Looks like it's gonna be Trump vs Biden again.

I can remember the horse drawn casson carrying President Kennedy's body through the streets for his funeral service.  The rider less horse with boots turned backwards in the stirrups.  All these images imprinted in my mind.  

Today  could have easily been another day of "death" for a former President of the United States.  God's mercies were birthed new this morning for President Trump.  Only heaven knows the upheaval that could have been a dagger in America's democracy, if it had been a different outcome.  

For the families who went on a sunlit blue day to demonstrate their support for their candidate, and are coming home without their loved one, may God's peace and comfort sustain them in the days ahead.  

Our hope must be a passion for what is possible.  If we give a word of grace, a word of hope, we can give a word of compassion.  "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."  Compassion looks outward not inward.  It lets us be of value instead of receiving valuables.  It keeps us grounded to be of service, but doesn't make it a grind in "doing unto others, as you would have them do unto you."  

It seems that Medicaid could potentially be expanded in Virginia. What do you think of this?

2 ways to go with what happened above.

1.  Charge the person who exposed itself with a criminal offense, likely misdemeanor, possibly felony (I don't claim to know the law or be an attorney).  

2. Celebrate the person who did it.  Think nothing of it  

Choice number 2 appears to be the way we are going.   This choice in my opinion, shows where our leaders are, and it tells a little bit about where many in the country are.  It's scary, simply put..  Children do NOT come out normal from these events, these curriculums, this exposure to sexuality at that young age.  Biologically and neurochemically, I can assure you, it doesn't work out well, and that is Not an opinion, that's a Fact.  Do what you do, but keep kids out of it.  If you want to be straight, be gay, be trans, or be something in between, then ok, do what you do.  However, you don't get to involve and sexualize kids. We are getting kids involved in it, and that's a bad outcome for our country.  It's no benign (and that is an opinion). 

Only my opinions with a few facts in there also.

Interestingly, RFK and JFK were not "anti-military."  They weren't "anti-CIA".  They weren't "anti-congress or anti-corporate America."  They were anti-"the corruption" that can come from those organizations when all of them are intertwined in power which can quickly stem into massive corruption (which we now have).  It's very rare that we have a NORMAL Democrat or Republican.  It just don't happen everyday.  What's "Normal" to me?  One who isn't completely taken over by the God hating Woke on the Democratic Side, or completing taken over by the War Mongering NeoCon Right on the Republican Side.  What's war mongering to me?  You can still make sure we "dont' enter a war in 4 years (Trump) and be a war mongerer.  Well, how is that possible?  It's possible by having over 500 military facilities in roughly 70 countries remaining open, and refusing to cut that number in half.  That's a start.  

Last thing I like about RFK.  There's moral decency in my opinion.  I don't see moral decency in what has become the main stream Democratic Party.  I'm sorry.  I just don't see it.  I don't see the claim of what it once was which was actual love, caring for the sick, helping the poor and helping the poor to help themselves.  I don't see love like I once did many years ago.  I see anger and hatred and bitterness that rejects those who have a different opinion, which is similar to the old good ole boy GOP guys back in the day that often hid behind the cloak of Christianity to disguise that White Robe with a blood cross symbol and hood on the top.  It was more HATRED than love or Christianity.  The modern day Democratic Party is no different in my opinion.  But, once in a blue moon, we get one that comes along that's different.  By the way, that's not to say every GOP person or every Democratic person in DC is filled with hatred or bigotry.  There are good one's as well, but I like the fact that RFK is Catholic.  I know, or at least I believe, that inside RFK's mind, there is that desire and need to help the sick, help the aged, help the working person, help the poor with LOVE, true love, and that true love comes by first helping them, then giving them the means to help themselves.  I like that idea.

I'm voting RFK in 24. https://www.kennedy24.com/

The above are my opinions guys.  That's it.  Just one guys political opinion which are always going to be controversial because it's political, which by its very nature makes it controversial.  You do you and vote for who you feel is the best person for President.  I'll do me.

So, what is the difference.  Why do we rank 3rd in the world (very dangerous for murder) and not 189th (extremely safe)?  We have 5 cities- Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and DC.  If you remove those 5 cities, the US instantly becomes 189th out of 193 countries regarding murder safety.  Add in those 5 cities, and we currently rank 3rd out of 193 which is the 3rd most dangerous for murder.  All 5 of those cities above?  Complete-as in...ABSOLUTE Democratic control in which at least 90% of the city council is Democratic and the Mayors are all Democratic and those 5 cities have among the strictest gun control measures of any localized area in the United States.

A.  US economy is on the verge of collapse.  B.  The dollar is in free fall.  C.  NATO has greatly depleted its weapons and ability as a military power. D.  Russia's economy is actually booming.  E.  Over 500,000 Ukrainians are dead.  F.  40 million Ukranians lived there prior to war.  There are now about 20 million left in the country.  G.  Ukraine has suffered what the Soviets did in WW2 as they have a generational crisis as younger able bodied men are literally dead, and they don't have enough left to replenish their population.  H.  We are not out of the woods of nuclear war.

The question to the above is WHY?  Why this US policy towards Ukraine along with the British having the same policy?  I wlll answer this question last.  First, let me touch on why the US policy is so bad and why the points I make to support it with letters A through H above are true.

First- The true history of how the war started.

In the early part of this century, Putin went on a massive campaign to fix the corruption in Russia as the USSR had collapsed 8 years earlier.  He actually started imprisoning or kicking out most of the Oligarchs.  Many of these Oligarchs have great power and influence in London and NYC, and they arrived in London and NYC with great anger.  They have media influence and power.  They have power and influence in the IMF and banking industry.  All of a sudden, they were expelled from Russia and couldn't rob the Russian people anymore.  Want to know why Putin has an 85% approval rating?  This is why.  What happened?  The Russian standard of living skyrocketed, corruption down (still corrupt) but corruption down.  Schools built, infrastructure construction, all improved.  These are the same Oligarchs our media tells us are "good friends" with Putin, lol.  Putin has very few Oligarch friends left.  Most of them absolutely HATE him.  He kicked them out of the country.  Our media doesn't tell that story though.

