ups are trying to figure out a way to keep Trump from getting the nomination. It was even mentioned that they might even form a third party to go against Trump. My first reaction to that, was that it would probably guarantee Hillary would win in the general election. So, why would the republican establishment want to do that? But then I thought, what if Hillary is really who the political establishment wants in office. Wouldn't that be the best way to guarantee she's the next president? Don't allow her to go up against who the people want?

And what if Hillary does not get indicted for her crimes? What does that tell us?

This whole thing is extremely disturbing.

If (when) Trump gets a majority of the delegates before the convention, he will be the Republican candidate. There is nothing the hypothetical "establishment" can do about that.

The question is, what happens if no candidate gets a majority of the delegates prior to the convention? And that is what everyone is trying to figure out. I don't think it is likely, but it is a possibility.

The other thing that frustrates me is this false narrative that it is Trump voters vs "the establishment".
Trump has received votes from around 40% of the Republican voters so far. Around 60% of the Republican voters have cast their vote for someone other than Trump.
Why are the 40% of the people who voted for Trump considered to be "the people"?
What are the 60% of the people who voted against Trump considered to be?... guess what we're people and voters too.

If a majority of "the people" want Trump it should make no difference how many people he runs against in the General Election.
The latest General Election polling shows Clinton up on Trump 51% to 38%.

Trump does not represent "the people".
Trump represents about 40% of the Republicans who have voted so far.

Trump's real opponent is the majority of American voters (real live people like me) who do not want to see him in the Oval Office.
If Trump loses to Hillary in November it will be the choice of the American voters, not the choice of some nebulous "establishment".

DBowling wrote:

RickD wrote: I heard on local radio news today, that some republican higher ups are trying to figure out a way to keep Trump from getting the nomination. It was even mentioned that they might even form a third party to go against Trump. My first reaction to that, was that it would probably guarantee Hillary would win in the general election. So, why would the republican establishment want to do that? But then I thought, what if Hillary is really who the political establishment wants in office. Wouldn't that be the best way to guarantee she's the next president? Don't allow her to go up against who the people want?

And what if Hillary does not get indicted for her crimes? What does that tell us?

This whole thing is extremely disturbing.

If (when) Trump gets a majority of the delegates before the convention, he will be the Republican candidate. There is nothing the hypothetical "establishment" can do about that.

The question is, what happens if no candidate gets a majority of the delegates prior to the convention? And that is what everyone is trying to figure out. I don't think it is likely, but it is a possibility.

The other thing that frustrates me is this false narrative that it is Trump voters vs "the establishment".
Trump has received votes from around 40% of the Republican voters so far. Around 60% of the Republican voters have cast their vote for someone other than Trump.
Why are the 40% of the people who voted for Trump considered to be "the people"?
What are the 60% of the people who voted against Trump considered to be?... guess what we're people and voters too.

If a majority of "the people" want Trump it should make no difference how many people he runs against in the General Election.
The latest General Election polling shows Clinton up on Trump 51% to 38%.

Trump does not represent "the people".
Trump represents about 40% of the Republicans who have voted so far.

Trump's real opponent is the majority of American voters (real live people like me) who do not want to see him in the Oval Office.
If Trump loses to Hillary in November it will be the choice of the American voters, not the choice of some nebulous "establishment".

I guess that's one way to look at it. He's "only" getting 40% of the votes from those who were able to vote for him.

Another way to look at is that he's getting the most votes(easily) out of the repub. candidates. I guess we'll see which way to look at it is more accurate when there are less choices for the rest of the voters.
Will trump pickup the majority of those who were going to vote for a candidate who suspended his candidacy, or will Cruz pick up the much higher majority needed to pull ahead of trump?

Look,

A while back, I thought trump would shoot himself in the foot, and Cruz or Rubio would pass him. I never thought he would have as much support as he does.

I don't know if my conscience would allow me to vote for Trump in the general election. But, I'd much, much, much rather have him as president over Clinton.

