I wasn't that phased by the debate (though I voted for a third party candidate so I don't have skin in the game at this point). What really surprised me is that Biden's handlers had four years' notice of how the President would debate, since his tactic was largely unchanged from 2016 and he was totally unprepared and powerless to defend against except to return jibes. Biden forgot the cardinal rule of debating: "Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it." At least Biden didn't challenge him to a pushup contest. Again.
Here's an interesting method for getting Trump out of office, although hardly novel, if the tales of the Essex witches'attemps on young King James' life have any truth to them. https://www.the-sun.com/news/1678082/witches-donald-trump-biden-election/
That story speaks loudly. Consider this: witches serve (even if unwittingly) the adversary and operate in evil methodologies, and witches want Pres. Trump out of office. Therefore it stands to reason that Pres. Trump's presence in that office is blocking (even if unwittingly) the forces of evil from having their way. The enemy comes to kill, steal and destroy. May God use Donald Trump to thwart killings (of innocent children as well as others), thefts and destruction wherever possible. I don't have to like his mannerisms to see God working through him, or to pray for him.
I pray (continuously, constantly, passionately) for the day when American elections aren't existential do-or-die ordeals and one can vote for a candidate one actually likes rather than for one who is simply the least worst. I do not like being a cynic, and I work constantly to be an optimist, which means putting all my hopes and dreams into the church rather than the government. And I am optimistic about the church, battered and in disrepair though it is; I feel a spirit there that I haven't felt in a long time. Perhaps it is just my desperate soul yearning for some positive news...but I'll take it. In the church is hope and life. In politics...madness.
Put not your trust in princes : nor in the sons of men, who cannot save. For when their breath goes from them, they return again to the earth : and on that day all their thoughts perish. Psalm 146
Of course we do not place much trust in any sinner. And yet we citizens have a responsibility to act in love by voting for the candidates who seem likely to do our fellows the least evil.
In the Byzantine rite we sing that every Sunday. It's a good reminder; I can't see a campaign sign without hearing it in my head.
Joseph R. Biden Jr. voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, blocking federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Two years earlier, he voted to cut off federal funds to schools that teach the acceptance of homosexuality. In 1973, Mr. Biden, in an off-handed response to a question, wondered if homosexuals in the military or government were potential security risks. Seems ya'all have a choice between an old guy who didn't believe in 'same sex marriage' and another 'nearly as old guy' who obviously doesn't believe in 'only same marriage sex'. Some choice: "That's a hard one", as Stormy Daniels might have said. .
People should keep in mind that there is a 3rd option on every US Ballot this election thought the media has declared a blackout on her: The Libertarian candidate Dr. Jo Jorgensen is an alternative to the Republicrat duopoly that has taken over America's political apparatus. Here is her website if, like me, you find yourself unable to support either of the major party candidates: jo20.com One great plus that separates her from Trump and Biden is that she has never been associated with Jeffrey Epstein. Just sayin'
Biden was against homosexual marriage before he was for it. He was against abortion before, too, but now he's for it. He's going in the wrong direction.
Jorgensen says she'd pardon and release 70,000 felons convicted of 'nonviolent' drug offenses "on day 1." I'm not up to date on criminal law; if someone was convicted of selling crack cocaine in front of an elementary school, would that qualify as a nonviolent drug offense? What about someone who was apprehended while hauling 50 pounds of cocaine or heroin in his car? Just wondering. In our state, some deep-pockets group has been running tons of tv ads this fall, advocating a Yes vote on a state question that would amend our state constitution to disallow judges from considering prior felony convictions when passing sentence. Every offender would be treated as a first-time offender, even if they'd been arrested dozens of times and convicted ten or more times. It would also act retroactively for people now serving time, so tons of felons would suddenly be released under the new sentencing requirement. Every DA but one in this state is against the SQ, but the ads make it sound so wonderful and good. I wonder who is trying so hard to get massive numbers of criminals out of prison, and what their real agenda is.
But Trump seems always to have been against same marriage sex and presumably keeps at it when nobody's looking. .
I see Trump moving toward the light, and Biden moving away from the light. No, I don't like Trump's mannerisms or his ego, or a few other things about him. But he's adopted more godly positions on major issues in recent years, whereas Biden has abandoned his former more-godly positions in favor of less-godly ones... he'll do and say anything for power, I guess.
She would and I back her 100%. The drug war has been a nightmare on our civil liberties, has militarized drug dealers and law enforcement, has cost tax payers billions upon billions of dollars, has allowed the federal government to invade the police powers of state and local governments. has resulted in countless deaths, and has been a complete failure as there are more people using drugs than before it began. I have a simple philosophy about crime: A crime without a victim is not a crime. It is a revenue stream for the government.
Every crime has a victim, or victims, whether you see them or not. Fraud, thievery, treason, prostitution, drug sales (and use), parking violations, traffic violations, loitering -- all have been purported to be "victimless". It's a lie. Even something as seemingly harmless as loitering causes harm to the public peace and order. This is not about "authoritarianism" (unless you are an extereme libertarian who objects to any kind of government imposition of behavioral norms). The mistake lies in thinking that crimes against property, government, or corporations is not really a crime because it doesn't harm "people". This is a ridiculous notion. Governments are composed of actual human beings, as are corporations; and actual human beings own property and are harmed in direct ways when their property is damaged or stolen. Actual people are citizens of society and shareholders/owners of corporations. This is a specific case were modern hyper-individualism can lead one into very serious moral error. The common good is not just an abstraction when it comes to civil government or society.
In 2018 New York brought in a whopping $545 million in parking tickets. It is hard not to see revenue when talking about half a billion dollars. It would offer the opportunity to use the line made famous by the reality TV show The Apprentice. Anyway the question at the moment is will the American people hire Trump again?
What would the cost to New York's citizens and businesses be if those parking ordinances were not enforced?
Selling crack cocaine to a teenager, a drug crime.... how is that a victimless crime? The teen tries crack once and is hooked for life. It is extremely addictive. Chances are his school grades will go in the toilet, he will become angry and rebellious, he will steal to support his habit, and he will probably be unable to function normally in society (hold a steady job, support children, etc). The person's life is ruined and his relatives are put through tons of grief. The teen may wind up suicidal or dead by accidental overdose. But I suppose some would say that the teenager is free to trash his life if he wants to, right? The problem is, teens' brains haven't matured enough to make good decisions yet, and they don't know what they think they know. Let 70,000 drug users and drug pushers back out into society all at once... yeah, that's not going to turn out well, not for them or for society. Treatment programs as a solution? An addict must first be willing to admit he has a problem and want to overcome it, to even go into a program with any chance of success.