Dear NNS,

I have absolutely no objection to preachers and pastors talking openly from the pulpit about which candidates they prefer. Their version of their religion may obligate them to do so. I just think they are not entitled to exemption of taxes when they do so. If they get exemption of taxes when other organizations supporting political candidates do not the government is no longer neutral toward religion but is favouring it. Of course a person's faith influences their public actions, and it should. However, they should not get tax exemption. My lack of religious faith influences my position on political issues, Should I also demand tax exemption? Is lack of religion a religion? Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

I do not hate Trump. There is no point in that. I just think he is not fit to be president for the reasons I stated in my first post.

I see nothing wrong in stores or people in houses putting up Christmas decorations or decorations for any religious holiday. In so doing they are endorsing a religion, and they have a right to do so. However, I think it wrong for any unit of government to do so.

You wrote: Want another solution for the Muslim on death row? Supply the resources that are being demanded, and just ask that they be allowed for the one facing death. Basically instead of a lawyer making demands there could be the Islamic community trying to put a service in that the Christian community has forged in that area to supply and place on their own.

The Muslim community is quite willing to provide that service. However, the law in those jurisdictions mandates that the condemned may have only Christian chaplains and that is where the Christian religion is favored over others.

Dear NNS,

You wrote: “Trump is creating family clinics that aren't abortion clinics? That's great news. Especially after the news that New York expanded legal abortions through to full term. The hard fought battle against abortion needs to take place.”

That is not great news. That is another reason why Trump is unfit to be president. A president should not be above the law. At this time legal and medically safe abortion is the law of the land. When abortion was illegal an abortionist was violating the law and could suffer the penalties of the law. President Trump in funding anti-abortion clinics is going against the law and should suffer the penalties for those who violate the law..

There has been a hard fought battle to make abortion legal, and I think it is a very good thing that it is legal. Although you and I disagree on whether it should be legal there is no disagreement that it is legal in the US at this time. Neither President Trump nor we are above the law. If we think a law is unjust we may disobey it and suffer the penalties for disobeying it. The penalty for a president violating the law may be removal from office.

Foxy,

"Kindly don't give me any more links from American conservative sites."

OK, I understand. I was just showing you some of the 'other' side, so that you wouldn't be totally led down the garden path by the stuff you frequent. But I know that sometimes ignorance is bliss.

So I won't show you any more of the things coming out about your hoped-for saviour, like:

* Female secret service staff complaining about being forced to watch him swim in the nude,

* Even more women complaining about his 'inappropriate' touching.

* information coming out about how he lied about the accident that killed his wife

* more stories from Ukraine about him protecting his kid

* stories about how the FBI is refusing to even look at information about him protecting his kid

* stories about how the US embassy in Ukraine is withholding visas for people wanting to go to the US to present data about him protecting his kid.

I promise I won't mention any of that.

What do you do when new data proves that your previously held assertions were total bunkum? What do you do when you don't have the intestinal fortitude to admit you were wilfully misled on the biggest story of the century?

Well, if you're SR, you concoct a totally fabricated story to try to deflect from your embarrassment. In this case, SR has made up a story about Trump and Giuliani creating a collusion narrative to hide the conspiracy narrative.

What do you do when it is shown that there were millions of times the term collusion was used in the press BEFORE Giuliani joined Team Trump. You ignore it. What do you do when it is clear that the terms collusion and conspiracy were used inter-changeably by the press and the Democrats (Schiff alone called it 'collusion' over 2000 times and the NYT had over 1500 articles that used both terms)? Well if you're SR, you ignore it.

And why are you concocting these silly stories when they just make you look inane? Because you are trying to deflect from the fact that you'd fallen for the real data and had spent two years on the working assumption that Trump was owned by Putin.

Do you have evidence for that assumption? No? So what do you do when evidence is presented that on the biggest of issues Trump is clearly a foe of Putin (eg over energy policy). You guessed it...you ignore it.

/cont

/cont

And what do you do when asked to present evidence that Putin owns Trump. You ignore the question other than the lame assertion that everyone just knows its true. And then try to deflect from the fact that there's no evidence of Trump favouring Putin in the past, by asserting there will be evidence in the future.

And that evidence? Well apparently Trump will let Putin take over Venezuela....or something. And what do you do when asked what you'd expect Trump to do in the short-term? Ignore the question. And what do when shown that before Putin sent 100 (!!) troops in to take over Venezuela, the Chinese and Cubans were already there. Ignore it. And are asked how China and Cuba being there is different to Russia being there? Ignore it.

And what do you do when you try to make a point about ONE Russian being given sanction relief by the US Treasury while hiding other relevant information about the issue? You deflect. Well at least that's better than just ignoring the point. A step up for SR.

Just like he never admitted getting the Maths about the hiatus all wrong. Just as he never admitted to getting the number of US troops in SK all wrong. Just as he never admitted that he was wrong to think the US had nukes in SK. Just like all those and many others, he'll never show the intestinal fortitude to admit he was wrong about the collusion/conspiracy issue. He'll continue to assert that the difference between the two, which is merely legalistic semantics, is the real story. And by doing so he'll continue to misunderstand what's really going on around him.

"'It was rouge elements within the Russian secret services and Putin knew nothing'.

HAHAHA. 'rouge' or ' rogue'? Reds under the bed? A typo or a Freudian slip?

AT after Trump those blind to his true nature will forgive themselves and never admit he had them fooled