Michele Bachmann: We May ‘Never See a More Godly, Biblical President’ Than Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One can say that about any business that fails on the peripheries. There have been, of course, those who have testified that it benefitted them greatly.
 
I’m voting for Carter as most godly. (But facetiously as I think it sets a dangerous precedent to suggest our elected leaders have some special relationship with God; I think it’s antithetical to American tradition). Bachmann must be angling for a job or something.
 
Last edited:
Some people think Carter is a big Israel hater. Anyone can look up “Carter” and “IsraeL” and find that pretty easy, I’ll leave him off my list.

As for your criticisms and accusations of lies, I’ll take the accomplishments, peace and so on.

I can look up Obama or Bush and find lists of lies as well. Trump misspeaks, says 28,000 troops when it is suppose to be 40,000 but this isn’t really major stuff.
 
Last edited:
@Victoria33 Yeah, he’s totally crossed the line in recent years on Israel. I don’t agree with him at all on that.
 
So, he had first hand participation in it? He’s a billionaire. This could have just been set up by those using his name.

I’ll take stopping ISIS and North Korea at the negotiation table 7 days a wee over genocide and nuclear war.
 
Victoria33 said:
So, he had first hand participation in it? He’s a billionaire. This could have just been set up by those using his name.

I’ll take stopping ISIS and North Korea at the negotiation table 7 days a wee over genocide and nuclear war.
Click to expand...
My feeling about Trump’s accomplishments is that some are not really proven by time (North Korea), others are welcome but could have been done by any Republican president (pro-life judges) without Trump’s character baggage and inconsistent behavior and were only done because his Republican handlers guided him on it (and he knows it’s in his best interest).

By the way, I’m not trying to antagonize you or anyone, just trying to explain why I feel the way I do about these matters. I mean you or any other supporters of the President no ill will. We just have a difference of opinion about Mr. Trump, that’s all.
 
Last edited:
One Republican was elected president. I certainly wouldn’t count on Cruz, Rubio or others as having been able to be elected. If one says one of them could have… name them, I’m sure I can find plenty of criticisms on them as well if we are just putting others down. One really can’t on Rubio, however, with Cruz’s campaign, saying Kasich was being funded by Soros, saying Rubio said something about the Bible he didn’t, claiming Carson was dropping out in Iowa or Rubio was dropping out in Hawaii. And believe me, the list goes on. All of this can be verified if one just needs to find fault.

So, it would be good to hear who this ideal candidate was who would have made pro-life judicial nominees as well.

I wasn’t necessarily for Trump before hie was nominated. That things are so much better now though is obvious.

Sure, so North Korea is not proven, maybe it would be better if North Korea was firing missiles at Guam that could or could not have nuclear weapons in them.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
One Republican was elected president. I certainly wouldn’t count on Cruz, Rubio or others as having been able to be elected. If one says one of them could have… name them, I’m sure I can find plenty of criticisms on them as well if we are just putting others down. One really can’t on Rubio, however, with Cruz’s campaign, saying Kasich was being funded by Soros, saying Rubio said something about the Bible he didn’t, claiming Carson was dropping out in Iowa or Rubio was dropping out in Hawaii. And believe me, the list goes on. All of this can be verified if one just needs to find fault.

So, it would be good to hear who this ideal candidate was who would have made pro-life judicial nominees as well.

I wasn’t necessarily for Trump before hie was nominated. That things are so much better now though is obvious.

Sure, so North Korea is not proven, maybe it would be better if North Korea was firing missiles at Guam that could or could not have nuclear weapons in them.
Click to expand...
I’ve watched North Korea for a long time (I have in-laws that live in Japan, well within the NoKo missile range). They don’t usually keep their promises - much as one would expect from a rogue state.
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course, North Korea is not trustworthy. Look at the great tragedy of the half-brother being poisoned in Malaysia. That was terrible. Still, the SK president has met with Kim a number of times, something is better than nothing. They speak of building into North Korea. I think the tensions are much lesser now, in spite of a report of North Korea just having conducted another weapons test.

Sorry if you have heard this but perhaps others have not.

Though, it can not be verified:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/n...apon-report-says/ar-BBW2NNH?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Also, North Korea has announced they do NOT want to meet with Pompeo on the team.

www.bbc.com

North Korea demands removal of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from talks

The country's foreign ministry claims the US Secretary of State is "reckless" in nuclear talks.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Why is Pompeo so controversial?

Last week, during a US Senate subcommittee hearing, Mr Pompeo was asked if he would agree with descriptions of Mr Kim as a “tyrant”, he then responded: “Sure, I’m sure I’ve said that.”

This was met with a strong reaction from North Korean foreign ministry official Kwon Jong-gun, who said that Mr Pompeo “spouted reckless remarks, hurting the dignity of our supreme leadership… to unveil his mean character”.

Mr Kwon also blamed Mr Pompeo for the abrupt ending to the Hanoi summit.
Click to expand...
So we are far from a peaceful resolution.

There was the Camp David accord, it may have cost Sadat his life.

Kim will likely never step down because I’m sure the citizenry are not fond of him. But again, calmer tensions are better than hot.
 
The South Koreans and Abe of Japan seem to be a lot more comfortable with the direction of issues than they were before. Their opinion will count highly with me.

North Korea can’t be trusted ultimately, until we know North Korea is denuclearized. Good luck with that. But we do have something.

And we did not invade, we did not drop bombs.

One can easily research it and to repeat myself, the previous 3 presidents helped create the difficult situation we have found ourselves with.
 