Trump, as much as he may think to the contrary, will NOT be a dictator. There will be too many people around him, not to mention checks and balances in the system, along with common sense, that wouldn't allow him to do some of the more extreme things he's proposed. Do we really think 11 million people are going to be rounded up and sent back to their respective countries?

I don't know if my conscience would allow me to vote for Trump in the general election. But, I'd much, much, much rather have him as president over Clinton.

Man, that is exactly what I'm wondering about. Trump's impulsiveness, his ego, his big mouth, his tactical insults against those whom oppose him - he could very well be a disaster - and that's just without getting us in another dumb war. Hillary will track the country further towards socialism and weak foreign policy. A healer with common sense, who has the charisma, smarts, and is capable of persuading even those who disagree, with the merits of good ideas that transcend political parties is what is needed. Just winning elections because people are more sick of their guy than your guy is only like an evermore crumbling pendulum. We've got to change the thinking of the masses, so that the common guy can see the folly in bad policies, and so we can all see that both parties have some major dysfunctions, even if I think the Democrats have more of them.

Again, our problem is that there just aren't enough people of good common sense to elect the same in our leaders. People either can't connect the dots between policies and their likely impact, or they simply connect them with wishful thinking. Most people under a certain age don't even think "socialism" is a negative thing. Oh, sure, we have some vestiges of programs one might consider socialistic on a micro scale - but our economic system hasn't embraced it - and with good reason. Programs designed to function as safety nets are a good and compassionate thing. But, unfortunately, people get this idea that they are entitled and that those doing better than they are (especially those above a certain income) should have to prop them up indefinitely,without there ever being an end to it. This is the mentality that certain politicians pander to for votes, while they assert that anyone wanting to get serious about breaking such a cycle is somehow cruel and indifferent to the plight of those in need.

Philip wrote:But, unfortunately, people get this idea that they are entitled and that those doing better than they are (especially those above a certain income) should have to prop them up indefinitely,without there ever being an end to it.

That's a straw man that conservatives like to toss at progressives. The reality is that the economy is rigged - the ultra-rich are above the law, the largest businesses are too big to fail, and when they blatantly violate the law for gigantic profit they're allowed to pay a pittance in fines while admitting no wrongdoing.

Here, this says it all:

Why This Christian Leader Says Every Evangelical Absolutely Must Vote — Even If That Means Choosing the ‘Least Heathen of the Two Heathen’
-
-
-

Ed: That's a straw man that conservatives like to toss at progressives. The reality is that the economy is rigged - the ultra-rich are above the law, the largest businesses are too big to fail, and when they blatantly violate the law for gigantic profit they're allowed to pay a pittance in fines while admitting no wrongdoing.

Edward, just because a conservative says something that has merit, you simply dismiss it because of the source (and this can, of course, cut both ways). I recognize that there is also truth in what you say (above). But they are BOTH true. It's not an EITHER/OR and it is not a dodge. And to suggest that we need to break the cycle of dependency, doesn't mean we just cut people off - certainly not immediately. It takes offering people incentives to change, opportunities for training and jobs, etc. HELP them to help themselves - don't just say, "You need to do this or that, but you are unwilling to!" It's not that simple! And it's far more challenging in the present economy of so many unemployeds - people that WANT to work, have qualifications, but cannot find jobs. But for all of the negatives of big business and those of considerable means, there is also great good that comes from them. Yes, we need appropriate safeguards, and we need to prosecute those who do illegal stuff - be they banks, corporations, Wall Streeters. But if we demonize ALL decision makers in such places - well, we're also slitting our own throats.

