Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
theophilus

There's still hope for the Republican party! Trump might not get the nomination after all!

Recommended Posts

One week ago, the Washington Post reported that dozens of Republican convention delegates had hatched “a new plan” to block a stumbling Donald Trump in Cleveland by adding a “conscience clause” to the convention’s rules.

 

As regular Unconventional readers know, there is a convincing case to be made — and in his new e-book Unbound,Rules Committee member Curly Haugland of North Dakota makes it — that Republican convention delegates are already technically free to nominate whomever they want in Cleveland, despite the impression that they are bound by the results of the primary votes in each state.

 

A conscience clause would make this freedom explicit by saying that every delegate is allowed to vote his or her conscience on the first ballot — even if state laws or party rules say otherwise.

 

At first, this new “Dump Trump” faction was fairly small. Roughly 30 delegates from 15 states participated in a conference call last Thursday night. Since then, however, the unlikely campaign appears to have picked up steam. A second conference call on Sunday night attracted a claimed 1,000 participants, and this week, both the RNC and Trump have begun to fight back with delegate strategies of their own.

 

The group that started all this commotion calls itself Free the Delegates. Its founder — and self-proclaimed “loudmouth” in chief — is Kendal Unruh. She is a history teacher, a born-again Christian, a Rules Committee member, and a former Ted Cruz supporter from Colorado. On Thursday, she hopped on the phone with Unconventional to discuss how Free the Delegates came together, why she is “anybody but Trump” — and what exactly she’s planning to do in Cleveland.

 

(Hint: If Unruh’s conscience clause dies, she has a Plan B. And a Plan C.)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-28-colorado-history-teacher-000000818.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

If the Republican Party does not nominate the candidate that gains the majority of votes in the primary, they might as well nominate the Democratic Candidate and make it a one party race. The rank and file Republicans will be in such disarray that it will guarantee a Democratic landslide in November. To not nominate the person with the most votes is to tell every voter that their vote doesn't matter. If you hated Trump and wanted someone else, the place to stop him was at the primary vote, not the convention floor.

Share this post


Link to post

First of all, I would seriously question anything coming from the Washington Post. Second, there have been reports coming out for months that the Republican Party would do something underhanded at the convention to prevent Trump from getting the nomination. Third, if that does happen it would seriously cause the Republican Party to implode around the controversy. Lastly, should this happen it would most certainly open the door for a new major second party (Libertarian?) to take its place.

 

On the one hand I am hoping the leadership of the Republican Party are not stupid enough to pull something like this, while on the other I would not put it past them in the least. Next few weeks will be very interesting to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post

The job of reporters is to sell newspapers. This sells newspapers. I suspect that nothing unusual will hapen at the RNC. (or from BrExit for that matter).

Share this post


Link to post

This move would be suicidal for the Republican Party, it's a dumb move that would just propel their opponent(Hilary) to Presidency, while also causing serious problems within the party. Like @atpollard said "This sells newspapers", It doesn't make sense for anyone with a brain.

Share this post


Link to post
It doesn't make sense for anyone with a brain.

It also doesn't make sense to vote for either Trump or Hillary. At least now there is a chance there will be a candidate whom Christians can support.

 

Share this post


Link to post

It also doesn't make sense to vote for either Trump or Hillary. At least now there is a chance there will be a candidate whom Christians can support.

 

If you are referring to Johnson I would do a serious double-check on that. While I do agree with the Libertarian view that the government should stay out of our personal lives, he has expressed that he is pro-abortion.

Share this post


Link to post

If the Republican party gives the nomination to anyone else but Donald Trump they will further alienate their themselves from their voters. While Donald Trump may or may not end up being the worst Republican president, I give Nixon a pass since he had a mental disorder, there is something in him that is speaking a huge population. It would be smarter if the Republican party started figuring out how to negotiate with him to find some kind of middle ground.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • President Trump wall

      Have you come to any opinion on the wall? I have and I am totally convinced we must have the wall for our borders. But we hear a lot on our southern border, I have been told the border between us and Canada has problems as well. Any thoughts?

      in Morality and Laws

    • At March for Life, Crowd Cheers for Anti-Abortion Gains — and Trump

      The theme of this year’s March for Life, an annual anti-abortion gathering in the nation’s capital, was supposed to be about science: “Unique from Day One: Pro-Life is Pro-Science.” View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • ‘Save The Dreamers’: WaPo Implores Pelosi To Take Trump’s Wall Deal