In 2006, Putin and the Russian Health Ministry decided alcohol was the biggest internal Russian threat.  To combat this, the Russian Orthodox Church was greatly empowered.  The goal was to bring Christianity (Russian Orthodox) into the public school system and into the public arena to place a moral component on alcoholism.  It worked.  Alcoholism radically trended down.  It's still there, but rapidly decreasing.  With the growth of the Church, there was a rapid movement of intolerance to LGBTQ movement, and in 2008, the Russian Government not only passed law limiting the influence of LGBQT, they instituted courses in the public schools that teach on the dangers of LGBTQ.  I am NOT arguing for or against here.  I am simply telling you what Russia did.  Those 2 key things.....the actual kicking out of most of the Oligarchs and the turn towards Christianity and rapidly away from LGBTQ influence and culture brought the Obama administration into the mix.  Russia is now, and has been, the fastest growing rate of Christian conversion per capita in the world of any country in the last 10 years.  Russian orthodox Christianity is now taught (a required course) in their 7th and 8th grade timeframe public classrooms along with what they consider, the dangers of the LGBTQ movement.  Again, I am telling you their policy.  I am not here to argue with you on whether it's right or wrong.  Personally, I think it's wrong to teach ANY religious or political policy in public school, for or against.

The plan was set in motion in London and in Washington to destablize Russia.  This involved sanctions largely because of the power of recently barred Oligarchs and the LGBTQ thing.  The CIA even started an insurrection in Georgia, literally funded by the CIA, in which Russia had to send troops to stop and put down. Also, the movement at the same time involved the growth of NATO towards the Russian border.  Imagine Russian setting up military bases in Mexico?  Can you imagine how fast the USA would react?  Imagine Russia arming Cartels and funding them?  Imagine how that would go down?  Also around 2008, the CIA in the United States and MI6 in London trained Ukranian militia groups in the Donbass.  In 2014, Ukraine removed an elected President of Ukraine that was Pro-Russia in economic stance by a massive monetary and campaign effort funded by the US and UK.  Upon removal, Ukraine passed laws that made it a criminal offense for ethnic Russians in the Donbass, who were Ukrainian citizens, that prevented them from speaking their language.  Hundreds, not a few, hundreds of Russian Orthodox Churches were burned in the Donbass.  Hundreds of Priests killed.  School principals that were Pro Russian?  They no longer had a job.  Doctors that were Pro Russian in the Donbass?  Their credentials were removed.  Russia went to the UN several times and begged for help. They pleaded. The UN laughed at them.  What did Russia do?  They started arming ethnic Russian Militias in the Donbass as a response to the onslot that was happening to ethnic Russians.  Contrary to what the western media tells us, Russia didn't arm their militias first.  They responded because of the terrorism in the Donbass.

In 2014, the US and UK has special forces and intel units were onn the ground in the Ukraine training their Army.  The weapons from the West were already pouring into Ukraine and they had been preparing for this war for 8 years.  They were actually very well trained. From 2014-2022, the growth of Nazism radically grew in Ukraine.  They literally have an entire Battalion called the Axovs that literally have Swaztika tattoos and boast about it.  You will not see that in our media.  A complete blackout.  They show the Ukrainian guys with the ole blue scarf or yellow scarf around their arm.  They don't show the entire Battalion that has Nazi Tattoos.  Russia finally went in, but they didn't go in to take the entire country with force, again, contrary to what our media tells us.

Common False Western Media Represenations-

1.  Putin will not stop.  "He wants to reclaim or recapture the Soviet Union."  Putin has never stated he wanted to reclaim the Soviet Union.  He has stated he misses the Soviet Union and it would be great if it were still together.  He never stated he wants to take each country by force.  You do realize that the "Stans" and Moldova were part of the Soviet Union?  How easy it would have been over the last 20 years to roll through there and take those.  Russia doesn't want them.  Russia knows the Baltic States doesn't want to be a part of Russia.  They know western Ukraine doesn't want to be a part of Russia.  They aren't stupid.  They aren't going to have a 200 year insurgency war.  It's non sense to think "Russia wants to reclaim the Soviet Union."  It's laughable and it's false, but the average western citizen hears, it, believe it, then echoes it without one thought as to whether it's true.  It's not true.

2.  Remember that Russian Trump thing that turned out to be another Laugher and False?  At the very same time our media was building up this lie along with the FBI and CIA, our very own CIA was literally influencing an election on the ground in Ukraine!  Yes, that happened.  We elected a comedian who use to dress up in Drag (those photos are all over the internet) with millions of dollars and it worked!!  We pulled it off.  Zelensky won the electon.  Meanwhile, did you know that in 2016, Ukraine was declared the most corrupt country in Europe and the 6th most corrupt country in the world?  All of this time, the Ukranian Army was being trained.  The western media wants us to believe Ukraine was a rag tag group of country boys in chemo in the woods that put something together in 2022 to fight back, lol.  They were the seoond best well trained and supplied Army in Europe in 2022, and remember the German Chancellor who made the mistake of admitting her lie.  NATO and western Europe and the US actually planned the war and they lied to the Russians in hope the 8 years would be long enough to build up the Ukraine Army.

3.  Russia wants to take over all of Ukraine?  Another lie.  What did Putin say from day one?  I want to demilitarize Ukraine.  He entered Ukraine with only 80,000 troops in hope that Ukraine would surrender before Kiev.  Of course, he made a mistake and they didn't surrender.  Russia pulled back and built up its forces.

What's going on at present in the War

The kill ratio, the true kill ratio is 7 to 1.  For every Russian dead, 7 Ukranians have died.  Ukraines air defenses are gone.  Remember those HIMAR systems that would change the war?  They've been jammed by the Russians and many destroyed.  Remember the Patriot missile systems?  Destroyed.  Ukraine is now down to a fighting force of only 80,000 troops. of which 40,000 are old men or 17 year old kids.  In Bakhmut, the CIA and US warned Zelensky to pull back.  He was hell bent on fighting in Bakhmut.  The Russians pulled off one of the greatest military manuevers in 75 years of warfare.  They left the supply roads open to Bakhmut on purpose allowing Ukraine forces to enter the city, and they set back and just picked them apart.  Over 50,000 Ukraine Soldiers have died in Bakhmut.  The true amount of Russians dead in Backmut is 10,000.  Remember the spring offensive?  You do realize that started 3 weeks ago.  Ukraine has actually lost more ground in the last 3 weeks than gained.  The Ukranian miliiltary has been decimated and remember Russian running out of ammunition?  Russia has fired more artillery in the last 2 weeks than at any point in the war.  It's impossible for Russia to run out of ammo, even with Sanctions.  More on why below.

