CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Steersman wrote:
So, Scented, what would you say is Trump's great achievements so far? What part of his stated agenda do you feel will advance the US or Canada's interests? I'm genuinely curious.
He's not Hillary Clinton?
Which I figure has to cover a multitude of sins. Don't think you quite get the idea of the lesser of two evils.
But then there are his contributions to the meme-wars ... ;-)
Saying somebody else may have been worse is rarely exculpatory. Why don't you show us, with links, the legal precedent for that? Or explaining your reasoning, that apparently extends into seeing the future in alternate realities? Hillary being a terrible person is something I wholeheartedly agree with, but in no way does it excuse Trump's actions. That it does excuse him is the reasoning of a small, petulant, not-too-bright child.
So I'm a "small, petulant, not-too-bright child"? Weren't you raking me over the coals some time back for gratuitous insults? ;-)
In any case, I wonder where you get the idea that I'm trying "excuse Trump's actions, though it is maybe understandable, particularly if you're not up on your Bible studies:
Christianity Stack Exchange
What is meant by “love covers over a multitude of sins”?
And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.” (1 Pet 4:8, NKJV)
Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins. (Prov 10:12, NKJV)
What does it mean for "love to cover a multitude of sins"? Does it mean one of the following?
- Love prevents you from seeing or noticing sins at all?
- Love allows you to see sins, but you overlook/ignore them?
- Love allows you to see sins, but you forgive them?
- Something else?
Love certainly does not mean ignoring sins or not noticing them at all. It is unloving for us to notice a fellow Christian living in sin and not help them. And when they sin against us, we are not to act like nothing happened
in all cases, but we are to confront them Biblically when appropriate.
I figure Christians have a tendency to bend over backwards to supine lengths - as Dawkins put it - but it seems clear that the intent is "not to act like nothing happened" but to confront the supposed guilty party and show them the errors of their ways - so to speak.
And, more particularly, it seems clear, or quite plausible to argue, that Clinton would have been
hell-on-wheels in comparison to the way Trump is
; the only option on the table now is, apparently, to get him to change the worst of his policies and actions. And if that isn't possible then maybe impeachment may be the only solution - and hopefully the lesser of two evils.