Election 2020

[Steven W Bohler]

A special senate investigation has detailed how the son of presidential hopeful Joe Biden may have used his father’s position in the White House to amass wealth and power.

Click here for facts the NYTimes is deliberately withholding as part of its biased self serving political coverage.

The NY Times has NO authority to acquit Biden's son. But then there has been no indictment nor trial nor conviction. Bring it up again when that happens.   

Peace, JOHN

Am I missing something?  Who said that The NY Times had authority to acquit the younger Biden?  James said that the Times is withholding damaging stories to help the Biden campaign, but who said anything about indictments, trials, convictions, or acquittals?  Except you, of course.

[Steven W Bohler]

Too funny!!!  Freudian slip or honest admission?  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-voter-fraud-organization-video-gaffe

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/25/2016s_reluctant_trumpers_are_2020s_avid_trumpers.html

I would put myself in this category. As I've said, never thought I'd vote for Trump and only decided to vote for him after all at the last minute and with many reservations. I know of many friends and family members who would otherwise be fairly reliable Republican voters who left the top of the ticket blank or voted third party in 2016 because they just couldn't bring themselves to do it. But I think they're all solidly for Trump now.

What anti-Trumpers don't understand is how people can support a president with so many personal flaws. But if you focus on policy and actual accomplishments, I think Trump has been a better president than Romney would have been, or McCain for that matter.   

[John_Hannah]

A special senate investigation has detailed how the son of presidential hopeful Joe Biden may have used his father’s position in the White House to amass wealth and power.

Click here for facts the NYTimes is deliberately withholding as part of its biased self serving political coverage.

The NY Times has NO authority to acquit Biden's son. But then there has been no indictment nor trial nor conviction. Bring it up again when that happens.   

Peace, JOHN

Thank you for your bogus post! In no way shape or form did I insinuate that the New York Times could aquit anybody… Much less you!

Please read the words of the post! Words mean things! Stop ignoring the subject!

Perhaps in doing so you will contribute to a more civilized exchange… As you piously alluded to earlier this morning by quoting the New York Times opinion piece.

Thank you

Please do let us know when the people (DOJ) indict and begin conducting a legitimate trial.   

Peace, JOHN

[James J Eivan]

A special senate investigation has detailed how the son of presidential hopeful Joe Biden may have used his father’s position in the White House to amass wealth and power.

Click here for facts the NYTimes is deliberately withholding as part of its biased self serving political coverage.

The NY Times has NO authority to acquit Biden's son. But then there has been no indictment nor trial nor conviction. Bring it up again when that happens.   

Peace, JOHN

Thank you for your bogus post! In no way shape or form did I insinuate that the New York Times could aquit anybody… Much less you!

Please read the words of the post! Words mean things! Stop ignoring the subject!

Perhaps in doing so you will contribute to a more civilized exchange… As you piously alluded to earlier this morning by quoting the New York Times opinion piece.

Thank you

Please do let us know when the people (DOJ) indict and begin conducting a legitimate trial.   

Peace, JOHN

You bias local rag NYTimes probably fails to report “
FBI to interview Hunter Biden's ex-associate Bobulinski, Senate committee says” because it doesn’t fit their left wing  progressive agenda ... the tragic thing is you know this and refuse to accept it.

Last checked, the FBI is part of the DOJ.

Thank you for your deliberate fake news and disinformation.

[John_Hannah]

A special senate investigation has detailed how the son of presidential hopeful Joe Biden may have used his father’s position in the White House to amass wealth and power.

Click here for facts the NYTimes is deliberately withholding as part of its biased self serving political coverage.

The NY Times has NO authority to acquit Biden's son. But then there has been no indictment nor trial nor conviction. Bring it up again when that happens.   

Peace, JOHN

Thank you for your bogus post! In no way shape or form did I insinuate that the New York Times could aquit anybody… Much less you!

Please read the words of the post! Words mean things! Stop ignoring the subject!

Perhaps in doing so you will contribute to a more civilized exchange… As you piously alluded to earlier this morning by quoting the New York Times opinion piece.

Thank you

Please do let us know when the people (DOJ) indict and begin conducting a legitimate trial.   

Peace, JOHN

You bias local rag NYTimes probably fails to report “
FBI to interview Hunter Biden's ex-associate Bobulinski, Senate committee says” because it doesn’t fit their left wing  progressive agenda ... the tragic thing is you know this and refuse to accept it.

Last checked, the FBI is part of the DOJ.