Mark this down.  Within the 3 months, you will see the Russian regular Army go on the offensive as the Ukraine air defenses and most of their tanks are already destroyed as well as the Himars and Patriot Systems.  They will roll through Ukraine, but won't go to Kiev.  They will stop at the Donbass and that is when the war will end.  Hopefully.  That will be the point deciding whether we go to Nuclear War or not.  Russia has been fighting all of NATO.  They've been fighting all the modern weapons against a country who has prepared for 8 years and has had 8 years to dig into defensive positions.  It's actually been a remarkable military effort by the Russians and time will prove this true.  The western media will say otherwise until it's finally so obvious they will not be able to lie anymore.

The Russian Economy- "It's only the size of Florida.  It's small"  LOL  Russia sets on the worlds largest amount of oil and gas reserves in the world.  It's loaded with coke, iron ore, copper, minerals, wheat. Some sources will say Venezuela for oil, but Russia has unsurveyed oil by the billions in Siberia that haven't even been mapped.  Their economy is self sufficient.  They aren't dependent on the microchips and textiles like the US.  They have nearly no national debt.  The US had a national debt to GDP ratio of 130%.  Russia's is 10 to 15%.  They essentially have no debt.  They have the iron ,copper, metals to rapidly make munitions and they will never "run out" of artillery shells.  In the Soviet Union, when it collapsed, the very next morning when a person awakened, they were the sole owners of that apartment or condo.  There were no mortgages, so the citiizens of Russia largely have no personal debt other than vehicles.  The average citizen has modernized their former Soviet condo that they now own and have no mortgage on, and only the wealthy have mortgages. Their economy has actually Boomed in the last 6 months and not retracted.  

The Sanctions- they have decimated Europe and the US.  The dollar is rapidly being replaced as the world's reserve currency as this war has strengthed the BRICS nations and the BRICS is growing to its membership.  China and Russia and now India are closer than ever.  Their economies aren't hurting.  The sactions have led to massive inflation in the west and the citizens of the west are being hurt.  Russia hasn't missed a beat economically.  

Nuclear War- the danger is the CIA and M16 doing something stupid, for example, trying to send a drone to kill Putin at the Kremlin.  Did you know that Putin is considered kind of liberal in Russia and somewhat soft?  Our media won't tell us that.  The guy who was President at one time and who would possibly succeed Putin is Medvedev.  He has been openly calling for dropping a nuclear bomb on London and using tactial nuclear weapons on Kiev.  It's Putin who is actually the voice of reason in the room.  

Why hasn't Russia rolled through Ukraine?  Ukraine has had 8 years to dig in, build trenches, build shelters, prepare for this.  Also, the Donbass is largely Ethnic Russian and The Russian Army doesn't want to simply destroy neighborhoods imbedded with Ukranianis because 3/4 of the civilians left are ethnic Russians in the Donbass.  In 2022, Ukraine was the 2nd largest military in all of Europe and 2nd best trained behind Russia.  Their military was and is far better trained than France or England or Germany or Poland, and far bigger (well, it was).  Not now.

The media blackout in the West-  Youtube videos removed.  Small tactical gains by Ukraine made to seem larger than life.  The blackout of Russian gains such as destroying Himars and Patriot missile systems and the true death ratio being about 7 to 1 of Ukranians Dead to Russians?  We've had a massive one sided media onslot telling literally one side of the story.  Where did I get the info from in this post?  Go to YouTube and Get your info from former CIA agents and intelligence agents and former military officers that are no longer on anyone's media payroll or government payroll.  There is actually a major debate right now in the CIA and M16 and the US Military and NATO among this being a disaster.  Many are stating the obvious that Ukraine not only can't win, but it literally getting wiped out as a nation.  Yet, the political powers that be are winning the debate and the media blackout continues.

American's will believe what they are told- how did we get to the point where we awaken one day and all of a sudden, Ukraine is good and Russia is bad, and then, 80% of the western population actually believes it and starts placing Ukraine flags on their porches, lol.  Literally, a country that may be the worst in the world for child sex trade and corruption which was a playground for US and UK politicians and those in power like Epstein and the like in Ukraine.  We have a certain guy in DC running our country that was also heavily involved with money laundering in Ukraine with his son. I submit to you, Russia, if not the good guy, is certainly not the bad guy in this war.  We are actually on the wrong side of this for the reasons I gave above.  

The WHY?  Why the US and British Policy begging, promoting, edging on, literally rooting for Ukraine and continuing to send weapons when they aren't working and Ukraine is getting wiped out, and they are getting wiped out.  Roughly 700,000 dead, infrastructure destroyed, a generational population deficit for the next 75 years, and basically what will be a massive reduction in their land all at the hands of economic destruction for the average US and western European Citizen?

The answer is two fold.  First, the military congressional, industrial complex are making bank.  Now that the pipeline is blown up to Germany, guess where Germany is getting its natural gas from?  The USA.  Lockeed Martin?  Making billions by the US supplying Ukraine with weapons, and the congress people gladly accept those bribes known as lobbying to keep up that war effort.  The average western citizen like us foots the bill.  Zelensky?  He's skimmed millions along with other Ukraine Generals and they get to move to a posh condo highrise in NYC or Fort Launderdale with their families when this is over, and they don't have to live in Ukraine in ruins with no infrastructure and no hope.  The second reason?  The massive anti-God push movement in the West known as wokism which has infiltrated our media and politicians.  They hate God or Christianity so bad (and they see Russia as very pro Christian) that they are literally willing to commit self harm (at the risk of nuclear war) to prove their woke point.  Also, the danger is that Russia is well aware of this.  They know and fully understand the hatred towards them that goes far beyond economic reasons or resources in the Donbass.  They know full well the social-religious-woke type onslot that is also behind this hatred.  This is why we have this crisis.  This crisis was started by US and UK policy, not the US citizen like me or you, but by the very powerful in our government.  It was not started by "Russia invading Ukraine one day because they want to reclaim the Soviet Union."  LOL.  Dear Lord man think!  Ukraine is the 2nd largest and well trained Army in Europe.  The Soviet Union was made up of a shi*ton of countries.  You think Russia would start with the toughest one by "reclaiming" it first?  Put on your thinking gap folks and stop believing everything our media tells us.

