Summations Only

Are you demanding he does that while he is standing on one foot? Or while you are standing on one foot?That comes from that famous story (even appeared on Star Trek in "Dagger of the Mind") of the asshole Gentile who around 20 BCE went around trolling all the rabbinic schools demanding that the head rabbi recite the entire Torah from memory while he stood on one foot (I recently learned that it was the goy to stand on one foot, not the rabbi). The Pharisee head rabbi, Hillel, responded with a typical Pharisee teaching: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." That's right, the Golden Rule that Jesus purportedly taught half a century later is Pharisee! 
You are employing that typical creationist/fundie crap of demanding one to perform an intractable task (ie, theoretically possible, but so dauntingly immense a task as to be virtually impossible). Your only purpose in that is to try to silence your opponent. Extremely dishonest, but then what else could we expect from a creationist and a "true Christian". And now also a MAGAt.In order to meet your demand, one would need to have complete access to voter registration information in all states. I certainly do not have that access and I very much doubt that Taq does either. Nor anybody else on this forum, including you!You are seriously trying to claim that nobody changed party affiliation? Really? How could you possibly be serious? I know we shouldn't say such things, but there's just no way around it: that has to be one of the stupidest things you've said.Instead, we could search for historical data regarding the party affiliations of the population of a particular state and translate those numbers into percentages (ie, divide the number of registered Democrats divided by total population (though it would be better to instead use the total number of citizens registered to vote, a more difficult number to find I would assume)).Of course, finding that data would still be a sizeable project and, given your record here, one that would be a waste of time. So here's an alternative that should be instructive. Let's look at one state, Alabama (Political party strength in Alabama). Number of members for each party over time is not given, but rather the party affiliation of elected officials from 1817 to 2022. That party affiliation should be indicative the voters' party affiliation.They started with Democratic Republicans, which then split into Democrats and Whigs around 1819, so from then through the Civil War it was mainly Democrats with Whigs and a smattering of small parties (eg, Southern Democratic, Southern Rights).After the Civil War, some Democratic officials remained, but then starting in 1868 it was mainly Republicans with a smattering of Democrats. Remember that this was during Reconstruction where, as I recall, many Democratic leaders were undoubtedly ineligible as per the 14th Amendment (which we hopefully will see used again to deal with the seditionist traitors).But then in 1875 as Reconstruction was being brought to a premature end, only Democrats were being voted into office and no Republicans. For the next 89 years until 1964, which does coincide with LBJ's Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.The new pattern for the next 20 years was that state officials and members of Congress would be Democrats, but the electors would mainly vote for Republicans or the like:

• 1964 -- Goldwater/Miller
• 1968 -- Wallace/LeMay
• 1972 -- Nixon/Agnew
• 1976 -- Carter/Mondale (mainly because he was a Southerner and a born-again Christian (one of the very few actual Christians of that breed that I know of) )
• 1980 -- Reagan/Bush
• 1984 -- Reagan/Bush
• 1988 -- Bush/Quayle
• 1992 -- Bush/Quayle
• 1996 -- Dole/Kemp
• 2000 -- Bush/Cheney
• 2004 -- Bush/Cheney
• 2008 -- McCain/Palin
• 2012 -- Romney/Ryan
• 2016 -- Trump/Pence
• 2020 -- Trump/Pence

So from that point on, Alabama voted for every Republican presidential candidate with just a couple exceptions: Dixiecrat George Wallace and southern Democrat Jimmy Carter (most definitely not a Dixiecrat). That part of the southern shift to the GOP was solidly in place.The rest of the ticket was still solidly Democrat, but most of those candidates were no longer part of the Democratic mainstream, but rather remnants of the older Dixiecrat party. But in 1987, 1989, and 1990, a Republican governor and two Republican Secretary of States were elected, along with a Republican senator in 1981. 1995 saw more offices going to Republicans. For the next 16 years more and more offices were going to Republicans such that in and after 2011 all offices have been held by Republicans, with the sole exception of US Senator Doug Jones elected in 2017 to fill the vacancy of Jeff Sessions who left the Senate to be Attorney General for Trump.In all this we do see a process of the historically racist Democrats separating from the rest of the Democrat Party and transitioning over to being Republicans, taking their racism with them making the GOP more racist and the Democratic Party less racist.

