OT: Christianity Today

[1Clemzunfan]

Billy Graham voted for Trump.

So Billy @ 97 years old voted for Donald Trump according to Franklin Graham. And how do you think he knows who his father voted for from his sick bed via absentee ballot?

And if Billy did, in sound mind, vote for Trump at the age of 97, he certainly did not give an endorsement and he never stated any support for Trumps controversial actions once in office.

In 2011 in an interview Billy Graham warned of religious leaders being involved in politics and advised them to stay clear of it. He intentionally did not offer political endorsements. Yet his son, in an attempt to please his master Donald Trump, has now posthumously endorsed Trump on his father's behalf, knowing that it is something his father would have never done and did not believe in. And he has even gone so far as to speculate on how his father would have viewed Trumps actions after his death. What we do know, however, is that other children and grandchildren of Billy disagree with Franklin, feel he misrepresents their father and grandfather, and they have stated so publically. And we also know that Franklin has attributed comments to his father as late as 2015 that his father publically rebuked.

 

[orangelvis]

So Billy @ 97 years old voted for Donald Trump according to Franklin Graham. And how do you think he knows who his father voted for from his sick bed via absentee ballot?

And if Billy did, in sound mind, vote for Trump at the age of 97, he certainly did not give an endorsement and he never stated any support for Trumps controversial actions once in office.

In 2011 in an interview Billy Graham warned of religious leaders being involved in politics and advised them to stay clear of it. He intentionally did not offer political endorsements. Yet his son, in an attempt to please his master Donald Trump, has now posthumously endorsed Trump on his father's behalf, knowing that it is something his father would have never done and did not believe in. And he has even gone so far as to speculate on how his father would have viewed Trumps actions after his death. What we do know, however, is that other children and grandchildren of Billy disagree with Franklin, feel he misrepresents their father and grandfather, and they have stated so publically. And we also know that Franklin has attributed comments to his father as late as 2015 that his father publically rebuked.

So it's ok in your mind that a CHristian Mag weigh in on politics?
My Dad is 88. I know how he voted in 2016. He and I talk politics all the time and are both Christians. Not unusual.
Also, applying a little logic, one could easily surmise that if BG voted for Trump, and I am not going to assume FG is a liar, as you appear to do, he wouldhave done so with decades of knowledge regarding Trump's past.

Here is an article that says much about this Editor in Chief at this magazine.
https://www.breitbart.com/faith/201...s-theologian-who-excused-stalins-mass-murder/

 

[1Clemzunfan]

So it's ok in your mind that a CHristian Mag weigh in on politics?
My Dad is 88. I know how he voted in 2016. He and I talk politics all the time and are both Christians. Not unusual.
Also, applying a little logic, one could easily surmise that if BG voted for Trump, and I am not going to assume FG is a liar, as you appear to do, he wouldhave done so with decades of knowledge regarding Trump's past.

Here is an article that says much about this Editor in Chief at this magazine.
https://www.breitbart.com/faith/201...s-theologian-who-excused-stalins-mass-murder/

You have linked a breitbart article. LOL ... no thanks.

 

[orangelvis]

You have linked a breitbart article. LOL ... no thanks.

At least I offered a link. You make statements without proof of any kind.
Just so yopu know, the Editor in Chief, Mark Galli, at CT, wrote a book lionizing a theologian named KArl Barth. Barth used the Scripture to dismiss the mass murdering of millions of Russians by Josef Stalin:

"However, Galli has no moral authority to make this judgment on political preferences. Just a few years before this missive, Galli authored a lionizing biography of Karl Barth (pictured, inset) — a neo-orthodox theologian (e.g., believed that Christ did rise from the dead but the eyewitnesses did not record it accurately) and avowed socialist who excused Josef Stalin’s “totalitarian atrocities” due to the “positive intention” of the Marxist world view. He wrote:

t is pertinent not to omit to discriminate in our view of contemporary Communism between its totalitarian atrocities as such and the positive intention behind them. And if one tries to do that, one cannot say of Communism what one was forced to say of Nazism ten years ago — that what it means and intends is pure unreason, the product of madness and crime. It would be quite absurd to mention in the same breath the philosophy of Marxism and the “ideology” of the Third Reich, to mention a man of the stature of Joseph Stalin in the same breath as such charlatans as Hitler, Goering, Hess, Goebbels, Himmler, Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Streicher, etc. What has been tackled in Soviet Russia — albeit with very dirty and bloody hands and in a way that rightly shocks us — is, after all, a constructive idea, the solution of a problem which is a serious and burning problem for us as well, and which we with our clean hands have not yet tackled anything like energetically enough: the social problem. (Die Kirche zwischen Ost und West, 1949)

In his book, Galli’s harshest criticism on the topic of Soviet mass murder reads: “in retrospect, Barth does seem naive on this issue.” No accusations of disloyalty to the Decalogue.