The above is one guy's opinions only.  I'm sure many disagree and some may agree.  I have no idea.  I'm giving you my opinion, but mine is NOT relying our neocon led media, of which MSNBC, Fox, Newsmax, and CNN are all led by, regardless of how they differ socially, they are the same regarding that war drum that has crippled our country and was warned about by Eisenhower back in the 50's, and we haven't learned. Remember those chemical weapons of mass destruction Iraq had?  LOL.  We KNEW they didn't have em, but the Vice President and his former company made billions.  He should still be in prison today, and so should Dummy Bush. The military industrial complex is devestating us.  If it doesn't kill us all, it's certainly going to make many of us go hungry.  The US and UK policy with Russia-Ukraine is the worst foreign policy decision in the last 75 years of this country and if it turns out the way it could go, it might be the very last bad decision we ever make if not from a nuclear missile, then certainly an economic collapse and absolute anarchy within the US and Europe.

In the end, we have Ukraine who has lost half of it's population forever and will end up with around 1 million dead.  A destroyed infrastructure and yes, Odessa and Kharkiv and the Donbass will no longer be in Ukraine.  Families uprooted.  A country destroyed  NATO torn apart and weakned and heavily low on weapons.  The US economy weakened permently and that printing of money coming to a halt with rapid inflation as the dollar is weakned severely, so now crime goes up and so does hunger.  Meanwhile in China and Russia, they grow economically as the dollar weakens and is replaced as the world's reserve currency.  Putin still in power.  All of that if we are LUCKY.  The alternative is one that we won't even be able to discuss because we won't be here.

The above has largely been disproved. So, because it has largely been disproved, or at least heavily counter-weighted by scientists who suggests even a large nuclear exchange will not produce a nuclear winter, does this mean nuclear war is survivable?  I submit to you, the answer is no.  The pendulum has swung.  In the 80's up until the last 5 to 10 years, most of the world (even many today) believe that nuclear war was automatic 100 percent death, and if you were Unlucky enough to survive the initial blast, then certainly you would die within a few months or a year from the food supplies that would have dried up.  Because nuclear winter has largely been unsupported and many scientists are arguing against it, the pendulum has swung in many circles, such as with preppers, that nuclear war is survivable.  This theory is equally as wrong as the previous one saying nuclear winter was a certain.

The answers rest in Ground Bursts vs Air Bursts.  We now know that a large (50 times the size of Hiroshima) nuclear missile that lands as an Air burst has massive radiation, but 98% of the radiation gone within 1 week.  That's a far cry from nuclear winter.  Here is the problem, many stating nuclear war is survivable are basing their calculations on strictly AIR Bursts.  In a nuclear war, Air bursts are used to destroy People and Objects on the ground or above the ground such as city buildings and killing as many people as possible very quickly.  An Air Burst also produces an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that fries all circuitry, or most of it in that area, so an Air burst basically destroys New York City.  You can figure very few buildings left standing, if any, in NYC from one Large Air burst, and all cell phones, communications, TV, Radio and communications gone, and roughly 10 million dead immediately. 

A GROUND Burst is designed to do 2 things.  It's designed to Penetrate Underground and to Cause Massive Radiation.  A ground burst would be used for submarine bases, military targets, missile silos, the underground bunkers used by military and government officials, etc.  Most that think nuclear war is survivable believe or simply don't account for Ground Bursts in a nuclear war.  They are simply Air Burst focused.  A Ground Burst doesn't kill many people when it hits immediately.  The problem is, with a common size missile about 50 times the size of Hiroshima, which is what Russia has and what the US has, nothing grows in that area for about 25 to 30 years, and that area is about 1000 miles in circumference or area.   The US knows this and Russia know this.  They aren't simply going to fire all Air Bursts in a nuclear exchange, nor would we.  We would scatter their country and they would scatter ours with exactly placed Large Ground Bursts which contaminates the water supply for decades and the soil is contaminated for decades.  Place about 150 to 200 of those in the right areas of the US, and you have destroyed the country with certainty. 

So, a nuclear war is not survivable, but it's not because of why you may think.  Many think "nuclear winter" and blocking of the sun and temperature changes for 7 years like we were taught in the 80's.  That's largely been disproved at this point, or the concept of nuclear winter is now heavily debated and lots of data suggesting that we certainly don't know for sure.  But, the reason nuclear war isn't survivable is due to ground burst nuclear radiation.  Remember Chernobyl?  It's over 35ish years now.  That meltdown is similar to a ground burst from one missile.  You still can't grow food there or drink the water, and I think the exclusion zone is 30 x 30ish, almost 1000 square miles.  If we had a nuclear war where every bomb that hits is strictly an Air Burst, then it is certainly survivable if you have a years worth of food and water and a fallout shelter, and you have seeds and land to regrow food in one year because the radiation would be long gone.  The problem is, a nuclear war will not work that way.  We would have as many Ground Bursts as we would Air Bursts, and that's the death sentence.  The Ground Burst is also the part that someone who argues nuclear war is survivable will never mention.  Will there be "Non Chernobyl" areas in the US that are left from a nuclear war that are unscathed by the Ground Bursts in Nuclear War?  Sure, there would be some, but you can guarantee those that survived in bunkers in the contaminated areas quickly make there was to the very few non contaminated areas, and that 100 acre farm in the middle of West Kansas is very soon saturated with hungry survivors who want some of that corn and wheat, and will take it at gunpoint, until someone takes it from them, and then that process is rinsed and repeated until you have a handful of people left.  I call that Not Survivable.

Just my opinions above, with a few facts in there to support the opinions.  I am not a nuclear expert and don't claim to be.  I've done some reading on the subject the past 6 months just out of curiosity and the above in just one guy's interpretation of what I've read and each person has their own take.  I'm just giving mine.

When I use the term "Bitc*" above, I am not using it as a derogatory term towards women.  I am using it in this scenario LITERALLY, exactly how I think of those owned and corrupted by the military industrial complex and CIA cesspool.  They are no greater than a female dog to me, or a male dog for that matter.  I literally value the Dog more!  

