SavedByGrace1981

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

Funny how back in the Bill Clinton days, the cons were all about character.

If by "Bill Clinton days" you mean the 92 and 96 elections, this "con" voted for Ross Perot in 92 and Bob Dole in 96

On 2/22/2024 at 11:27 AM, The_Patriot21 said:

I think honestly the sentiment here that it's not gonna matter, that they won't let him in is probably the most accurate, but to me that shouldn't matter, defeatist attitudes won't accomplish anything. 

So the answer is most likely, yes. Had desantis remained in, I may have voted him instead, but since hes not I'm probably going to vote trump because I don't see any other options.

I voted for Trump in 2016. and in 2020 and likely will again in 2024 if he's a candidate. Consider who he was running against in those elections

I've always been conservative and I try to consider the most conservate option of the ones available. Unfortunately and contrary to popular belief, that isn't always the R candidate.  It's never the D candidate. So in elecions like in 08 and 12 I voted 3rd party. 

In 16 and 20 the most conservative was DJT so he got my vote.

My son said, "Dad, how can you vote for a man with Trumps moral baggage?"

Son, we're voting for a US president - not a preacher or a priest

I believe the Lord is prompting me to update this thread. Not sure exactly why, but here goes:

Random thoughts in no particular order

1.  My wife Linda and I sold our home and moved almost 2 hrs away to be closer to our daughter, her husband and our two grandaughters.  We purchased a new home and were able to pay it off with the settlement funds we received.

2. As is the case in many father/daughter situations, my daughter and I had "issues" - particularly during her late teen years.  (she's almost 36 now).  Suffice it to say - we're closer now than we've ever been.

3. Our 38 y/o son and his wife (both pastors) - though they live a few states away from us now - are closer to us now as well.

4. As a paraplegic (no feeling from mid-chest down) I require assistance - mostly in the morning (3 hrs) and some evenings (an aide 1 night/week plus a PT person 2 nights/week.) Linda (my wife) does the rest (I'm not helpless though.  There are things I can do for myself. And I praise the Lord for that!

As a result of #4 above, Linda and I have begun what my daughter-in-law calls an informal "cross-cultural" ministry.  By that I mean that when Linda and I have our morning devotions and the aides are here, we always invite them to join us (but making it clear that they don't have to if they'd rather not)

Almost without exception, they DO join us.  And the resulting workings of the Holy Spirit are a wonder to behold!  PTL!!

So good things CAN come out of tragic situations.

I'll close  by saying I have forgiven the trooper and I do not harbor any ill-will toward him.  He's still a young man and will have to live with this the rest of HIS life.  If he hasn't already, I hope he finds the Lord

Please keep all of us in your prayers

Blessings, 

-Ed

As it was in the days of Noah . . .

It's nice to see Congress is dealing with issues that really matter . . . 

Bipartisan = taxpayers! Grab your wallets!

‘We’re Facing the Most Significant Test of Our Democracy Since the Civil War’

-Joe Biden

A significant test, huh?  Let's see - the Civil War ended in 1865, 156 years ago.  In the intervening years, we've suffered two world wars; countless limited wars and skirmishes; several economic recessions and a Great Depression; presidential assassinations and other crises too numerous to list.

Yet all this pales in comparison with requiring a person to show ID to vote?

Hyperbole much?

45 minutes ago, Chicken coop2 said:

I have many Republican friends who are not evil. 

I'm happy for you 

1 hour ago, Chicken coop2 said:

Moderate Democrats such as Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., have defended the filibuster and pushed for bipartisan compromise. In June, Manchin proposed a voting rights bill compromise he hoped would garner bipartisan support. The legislation would have eliminated partisan gerrymandering and increased early voting, but would have also required voter ID and allowed local election officials to purge voting rolls, provisions favored by the GOP. Republicans almost immediately rejected Manchin’s plan.

Sen. Manchin opposed this bill, so apparently is wasn't all the fault of "evil" republicans:

Joe Manchin opposes voting rights bill and defends filibuster in blow to Democrats

On 7/1/2021 at 8:37 PM, Equippers said:

do you really think their intention is to create chaos and anarchy on purpose

Yes.  Because out of the ashes of chaos and anarchy come cries for someone to "do something."  The something usually entails reducing the freedoms and liberty of one "elite class" versus another - call it a "victim" class.  Too often the victims are willing to give up liberties and freedoms for security.  The elites of course are more than willing to provide this faux security in exchange for their real goal which is - - power and control.

It causes a crisis.  And someone as far back as the Clinton administration famously said " . . . never let a good crisis go to waste."

On 7/1/2021 at 8:37 PM, Equippers said:

or it is because they really believe there is something racist about police as an institution as defunding the police is the way to address this issue?