Ringo, in Exodus 3, God appeared to Moses as a flame
of fire in the midst of a bush, Moses asked God what he
should tell the Israelites when they ask who sent him.Verse 14. God's reply to Moses was "I AM THAT I AM:"
Tell them that I AM has sent me to you.John 8: 56-59 Jesus told the Pharisees:56. "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and
he saw it, and was glad."57. "Then said the Jews unto Him, Thou art not yet
fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?"58. "Jesus said unto them, truly, truly, I say unto you,
before Abraham was, I AM."59."Then they took up stone to cast at Him..."They thought it blasphemy because they understood
perfectly well what Jesus' statements meant.How could they not understand his meaning? It is
easily understood.In John 18 Judas, the chief priest, and officers came
upon Jesus, and He said unto them, "Whom seek ye?"They answered "Jesus of Nazareth."Jesus replied " I AM."Notice that the word "he" in "I AM he" is in italics,
meaning that it was added by the translators in order
to make it grammatically correct. "He is not in the
older manuscripts."As soon then as He had said unto them, I AM, they
went backward, and fell to the ground."Jesus referred to Himself as "I AM:" in many of his
sayings."The bread of life."
"Light of the world."
"The door."
"Good shepherd."
"Resurrection and the life."
"Way, truth, and the life."
"The vine."
ETC...In the OT God referred to Himself in the same ways.In John 8:24 Jesus told the Jews:"If you believe not that I AM (he is in italics) you shall
die in your sins."Jesus told His disciples in John 13 "Now I tell you
before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may
believe that I AM (he).Jesus was the I AM that appeared to Moses.Jesus was the God of the OT. No one has ever seen
the Fathet.

Phat, I am very honest in what I'm saying.The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.And, the past behavior of Democrats is really, really nasty.

As a Christian, you are wasting far too much negative energy on politics and on villifying Dems. (They do the same thing with Republicans) Scripture tells us to bless those who curse us, turn the other cheek, and love our enemies. You are lumping a large group of individuals into an objective category. This is far too simplistic and juvenile for a man who purports to have the Holy Spirit. And I am preaching to myself as well, by the way.

Only if you do not believe that Jesus was God. (Or the ONLY human to ever be in perfect Communion with the One God.) He existed in Spirit before He was birthed in flesh. It's not Rocket Science.

You are correct. It is magic.

I agree that Exodus CLAIMS that they saw God. Exodus is wrong about a lot of things. Nonsense. What they "saw" (if it was true) could have been a hallucination. Or the story could be fiction, like the rest of Exodus. Even if the story was true, your logic doesn't work. There is nothing in the story to remotely suggest Jesus. Even if there was a God and He did take on a physical form, there is no connection whatsoever in the story to suggest Jesus. Nothing clear about it. It's just a feeble attempt to prop up the myth of the Trinity.

Jesus is mentioned in verse 10 but verse 11 refers to "he that sat upon" the white horse - i.e. a personification of the Word. Figure of speech. Like "she's all that" in the Urban Dictionary. Claiming to BE the beginning is not saying that He was around AT "the beginning".And by the way, there was only one Revelation - "The" Revelation (Revelation 1:1). If you're going to pluralize it, you might as well talk about Geneses and Exodi.