      By Chris White - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats are losing one big voice in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s push for a border wall: The Washington Post’s Editorial Board. WaPo noted in a Sunday editorial reasons why Pelosi should rebuke the president’s most recent offer to temporarily extend protections for the so-called Dreamers. But the paper eventually explained that taking the deal would ultimately help those who came here through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. “He should not be rewarded for having taken the government hostage. Any piece of a wall would reinforce his hateful, anti-immigrant rhetoric,” WaPo noted. “He’s unreliable, having made and withdrawn similar offers in the past.” WaPo’s editorial board has blasted Trump in the past for what its writers call pushing immigration policies that would “cripple the economy.” It’s taking a different approach now. Sunday’s editorial explains why young people who came to the U.S. through the Obama-era program are in peril of being deported. If nothing happens soon, then the Dreamers could get the short end of the stick, WaPo noted. “If no deal is reached, the Supreme Court is likely at some point to end that dispensation, as Mr. Trump has demanded, and they will be sent back into the shadows, or to countries of which they have no memory.” Trump offered Pelosi and congressional Democrats a deal on Saturday. His deal included $800 million in urgent humanitarian assistance, $805 million in new drug detection technology, and three years of legal relief from deportation for DACA recipients in exchange for the $5.7 billion for “strategic deployment of physical barriers” Pelosi was not impressed. She preemptively shot down the proposal in a statement before the president’s announcement. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] ‘Save The Dreamers’: WaPo Implores Pelosi To Take Trump’s Wall Deal is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • BuzzFeed Doubles Down On Trump Story, But Won’t Discuss Documents Or Sources |

      By Chuck Ross - BuzzFeed is doubling down on its report that Michael Cohen has told the special counsel that President Trump instructed him to lie to Congress about his dealings in Russia Special Counsel Robert Mueller issued a rare statement rebutting BuzzFeed’s story, but BuzzFeed reporter Anthony Cormier said on CNN on Sunday that he has “further confirmation” that his report is accurate But Cormier also acknowledged on CNN that he is still in the dark about specifically what Cohen told the special counsel, and what precisely Trump allegedly told Cohen BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith and reporter Anthony Cormier doubled down Sunday on their bombshell report that President Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about his efforts to build a Trump Tower in Russia. “I have further confirmation that this is right. We are being told to stand our ground. Our reporting is going to be borne out to be accurate, and we’re 100 percent behind it,” Cormier told CNN’s Brian Stelter during an interview about their report, which has been directly disputed by the special counsel’s office. “The same sources that we used in the story are standing behind it, and so are we.” But while Smith and Cormier expressed unwavering confidence in their story, the pair declined to discuss the specifics about how their report came together. Cormier dodged Stelter’s questions about documents that his colleague, Jason Leopold, claims to have seen as part of the reporting process. Cormier also acknowledged that he is not certain what Cohen specifically told the special counsel or what Trump allegedly told Cohen. Cormier and Leopold reported Thursday night that Cohen told the special counsel’s office that Trump directed him to lie to Congress in 2017 about his efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign. Citing two unnamed law enforcement officials, the reporters claimed that documents and other witness testimony would corroborate Cohen’s version of events. Democrats jumped on the story, calling for investigations into whether Trump suborned perjury or obstructed justice. Nearly 24 hours after the story appeared, a spokesman for Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered a devastating rebuttal to the report. “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” spokesman Peter Carr said in a statement. The New York Times and Washington Post have since reported that the statement was intended to be a full-throated rebuttal to the claim that Cohen told Mueller’s office that he was told to lie by Trump. But Smith and Cormier remained confident in the face of the Mueller pushback. “What if the sources are just wrong?” Stelter asked Cormier, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2016. “They’re not. They’re not. I’m confident,” Cormier replied. But while BuzzFeed is refusing to back off of their story, numerous questions remain about what sources and documents were used for the report. In an interview on Friday morning, prior to the Mueller statement, BuzzFeed’s Leopold told MSNBC that he had seen documents referred to in the report. Cormier said in a separate interview with CNN that he had not seen documents. Cormier avoided Stelter’s question about that apparent discrepancy. “Can’t really get into, like, the details there,” Cormier said. “Really at this point because of the calls for a leak investigation and the sort of sensitivity around that matter, we really can’t go any further at all in order to not jeopardize our sources,” he added, noting that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani had called for an investigation into who leaked information for the BuzzFeed report. BuzzFeed’s spokesman, Matt Mittenthal, issued a similar statement on Saturday, even before Giuliani had called for a leak probe. “In the interest of protecting … sources, we aren’t going to speak further on the details of who saw what and when, beyond what’s in the reporting,” Mittenthal told The Daily Caller News Foundation. Cormier also suggested that BuzzFeed is not quite certain exactly what Cohen may have told the special counsel and what he and Trump may have discussed regarding the former Trump lawyer’s congressional testimony. “We’re trying to figure out how to parse the statement from the Mueller team, and what’s happening now only behind the scenes at DOJ and the special counsel, but we’re trying to get deeper inside the room where this happened,” Cormier said. When asked by Stelter what is known about Trump’s remarks to Cohen, Cormier replied: “We’ll get there eventually, Brian.” When Stelter suggested that perhaps Trump offered something less than a full-throated order to lie to Congress, Cormier said, “we don’t know.” “We’re trying to get the exact language that was used in this conversation, and we’ll get there one day,” he added. “We continue to report like mad, as we always do. But what we reported, that the President of the United States directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress is accurate. That is fundamentally accurate. We’re going to get inside the room where it happened and bear it out. We’ve taken this to ground here; we’re going to go even further to get inside that room.” In another exchange, Stelter pressed Smith over Leopold’s efforts to request comment from the special counsel prior to running the story. Leopold contacted Peter Carr, the Mueller spokesman, hours before the story ran to say that BuzzFeed was planning to report that Cohen claimed that Trump instructed him to lie to Congress. The request did not say that Cohen made the claim during interactions with the special counsel. Carr, who rarely offers comment to reporters, declined comment. But according to The Washington Post, Carr has since claimed that if he had known precisely what BuzzFeed was planning to report, he would have pushed back harder on the allegation. Stelter blasted Smith and BuzzFeed for what he called a “shockingly casual way to ask for comment for such a serious story” and a “dereliction of duty.” Smith attempted to shift blame to the special counsel, saying that “it has not been our experience that the special counsel has been forthcoming with information.” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] BuzzFeed Doubles Down On Trump Story, But Won’t Discuss Documents Or Sources | is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Trump Floats Immigration Compromise As Supreme Court Considers DACA Appeal

