44 thoughts on “News/Politics 10-20-20

  1. From VDH…..

    “The Unapologetic Bias of the American Left

    Today’s Left sees their efforts bending in a preordained historical arc that ends with ultimate progressive justice—and retributions.”


    “Some yearn for the ancient monopolistic days of network news, the adolescent years of public radio and TV, and the still reputable New York Times—when once upon a time the Left at least tried to mask their progressivism in sober and judicious liberal façades.

    An avuncular Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Jim Lehrer, or Abe Rosenthal at least went through the motions of reporting news that was awkward or even embarrassing to the Left. Their agenda was 1960s-vintage Great Society liberalism, seen as the natural evolution from the New Deal and post-war internationalism. Edward R. Murrow, the ACLU of old, and Free Speech Movement at Berkeley—these were their liberal referents. Those days are gone.

    Yet even during the Obama years, when studies showed the president had received the most slanted media honeymoon in news history, overt media bias was, at least, as hotly denied as it intensified. There were still a few ossified, quarter-hearted efforts now and then to mention the IRS scandal, the surveillance of Associated Press reporters, the various scandals embroiling the Veterans Administration, General Service Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the Secret Service. But even that thin pretense is over now, too.

    Rejecting Objectivity
    What ended liberal dissimulation about slanted reporting is a new pride, or rather an arrogance, about bias itself. The new liberated defiance is something like, “We are biased. Damn proud of it. And what exactly do you plan on doing about it?”

    Jim Rutenberg infamously announced in January 2017 his profession’s proud defiance of now ossified norms in a new age in which reporters would “throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century.” Christiane Amanpour felt she was now released from the old chains of professed “objectivity.” “Much of the media was tying itself in knots trying to differentiate between balance, between objectivity, neutrality, and crucially, the truth,” she said just a few weeks after the 2016 election. “We cannot continue the old paradigm.” Michel Foucault could not have said it any better.

    Univision’s Jorge Ramos more or less ridiculed classical journalistic training and embraced the liberation from the old bourgeois idea of “neutrality.”

    Saying that reporters should abandon neutrality on certain issues and choose sides may seem at odds with everything that’s taught in journalism school. But there are times when the only way we journalists can fulfill our primary social responsibility—challenging those in power—is by leaving neutrality aside.

    Or as the New York Times’ Jim Roberts in 2016 put the new “Walter Durantyism”: “Yes. The media is biased. Biased against hatred, sexism, racism, incompetence, belligerence, inequality, To [sic] name a few.”

    So said them all. In Orwellian terms, Roberts’ media has now come to adore the omnipresent progressive party line: “You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him: you must love him.”

    When early on in the Trump Administration, the liberal Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy found that in the first 100 days all news coverage was on average 80 percent anti-Trump—93 percent negative in the case of CNN and NBC—no one seemed embarrassed.

    Again, since May 2017, the bias has not merely increased but is now a badge of honor—whether it was the months of “walls or closing in” fake stories of imminent Mueller investigation indictments of the Trump family or the serial “Trump is finished” psychodramas about the Logan Act, the Emoluments Clause, and the 25th Amendment. No one in the media, to this day, after the Mueller implosion, the findings of Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and the recent releases of Russian intercepts about the Clinton gambit to fabricate a “collusion” election narrative, has ever said “We were wrong”—because they really think they were “right” in pushing even untruth, given their hatred of Trump.”

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Follow the science!

    Unless it’s wrong again….


    “Major Anti-Vaping Scientific Study Retracted”

    “Vaping is supposed to be a form of harm reduction, that is, allow nicotine addicts to have access to the drug without the harmful tars and chemicals in cigarettes that cause cancer, heart disease, and other maladies.

    Last year, the Journal of the American Heart Association published a study finding that vaping posed as great a heart risk as smoking itself. That study fueled public policies at all levels of government to stifle the industry. A lot of small business people had their livelihoods destroyed or damaged as a result.

    Now, the study has been retracted — which is a very big deal in science — because the editors are “concerned that the study conclusion is unreliable” due to what appears to have been an uncompleted peer review process. From the retraction:

    During peer review, the reviewers identified the important question of whether the myocardial infarctions occurred before or after the respondents initiated e‐cigarette use, and requested that the authors use additional data in the PATH codebook (age of first MI and age of first e‐cigarettes use) to address this concern. While the authors did provide some additional analysis, the reviewers and editors did not confirm that the authors had both understood and complied with the request prior to acceptance of the article for publication.

    But it was published anyway and an industry received a body blow.