Why I like RFK so far?  Several reasons of course.  I don't agree with all of his policies, nor did I agree with Trumps.  One key characteristic that is a THREAT to the establishment for an RFK or Trump is that they can't be bought.  They are already super-rich coming into the position, so the under the table money just doesn't do anything for them.  That's a real problem for the establishment.   Time will tell if RFK wins the nomination, but what I see is one of the last remaining normal democrats in the national spotlight that you just don't see anymore (IF....again....IF....he isn't controlled by the military industrial complex).

Only my opinions above.....

The Roman Empire collapsed due to myriad reasons that I will fit into 5 categories (which are incomplete summaries that I draft such that this isn't TL;DR).  The current United States draws some eerie parallels.

(1) Rome: Overpopulation by non-Roman ethnic (barbarian) peoples.  As Rome expanded, Rome incorporated the subjugated peoples into its population and particularly its military.  When the Germanic invasions of the 400s took place, Roman military forces had virtually no ethnic or cultural ties to the motherland, and were more sympathetic to the invaders than the army it served.  As Rome was over-expanded, there was no resistance in the interior to keep the Germanic tribes from sacking Rome over and over again.  United States: Influx of non-native population due to tepid, ineffective immigration policy.  As the United States ceased its expansion in the 1950s, immigration from the second-world of Latin America increased substantially.  From essentially the Clinton Administration onward, there has been no reasonable plan offered to grant immigrants a speedy, holistic, and universal path to citizenship that fosters a sense of belonging to the greater whole.  It's akin to Lucy trying to eat chocolates coming off the conveyor belt.  What has resulted is a population that has virtually no ethnic or cultural ties to the motherland, and is more sympathetic to the nation whence it came than the one it currently shares with others.  It's one of many types of fracturing.

(2) Rome: Generational economic stagnation and over-reliance on slave labor.  Rome was not only under attack from the outside, but it was rotting from within.  Constant military activity and runaway overspending choked the imperial economy.  Inflation and taxation evasion widened the gap between rich and poor.  Rome typically relied on slave labor to tend its agrarian economy, but the lack of expansion ground it to a halt.  United States: Beginnings of generational economic stagnation and lack of a qualified workforce.  The United States has had incomprehensible overspending, particularly on the military budget, since the Reagan years (2 generations).  Inflation has greatly out-stepped the rise in wages.  Coupled with inadequate corporate taxation and far too many tax loopholes for the ultra-wealthy, the middle class in America is disintegrating into dust.  American capitalism relies much too greatly on underpaid menial labor to support itself, and that portion of the workforce is now voluntarily excluding itself.  There is a substantial labor deficit combined with "stagflation".  

(3) Rome: The schism of the Western Empire hastened the collapse of the Eastern Empire.  Diocletian divided the Roman Empire into East and West.  This was penny wise and pound foolish.  East and West worked together very poorly and often squabbled over resources and imperial defense.  The Greek-leaning West experienced prosperity, while the Latin-leaning East dissolved.  United States: Europe is kicking our ass and we don't have the political and ideological infrastructure to keep up.  The United States spends about 3x the money on healthcare per capita than its European counterparts, yet lags significantly behind them in life expectancy.  According to the Social Progress Imperative, the United States ranks 18th of 128 countries based on 3 criteria: (1) availability of basic human needs, (2) access to information, and (3) personal rights / freedoms and access to education.  The Top 5?  Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland.  Europe is prospering, the United States is not.

(4) Rome: Corrupt government and political instability.  Being the Roman Emperor sucked.  During one period spanning between the 2nd and 3rd centuries, over 20 Emperors reigned in the span of barely 75 years.  The Praetorian Guard would even auction the spot at times to the highest bidder.  The Roman Senate was weak and feckless against the corruption.  Romans essentially lost trust in their government.  United States: Corrupt government and political cronyism.  The same two parties have controlled American political discourse for 160 years.  Essentially, that complacency has led the enterprise of becoming the President amounting to opening the coffers to pay for slick media production and presentation, hoping the middle 10% of the country chooses "your guy".  Congress is weak and feckless against the political machine, and is all to happy to abdicate anything resembling a check/balance on the executive.  The middle 60% of Americans have lost complete trust in the federal government.

(5) Rome: Christianity and the loss of traditional values.  The decline of Rome ran parallel with Constantine's proclamation of conversion to Christianity.  The Edict of Milan legalized Christianity in 313, and it became the official state religion in 380.  While this was a long-term net positive, ending the barbaric persecutions of antiquity and laying the foundation for the advancements to be made a millennium in the future, in the short term, monotheism displacing polytheism fractured the social fabric by shifting focus away from the state and toward a divine deity.  Further, Popes and clergy, who were not seasoned in managing and building a nation, took an increased role in political affairs, often making disastrous decisions.  United States: Wokism and the loss of traditional values.  The decline of the United States is running parallel with the rise of wokism and the assault on classical American values.  While in the long-term, a nation without persecution for living an alternative lifestyle must be obtained before the goal of freedom can be obtained, progress needs to be gradual and sustained.  Wokism is determined to scorch and salt the earth to remove any and all traces of people or ideas that do not fit the woke agenda.  Ironically, for many adherents of Wokism, this includes Christianity, which displaced the traditional values of Rome.  Wokism is ripping social fabric along urban/rural and socioeconomic lines.  Those who espouse wokism are those who are not seasoned in managing and building a nation, and they often advocate for disastrous, untenable positions.

Is this list perfect?  Of course not.  I typed this in under an hour, so it's not meant to be a dissertation.  But I hope it stirs some thoughtful, meaningful discussion.

Warning, it's not an easy video to watch!!!

Want to guess one of the primary funding sources is for k-12 education in Virginia?  Yep.  That's right.  Sales tax.

Am I the only one who questions the logic here (even just the smallest of smidgens)?

The Problem of Evil

by Kyle Butt, M.A. and Dave Miller, Ph.D.