In other words, as long as we’re canceling Christians for their political blind spots, Mr. Galli ought to hack at the log of the Holodomor, death camps, and purges in his hero’s eyes before he reaches for the speck of mean Tweets in his brothers’."

 

[nsp1996]

There is plenty of evidence. My goodness you really believe there isnt any evidence?

Newsflash he doesnt put you first. He puts his own interests first. He puts his corporate friends first. He has turned our farmers into welfare recipients.

He does nothing for the American people. He would rather be a puppet to KJU and Putin while telling our allies to kiss his ass.

I will help you again. IN YOUR OPINION there is evidence. Just in the same manner than when my kids were 5 they were of the opinion that there were monsters under the bed. Well....

Ok. Lets go over interests and accomplishments. I'll do it slowly.

Appoint judges that don't legislate from the bench - my interest
Make my 401K grow - my interest
low unemployment - my interest
lowest ever minority unemployment - neutral because I am white, but in our country's interest
close our pourous border - in my interest
increase defense spending - in my interest
make our country energy independent - in my interest
make our allies pay more for their own defense, thus saving me $$ - in my interest
negotiating a better trade deal with mexico and canada - in my interest

I could go on, but that's good for now.

How about giving me some info on "evidence" ?

Oh, and help me understand the "puppet" to KJU and Putin. I'm not following you.

 

[nsp1996]

It was withheld until he was caught in the act.

C'mon we all know that this impeachment is a political stunt. Right?

There was nothing done or alleged to have been done that jeopardizes national security.

A fact is that there was a temporary delay on some lethal aid, aid that the previous admin never granted for years.. and all of the sudden we have some huge national security issue. That is no kidding fact.

Why was it delayed? Now we are into the opinion territory... nothing proven.

 

[nsp1996]

Billy Graham voted for Trump.

I guess that falls into the "inconvenient fact" category.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[nsp1996]

Graham's grandson came out with a different opinion today, saying that his grandfather would have supported CT's stance.

Hot take!

The grandson of someone who was a moral guy says something and it matters? Wow.

 

[nsp1996]

Trump's response...

"A far left magazine, or very “progressive,” as some would call it, which has been doing poorly and hasn’t been involved with the Billy Graham family for many years, Christianity Today, knows nothing about reading a perfect transcript of a routine phone call and would rather have a Radical Left nonbeliever, who wants to take your religion & your guns, than Donald Trump as your President. No President has done more for the Evangelical community, and it’s not even close. You’ll not get anything from those Dems on stage. I won’t be reading ET again!"— President Trump on Twitter

this guy is a farkin idiot. Don't know how his supporters can't see it. So much here...

1. It's Christianity Today not Entertainment Tonight.
2. He says he will stop reading CT, does anyone really believe he is actually reading it before?
3. Apparently CT is a far left magazine now? The enemy of the people?
4. Trump conflating religion and guns in the same argument here.

So much where?

So much here:

Record low unemployment
Record low minority unemployment
Allies paying more for their own defense to counter Russia and China
US Energy independence
Record appointment of Judges who are constitutionalists
Record high stock market
Better US/Can/Mex trade deal
Better US-China trade deal
Increased defense spending
Increased focus on opiod addiction
Increased crackdown on MS-13
Increased security at our southern border

Yeah if CT rag is against this, then it's against America.

 

[Rychek4]

There was nothing done or alleged to have been done that jeopardizes national security.

Wrong.

 

[nsp1996]

He wasn't impeached for immoral words. Where did I say that? Where did the article say that?

Ok. I'll do it again.

The article linked above says it perfectly. "Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come?"

This process is a total charade. Supported by sheeple. That is the facts. If someone truely has moral issues with Trump, then, IMO the only option is to sit out this next election or vote for some whack-job candidate that will never win.