Victoria33 said:
The South Koreans and Abe of Japan seem to be a lot more comfortable with the direction of issues than they were before. Their opinion will count highly with me.

North Korea can’t be trusted ultimately, until we know North Korea is denuclearized. Good luck with that. But we do have something.

And we did not invade, we did not drop bombs.

One can easily research it and to repeat myself, the previous 3 presidents helped create the difficult situation we have found ourselves with.
Click to expand...
With North Korea? How so?
 
The finger pointing game shows articles saying Clinton, Bush and Obama made plenty of mistakes dealing with North Korea.

This website doesn’t seem to like posting from some websites, even if they aren’t that bad, that’s why I said one can find it for themselves.

John Bolton has said the last 3 presidents mishandled North Korea.

So, CBS news is mainstream enough:
For this reason, Mr. Bush stopped diplomatic relations with North Korea early in his presidency. The cold diplomatic relations increased tensions.

Jack Pritchard, who at the time of Mr. Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech was special U.S. envoy to North Korea, said in an interview that the president’s blunt language “ultimately did undermine” his diplomatic efforts.

Kerry says diplomacy is compromise, inferring that Mr. Bush’s policy with North Korea is responsible for “letting a nuclear nightmare develop,” as Kerry is quoted in Monday’s New York Times.

Bush, Kerry & North Korea - CBS News
Click to expand...
So again, I only say one can research it for oneself. Sources are biased without a doubt but if one looks into it enough, they can probably come up with enough information to form an opinion.
Unrelated to this, I don’t think Cruz or Rubio were ready to step into the shoes of the presidency.

I think Kasich would have been a competent president but one would have to look and say he didn’t win many primaries.
 
Last edited:
I’d be curious to know what Bolton thinks but the bottom line as I see it is that ultimately China is responsible for North Korea because they wanted a buffer state between themselves and South Korea, and there are no good options for dealing with North Korea especially now that they have nuclear weapons, so it’s wrong to assume that previous presidents somehow mishandled North Korea; it’s kind of out of our hands short of starting a disastrous war.
 
Victoria33 said:
I think Kasich would have been a competent president but one would have to look and say he didn’t win many primaries.
Click to expand...
I would have voted for anyone on the Republican ticket (for a while I favored Carly Fiorina) but the guy who actually won the nomination.
 
tomarin said:
I would have voted for anyone on the Republican ticket (for a while I favored Carly Fiorina) but the guy who actually won the nomination.
Click to expand...
So, even though, the Ted Cruz campaign was involved with a number of dirty tricks, those are okay. Those may not have had Cruz’s hand directly in them, we don’t know but it happened time and time again. If one is being judgemental, I think one needs to be consistent too.

And I think after Cruz and Rubio and Kasich, it would be hard to find someone who could win. In fact, I only think Rubio probably could have won of those 3 because he might have drawn a lot of Hispanics. If one compares Cruz to him, well, Rubio is full-blooded Cuban at that and Rubio did have his prior immigration plan.

Experience counts, Rubio and Cruz don’t have it. Trump has seen the world. In my view, we have practically the most successful administration of my life time. One wants to say Reagan? Those Central American wars of his Administration were very bloody. I don’t know what the answer is there, but I’d explore it more.
tomarin said:
I’d be curious to know what Bolton thinks but the bottom line as I see it is that ultimately China is responsible for North Korea because they wanted a buffer state between themselves and South Korea, and there are no good options for dealing with North Korea especially now that they have nuclear weapons, so it’s wrong to assume that previous presidents somehow mishandled North Korea; it’s kind of out of our hands short of starting a disastrous war.
Click to expand...
Okay, you are putting your word over Bolton’s. To dismiss North Korea’s relationships with the previous 3 presidents whom in parts, helped NK in the process of nuclear plants such as Albright under the Clinton administration now seems totally unrealistic.

Of course previous foreign policy matters, if it be Libya, Iraq, Syria and so on. Yes. It does.

American Thinker, Mother Jones cover these matters. I just don’t post them because I’m not sure if they are acceptable here.

If one now makes statements, that how North Korea acts under Trump is totally unrelated to the last 20 years, then, I guess, one is totally against Trump. So, respectfully, inf that is one’s case, it doesn’t seem to make sense.

That would be like saying Vietnam under Nixon had nothing to do with Johnson’s administration.

So, I’m getting the message, I am responding to the same person too many times, so I think that is my say.

And I will add, Concerned Women of America and other organizations have hailed the Trump administration’s pro-life actions, some calling him the most pro-life president ever. Some very positive for the movement. I’m glad I am a part of that.

If I had the attitude, I wouldn’t vote for him, then, I would not be a part of that. There are a lot of other great things, I would not be a part of as well.

Alvita King, Dr. Luther King’s niece speaks highly of him. I think we know, nowadays, Dr. Martin Luther King or John F. Kennedy may not have been perfect men… but they probably did a whole lot of good in the meantime. I’ll go with that.
 
Last edited:
Pro-lifers are not picky about who helps them. Their acts, to be rejected, would have to be egregious. Perhaps, it is others who reject the pro-life movement.

I definitely think that at times, you need a fighter, especially in a culture war. It is not Christian, imo, to not forgive personal foibles.
 
Last edited:
There’s no doubt that Trump has made strides to align himself with the evangelical right, most notably with his decision to tap Vice President Mike Pence as his running mate.
Click to expand...
So the Dems answer? Run an openly gay guy, who openly lives in a gay “marriage”, and supports abortion on demand.

Sounds like a winning plan.
 
Probably reflects dissatisfaction on China’s part with the trade negotiations. I genuinely believe Kim is China’s puppet entirely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top