Thank you for your deliberate fake news and disinformation.

Where's the indictment? Where the evidence ready to present to a jury?

[James J Eivan]

A special senate investigation has detailed how the son of presidential hopeful Joe Biden may have used his father’s position in the White House to amass wealth and power.

Click here for facts the NYTimes is deliberately withholding as part of its biased self serving political coverage.

The NY Times has NO authority to acquit Biden's son. But then there has been no indictment nor trial nor conviction. Bring it up again when that happens.   

Peace, JOHN

Thank you for your bogus post! In no way shape or form did I insinuate that the New York Times could aquit anybody… Much less you!

Please read the words of the post! Words mean things! Stop ignoring the subject!

Perhaps in doing so you will contribute to a more civilized exchange… As you piously alluded to earlier this morning by quoting the New York Times opinion piece.

Thank you

Please do let us know when the people (DOJ) indict and begin conducting a legitimate trial.   

Peace, JOHN

You bias local rag NYTimes probably fails to report “
FBI to interview Hunter Biden's ex-associate Bobulinski, Senate committee says” because it doesn’t fit their left wing  progressive agenda ... the tragic thing is you know this and refuse to accept it.

Last checked, the FBI is part of the DOJ.

Thank you for your deliberate fake news and disinformation.

Where's the indictment? Where the evidence ready to present to a jury?

Why continue your disinformation by moving the goalposts from hiding information by refusing to report to your preoccupation with your indictment monologue.


Please Rev Col ... this humble forum deserves better from you.

[Julio]

For those who were perhaps still attending your Divine Service, Rev Austin’s below quoted post originally was a direct response to this post of James.

I have removed a recent comment. People can send me a personal message if they want to read it.

With the exception of the first paragraph where Rev Austin feigns addressing Rev Hannah, this response was and is clearly addressed towards a post of James.
Why does moderation fail to enforce the following ...

The next time Charles references James, even implicitly, he is out of the forum.

The forum is currently being deprived of the lively banter between James and Charles ... but the greater disservice is the uneven or non enforcement of the above moderator’s unilateral edict.

Please let the banter resume or fairly enforce the above edict.

Finally, thank you moderators and/or Rev Austin for removing a pointless personal attack/assault earlier today. Hopefully this indicates a commitment to a more civil dialogue on this forum.

[mj4]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/25/2016s_reluctant_trumpers_are_2020s_avid_trumpers.html

I would put myself in this category. As I've said, never thought I'd vote for Trump and only decided to vote for him after all at the last minute and with many reservations. I know of many friends and family members who would otherwise be fairly reliable Republican voters who left the top of the ticket blank or voted third party in 2016 because they just couldn't bring themselves to do it. But I think they're all solidly for Trump now.

What anti-Trumpers don't understand is how people can support a president with so many personal flaws. But if you focus on policy and actual accomplishments, I think Trump has been a better president than Romney would have been, or McCain for that matter.

You really have to either put some serious blinders on or completely dismiss the ill effects of personal arrogance on the health of the nation to approach the election this way. You might want to read an article by John Piper which discourages Christians from thinking that personal flaws are less consequential than policy failures.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/policies-persons-and-paths-to-ruin

...I think it is a drastic mistake to think that the deadly influences of a leader come only through his policies and not also through his person.

This is true not only because flagrant boastfulness, vulgarity, immorality, and factiousness are self-incriminating, but also because they are nation-corrupting. They move out from centers of influence to infect whole cultures.

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/25/2016s_reluctant_trumpers_are_2020s_avid_trumpers.html

I would put myself in this category. As I've said, never thought I'd vote for Trump and only decided to vote for him after all at the last minute and with many reservations. I know of many friends and family members who would otherwise be fairly reliable Republican voters who left the top of the ticket blank or voted third party in 2016 because they just couldn't bring themselves to do it. But I think they're all solidly for Trump now.

What anti-Trumpers don't understand is how people can support a president with so many personal flaws. But if you focus on policy and actual accomplishments, I think Trump has been a better president than Romney would have been, or McCain for that matter.

You really have to either put some serious blinders on or completely dismiss the ill effects of personal arrogance on the health of the nation to approach the election this way. You might want to read an article by John Piper which discourages Christians from thinking that personal flaws are less consequential than policy failures.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/policies-persons-and-paths-to-ruin

...I think it is a drastic mistake to think that the deadly influences of a leader come only through his policies and not also through his person.