 

[nsp1996]

Wrong.

Man, this is getting tiring...

In your opinion... Wrong.

I disagree. And think that you are wrong.

Do you consider this intelligent conversation?

 

[nsp1996]

OK 1000x likes on this.

IMO,

1. Term Limits
2. Repeal of the 17th ammendment

@Rychek4 A common ground?

 

[nytigerfan]

So it's ok in your mind that a CHristian Mag weigh in on politics?
My Dad is 88. I know how he voted in 2016. He and I talk politics all the time and are both Christians. Not unusual.
Also, applying a little logic, one could easily surmise that if BG voted for Trump, and I am not going to assume FG is a liar, as you appear to do, he wouldhave done so with decades of knowledge regarding Trump's past.

Here is an article that says much about this Editor in Chief at this magazine.
https://www.breitbart.com/faith/201...s-theologian-who-excused-stalins-mass-murder/

you are not a Christian. James 1:22

 

[nsp1996]

you are not a Christian. James 1:22

Cool that we have a Judge appointed by Jesus (right?) to sit in judgement of inferior people.

Hillarious

 

[orangelvis]

C'mon we all know that this impeachment is a political stunt. Right?

There was nothing done or alleged to have been done that jeopardizes national security.

A fact is that there was a temporary delay on some lethal aid, aid that the previous admin never granted for years.. and all of the sudden we have some huge national security issue. That is no kidding fact.

Why was it delayed? Now we are into the opinion territory... nothing proven.

How many times could we have impeached Obama based on these parameters?
They want you to believe that UK was in mortal danger for the 6-8 weeks they didn't get their Military Aid and that is what put our Nat.Sec. at risk. I doubt they even know that UK never received any kind of Mil. Aid from Obama other than food and blankets; even while Russia was invading them!
Donald J Trump gave them their first lethal weaponry. In fact, part of the Obama strategy was to convince Ukraine that they didn't need weapons because Obama was going to protect them!
They also ignore evidence that Trump was withholding aid from 4-5 other countries as well; during the same time frame. There was nothing out of the ordinary about Uk.
They also ignore the fact Trump was gathering evidence of wrong doing in the Uk long before Joe Biden announced he was running.
They don't want to admit that all of the exculpatory exists, and would have been presented IF the dirty rotten bast@rd democrats had run a fair inquiry.

 

[orangelvis]

you are not a Christian. James 1:22

Forgive me.

 

[Rychek4]

Do you consider this intelligent conversation?

Sorry I was quoting the leader of the free world

 

[nsp1996]

How many times could we have impeached Obama based on these parameters?
They want you to believe that UK was in mortal danger for the 6-8 weeks they didn't get their Military Aid and that is what put our Nat.Sec. at risk. I doubt they even know that UK never received any kind of Mil. Aid from Obama other than food and blankets; even while Russia was invading them!
Donald J Trump gave them their first lethal weaponry. In fact, part of the Obama strategy was to convince Ukraine that they didn't need weapons because Obama was going to protect them!
They also ignore evidence that Trump was withholding aid from 4-5 other countries as well; during the same time frame. There was nothing out of the ordinary about Uk.
They also ignore the fact Trump was gathering evidence of wrong doing in the Uk long before Joe Biden announced he was running.
They don't want to admit that all of the exculpatory exists, and would have been presented IF the dirty rotten bast@rd democrats had run a fair inquiry.

This line of thought is not in line with the talking points fed to the sheeple on the Democrat plantation and therefore must be ignored.

 

[Rychek4]

Sorry I was quoting the leader of the free world

@nsp1996 Come on man, don't duck out now.

Do you consider this intelligent conversation?

 

[nsp1996]

t

@nsp1996 Come on man, don't duck out now.

Do you consider this intelligent conversation?

I'm not ducking out now. Why would you think that? You never addressed my question so I am not going to answer yours.

My comment on intelligent conversation was directed squarely at you and your responses. It's a given to me that you are triggered by Trump. So no surprise to me on your response.

I never said that Trump was "Statesmanlike" or was eloquent all the time, so i'm sure that the video that I didn't watch was uncomplementary. However I do like his results...

You never answered my question on intelligent conversation. But, nice try on the redirect!