Which kinda shoots down your previous argument about people seeing God. A flame is physical and visible but certainly not incarnate. Jesus was being cagey, as He always was, claiming to be God without actually claiming to be God. If the police came to you and asked, "Are you candle2?", wouldn't you say, "I am"? Yes, Jesus was being cagey, as He always was, claiming to be God without actually claiming to be God. Non sequitur. It is possible to believe that there is a connection but the connection is not there in the scripture. You contradict yourself. You said in this very post that Moses saw God.But what he saw was NOT an incarnation. If Jesus had been around in Moses' time, why would He not appear to Moses Himself?

That isn't really relevant. Even if Jesus was/is God, the Bible does not say that Jesus was around at the beginning. The word Jesus refers to the incarnation of the spirit.God is aleady a spirit. (So is the Holy Spirit, for that matter.) When Jesus was born, the spirit BECAME flesh. It was a transformation. Jesus did not exist until He became flesh.By analogy, a tree BECOMES a house. That does not mean that the house existed before it was built.

Start whenever you're ready. I didn't say "merely". I have the utmost respect for figures of speech. You're just revealing your contempt for literature. Sure there is. If they meant "Jesus", they could have said "Jesus" instead of "Melchizedek". That would be clear and precise.Who says they were trying to be clear or precise? The point of figures of speech is not to be clear and precise. Maybe you should get a second grader to explain it to you.

Because Jesus had not as of yet a physical body. That happened at His birth.
If He had had a body before He was born, He would not have even needed to be born. He could have just wandered in one day from the desert.

If Jesus was Gods one and only son, He most certainly did exist. Otherwise, your cockamamy explanation requires God to go and find a woman (a human woman at that) to have sex with in order to even have a son!
​ We are talking Spirit. Not material lumber. If you were God, your son could and would exist the moment he became a gleam in his father's eye... What's more, your son would do what you yourself could not do. Die.

According to the concept of the Trinity, Jesus is God, so that would make God God's only son. Jesus is God, so that would mean God started to exist when God was a gleam in his own eye. That doesn't make much sense.

The key word you said there but did not hear is PAST.The PRESENT behavior of Democrats is completely different, but that past bad behavior is still being practiced ... by REPUBLICANS.I gone over this with you several times already; eg in Message 760, Message 766, Message 796 .The primary reason is that the evil Democrats of the past have left the party because there is no place for them here. Where did they go? To the Republican party which welcomed them with open arms.Which is why we know what those evil racists now in the Republican party will do. And what they have been doing and are now doing.But at the same time, the GOP is losing its conservatives who are fleeing the party in disgust over you MAGAts taking control of the party. There is no longer a home for conservatives in the GQP.Where will they go? I've heard talk that they would form a new conservative party. Many have taken to supporting Democrats in this election; eg, arch-conservative Liz Cheney. Most likely for the time being they will just join the ranks of the independents; from the Wikipedia article, Political party strength in U.S. states:

quote:

---

Voter Registration Totals

​

Democratic .......... 48,019,985
Republican ........... 35,732,180
Independent ........ 34,699,567

---

And that same article repeats what we've been telling you over and over again:

quote:

---

Throughout most of the 20th century, although the Republican and Democratic parties alternated in power at a national level, some states were so overwhelmingly dominated by one party that nomination was usually tantamount to election. This was especially true in the Solid South, where the Democratic Party was dominant for the better part of a century, from the end of Reconstruction in the late 1870s, through the period of Jim Crow Laws into the 1960s. Conversely, the New England states of Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire were dominated by the Republican Party, as were some Midwestern states like Iowa and North Dakota.

​

However, in the 1970s and 1980s the increasingly conservative Republican Party gradually overtook the Democrats in the southeast. The Democrats' support in the formerly Solid South had been eroded during the vast cultural, political and economic upheaval that surrounded the 1960s. By the 1990s, the Republican Party had completed the transition into the southeast's dominant political party, despite typically having fewer members due to the prevalence of Republican voting generational Democrats. In New England, the opposite trend occurred; the former Republican strongholds of Maine and Vermont became solidly Democratic, as did formerly Republican areas of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut.

---

---