    Some might say that this is how science is supposed to work, self correcting, following the data, etc.. Right. But somehow mistakes in science these days always seem to cut in the same direction.

    That may be because science journals have grown increasingly ideological. Nature has endorsed Joe Biden for president and promised to publish more political science — which isn’t “science” at all. The New England Journal of Medicine should change its name to the New Ideology Journal of Medicine. Science has endorsed “nature rights.” The list goes on and on.”


  3. Masks save lives, masks do nothing, masks protect others, really no benefit to mask wearing…..

    What do you do when the “science” is this neurotic?

    You censor the side you disagree with! 🙂

    Well, that’s what you do if you’re Twitter.


    “Twitter Removes Tweet From Trump COVID-19 Advisor Saying, ‘Masks Work? NO’

    Twitter loves censorship!”

    “Twitter removed a tweet from Dr. Scott Atlas, an advisor to President Donald Trump on COVID-19, because it violated the platform’s coronavirus “Misleading Information Policy.”

    At least that’s what a spokesperson told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

    How many times has WHO and CDC changed their opinions and guidelines when it comes to the coronavirus?

    It’s not like Atlas made this up out of thin air. Instead, Twitter, which has been on a roll with censorship this week, just deleted it.

    From NBC News:

    The tweet no longer appeared on the site Sunday morning, replaced with a note saying “This Tweet is no longer available” and a link to Twitter’s rules and policies explaining why the company removes or limits certain posts.

    The tweet in question, posted Saturday by Dr. Scott Atlas, read: “Masks work? NO: LA, Miami, Hawaii, Alabama, France, Phlippnes, UK, Spain, Israel. WHO:’widesprd use not supported’ + many harms; Heneghan/Oxf CEBM:’despite decades, considerble uncertainty re value’; CDC rvw May:’no sig red’n in inflnz transm’n’; learn why.”

    The Federalist got a screengrab:”

    “Atlas provided this information to The Federalist as well:

    In the deleted tweet, I cited the following evidence against general population masks:

    1) Cases exploded even with mandates: Los Angeles County, Miami-Dade County, Hawaii, Alabama, the Philippines, Japan, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Israel.

    2) Dr. Carl Heneghan, University of Oxford, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and editor in chief of British Medical Journal Evidence-Based Medicine: ‘It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.’


    3) The WHO: ‘The widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider’ (http://bitly.ws/afUm)

    4) The CDC: ‘Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.’ (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article).

    I also cited an article giving detailed explanation of the reasons why masks might not prevent spread: https://t.co/1hRFHsxe59

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Once the “offending” tweet was removed, Dr. Atlas pointed out how Orwellian it all is.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Joe lied again?

    Say it isn’t so….. 🙄


    “International Brotherhood Of Boilermakers Fact Checks Biden’s Claim Of Endorsement: False”

    “Oops, he did it again. Joe Biden claimed that The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers union endorsed him for president during a televised town hall on ABC last week. The Boilermakers disagree with his claim. They didn’t endorse his bid for president at all. As a matter of fact, the union doesn’t make presidential endorsements and that is clearly stated on their website.

    Headquartered in Kansas City, Kansas, the union services more than 200 local lodges across North America. The website sites political activity but not endorsements of presidential candidates. Information is provided for its members but there is no endorsement of either candidate. From the website:

    As a union Boilermaker, your vote is a personal decision. You have the right to vote for candidates and issues as you so choose. Your vote can make a difference in electing the representatives and policymakers who support labor issues and advocate for the work Boilermakers do.

    Information on this site is intended to help you understand issues important to our union and the labor movement. The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers has not endorsed any U.S. Presidential candidate for the 2020 Election, and the information contained on this webpage in no way serves as an endorsement by the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers for any U.S. Presidential candidate.

    Joe Biden either lied to the voter when that person asked a question about hydraulic fracking and his energy policy or he is confused about union endorsements. Frankly, either excuse could be true. Biden has a very long history of difficulties with the truth and, by all appearances, he is suffering from mental decline. Hydraulic fracking is a technique designed to recover oil and gas. Boilermakers work closely with the energy industry. Natural gas burns clean so when Biden goes off on fossil fuels and their elimination, Boilermakers notice. During the town hall, Biden said the union is “overwhelmingly” supporting him.

    “I’m telling [you] the boilermakers overwhelmingly endorse me, OK?” he said. “So the boilermakers’ union has endorsed me because I sat down with them and went into great detail earlier to show their leadership exactly what I would do.”