 

[nsp1996]

@Rychek4 ....

C'mon we all know that this impeachment is a political stunt. Right?

There was nothing done or alleged to have been done that jeopardizes national security.

A fact is that there was a temporary delay on some lethal aid, aid that the previous admin never granted for years.. and all of the sudden we have some huge national security issue. That is no kidding fact.

Why was it delayed? Now we are into the opinion territory... nothing proven.

 

[nsp1996]

@nytigerfan Looking out for you ITT. Waiting for you to continue the conversation.

 

[Rychek4]

You never answered my question on intelligent conversation.

No I don't think my "Wrong" response was intelligent conversation. But I think it was making a point on our POTUS

Which results of his do you like? We may agree.

 

[Rychek4]

@Rychek4
C'mon we all know that this impeachment is a political stunt. Right?

I don't think Nixon was a stunt. I didn't think Clinton was a stunt. I think Clinton should have been convicted.

Your attitude seems to imply that you have predetermined that this impeachment (Trump) was a political stunt. I don't think that is the case. Maybe I am to old school a conservative, but I don't think at all this was a stunt.

You claim it is a political stunt, support your point.

 

[nytigerfan]

@nytigerfan Looking out for you ITT. Waiting for you to continue the conversation.

Ask me a question. Always happy to educate the non educated. Jesus told me to.

 

[orangelvis]

I don't think Nixon was a stunt. I didn't think Clinton was a stunt. I think Clinton should have been convicted.

Your attitude seems to imply that you have predetermined that this impeachment (Trump) was a political stunt. I don't think that is the case. Maybe I am to old school a conservative, but I don't think at all this was a stunt.

You claim it is a political stunt, support your point.

I know you didn't specifically say it, but Nixon was not impeached. many people think he was.

If this impeachment is not a political stunt, why is Nancy not following through with the impeachment? Even their own law professor claims that unless she submits the articles to the senate, Trump is not technically impeached. Let's see. Lefties are claiming she's holding out to make sure SHE gets a fair trial. I guess you don't see a problem with that. Remember, she rushed through the inquiry and vote because it was too important not to.
She didn't allow the accused to call witnesses, nor even have representation during the inquiry. I guess you don't see a problem there either. Now that she's rushed through it, she's stonewalling! No sane person, not consumed by hate could think this is anything other than a political stunt.
As a side note, I found it hilarious that as many as a third of lib Twitter users, thought Pelosi's impeachment vote, actually meant Trump was leaving office! lmao.

 

[nytigerfan]

I know you didn't specifically say it, but Nixon was not impeached. many people think he was.

If this impeachment is not a political stunt, why is Nancy not following through with the impeachment? Even their own law professor claims that unless she submits the articles to the senate, Trump is not technically impeached. Let's see. Lefties are claiming she's holding out to make sure SHE gets a fair trial. I guess you don't see a problem with that. Remember, she rushed through the inquiry and vote because it was too important not to.
She didn't allow the accused to call witnesses, nor even have representation during the inquiry. I guess you don't see a problem there either. Now that she's rushed through it, she's stonewalling! No sane person, not consumed by hate could think this is anything other than a political stunt.
As a side note, I found it hilarious that as many as a third of lib Twitter users, thought Pelosi's impeachment vote, actually meant Trump was leaving office! lmao.

As a side note, I found it hilarious that as many as a third of lib Twitter users, thought Pelosi's impeachment vote, actually meant Trump was leaving office! lmao.

Please provide your citation of data for this. You will likely find it somewhere up your butt, where most of your facts come from.

 

[orangelvis]

As a side note, I found it hilarious that as many as a third of lib Twitter users, thought Pelosi's impeachment vote, actually meant Trump was leaving office! lmao.

Please provide your citation of data for this. You will likely find it somewhere up your butt, where most of your facts come from.

You can't seem to keep your nose out of my butt. We'll find out about my facts soon enough won't we? Barr-Durham-Huber...criminal investigations...IG report proving my "facts" from 2 years ago... I'm still right...you are a mind controlled, msm puppet and don't know it.

 

[Rychek4]

She didn't allow the accused to call witnesses

nor even have representation during the inquiry.

Wrong,

In the House proceedings, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee that drafted the articles of impeachment invited Trump and his lawyers to take part and ask for witnesses. The witnesses who did come forward were questioned by Republicans on the committee as well as by Democrats.