And you will NEVER regulate perfect behavior in such business or political groups! Why? Because those within these structures and systems are also HUMANS with the very same motivations of greed, narcissism and self-serving desires. And guess WHAT? If you traded places - swapped out all the fat cats, rich people, corporate and bank heads, gave the poor and powerless the very same capabilities and education, do you really think you'd see much more ethical behavior???!!! Please - they'd do the very same stuff, in the very same percentages. Why? Because they would then have the opportunities and abilities to do so. The ONLY difference between the rich and poor is, mostly, money, education, and opportunity. Human hearts and minds tend to all work the very same way. You take a minority that was formerly enslaved and mistreated, had no power - change their key variables and give them power - how long do you think it would be before THEY became the abusers of power? Pretty much overnight, that's what! Take away rich people's wealth, and their petty crime rates would soar to right where low-income people's crime rates are today. Point is, people are people, and human nature doesn't change due to socioeconomics of a person. It's all about power, opportunity, and motivations of the heart and mind.

So many people have this perverse idea - be it based upon race, politics, culture or class - that if we simply "get rid of these people or those people, if we simply embrace whatever economic or political system, support whatever political party, if we can get rid of those people withing those entities and replace them with other people who support the systems we think are better, that THEN everything will be hunky dory. No, no, NO! Because you have replaced people with people, and human nature doesn't change. If we respect nothing above us that spiritually moderates how we make moral choices, our tendency to follow pure, self-serving narcissism, within the confines of whatever political or social systems, with whatever laws are in place - well, human nature invites corruption. But as we mostly want our own views of what would solve things, we tend to demonize the opposition, as if we got what we wanted in place, all would be so much better. Yep, that would be great - except the concept is all dependent upon more corrupt humans - whatever their politics, position, opportunities, of abilities.

Ed: That's a straw man that conservatives like to toss at progressives. The reality is that the economy is rigged - the ultra-rich are above the law, the largest businesses are too big to fail, and when they blatantly violate the law for gigantic profit they're allowed to pay a pittance in fines while admitting no wrongdoing.

Edward, just because a conservative says something that has merit, you simply dismiss it because of the source (and this can, of course, cut both ways). I recognize that there is also truth in what you say (above). But they are BOTH true. It's not an EITHER/OR and it is not a dodge. And to suggest that we need to break the cycle of dependency, doesn't mean we just cut people off - certainly not immediately. It takes offering people incentives to change, opportunities for training and jobs, etc. HELP them to help themselves - don't just say, "You need to do this or that, but you are unwilling to!" It's not that simple! And it's far more challenging in the present economy of so many unemployeds - people that WANT to work, have qualifications, but cannot find jobs. But for all of the negatives of big business and those of considerable means, there is also great good that comes from them. Yes, we need appropriate safeguards, and we need to prosecute those who do illegal stuff - be they banks, corporations, Wall Streeters. But if we demonize ALL decision makers in such places - well, we're also slitting our own throats.

And you will NEVER regulate perfect behavior in such business or political groups! Why? Because those within these structures and systems are also HUMANS with the very same motivations of greed, narcissism and self-serving desires. And guess WHAT? If you traded places - swapped out all the fat cats, rich people, corporate and bank heads, gave the poor and powerless the very same capabilities and education, do you really think you'd see much more ethical behavior???!!! Please - they'd do the very same stuff, in the very same percentages. Why? Because they would then have the opportunities and abilities to do so. The ONLY difference between the rich and poor is, mostly, money, education, and opportunity. Human hearts and minds tend to all work the very same way. You take a minority that was formerly enslaved and mistreated, had no power - change their key variables and give them power - how long do you think it would be before THEY became the abusers of power? Pretty much overnight, that's what! Take away rich people's wealth, and their petty crime rates would soar to right where low-income people's crime rates are today. Point is, people are people, and human nature doesn't change due to socioeconomics of a person. It's all about power, opportunity, and motivations of the heart and mind.

