SavedByGrace1981

Voter fraud exists - I don't think anyone can argue that. Now - how widespread is it and does it effect elections? That is the part that is controversial. As in many issues like this, I prefer to look at things differently. While a tiny percentage of votes in any given election can be expected to be fraudulent, there are methods - especially given modern technology - to ensure that fraud is kept to an absolute minimum. So the question I ask is - why isn't that done? If people were confident that everything that could be done to prevent fraud was in fact being done, then the issue would go away. Who benefits from the issue being kept alive? Questions I do not have the answers to. Blessings, -Ed

Dianne Feinstein Under Fire ... for Not Being Liberal Enough? BY TOM KNIGHTON SEPTEMBER 7, 2017 There's something going on with Dianne Feinstein. The notorious California liberal has been a bit subdued. Though she's still unlikely to vote for anything particularly conservative, she's actually been one of the more reasonable Democrats in Congress lately. Yes, writing that surprised me too. Anyway, it appears that her desire to actually try to get things accomplished with Trump rather than slinging vitriol and pushing through useless legislation is a problem with her base: Sen. Dianne Feinstein has dominated California politics for more than a quarter of a century. But facing blistering criticism that she’s out of touch with the progressive left following her recent comments about President Donald Trump and DACA, it’s increasingly looking like the Democratic lawmaker will face a major primary challenge if she runs for a fifth full term. Feinstein, the oldest member of the Senate, has been the target of sustained liberal criticism since January. Her centrist brand of politics, skeptical view of single-payer health care and support for some of the president’s earliest nominees have drawn the ire of progressives who have little tolerance for Feinstein’s pragmatic approach in the Trump era. At times, the senator has been highly critical of Trump. But her recent suggestion that, given time, Trump “can be a good president” -- and her concession Tuesday that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program might be on shaky legal ground -- have emboldened her critics and turned a spotlight on her reelection plans. Let me first point out that if your issue is that Dianne Freaking Feinstein isn't liberal enough for you, then you should seek medical help immediately. Second, let's look at these criticisms. Single-payer health care is a non-starter, and everyone knows it. Yes, even supporters of it know that it's a non-starter. The bill by Bernie Sanders is political grandstanding -- and that's something else everyone knows. It's like the GOP passing Obamacare repeal after Obamacare repeal. They knew it wouldn't get signed, but they wanted to show their base they were still fighting the good fight. Yet now that they have the White House as well as Congress, they can't seem to repeal it. Feinstein's skepticism is actually warranted. She also knows this is grandstanding, but she can see potential problems of implementing it. Skepticism is the natural response for that. But note she's not actually opposed to single-payer healthcare. She's just not enthusiastic a supporter for the radical left. As for DACA, it is on shaky legal ground. It was an executive order, not legislation, which is how laws should be created. Frankly, it was only a matter of time before someone put DACA in front of a court, and anyone who thinks it would survive the Judicial Branch is delusional. Maybe the first few rounds in a state like California, but that's it. The reality is, Feinstein was right. Note, also, she didn't actually oppose DACA. She merely thought it might not survive a court challenge. Yet all of this, coupled with thinking Trump might be capable of being a good president, makes her too conservative for many California liberals. And these people still wonder how Trump won. https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/09/07/dianne-feinstein-fire-not-liberal-enough/

I don't think a 'unified' country is the norm - except in economic crisis' (the Great Depression); world wars; or events like 9/11. Although I will say that I also think we're more divided now than at any time since the Civil War. As far as both sides 'playing nice' - again, I only see one side (the uni-party based in DC and Wall St.) vs. most of the rest of us. McCain and his ilk are always whining about the lack of 'bipartisanship' - which feeds into the false dichotomy of there being an actual schism between Ds an Rs. When we 'get' that bipartisanship, watch out! Grab your wallet! If you're one of the producing class, it's gonna cost you! The real reason they're blasting Trump is because he's an outsider. I've said this on other threads but I'll repeat it here. Trump - by virtue of the fact he is a billionaire - was an establishment insider. Had he stopped there, he'd still be a member in good standing - like other billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. The kind of billionaires who - when they DO talk things political, always spout the official party line: Open borders; global warming is going to kill us all; Planned Parenthood is wonderful - you know the rest. Trump however went off the reservation, and went way farther than anyone ever dreamed (myself included) in becoming POTUS. So - no matter what he does, TRUMP. CANNOT. BE. ALLOWED. TO. SUCCEED. Even if it means utter chaos until Trump is gone and an establishment person replaces him. Blessings, -Ed