On February 12, 2009, in a debate with Kyle Butt, Dan Barker affirmed the proposition that the God of the Bible does not exist. Three minutes and 15 seconds into his opening speech, he stated that one reason he believes God does not exist is because “there are no good replies to the arguments against the existence of God, such as the problem of evil. All you have to do is walk into any children’s hospital and you know there is no God. Prayer doesn’t make any difference. Those people pray for their beloved children to live, and they die” (Butt and Barker, 2009). Barker suggested that “the problem of evil” is one of the strongest positive arguments against the existence of God.

What, precisely, is the so-called “problem of evil”? Atheists like Barker note that the Bible depicts God as all-loving as well as all-powerful. This observation is certainly correct (e.g., 1 John 4:8; Genesis 17:1; Job 42:2; Matthew 19:26). Yet everyone admits that evil exists in the world. For God to allow evil and suffering either implies that He is not all-loving, or if He is all-loving, He lacks the power to eliminate them. In either case, the God of the Bible would not exist. To phrase the “problem of evil” more precisely, the atheist contends that the biblical theist cannot consistently affirm all three of the following propositions:

God is omnipotent.

God is perfect in goodness.

Evil exists.

Again, the atheist insists that if God is omnipotent (as the Bible affirms), He is not perfect in goodness since He permits evil and suffering to run rampant in the world. If, on the other hand, He is perfect in goodness, He lacks omnipotence since His goodness would move Him to exercise His power to eliminate evil on the Earth. Since the Christian affirms all three of the propositions, the atheist claims that Christians are guilty of affirming a logical contradiction, making their position false. Supposedly, the “problem of evil” presents an insurmountable problem for the Christian theist.

In truth, however, the “problem of evil” is a problem for the atheist—not the Christian theist. First, atheistic philosophy cannot provide a definition of “evil.” There is no rational way that atheism can accurately label anything as “evil” or “good.” On February 12, 1998, William Provine, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the distinguished Cornell University, delivered the keynote address at the second annual Darwin Day. In an abstract of that speech on the Darwin Day Web site, Dr. Provine asserted: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent” (Provine, 1998, emp. added). Provine’s ensuing message centered on his fifth statement regarding human free will. Prior to delving into the “meat” of his message, however, he noted: “The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them” (1998, emp. added). If there is no foundation upon which to base any ethical conclusions, then how could an atheist label any action or occurrence as “evil,” “bad,” or “wrong”?

Frederick Nietzsche understood atheistic philosophy so well that he suggested that the bulk of humanity has misunderstood concepts such as “evil” and “good.” In his work Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche wrote: “We believe that severity, violence, slavery, danger in the street and in the heart, secrecy, stoicism, tempter’s art and devilry of every kind—that everything wicked, terrible, tyrannical, predatory, and serpentine in man, serves as well for the elevation of the human species as its opposite” (2007, p. 35, emp. added). Nietzsche’s point simply was that what we might call morally “evil,” actually helps humans evolve higher thinking capacities, quicker reflexes, or greater problem-solving skills. Thus, if an “evil” occurrence helps humanity “evolve,” then there can be no legitimate grounds for labeling that occurrence as “evil.” In fact, according to atheistic evolution, anything that furthers the human species should be deemed as “good.”

As C.S. Lewis made his journey from atheism to theism, he realized that the “problem of evil” presented more of a problem for atheism than it did for theism. He stated:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust...? Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple (Lewis, 1952, p. 45-46, italics in orig.).

Theistic apologist, William Lane Craig, has summarized the issue quite well:

I think that evil, paradoxically, actually proves the existence of God. My argument would go like this: If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist. (2) Evil exists, (3) therefore objective moral values exist, that is to say, some things are really evil. Therefore, God exists. Thus, although evil and suffering at one level seem to call into question God’s existence, on a deeper more fundamental level, they actually prove God’s existence (n.d.).

Craig and Lewis are correct. If evil actually exists in the world, and some things are not the way they “should” be, then there must be a standard outside of the natural world that would give meaning to the terms “evil” and “good”—and the atheistic assumption proves false.

AN EMOTIONAL APPEAL

In addition to the fact that “evil” cannot even be discussed without reference to God, Barker rested the force of his statement on an emotional appeal. He said: “All you have to do is walk into any children’s hospital and you know there is no God.” Is it really the case that anyone who walks into a children’s hospital is immediately struck by the overwhelming force of atheism? No, it is not true. In fact, it is the farthest thing from the truth. Anticipating Barker’s tactics, one of us [KB] visited the children’s hospital in Columbia, South Carolina and met a lady who volunteered there. When asked why she volunteered, she pointed to a bullet hole in her skull. She said that it was a blessing she was still alive and she wanted to give something back since God had allowed her to live. When asked if many of the volunteers in the hospital were religious, she responded that many of them were from churches in the area, i.e., churches that believe in the God of the Bible.

According to Barker’s “line of reasoning,” the lady with whom we talked should not believe in a loving God, the volunteers that gave their time to the hospital should not believe in a loving God, we should no longer believe in a loving God (since we walked through the hospital), nor should any other person who has visited that facility. The falsity of such reasoning is apparent. Seeing the suffering in a children’s hospital does not necessarily drive a person to atheism. Truth be told, most people who visit a children’s hospital, and even have children who are patients there, believe in the God of the Bible. Barker’s assertion does not stand up to rational criticism.

Furthermore, Barker’s emotional appeal can easily be turned on its head: Walk through any children’s hospital and observe the love, care, and concern that the parents, doctors, and volunteers show the children, and you know atheistic evolution cannot be true. After all, evolution is about the survival of the fittest, in which the strong struggle against the weak to survive in a never-ending contest to pass on their genes. If evolution were true, parents and doctors would not waste their valuable resources on children who will not pass on their genes. Only theism can account for the selfless devotion and care that you see in children’s hospitals.

SOME SUFFERING IS ACCEPTABLE

When the “problem of evil” is presented, it quickly becomes apparent that the term “evil” cannot be used in any meaningful way by an atheist. The tactic, therefore, is to swap the terms “suffering,” “pain,” or “harm” for the word “evil,” and contend that the world is filled with too much pain, harm, and suffering. Since it is evident that countless people suffer physical, emotional, and psychological harm, the atheist contends that, even though there is no real “evil,” a loving God would not allow such suffering. [NOTE: The atheist’s argument has not really changed. He is still contending that suffering is “bad” or “evil” and would not be present in a “good” world. In truth, he remains in the same dilemma of proving that evil exists and that suffering is objectively evil.]