    Not so fast, says John Hughes. Hughes appeared on Fox and Friends this morning. Not only has the union not endorsed Biden, the Boilermaker union’s Local 154 in Pittsburgh endorsed President Trump for reelection last month. At that time, Local 154 wrote a letter to President Trump announcing its support and pointing to Trump’s strong support of the coal industry.

    “Your administration has convinced my members that you will protect the future of our industry,” business manager John J. Hughes wrote in a letter (pdf) on Sept. 3.

    “Boilermaker jobs specifically rely on coal-fired power generation and we strongly encourage the advancement of carbon capture technologies which can secure jobs for our members,” he added.”


    Womp, womp, womp….

    Liked by 1 person

  6. More of Biden’s lies are coming back to haunt him, and just in time for Halloween……


    “Joe Biden’s Lies About His Son’s Burisma Dealing Are Coming Back to Haunt Him”

    “Joe Biden’s cheating is legendary. It goes way back to his plagiarism and cheating to get through law school and his plagiarism and lying when he attempted to run for President in the late 1980s. Throughout this campaign, he has lied so often to cover up the criminality of the Biden Family it’s almost expected and ignored by the largely compliant media. But the truth always finds its way out in the end.

    Biden has always vociferously denied having any knowledge of how his son, Hunter Biden, came to be employed by one of the most crooked oligarchs in Ukraine, Mykola Zlochevsky, and his energy firm Burisma. Hunter had no relevant experience. He also had a record of persistent drug addiction that included being dismissed from the U.S. Navy for failing a drug test. Despite this, Hunter’s firm was paid $180,000 per month for a job that he was given at the same time that his father, who was then serving as Vice President of the United States, was put in charge of distributing billions of dollars to a then bankrupt nation.

    “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden emphatically declared last year. It is incredible on its face.

    When a voter in Iowa asked him about the apparent conflict of interest, Biden completely lost his cool, calling the man a “damn liar” before insulting his physical appearance and challenging him to a push-up contest.

    Now we know why Biden gets so angry whenever the subject of Hunter’s Burisma job comes up: Not only did Joe Biden apparently know about the crooked arrangement, but he was the reason for it. It was plain and simple — a bribe so Vice President Biden would protect Burisma from seizure by the Ukrainian government.

    Data recovered from Hunter Biden’s laptop, including a treasure trove of revealing emails, provide damning information about the Bidens’ involvement with the gas company.

    “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together,” a Burisma executive named Vadym Pozharskyi wrote in an email to Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015.

    Roughly one year earlier, around the time Hunter first joined Burisma’s Board of Directors, Pozharskyi had emailed Hunter seeking “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

    The introduction that Hunter facilitated between Pozharskyi and then-Vice President Joe Biden is just one example of how he used his “influence” to advance Burisma’s interests? Among other crimes, there is no Foreign Agent registration for this or other meetings Hunter set up or attended with high level government officials. If Paul Manafort can go to prison for this, what about Hunter Biden? But it is far worse. This whole corrupt deal was for the elder Biden who demanded that Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin be fired or a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee would be cancelled.

    The documents recovered from the laptop, which also included lurid videos of Hunter apparently engaging in illegal and disgusting activities, do prove that Joe Biden has been lying to reporters, colleagues, and the American people for years.”


  7. “‘He kicked ISIS’ $#@!’ Glenn Beck shuts #NeverTrump DOWN with epic thread of Trump’s actual accomplishments over the past 4 years”





    And many more reasons at the link…..

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Fraud!


    Liked by 2 people

  9. Word.


    Liked by 3 people

  10. The stupid….. it hurts…..


    Liked by 1 person

  11. Further proof PolitiFact is garbage.


    Liked by 1 person

  12. Cheryl, question for you from yesterday’s thread: what huge character flaws red flags and what personal life shambles are you talking about that disqualify Trump from your vote?


  13. Mumsee, I can’t answer for Cheryl. However I would not vote for Trump if he had an opponent. Actually. I like everything he’s doing. But as I’ve said many times before, His mouth runs ahead of his mind.
    The problems the Democrats have is that there is nobody running and nobody in the wings, ready to come on.
    No. nothing.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. I can’t answer for Cheryl either. But while I like some things Trump has done, what appears to me to be an instability in his character concerns me. I wouldn’t fully trust him in a true national crisis, frankly. A good president provides a stable leadership; Trump has not done that. A good president is wise. Trump hasn’t shown a lot of wisdom and sometimes, too often, behaves like a boastful, angry teenager. That’s not just unwise, it could be outright dangerous. I’d hoped after 2016 he’d grow (up) into the role of a good and disciplined, more humble leader, but to date — and especially during the last weeks of this election, not to mention the Covid crisis — he appears even less stable to me and even more filled with pride and hubris.