He didn't need to work with the gop. He had the lockstep democrats, 90 percent of the media, the intelligentsia, and most of the culture at large. The gop is on the fastrack to irrelevance - they're just too stupid to realize it yet. They've shown in the past they do not know how to be an opposition party. Now they're showing they don't know how to be a governing party, either. 'The other side' he is trying to work with is the ruling party, which includes Ds and most Rs. While I'm convinced nothing good will come from this shotgun marriage, it will be revealing to see which prevails in the end: Can the 'ruling party' put its hatred of Trump aside long enough to pass the same agenda it would have gotten anyway with Jeb or Hillary? Does hatred of Trump 'trump' the opportunity to advance a statist agenda? Stay tuned . . . I get laughed at for saying that Trump is an outsider, but he is. Therefore, he not only gets the standard hatred an R president usually gets (from the Ds and the media); he's getting the additional hatred from the establishment Rs (which is most of them in Congress). Hatred raised to the nth degree. Blessings, -Ed

I would never be so crass as to call the majority of the voters "idiots", but it's not a stretch to say the majority is un-educated and/or ill-informed. And that is by design. Blessings, -Ed

It really doesn't matter what it's called, but when you consider McCain, Snowe and Mikulski and other so called Rs are essentially democrats, you are correct. Blessings, -Ed

And it DOES mean business. (or else!) Blessings, -Ed

Let's go back to square one for a moment. Our political system - if one were to follow the Constitution (I know, a quaint desire) - was not designed to be 'fixed' by one man. As any high school social studies student could tell you, it was supposed to be a system of 'checks and balances'. The executive branch was never supposed to be the all-powerful entity it has become. The Republic somehow survived the first imperial presidency (Lincoln) and recovered. But it has not survived the imperial presidencies of FDR and those that have followed. We have the party system (which was not envisioned in the Constitution) replacing the power of the three branches. Most people think it's Ds and Rs but, as the Trump presidency is finally revealing, that is just for show. It's really the establishment vs. the people. The system was corrupt and broken way before Trump, and one mortal man cannot fix it alone. We are dealing with a government and culture in its death throes. It's as simple (and profound at the same time) as that. Blessings, -Ed

I wouldn't be surprised if China has someone in Kim's inner circle who can take him out, if necessary. Blessings, -Ed

None of this matters. The ruling party wants open borders and illegal immigration. Open borders and illegal immigration we shall have. Blessings, -Ed

Shhh . . . don't tell the MSM and ruin their alternate reality. Blessings, -Ed

This doesn't surprise me at all. Blessings, -Ed

I lived in Oklahoma from 1978 through 1989 and I know what you mean about ice storms. (When our oldest was on the way in December of '83, I got my wife to the hospital way early so we could be ahead of the predicted ice storm. No way did I want to be delivering a baby along the side of the road!) When something is more common in the area in which you live, at least the people in charge can be more prepared for it. Heavy snow was not so common in Oklahoma compared to WNY where I am now - therefore when it came it was much more of a problem. I think Tulsa may have had a grand total of one snow plow. Here, the army of snow plows, salt trucks and sanders is out when the first flakes start falling. There isn't much they can do for ice though - other than spread salt on the roads. Of course that causes the cars to rust out early - which is why you seldom see a car over 10 years old here. The areas that are prone to hurricanes and flooding are more prepared to handle it - but these giant storms still create havoc. At least with a blizzard you can stay in your home. If it's really bad, they'll close schools and only 'essential' folk will be called to work. Jimmy Griffith, a former mayor of Buffalo, famously said this during the '77 blizzard (and I'm not advocating drinking): “Stay inside, grab a six-pack and watch a good football game." As I write this, they're still not sure where Irma is going to hit. The uncertainty of course causes even more disruption. Blessings, -Ed

