Skip to main content

Apologies to the Trump Campaign

   I received your messages (Donald Trump and son), I just haven't checked that email account often enough. I am well aware that someone with you follows my posts here, ever since my original idea to have a wealthy man run for President has come to fruition somehow. The only thing I would have to communicate is that this was never supposed to be a purely political blog. I started the blog to write about whatever I wanted to, or whatever I was interested in. The "general topic" theme gives me the freedom to write freely across subject areas. If my ideas have helped you somehow, I did not realize that. Let me see what I can do to help you further, though. I think you should continue giving America a message of hope based on ideas and values our country was founded on, and you won't be able to really go wrong. Too often Democrats win elections not by their own merit, but by a smear campaign against their opponent. That's what they've tried to do, it looks like. I think you should feel free to bring out the relevant dirt on your opponent Ms. Clinton, and just freely do so. On top of that, your stances on issues are more righteous than the stances of the Democrats. People of faith need to be made aware of that. Technically, no Catholic in their right mind (as I have pointed out before in this blog) can be voting for Hillary Clinton because she is pro choice and they would be committing the Catholic sin of scandal.
  You can expect me to probably say a few more things about politics before election day comes. Thanks for following.

Comments

  1. David BlackOctober 20, 2016 at 11:25 AM

    On top of that I would just add the same thing I said on Facebook which is that "allegations" just mean that people are saying stuff not proven in court. People can say whatever they want to. It doesn't make it true just because they're saying it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. David BlackOctober 20, 2016 at 11:42 AM

    I myself have personal anecdotes about the Clintons because I know people who know people. If I thought it necessary, then I would actually just sit here and put it down in a separate post. What I know about her is not really in Hillary's best interests. Just to make some clear distinctions, I think Chelsea Clinton is okay. I've known people who knew her, also.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Personality Types and the Fall of Man Argument

   There will be some who will want to say that I was being illogical or unbiblical when I wrote the post about how personality differences get misunderstood.  Their argument is basically that differing personalities are a consequence of the Fall of Man- a consequence of the DNA getting disordered.  Therefore, they will say, that people who don't fit the "perfect personality" are sinful. God created one man, they will say, with a perfect personality (Adam).  In truth, they can cite Adam, Eve, and Jesus.  That argument is not correct, and I will stand my ground on this.    The reason why they are not correct is because they are making the unwarranted assumption all of Adam's descendants would have had the same personality had the Fall never happened. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that had the Fall never happened, there would have been different kinds of people with different personalities, it just would have been a more perfect world. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nice Dissenting Opinion on the Fairness of the Criminal Justice System

   I was recently having a conversation with someone about the possibility for unreliability and/or unfairness in the criminal justice system. I was reminded of this quote from a Supreme Court case which is from Justice Harry Blackmun's dissenting opinion. The case was Darden v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 168 (1986). Obviously he's talking about the Supreme Court level, but if this could be said about their accuracy, then how shall we communicate about fairness at the trial court level? "JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Although the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant only "a fair trial [and] not a perfect one,"  Lutwak v. United States,   344 U. S. 604 ,  344 U. S. 619  (1953);  Bruton v. United States,   391 U. S. 123 ,  391 U. S. 135  (1968), this Court has stressed repeatedly in the decade since  Gregg v. Georgia,   428 U. S. 153  (1976), that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is Anybody Thinking Whatsoever?

See my comments below......    Let me explain further. According to Catholic dogma/teaching, they must oppose abortion "in all forms."  See the Catholic Catechism, which clearly states in 2272  "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life"  Therefore, Catholics CANNOT vote for Hillary Clinton. If they don't like Donald Trump they have to find an independent party they agree with and vote for that person. They would be sinning according to their own religious worldview if they actually voted for Hillary Clinton.  link to Catholic Catechism  (on abortion)    Catholics should also consider the Catholic sin of "scandal." It is a sin for them to vote for Hillary Clinton. To quote the Catholic Catechism, "Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the c...
Post a Comment
Read more