Anyone with working brain cells would know that defunding entire police departments to address supposed racism is an example of "cutting off one's nose to spite their face." If one is convinced that individual or departmental racism exists, then the way to deal with it is on individual or departmental basis.  Racist cops can be fired.  Racist departments can be fined or otherwise sanctioned.

20 hours ago, johnthebaptist said:

How high of an IQ do you need to have to understand he correlation between defunding the police and the rising crime rate?

When it comes to the ruling class, I doubt that it is a question of high or low IQ. It's more a question of its intent.  Sadly, the intent seems to be to create chaos and anarchy.  Stifle (or remove) the police, and chaos and anarchy is the result.

20 hours ago, johnthebaptist said:

How high of an IQ do you need to have, to understand the correlation between the national government spending money we don’t have, and inflation?

Indeed. From Weimar Germany in the 1920s to present day Venezuela, the damage that run-away inflation can do to a nation is undeniable.  For anyone who cares to see it, that is.

Unfortunately, our ruling class doesn't seem to care much about learning from history.  How's that old saying go, again?

On 6/22/2021 at 4:03 PM, LadyKay said:

I keep hearing about this overwhelming evidence. But it seems to end there.  What is this evidence? It seems noone knows. Just the same words just keep getting passed around. Evidence,evidence.  Well...what is this evidence?

Just for starters, there were individuals who witnessed evidence of fraud in polling places in several of the swing states.  They signed affidavits - under penalty of perjury - to that effect.  

All that had to happen for the issue of fraud to be put to rest was for those cases to be heard by a court. But as has been pointed out, that did not happen.  A curious person might ask - why?

I believe (and I suspect you do not) that the level of corruption in the government, media, and big business was sufficient for this election to be stolen. What would be the motivation?  Hatred? Well, hatred certainly can be a motivating factor.

And the hatred for the man Trump from all quarters was unprecedented - I know I've never seen the like.  From Madonna musing about blowing up the WH, other celebrities openly discussing assassination, to people insanely screaming at the sky.

Anyway I've said my piece and, unless you choose to opine why you believe someone would put themselves at risk by signing affidavits alleging fraud when none occurred, then I'm done.

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

Just be careful assuming crime-drama TV is a fair representation of actual legal procedure. They tend to get pretty loosey-goosey with things in order to increase the drama.

Apparently I wasn't clear - these are not shows like CSI or Criminal Minds (crime fiction).  The shows on the ID channel are more like Cold Case Files where the actual family members and law enforcement officials are interviewed.  They tend to be accurate as far as legal procedure is concerned.

They frequently use circumstantial evidence when those cases go to court, thus my comparing them to the 2020 election with its circumstantial evidence of fraud.

11 hours ago, LadyKay said:

Be nice if you had some proof. So far all I have heard is just assumptions. Assumptions are not proof. Saying something could have happen dose not prove that it did happen. 

Since becoming wheelchair bound, I find myself watching a lot of true crime shows (mostly from the ID channel).  Many times - in fact more often than not - nothing ties the perpetrator to the crime except "circumstantial" evidence.  Many times, however, that circumstantial evidence is enough to convict. Sometimes the suspect is convicted of homicide and given a life sentence - even when no body is found.

There is an ocean of circumstantial evidence that the 2020 election was rife with fraud. Countless cases were brought before the judicial system, but in seemingly each and every instance the decision was made not to even hear the case. I, for one, find that curious. This could have been put to bed with even one or two court hearings.  That was not allowed to happen, however.

It takes no effort to fall into line behind the billionaire masters of social media (i.e. Zuckerberg, Dorsey et.al.) who shut down dissent on their respective platforms.  In the world I grew up in, these are not the actions of confident people.  Indeed, if one is sure of his/her point of view he allows diversity of opinion.  The tares can grow with the wheat, in a matter of speaking.  If one is certain of his facts, he can be confident that allowing all points of view to be spoken will result in the truth eventually coming out.

Finally, I believe the level of corruption in and around our government, media, and big business is mind boggling.  Given that, I take everything that it says or does with a very large grain of salt.

1 hour ago, other one said:

There was fraud in the 2016 election, however they misjudged how many votes Trump would get and could not overcome the huge numbers.  That was what stopping the counting was all about in 2020.  They had to know how many extra ballots they needed to win. Some day it will be shown in a documentary that all the people will wonder how they got away with it. Probably concerning the downfall of the greatest Republic that ever existed.

Brother, you're fighting an uphill battle. Nothing short of the Lord's return will convince a majority of MSM spoonfed people that this was something other than the most honest election in history.

And when the Lord DOES return, it won't matter.