Years ago when I was still on the republican party mailing lists, I used to get pleas for money from the RNC. They warned of the dire consequences if the villains du jour - the Tip O'Neills and the Teddy Kennedys and the like - had their way. Only my sending $20, $50 or $100 to the RNC would stop them. Hillary! Clinton may not be president, but she is today serving the same function that Teddy did oh so many years ago. And I'm sure some are still duped into sending their money in. Blessings, -Ed

This might be a good time to share what types of natural disasters are native to the areas in which we live. It seems every area has something. California has earthquakes and fires. The south and east coasts of the US have hurricanes. The midwest has tornadoes. When we moved back here over 25 years ago, I remember complaining about the long, hard winters and the occasional blizzard. It was miserable and downright dangerous driving though whiteout conditions to get to work. Given the destruction we've seen recently though, I've come to the conclusion cold and snow ain't so bad . . . Blessings, -Ed

I wonder if - in the dead of night - Bush and Cheney fired up their hurricane generating machine again? You know, the one that was responsible for Katrina? The scoundrels! Blessings, -Ed

Is that a rhetorical question? It's news because it involves a Clinton. Just as it would be news if it was Pres. Trump's pastor. Blessings, -Ed

Just a question/observation: Is this really a top issue right now? While we're dealing with floods. Hurricanes. N. Korea. Riots. Obamacare. In my opinion this is just another ideological mess that Obama created - an issue where there was none. An issue that affects such a small number of people. Now an issue to take everyone's mind off much larger issues. Regarding so-called DACA - the establishment's going to do what it wants to do. In the mean time, the issue serves its purpose - follow the latest shiny object. Keep us divided. To borrow a phrase from another Worthy poster: pfffft! Blessings, -Ed

Good point. The dozen or so readers who still rely on the Times for news probably already knew he was a democrat. You're being very charitable. Would you assume the same if it were Fox News reporting on a republican but leaving out party affiliation? Blessings, -Ed

If by 'we' you mean the United States, then 'we' (by the actions of several past administrations) have pretty much created a nuclear N. Korea. It may be too late to put the genie back in the bottle solely by any actions we do alone. Many believers rightly assume a world government (cabal, globalists, whatever you want to call it) is a bad thing. Many who focus on end-times scripture much more closely than I have come to the conclusion that a world government will be in place at the time of the events in Revelation. Ultimately that will be the case - and the world government in place in those times will be doing Satan's bidding. But no one knows how close we are to those events. We may be several years away, or more. In the near term, what we call 'globalists' are not suicidal, and as we have seen in this country they will do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to remain in power and control. Taking care of a little pipsqueak like Kim should pose no challenge. Blessings, -Ed

I still say that China is going to let fatboy go right up to the edge - and no further. It's not in their interest to deal with the hoard of refugees that would result from a military action on THEIR southern border. I don't claim any divine wisdom on this (just a gut feeling), but I wouldn't be surprised if by this time next year Kim is history. Blessings, -Ed

Congrats to your parents - see, marriages CAN last! We celebrated our 36th as well, last Friday (9/1). Blessings, -Ed

Sometimes it seems like we're playing the old game of 'telephone' - where you put about 20 or 30 people in a circle; whisper something to the first person who in turn whispers it to the one next to them; and so on. You never know what it's going to be by the the time it gets to the end. Blessings, -Ed

And this is surprising to anyone? Blessings, -Ed

Of course. While the question asked in the headline may seem like one that a baby Christian, or even a non-Christian might ask; if you read the article it makes some points that are beneficial to even mature Christians. Blessings, -Ed