Earlier hearings by the House Intelligence Committee did not invite Trump or his team. Those hearings were like the investigative phase of criminal cases, conducted without the participation of the person under investigation. But lawmakers from both parties questioned the witnesses. Trump complained about being shut out of that but when the Judiciary Committee hearings were opened to his team and him, he declined.

No sane person, not consumed by hate could think this is anything other than a political stunt.

Are you specifically saying I am not sane and that I am consumed with hate?

 

[nytigerfan]

You can't seem to keep your nose out of my butt. We'll find out about my facts soon enough won't we? Barr-Durham-Huber...criminal investigations...IG report proving my "facts" from 2 years ago... I'm still right...you are a mind controlled, msm puppet and don't know it.

haha. You said Comey would be doing the perp walk after the IG report dropped. Instead it totally exonerated him. Case closed.

And still waiting on that citation if your twitter claim.

 

[orangelvis]

Wrong,

In the House proceedings, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee that drafted the articles of impeachment invited Trump and his lawyers to take part and ask for witnesses. The witnesses who did come forward were questioned by Republicans on the committee as well as by Democrats.

Earlier hearings by the House Intelligence Committee did not invite Trump or his team. Those hearings were like the investigative phase of criminal cases, conducted without the participation of the person under investigation. But lawmakers from both parties questioned the witnesses. Trump complained about being shut out of that but when the Judiciary Committee hearings were opened to his team and him, he declined.



Are you specifically saying I am not sane and that I am consumed with hate?

You are wrong. Name one witness that republicans gave to Nadler that was called as a witness, other than Turley, a democrat, who they added to panel of law professors.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-house-republican-witness-list-for-impeachment-hearings
cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-12-06-2019/h_66baa324dc12089ed4f57fa722d7220d
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...panel-to-expand-list-of-impeachment-witnesses
Your description of the Intel hearings is a description of a SHAM, that has never occurred in the HISTORY of our country. Yes, hearings that included the Chairman of the committee getting 4 Pinocchios fro the WaPo for lying about colluding with the WhistleLeaker. He would not in some cases allow witnesses to answer Rebub questions. He claimed to not know know who the WhistleLeaker is, while denying witness answers to questions that "would reveal the WhistleLeaker". He falsely claimed a statutory protection for the WhistleLeaker that the SCOTUS has denied. He held secret hearings in the House basement scif so he could cull the witnesses that provided exculpatory testimony. Yes, no sane American would be in favor of this, UNLESS they are just so filled with hate for Trump, that American Due Process and historical rules of fairness don't matter anymore.

 

[orangelvis]

haha. You said Comey would be doing the perp walk after the IG report dropped. Instead it totally exonerated him. Case closed.

And still waiting on that citation if your twitter claim.

If you think Comey is exonerated, you are an idiot and don't even believe Horowitz, an IG appointed by Obama.

 

[Rychek4]

Name one witness that republicans gave to Nadler that was called as a witness.

It's your point, you name one.

 

[nsp1996]

Ask me a question. Always happy to educate the non educated. Jesus told me to.

Cool. Believe it or not I think that's great. Give me Jesus's stock picks If I have a 6mo investment timeframe. Thanks.

 

[nsp1996]

No I don't think my "Wrong" response was intelligent conversation. But I think it was making a point on our POTUS

Which results of his do you like? We may agree.

Ok getting closer to common ground. Please don't make me restate myself in this thread... I thought I had already did that to the "a decendent and/or a follower of a preacher who said they loved Jesus and seemed to have led a moral life," crowd. Ok I will.

Record low unemployment
Record low minority unemployment
Allies paying more for their own defense to counter Russia and China
US Energy independence
Record appointment of Judges who are constitutionalists
Record high stock market
Better US/Can/Mex trade deal
Better US-China trade deal
Increased defense spending
Increased focus on opiod addiction
Increased crackdown on MS-13
Increased security at our southern border

I want to post more to dig at your more, but I just cant. Not saying I won't in the future, but right now, no.

You recently posted support for congressional term limits. And that, IMO, is YUGE.

 

[nsp1996]

I don't think Nixon was a stunt. I didn't think Clinton was a stunt. I think Clinton should have been convicted.