1 hour ago, Amigo42 said:

I don't mean any offense, but you do realize that according to Trump's own Cyber Security administrator that this election was the most secure in US history?  In addition, conservative judges threw out about 60 or so cases about fake fraud in the 2020 election.  All I can say is what the judges said in those cases "Do you have proof?"  The FBI and attorney general barr, a major supplicant of Trump, also said, the election was secure or that there wasn't any fraud to the extent of changing election results.  It's more of the Big Lie.  There is no proof, and it was sad that the traitors on January 6th fell for the Big Lie and a lot of them are now paying the price.  People have to think for themselves and not be hoodwinked by snake oil salesmen with an agenda.

In a sane, law abiding world, you would be correct. Can anyone argue however (given the environment of the last decade or so) that we live in a law abiding world where laws are applied to everyone, equally?

If no, then anything is possible.  If yes, then I have a bridge for sale . . . 

11 hours ago, debrakay said:

@SavedByGrace1981 I guess I totally do not understand the definition of racist! Is my driver's license a race card too? Something in this world has gone totally off the edge.

noun

a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

adjective

of or like racists or racism: racist policies; racist attitudes.

Racist definition according to dictionary.com

Critics of voter ID laws sometimes argue that requiring said IDs is "racist", though the logic behind such arguments is unclear. I'm not aware of any such laws that even mention race. In other words, the laws apply to everyone, equally. Regardless of race.

Then they may argue that " . . . it's more difficult for a person of _______ race" to get an  ID.  A statement like that - in my opinion - perfectly illustrates the "soft bigotry of low expectations".  It could even be said that a person uttering such a thing could be called  . . . . . (wait for it) a racist.

10 hours ago, debrakay said:

I believe without 100% voter identification verification and intense election counting scrutiny, all elections, in all states, are open to fraud.  Until I see improvement in how elections are handled, I do not plan on keeping silent.  I carry a driver's license to prove I have the legal privilege to drive.  I would love to be able to carry a voter's license to prove that I have the legal right to vote in US elections. 

I agree, but in some quarters requiring a voter ID is considered racist 

7 hours ago, LadyKay said:

Is this really news? 

Google: Toobin

Perhaps that question should be directed to the "news" directors of these "news" entities revealed in a simple Google search 

On 6/10/2021 at 6:41 PM, johnthebaptist said:

Last fall Jeffrey Toobin was fired from the New Yorker for masturbating on a Zoom call with his New Yorker colleagues. Now he is back on air with CNN as a legal analyst. That tells you all you need to know about CNN. https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-jeffrey-toobin-comeback

Not surprised. CNN and Toobin deserve each other.

Disclaimer: not a fan of FNC either, in case anyone's wondering

On 6/15/2021 at 6:35 PM, one.opinion said:

The irony of using a Fox news source for this is hilarious 

I guess so, but a simple google search provided links from sources all across the political spectrum. So that aside, care to comment on the news item itself?

On 1/11/2021 at 9:02 AM, other one said:

they are starting a war that they can't win.

I've read the Back of the Book and you're right - we win in the end.

But, in the meantime:  one side has tanks, troops, fighter planes and even nuclear weapons.  And the other side doesn't.  So things ain't gonna be pretty.

Respectfully, I have a different take on take on the two parties.  The democrat party is more akin to a secular religion.  It has its saints and deities (e.g. Ruth Bader Ginzburg, FDR, Obama). It has a belief system that requires blind faith of its adherents in given situations, even when they are presented with overwhelming facts to the contrary.  It requires lockstep obedience - it is extremely rare for a dem to "wander off the reservation" and, when one does, he/she is immediately shamed and shunned.  And while the R party (which I'll address momentarily) has its wanna be dems like Romney, Ryan and the late John McCain; there is no equivalent for the Ds.

Whatever 'division' there is in the democrat party today is between "left/socialist" (Pelosi, Biden) and "far left/totalitarian" (the so-called squad).  Since the days of Bill Clinton, the D party has morphed into the party of Corporations and Wall St. 

So what about the republicans?  First, one has to differentiate the R party pre-Trump vs. the R party post Trump.  Pre-Trump, the Rs were perfectly happy to be "number two".  They don't fight (except to get us into no-win wars).  They are perfectly happy to be in the minority - after all, the few Rs there were still get the nice offices and the other perks of power, without having to lead. And in close issues, there is always at least one republican who can be counted on to thwart victory by joining with the dems.  See the aformentioned John McCain or John Roberts (re: Obamacare ruling in 2012).

Donald Trump has shown the Rs how to win.  The sad fact is - "winning" to many Rs is apparently not important.  In fact, it is unclear what IS important to republicans.  

Yes, Trump is abrasive and yes his demeanor and tweeting turns off many.  I believe a valid criticism is that he didn't strive to expand his base during his first term by toning things down.  I believe that cost him support and likely the election. That is too bad, as it has apparently (pending several lawsuits) resulted in a Harris/Biden administration.

And that will be bad for all of us.