    I keep thinking of the biblical admonition that pride goeth before a fall.

    I don’t know if he is a believer, time will tell us more on that point. But if he is, he hasn’t had the time or opportunity, apparently, to mature in the faith, that much I think is clear.

    I also recall a Christian friend’s comment about how he (the friend and a former editor-colleague) years ago had a professor at his (respected) Christian college who grew up as a member of the “Hitler youth.” Friend said he wasn’t at all saying Trump was “a Nazi,” but that much of what he hears and observes about Trump strikes very close to what his professor described when explaining how that party managed to excite and woo the people and rise to power in Germany.

    That’s definitely a second-hand, anecdotal ‘aside’, one that I wouldn’t hang my hat on for not voting for Trump. But this friend is a very deeply rooted Christian of many years who also is something of a U.S. history scholar in his spare time, extremely well and widely read. So his comment continues to give me some pause.

    We need to always be on guard. It “can” happen here, and that warning goes for both political extremes in this nation, particularly in such a time as this. The nation is wavering, it is divided and weak politically to say the least, and potentially ripe for many bad movements that are stirring just below the service. We need to be wise and we need to beware.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. And all that said, God determines who rules the nations, he sets up kings and removes them. We are to always pray for our leaders. We will see what happens after the election.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. DJ, again, I was wondering specifics. My dad despises him because he is dishonest. Then tell me when in the past four years he has been dishonest. He has changed his mind a few times as things unfold, but I was wondering on specific cases.
    We all are dead in our trespasses and sins until we are made alive in Christ, then there is the continual battle between the old nature and the new. Some of us are quicker at that than others of us are.
    I see a man who was deep in sin, and has been changed and God is working. But I hear that he is terrible and awful and all but rarely hear recent specifics.

    Is it possible he could stumble and become a tyrant? Sure. That could happen with any leader as we have seen in various churches. Does that mean he (or they) are not believers? No, it means they stumbled though they might not be believers and are just wolves in sheep’s clothing.


  17. “Red flags” are signs that lead us to either trust or not trust a leader, I guess is what I’d say. For some those flags are more in the forefront.

    Each should vote their conscience.

    We should always be praying. And remembering:

    ~ The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will. ~


  18. None of us can see into another’s heart or divine the future. We act (and vote) on whatever information we have and on conscience. We will all come to different conclusions.

    Ultimately, the Lord will carry out what is His will for nations and the world.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Red flags, in my mind, are dangerous behavior patterns. His braggadocia might be interpreted as one. But, in my mind, having observed various males in action, it is also just a way to communicate dominance to other world leaders, who definitely understand the language as we see him bringing them to the table and getting agreements made. And followed. It is a language. Not one appreciated by all, and overused in some cases, but definitely a good fit for today’s cast of world leaders.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Kind of like the cougar momma in the video the other day. She had the power to back up her menace but she controlled it once the agreement was made, she was willing to back off.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Donald Trump is an megolamaniac and a jackass and always has been. I don’t like him at all. That being said, neither of his ex-wives have anything negative to say about him. There are people who know him who talk about what a wonderful person he is.
    Herschel Walker for one,

    I have heard a story that Trump once sent his tailor to his son’s boarding school to fit everyone in that class for a new jacket because there was a child on scholarship that couldn’t afford a new one and he didn’t want to single him out. I have searched the internet and can’t find it.

    I again say, “This is the best we could do?”

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Good points all, and I have heard that Trump’s personal demeanor is much different than his public persona. I have to base my impression on his (chosen, presumably) public demeanor which is combative, boastful and divisive toward even his own people he’s leading within the U.S.

    The media and the “other side” have all roundly added to this predicament we find ourselves in, of course.

    This could actually be a rather dangerous moment in our history. It may abate, we may all just come out of it in 5 or 10 years. But it could also be opening the door to something none of us really want to witness.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Our insurance agent (ret.) went to high school with Trump, a private military school. He said I might like Trump. I like what Trump has done. He recently said Trump is acting like a leader, Biden not so much.

    Our insurance agent was and still is a Democrat. We were in each other’s weddings and the only ones, not relatives, that we still see after 46 years.

    DJ @ 1:31
    ““Red flags” are signs that lead us to either trust or not trust a leader, I guess is what I’d say. For some those flags are more in the forefront.”

    Biden is more truthful than Trump?
    What do you trust Biden to do?
    Biden is is a true Democrat. Democrats are more truthful and honest than Republicans?
    What do you trust Democrats to do?

