Cool. I don’t know if something from Patheos’ Evangelical or Roman Catholic site, is positive ,neutral or negative - when I initially post it… But I came away with a good feel, of what it’s like - to be at a Trump rally. Let me quote a bit, from the article:
It was at this point that something strange happened. For the first time that day, my daughter and I started to feel at one with the crowds. We didn’t share in their support of the president, it’s fair to say, but we all had the common goal of making it inside those doors—even if for very different reasons.
Personally, I don’t think this whole impeachment inquiry - will be a big deal. And Trump could possibly emerge, more popular than ever.
We shall see. Still got a year till elections - almost exactly a year - and soooooo much can happen. So I’m whistling a merry tune and keeping my powder dry!!
On my recliner now, wondering if I’ll ever be able to bite into a beefsteak again, and watching Mark Levin chatting with David Limbaugh. They are discussing the rise of socialism in America. It’s scary stuff, deserving to be X-rated. I imagine that few Americans have ever studied history. Do they not know that Adolf Hitler let a party called The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (abbreviation: Nazi Party)? Are they totally unaware of history? Have they heard of men named Vladimir Levin, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Ho Chi Minh, to name just a few socialists who became ruthless dictators responsible for killing many hundreds of millions between them?
Now the Left in the US wants to embrace that kind of political philosophy? Western Europe is already heading in that direction. Countries of Eastern Europe are resisting being taken over by socialism. Why is that? Are there still enough people living in these countries who remember, or believe what their grandparents told them, how bad life was when socialism ran their countries?
Now I’ll push the recliner back as far as it will go and hopefully dream sweeter dreams.
Is this opinion or true, or both? This star whistleblower did not have new facts, but did have his opinion; even though it was negative, he also pointed out that we have the actual transcript and it is the one the President released.
S0 - this witnesses’ OPINION is being used as an impeachment tool.
As I keep saying, this thread seems obsessed by the supposed importance of the ‘whistleblowers,’ and destroying him or her. But for the fourth time, I’m lost on how any of that is relevant to the responses I’ve offered about the ‘whistleblowers.’
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), when asked last week if he wanted to talk to the whistleblower, argued that House investigation and public reporting involving the details of the complaint has superseded that need. “I think we’ve moved well beyond that,” he said. “I mean, what’s the whistleblower going to tell us other than what we already know?”
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) added that he wasn’t sure if the panel was going to talk to the whistleblower, and he questioned the value of receiving any testimony from the individual. “I’m not sure how relevant it remains at this point,” Rubio said. “There’s people claiming to have first-hand information” of Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
No, the truth of life in the USA is that we are all so caught up in trying to make a living… to capture the ‘American Dream’ that much of the fundamentals about the United States has escaped many of the today citizens.
The understanding that we were created to be a ‘Republic’ verses a ‘Democracy’ is lost on a huge amount of American citizens.
A Republic sees to watching out for the smallest of groups in a countries contingent.
A total Democracy is simply ‘MOB RULE’ … the framers of the constitution were very aware of what could happen to individuals or small groups who had different views than the majority.
A representative ‘Republic’ was the tool that allowed each individual in the USA to have a say. It was a very ingenious way to govern. But alas, we are seeing groups with in this structure trying to promote a total democratic (or most votes wins) mentality. As long as we can continue to embrace the separation of powers, IE… executive, legislative, and judicial, we may come out of this okay.
Norms post is significant in the fact that the normal 20 year old in America today could probably not tell you much of anything about the founding of our country and the sacrifices made, to get us to the freedoms we enjoy… But these freedoms are at the near hovering over the edge of the cliff of being stripped away from us.
Definitions can get you anywhere you want to go. If you define seeing gaining wider support of citizens (“most votes”) to secure office or legislation, as just ‘MOB RULE,’ then of course, you’ll oppose any society that respects democratic practices.
What most impresses me about the BBC is the fairness and balance - for every headline that attempts to show DT unfavourably, they in all fairness report on a good thing he has done. A trusted news source indeed, with no bias!!!
Victor Davis Hanson. He mentions ten insidious assaults on hard-won wisdom and “a new legal and cultural standard in adjudicating future disagreements and disputes, an utterly anti-Western standard quite befitting for our new relativist age”:
-clip-
The veracity of accusations will hinge on the particular identity, emotions, and ideology of the accuser;
Evidence, or lack of it, will be tangential, given the supposed unimpeachable motives of the ideologically correct accuser;
The burden of proof and evidence will rest with the accused to disprove the preordained assumption of guilt;
Hearsay will be a valuable narrative and constitute legitimate evidence;
Truth is not universal, but individualized. Ford’s “truth” is as valid as the “Truth,” given that competing narratives are adjudicated only by access to power. Ford is a victim, therefore her truth trumps “their” truth based on evidence and testimony.
Questionable and inconsistent testimony are proof of trauma and therefore exactitude; recalling an accusation to someone is proof that the action in the accusation took place.
Statutes of limitations do not exist; any allegation of decades prior is as valid as any in the present. All of us are subject at any moment to unsubstantiated accusations from decades past that will destroy lives.
Assertion of an alleged crime is unimpeachable proof. Recall of where, when, why, and how it took place is irrelevant.
Individual accusations will always be subservient to cosmic causes; individuals are irrelevant if they do not serve ideological aims. All accusations fit universal stereotypes whose rules of finding guilt or innocence trump those of individual cases.
The accuser establishes the conditions under which charges are investigated; the accused nods assent.
No, you simply want to shy away from a ‘Republic’. And that is the problem all left leaning folks have, if the ideas of the majority, (huge cities) are always voted in because they obviously have the numbers than huge chunks of people who live in rural communities are left without a voice. That is what the founding fathers were interested in.
Bob, politics aside, you really are smart enough to know this crap. Why do you play these games?
Here is my question to you… Would you advocate that the rights of citizens who don’t see things the way you see them be ‘compelled’ to do things against their belief?
Good question, Chad. A good example might be the conscientious objector who genuinely believes he should not kill another human being even in defense of his own country. Or the parent who objects to the sex instruction given by a local school board.
Yes, of course, this is the common occurrence in all the greatest societies on earth. The modern “individualist” humanism that says no one should be compelled to do anything to which they object is just simplistic. Drawing lines on this plain remains difficult and complex in every republic.
Shucks, e.g. I even think citizens for whom this gov’t’s actions and wars violate their own belief should be compelled to keep financially supporting those and paying their taxes. And similarly, compelling those in gov’t or commerce not to practice outright racial discrimination even though that goes against someone’s beliefs is o.k. with me.