Your attitude seems to imply that you have predetermined that this impeachment (Trump) was a political stunt. I don't think that is the case. Maybe I am to old school a conservative, but I don't think at all this was a stunt.

You claim it is a political stunt, support your point.

Yes, my attitude is that it is a political stunt. And, I think, the facts support that. You may disagree. Maybe your conservatisim rests on style. Trump is a disruptive force. Not liberal , not conservative. Populist. IMO, we desperately needed him, and need him for 4 more years...to free the American People from the political Repub and Dem ruling class and Media elites... and usher in a new era of free political thought.

1. Democrat politicians have been calling for impeachment since the election and the defeat of the anointed one from the Clinton dynasty. Bias?
2. Repubs / Admin not allowed to call witnesses to include the "whistleblower" (who is not really awhistleblower because he/she did not have first-hand knowledge)
3. All democrat witnesses were testifyin on opinion. No new facts other than the transcript that President Trump released.
4. Nancy Pelosi not delivering the impeachment to the Senate. (you sound educated.. so you know that this is political bullshit, right? ).

 

[nsp1996]

Trump's response...

"A far left magazine, or very “progressive,” as some would call it, which has been doing poorly and hasn’t been involved with the Billy Graham family for many years, Christianity Today, knows nothing about reading a perfect transcript of a routine phone call and would rather have a Radical Left nonbeliever, who wants to take your religion & your guns, than Donald Trump as your President. No President has done more for the Evangelical community, and it’s not even close. You’ll not get anything from those Dems on stage. I won’t be reading ET again!"— President Trump on Twitter

this guy is a farkin idiot. Don't know how his supporters can't see it. So much here...

1. It's Christianity Today not Entertainment Tonight.
2. He says he will stop reading CT, does anyone really believe he is actually reading it before?
3. Apparently CT is a far left magazine now? The enemy of the people?
4. Trump conflating religion and guns in the same argument here.

Is this rag really "Christianity Today" when Christian leaders are lining up to oppose the article/editorial that supported Trump's impeachment?

Yeah, probably more like Entertainment Tonight. Oh, wow President Trump's reference to "ET Tonight" sounds like irony. Well, if you know what that word means.

Shouldn't real Christians support President Trump for finally recognizing Jaruselem as the capital of Israel... something that Hussain Obama never did? I know that I do. I support that our president recognized the sovereignty of the Nation of Israel over the Holy City. What about you, @nytigerfan?

 

[nsp1996]

I agree with you 100% that morality can't be legislated. I am a firm believer in separation of church and state. I appreciate and value diverse policy debate. I appreciate those who have opinions different than mine. Trump does not. He wants to be an authoritarian ruler like Putin, Erdogan, Kim Jung-un, etc. Anyone who doesnt bow down and bend the knee he wants to destroy.

But as a Christian when any person, whether the President, my neigbor, my brother, does something dispicable and immoral to another person or people, it should be called out. Watch this video below from last night. This isnt about legislation, this is about human decency.

View embedded media

All the congresswoman being mocked and told her husband was in hell did was show grace and appreciation to the president when her husband passed. And she happened to be a democrat who voted her conscience. She didnt attack him or disrespect him. This is one of about a thousand examples, and yet not even the worst of them. It is simply one of the worst things he did yesterday.

Trump is not the only politician on the planet who will support the legislation you support. He is just the most dispicable, immoral, and most unhinged one. If he was convicted and removed from office, Mike Pence would be President and he would support every one of those issues you outlined as important to you. Again, this isn’t a choice between two evils. People who turn a blind eye to this despicable person just want to convince themselves it is to make themselves feel better about supporting and enabling him.

Just wanting to check real quick on something.. I'm going to a party in a few days and want to know is it better for me to support a Democratic candidate who break supports abortion or the President who opposes is except for Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother. Of course, I know that the evangelical position would be to oppose abortion in all cases, as it is murder. Given that no leading candidate is supporting that position right now, I am looking for opinions.... either from evangelicals or from others.

 

[orangelvis]

It's your point, you name one.

Your point was that Trump refused to bring witnesses forward. The repubs tried but were thwarted by the onerous rules set up by the dems, whereby they could veto any witness submission. I imagine Trump would call the same witnesses as the House Repubs. Yes, this the Dem/communist Politburo at work. No difference.