At first glance, it seems that the atheist is claiming that a loving, moral God would not allow His creatures, the objects of His love, to suffer at all. Again, the atheist reasons that humans are supposed to be the objects of God’s love, yet they suffer. Thus, God does not love or does not have the power to stop the suffering—and therefore does not exist.

The thoughtful observer soon sees the problem with this line of reasoning, which even the skeptic is forced to admit: it is morally right to allow some suffering in order to bring about greater good. On numerous occasions, Dan Barker and his fellow atheists have admitted the validity of this truth. During the cross-examination period of the Butt/Barker Debate, Barker stated:

You can’t get through life without some harm.... I think we all agree that it is wrong to stick a needle into a baby. That’s horrible. But, if that baby needs a life-saving injection, we will cause that harm, we will do that. The baby won’t understand it, but we will do that because there is a greater good. So, humanistic morality understands that within certain situations, there is harm, and there’s a trade off of values (Butt and Barker, 2009, emp. added).

In his debate with Peter Payne, Barker stated: “Often ethics involves creating harm. Sometimes harm is good” (Barker and Payne, 2005, emp. added). In his book, Maybe Right, Maybe Wrong: A Guide for Young Thinkers, Barker wrote: “When possible, you should try to stop the pain of others. If you have to hurt someone, then hurt them as little as possible.... If you do have to hurt someone, then try to stop as soon as possible. A good person does not enjoy causing pain” (1992, p. 33, emp. added).

It becomes evident that the atheist cannot argue against the concept of God based on the mere existence of suffering, because atheists are forced to admit that there can be morally justifiable reasons for suffering. Once again, the argument has been altered. No longer are we dealing with the “problem of evil,” since without the concept of God, the term “evil” means nothing. Furthermore, no longer are we dealing with a “problem of suffering,” since the atheist must admit that some suffering could be morally justifiable in order to produce a greater good. The atheist must add an additional term to qualify suffering: “pointless.”

POINTLESS OR UNNECESSARY SUFFERING

Since the skeptic knows that some suffering could be morally justified, he is forced to argue against the biblical concept of God by claiming that at least some of the suffering in this world is pointless or unnecessary. The skeptic then maintains that any being that allows pointless suffering cannot be loving or moral. In his book The Miracle of Theism, J.L. Mackie noted that if the theist could legitimately show that the suffering in the world is in some way useful, then the concept of the God of the Bible “is formally possible, and its principle involves no real abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil” (1982, p. 154). In light of this fact, Mackie admitted: “[W]e can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another” (p. 154). Did Mackie throw in the proverbial towel and admit that the “problem” of evil and suffering does not militate against God? On the contrary, he contended that even though some suffering or evil might be necessary or useful, there is far too much pointless evil (he terms it “unabsorbed evil”) in the world for the traditional God of the Bible to exist. He then concluded: “The problem, therefore, now recurs as the problem of unabsorbed evils, and we have as yet no way of reconciling their existence with that of a god of the traditional sort” (p. 155, emp. added). Notice how Mackie was forced to change the “problem of evil” to the “problem of unabsorbed evil.”

Dan Barker understands this alteration in the “problem of evil” and has used it himself. In a debate with Rubel Shelly, Dan used his standard argument that the suffering in a children’s hospital is enough to show God does not exist. Shelly responded with a lengthy rebuttal, bringing to light the idea that suffering in this world can be consistently reconciled with God’s purposes for mankind. In concluding his comments, Shelly stated: “The kind of world, apparently, that unbelief wants is a world where no wrong action could have bad effects or where we just couldn’t make wrong actions” (Barker and Shelly, 1999). Barker responded to Shelly’s comments, saying:

I’m not asking for a world that’s free of pain.... No atheist is asking that the world be changed or requiring that if there is a God, He be able to change it. I’m not asking for a world that’s free of consequences. I think pain and consequences are important to a rational education.... What I am asking for is for human beings to strive as much as possible for a world that is free of unnecessary harm (1999, emp. added).

Barker went on to describe a scenario in which a forest fire forces a baby fawn to flee its home. In the process, the fawn catches its leg in a snare and is consumed by the flames. Barker then stated that he believed no one’s soul or character was edified by the fawn’s suffering, thus it would be an example of unnecessary or useless suffering. Barker further admitted that even though some suffering is acceptable, there simply is far too much to be reconciled with a loving God. Here again, it is important to notice that Barker’s entire argument has been altered. It is no longer a “problem of evil (harm)” but now he has amended it to the “problem of unnecessary evil (harm).”

The next question that must be asked is: What would classify as “pointless,” “unnecessary,” or “unabsorbed” suffering? The simple answer that the atheistic position must suggest is that any suffering that the atheist does not deem necessary is pointless. As Timothy Keller points out, the fact is that Mackie and others use the term “pointless” to mean that they, themselves cannot see the point of it. Keller stated: “Tucked away within the assertion that the world is filled with pointless evil is a hidden premise, namely that if evil appears pointless to me, then it must be pointless” (2008, p. 23, italics in orig.). Keller further noted:

This reasoning is, of course, fallacious. Just because you can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn’t mean there can’t be one. Again we see lurking within supposedly hard-nosed skepticism an enormous faith in one’s own cognitive faculties. If our minds can’t plumb the depths of the universe for good answers to suffering, well, then, there can’t be any! This is blind faith of a high order (p. 23).

Indeed, it is the atheist who lives by the blind faith that he mistakenly attributes to the theist.

THE PURPOSE OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

In his monumental volume, Have Atheists Proved There Is No God?, philosopher Thomas B. Warren undercut completely the atheist’s use of the problem of evil. He insightfully demonstrated that the Bible teaches that “God has a morally justifiable reason for having created the world...in which evil can (and does) occur” (1972, p. 16). What is that reason? God created the planet to be “the ideal environment for soul-making” (p. 16). God specifically created humans to be immortal, free moral agents, responsible for their own actions, with this earthly life being their one and only probationary period in which their eternal fate is determined by their response to God’s will during earthly life (p. 19). Hence, the world “is as good (for the purpose God had in creating it) as any possible world” since it was designed to function as man’s “vale of soul-making” (p. 19). The physical environment in which humans were to reside was specifically created with the necessary characteristics for achieving that central purpose. This environment would have to be so arranged that it would allow humans to be free moral agents, provide them with their basic physical needs, allow them to be challenged, and enable them to learn those things they most need to learn (p. 47).