So many people have this perverse idea - be it based upon race, politics, culture or class - that if we simply "get rid of these people or those people, if we simply embrace whatever economic or political system, support whatever political party, if we can get rid of those people withing those entities and replace them with other people who support the systems we think are better, that THEN everything will be hunky dory. No, no, NO! Because you have replaced people with people, and human nature doesn't change. If we respect nothing above us that spiritually moderates how we make moral choices, our tendency to follow pure, self-serving narcissism, within the confines of whatever political or social systems, with whatever laws are in place - well, human nature invites corruption. But as we mostly want our own views of what would solve things, we tend to demonize the opposition, as if we got what we wanted in place, all would be so much better. Yep, that would be great - except the concept is all dependent upon more corrupt humans - whatever their politics, position, opportunities, or abilities.

And none of that is to say that there aren't better or more preferred economic or political systems, etc. It's only to say that they will all have pockets of corruption and self-serving interests, because they are humans.

B. W. wrote:Here, this says it all:

Why This Christian Leader Says Every Evangelical Absolutely Must Vote — Even If That Means Choosing the ‘Least Heathen of the Two Heathen’
-
-
-

I agree... and disagree... with what Franklin Graham is saying here...

As a citizen of the United States, I take my right and responsibility to vote very seriously.
I have voted in every Presidential election since 1980.
I have voted for heathens before.
I have voted for candidates who disagree with my personal and political values before.
... and there have been a number of times when that required me to hold my nose when voting.

The difference in this election is that the response to Hillary that the Republicans have chosen is a genuinely evil person.
This is not just about personal ideology. This is about a person who deliberately preys on and peddles anger, hatred, and violence.

My choice not to vote this year in November is a deliberate response on my part to the choice of the Republican party.

I am opposed at the deepest core of my being to a bully who stirs up hatred and violence.
If the party of Lincoln and Reagan chooses as their standard bearer a hate monger then I will support neither that candidate or the party that supports that candidate.

For me, "Anyone but Hillary" is not a valid reason to support lies and hatred.
My deliberate decision not to vote IS my vote.

... which could possibly change if we get a palatable third party candidate.

The above reflects my personal opinions...

DBowling wrote:

I am opposed at the deepest core of my being to a bully who stirs up hatred and violence.
If the party of Lincoln and Reagan chooses as their standard bearer a hate monger then I will support neither that candidate or the party that supports that candidate.

Hypothetical(or possibility),

Say neither Cruz nor Trump gets the required amount of delegates to earn the nomination. It goes to the convention. The Republican Party chooses a different candidate to be the nominee. Will you consider voting for that nominee?


I think the voting process, is a simple process. I understand the decision can be difficult, but I think the process is simple. Each person should research the candidates, and then make a decision based on his/her conscience. Some will choose Trump, others will choose Clinton. Some will choose a candidate with absolutely no chance to win, as I voted for last general election. And others, lead by their conscience, will simply not vote.

RickD wrote:

DBowling wrote:

I am opposed at the deepest core of my being to a bully who stirs up hatred and violence.
If the party of Lincoln and Reagan chooses as their standard bearer a hate monger then I will support neither that candidate or the party that supports that candidate.

Hypothetical(or possibility),

Say neither Cruz nor Trump gets the required amount of delegates to earn the nomination. It goes to the convention. The Republican Party chooses a different candidate to be the nominee. Will you consider voting for that nominee?

My personal opinion?
I think Trump is probably going to get the majority of delegates he needs before the convention. Cruz and Kasich are going to continue to split the non-Trump vote, so Trump won't need more than 40% to get a plurality of votes and a majority of the delegates.

While I don't think it is likely, I guess it is possible that no one will have a majority of the delegates before the convention. Even if no one has a majority going in, I can't fathom that someone other than Trump or Cruz will come out of the convention with a majority of delegates.

I'm in a real tough situation.
I can not and will not support a party who chooses a person as dishonest and immoral as Trump to lead their party... Period.
However if the party chooses to totally subvert the will of the voters and bring in someone other than Cruz or Trump...
Then I don't know if I could support a party that would do that either.