This is true not only because flagrant boastfulness, vulgarity, immorality, and factiousness are self-incriminating, but also because they are nation-corrupting. They move out from centers of influence to infect whole cultures.

I don’t think there are any blinders involved, nor any dismissing of the ill effects of his personal flaws. It is simply a weighing of pros and cons. I think he has done a pretty good job. I think Clinton and/or Biden would both be doing a much worse job, and neither are particularly free of arrogance.

[Charles Austin]

Yes to mj4. Peter seems concerned about the lack of respect for marriage in society. The acceptance of divorce, and if there is a denigration of marriage, it was pushed along mightily by the "witness" of celebrities, politicians, and others held in high regard by society in general.
So when we have a person in the highest office of the country who mocks others, makes fun of disabilities, speaks in a way that encourages racists, wants the media muzzled and flaunts the laws of the land and does all of these things not only as a manifestation of his person, but as policy, of course it is going to have an effect.

[peter_speckhard]

Yes to mj4. Peter seems concerned about the lack of respect for marriage in society. The acceptance of divorce, and if there is a denigration of marriage, it was pushed along mightily by the "witness" of celebrities, politicians, and others held in high regard by society in general.
So when we have a person in the highest office of the country who mocks others, makes fun of disabilities, speaks in a way that encourages racists, wants the media muzzled and flaunts the laws of the land and does all of these things not only as a manifestation of his person, but as policy, of course it is going to have an effect.

Of course it is going to have an effect. I never said it didn't, or that it wasn't a problem. I said all things considered, he has done a pretty good job. And I suspect countless others who refused to vote for him last time, or did so only extremely reluctantly, will be doing so again without all the reservations.

Kamala Harris slept her way up ni politics via Willie Brown's casting couch. Is that the role model you want for young women from the who might easily be the first female president? Of course not. You support her despite her manifest moral failings and negative personal example. You might wish you could change that about her, but it doesn't make you hesitate to pull the lever for her ticket.

[Charles Austin]

Peter writes
Kamala Harris slept her way up in politics via Willie Brown's casting couch.

I comment:
The stories about here “sleeping her way up” are misleading and exaggerated.
She dated Brown in the mid-1990s, and Brown had been estranged from his wife since 1981.
Brown did appoint Harris to two political posts in 1994 while he served as Speaker of the California Assembly, but that was years before Harris won her first election in 2003. She was already working as an assistant district attorney in Alameda County when she took on the appointments, the pool from which such appointments are usually made.
Harris' relationship to Brown was never a secret, even though it may not be well known outside political circles.
Your comment, Peter, is unsubstantiated and your language - "casting couch" - is unfair.
I'm not defending all of her actions, but if we wanted to balance "credits" or "debits" in the sleeping around and marriage ledger, your guy....

[peter_speckhard]

Peter writes
Kamala Harris slept her way up in politics via Willie Brown's casting couch.

I comment:
The stories about here “sleeping her way up” are misleading and exaggerated.
She dated Brown in the mid-1990s, and Brown had been estranged from his wife since 1981.
Brown did appoint Harris to two political posts in 1994 while he served as Speaker of the California Assembly, but that was years before Harris won her first election in 2003. She was already working as an assistant district attorney in Alameda County when she took on the appointments, the pool from which such appointments are usually made.
Harris' relationship to Brown was never a secret, even though it may not be well known outside political circles.
Your comment, Peter, is unsubstantiated and your language - "casting couch" - is unfair.
I'm not defending all of her actions, but if we wanted to balance "credits" or "debits" in the sleeping around and marriage ledger, your guy....

Ah. Always the handy list of excuses and justifications (heaven forfend we call them defenses). It is not unsubstantiated; it is corroborated by countless news articles, and you just said they never even tried to keep it a secret. "At least she didn't keep her immorality secret; she was open about it! Also, how do you know she engaged in immorality? That's unsubstantiated!" And you say you don't approve, but at least she's not as bad as the other candidate, which is exactly what you never accept from anyone else. You call it dodging, changing the subject, etc. Sad.   

[mj4]

And I suspect countless others who refused to vote for him last time, or did so only extremely reluctantly, will be doing so again without all the reservations.

If voters have weighed the pros and cons and can now vote for the president without reservations, I'm dumbfounded. It seems to me that weighing the pros and cons would only increase the reservations. I'd say the same thing about the other candidate, by the way.

Piper's point was that we can't discount the effect of personal flaws on the culture of the nation. Many Christians, especially in Piper's circle of influence, have justified their votes by elevating policy issues over personal character as if character didn't matter.