Whereas the atheist typically defines “evil” as physical pain and suffering, the Bible, quite logically, defines evil as violation of God’s law (1 John 3:4). Observe, therefore, that the only intrinsic evil is sin, i.e., disobeying or transgressing the laws of God. Hence, pain and suffering are not intrinsically evil. (“ntrinsic evil on the purely physical level does not exist” [p. 93]). In fact, animal pain, natural calamities, and human suffering are all necessary constituent variables in the overall environment designed for spiritual development. Such variables, for example, impress upon humans the very critical realizations that life on Earth is uncertain, precarious, and temporary. They also demonstrate that life on Earth is brief—that it will soon end (p. 58). Such realizations not only propel people to consider their spiritual condition, and the necessity of using this life to prepare for the afterlife, they prod people to contemplate God! Suffering, pain, and hardship encourage people to cultivate their spirits and to grow in moral character—acquiring virtuous attributes such as courage, patience, humility, and fortitude. Suffering can serve as discipline and motivation to spur spiritual growth and strength. It literally stimulates people to develop compassion, sympathy, love, and empathy for their fellowman (p. 81).

WHO IS IN THE BEST POSITION TO KNOW?

Since atheists cannot say that real, moral evil exists, they must adjust their objection and say that a loving God would not allow suffering. This position quickly becomes indefensible, so again the position is altered to posit that some suffering is morally permissible, but not pointless or unnecessary suffering. Who, then, is to determine if there truly exists unnecessary suffering that would negate the concept of God? Some atheists, such as Barker, are quick to set themselves up as the final judges who alone can set the proper limits of suffering. Yet, when those limits are analyzed, it again becomes apparent that the “problem of evil” is a legitimate problem only for the atheist.

In his book godless, Dan Barker stated: “There is no big mystery to morality. Morality is simply acting with the intention to minimize harm” (2008, p. 214). In his explanation about how to minimize harm, Barker wrote: “And the way to avoid making a mistake is to try to be as informed as possible about the likely consequences of the actions being considered” (p. 214). Reasoning from Barker’s comments about morality, if there truly is an omniscient God Who knows every consequence of every action that ever has been or ever will be taken, then that Being, and only that Being, would be in a position to speak with absolute authority about the amount and kind of suffering that is “necessary.” Barker and his fellow atheists may object to God’s tolerance for suffering, but were God to condescend to speak directly to them, He could simply respond by saying: “What you do not know is...,” and He could fill in the blank with a thousand reasons about future consequences that would legitimize the suffering He allows.

Indeed, this is precisely the tact God employed with Job, when He challenged Job’s knowledge and comprehension of the mysteries of the Universe:

Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this. Do you know it, because you were born then, or because the number of your days is great? Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? He who rebukes God, let him answer it. Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified? (Job 38:2-4,18,21; 40:2,8).

God’s interrogation of Job elucidated the fact of humanity’s limited knowledge, especially as it relates to suffering. In contrast to this, Barker wrote:

Why should the mind of a deity—an outsider—be better able to judge human actions than the minds of humans themselves? Which mind is in a better position to make judgments about human actions and feelings? Which mind has more credibility? Which has more experience in the real world? Which mind has more of a right? (2008, p. 211).

Of course, Barker’s rhetorical questions were supposed to force the reader to respond that humans are in a better position to understand what actions are moral, or how much suffering is permissable. In light of his comments about knowing the consequences of actions, however, Barker’s position falls flat. Whose mind knows more about the consequences of all actions? Whose mind is in a better position to know what will happen if this action is permitted? Whose mind has the ability to see the bigger picture? And Who alone is in the position to know how much suffering is permissible to bring about the ultimate good for humankind? That would be the infinite, eternal, omniscient Creator—the God of the Bible.

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Barker, Dan (1992), Maybe Right, Maybe Wrong: A Guide for Young Thinkers (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

Barker, Dan and Rubel Shelly (1999), Barker/Shelly Debate: Does God Exist? (Brentwood, TN: Faith Matters).

Barker, Dan and Peter Payne (2005), Barker/Payne Debate: Does Ethics Require God?, [On-line], URL: http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/ethics_debate.php.

Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Butt/Barker Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Craig, William Lane (no date), Pain and Suffering Debate, Part 1, [On-line], URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZTG5xyefEo.

Keller, Timothy (2008), The Reason for God (New York: Dutton).

Lewis, C.S. (1952), Mere Christianity (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Mackie, J.L. (1982), The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Nietzsche, Friedrich (2007 reprint), Beyond Good and Evil (Raleigh, NC: Hayes Barton Press), [On-line], URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=C7sRYOPWke0C&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1#PPP1,M1.

Provine, William (1998), “Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life,” [On-line], URL: http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/DarwinDayProvineAddress.htm.

Warren, Thomas B. (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

(taken from http://apologeticspress.org/articles/240166)

Given these factors, all votes should be counted and reported immediately as they are cast.  And no votes shall be counted beyond the established timelines.

Seems like this would resolve a lot of problems.  Tell me what I'm missing.

All I saw was Trump is petty and overly aggressive in those situations(knew that already, thats his chosen approach), and Biden looked old and almost frail at times. Both looked ridiculous imo.

I would very much like to see Jo Jorgensen get a broader platform but idk that Id want to see her drug into that mess 

The most immediate questions will be whether or not he was personally diligent in following his own directives.  That might be an impossible situation to manage in terms of optics any way you look at it.  But if he can manage to provide a convincing answer that he did, in fact, follow all of the protocols then that leads to much more uncomfortable questions about their actual effectiveness and outcomes.

Honestly not looking to pile on the guy, but my gut feeling is that this will lead to a significant swing in terms of policy directives.   And ultimately the way Governor Northam personally feels (in a very literal sense) will now have unprecedented potential impact upon the daily activities of 8.5 million people.

Anybody else have a sense of how this will play out?

Such is the political climate upon the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Quite a mixed legacy, and in better times, we could remember her for simply her legacy.  Society won’t allow that anymore, and it’s not for the best.