The best bets for me to vote in November are...
- for non-Trump candidates who collectively have a majority of delegates to come together and support Cruz (I could hold my nose and vote for Cruz over Hillary)
- for the NeverTrump conservatives to put out a third party candidate that I could actually support. (Exit polling shows that 30-40% of Republicans would consider voting for a third party alternative to Hillary and Trump)

Trump is about to release a true attack on Ted Cruz that is gonna be devistating to Ted Cruz.Ted Cruz has been getting a pass while everybody attacks Trump but Cruz is about to be exposed for the fake he is.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Trump is about to release a true attack on Ted Cruz that is gonna be devistating to Ted Cruz.Ted Cruz has been getting a pass while everybody attacks Trump but Cruz is about to be exposed for the fake he is.

Sorry ACB,

God told Cruz's father that Ted will be the next POTUS. God has spoken to a fruitcake
false prophet true prophet!

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 35#p196435

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Trump is about to release a true attack on Ted Cruz that is gonna be devistating to Ted Cruz.Ted Cruz has been getting a pass while everybody attacks Trump but Cruz is about to be exposed for the fake he is.

Sorry ACB,

God told Cruz's father that Ted will be the next POTUS. God has spoken to a fruitcake
false prophet true prophet!

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 35#p196435

Well Cruz has some competition because Trump has also had Christians pray over him and annoint him to be President. So this is like a football game where opposing fans pray for their team to win.

DBowling wrote:

RickD wrote: I heard on local radio news today, that some republican higher ups are trying to figure out a way to keep Trump from getting the nomination. It was even mentioned that they might even form a third party to go against Trump. My first reaction to that, was that it would probably guarantee Hillary would win in the general election. So, why would the republican establishment want to do that? But then I thought, what if Hillary is really who the political establishment wants in office. Wouldn't that be the best way to guarantee she's the next president? Don't allow her to go up against who the people want?

And what if Hillary does not get indicted for her crimes? What does that tell us?

This whole thing is extremely disturbing.

If (when) Trump gets a majority of the delegates before the convention, he will be the Republican candidate. There is nothing the hypothetical "establishment" can do about that.

The question is, what happens if no candidate gets a majority of the delegates prior to the convention? And that is what everyone is trying to figure out. I don't think it is likely, but it is a possibility.

The other thing that frustrates me is this false narrative that it is Trump voters vs "the establishment".
Trump has received votes from around 40% of the Republican voters so far. Around 60% of the Republican voters have cast their vote for someone other than Trump.
Why are the 40% of the people who voted for Trump considered to be "the people"?
What are the 60% of the people who voted against Trump considered to be?... guess what we're people and voters too.

If a majority of "the people" want Trump it should make no difference how many people he runs against in the General Election.
The latest General Election polling shows Clinton up on Trump 51% to 38%.

Trump does not represent "the people".
Trump represents about 40% of the Republicans who have voted so far.

Trump's real opponent is the majority of American voters (real live people like me) who do not want to see him in the Oval Office.
If Trump loses to Hillary in November it will be the choice of the American voters, not the choice of some nebulous "establishment".

If 60% of people have voted against Trump then 80% have voted against Cruz.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Trump is about to release a true attack on Ted Cruz that is gonna be devistating to Ted Cruz.Ted Cruz has been getting a pass while everybody attacks Trump but Cruz is about to be exposed for the fake he is.

Sorry ACB,

God told Cruz's father that Ted will be the next POTUS. God has spoken to a fruitcake
false prophet true prophet!

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 35#p196435

Well Cruz has some competition because Trump has also had Christians pray over him and annoint him to be President. So this is like a football game where opposing fans pray for their team to win.

That's different than Cruz's case. Trump only had people pray over him. Cruz's father actually was told by God. A false prophet word directly from God, trumps Trump's mere anointing by men.

This presidential race, should be called the fruitcake race.

I think I'm writing in Mickey Mouse for my vote.