      By Kevin Daley - President Donald Trump proposed an immigration deal to reopen the government Saturday, which included a three-year extension of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Trump’s overture to congressional Democrats comes as the Supreme Court considers whether it will intervene in ongoing litigation over the president’s attempts to rescind DACA, an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends temporary legal status to 700,000 foreign nationals who came to the U.S. as children. The administration initiated DACA’s termination in September 2017. Those maneuvers were immediately challenged in federal court. A federal district judge in California ordered the government to continue administering DACA in January 2018. At that juncture, the government broke from normal judicial process and appealed directly to the Supreme Court, instead of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The justices rejected that appeal, returning the case to the 9th Circuit with orders to resolve the case quickly. Over eight months passed without a ruling from the 9th Circuit, so the Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court in November 2018 and asked the justices to take their case. The government’s petition has been pending before the Court since that time. The 9th Circuit issued a decision upholding the district court’s order three days later. Challenges to the president’s attempts to rescind DACA are also pending before appeals courts in New York and Washington, D.C. In the short term, Trump might command a stronger negotiating position if the justices intervene in the DACA cases, since the government can reasonably expect to prevail in the high court. Therefore, Democrats might wish to strike a deal with Trump that includes DACA protections, lest the Supreme Court affirm the president’s power to end the program unilaterally. That the justices have not yet acted on the petition does not bode well for the administration, however. The high court hears arguments from October until April and disposes of its cases by June. As a general matter, the docket for each term is finalized in the middle of January. If the Court intended to grant the administration’s request and hear the case, it likely would have done so by now. As such, the prospect of Supreme Court action on DACA looks dim as of this writing. The high court will next announce action in pending cases on Tuesday. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Trump Floats Immigration Compromise As Supreme Court Considers DACA Appeal is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.