    When Trump was on TV every day during the Covid news conferences We saw what he said without any filters (Talking Heads telling you what he said…) I thought he was reasonable, not how we were told he acted. I thought those same Talking Heads took the Covid news conferences off the air because Trump was looking too good and not like the MSM had made him out to be.


  24. And hopefully, in 2024, Pence will make a fine candidate.


    Until then, stay the current course, loud mouth and all, it’s still very much better than the alternative.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Mumsee, much of what he has been accused of seems not to be true. For instance, I haven’t found him to be racist, uncaring of the poor, etc. And I think he has made a lot of good decisions as a leader. And pinning Covid-19 deaths on him is ridiculous.

    He comes across as arrogant, as a jerk, as completely lacking in self-control. I’d just about decided I could hold my nose and vote for him this time when I watched the first debate, and he came across as such a jerk in that one it set me back a ways. Name calling opponents isn’t an adult characteristic. His life history includes a lot of very unscrupulous decisions. Yes, those are “in the past,” but they do count in a person’s character, and it isn’t always easy to know whether a person is still making the sane choices, or would be if he could. I have heard no evidence that he is a Christian, and I don’t think we can really say, “Well, he’s a baby Christian, and therefore he’s different now and none of those things count” . . . unless he has expressed remorse and repentance, and I’ve never heard hints of that. Maybe he’s a Christian and maybe he isn’t, but hints of his possibly being a Christian don’t make his bad character in the past irrelevant, nor do they cause us to “give him a pass” for less than imperfect choices today (as you might, for example, if you have a man in your church who lived an unsavory life for decades and you know that old habits die hard, so you’re willing to overlook an occasional swear word or ignore the tattoos of scantily clad women). We’re not judging whether he’s a Christian, but whether he has the character to be president.

    So, I think much of the condemnation of him is unfair and undeserved, but I think he has brought a lot of it on himself. Overall he has made better decisions as president than I expected to see, and I think a better case can be made for voting for him this time around than last time. But I’d far rather see Pence in the top spot, given a choice. In the 2016 election I understood people voting for Trump as a vote against Hillary, but didn’t think Trump deserved the votes for who he himself was. (In other words, a vote against Hillary I understood, even if that meant voting for Trump, but not a vote for Trump as a vote for him.) Today I still think both sides have bad men, but Trump has made some good choices. Both of the presidential candidates are old enough they might not live out their terms, and so the VP candidates are more important than they have ever been, and that one is a really, really clear choice.

    Liked by 3 people

  26. It’s not a matter of not liking him, but of his behavior and words causing (legitimate, I think) concern over his bottom-line stability and trustworthiness.

    What Chas has said is true, that Trump’s mouth runs ahead of his brain. But is his brain following close behind? I don’t know but worry that it does.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521868-gop-pollster-luntz-blasts-trump-campaign-as-worst-hes-ever-seen

    GOP pollster Luntz blasts Trump campaign as worst he’s ever seen

    BY JONATHAN EASLEY – 10/20/20 11:55 AM EDT

    Prominent Republican pollster Frank Luntz blasted President Trump and his campaign on Tuesday for focusing on Hunter Biden in the stretch run to Election Day, calling Trump’s campaign the worst he’s ever seen and saying the president’s advisers should be “brought up on charges of political malpractice.” …

    … “I’ve never seen a campaign more mis-calibrated than the Trump campaign. Frankly, his staff ought to be brought up on charges of political malpractice,” Luntz said.

    “It is the worst campaign I’ve ever seen and I’ve been watching them since 1980. They’re on the wrong issues. They’re on the wrong message. … ”

    The Trump campaign has been running ads and holding daily briefings to draw attention to allegations that Hunter Biden sought to profit off his father’s political connections. …

    … Luntz, who was once the pollster for former Speaker Newt Gingrich, pointed to polls showing the economy and coronavirus are the issues voters care most about.

    “Nobody cares about Hunter Biden … why is [Trump] spending all his time on him?” Luntz asked. “Hunter Biden does not help put food on the table. Hunter Biden does not help anyone get a job. Hunter Biden does not provide health care or solve COVID. And Donald Trump spends all of his time focused on that and nobody cares.”

    Luntz said his focus groups revealed that Trump lost the first debate badly to Biden, tipping a substantial number of undecided voters into the Democratic nominee’s column.


  28. Cheryl, I did not see that as an answer to the question. You had mentioned huge red flags and family in shambles. And you called the guy a jerk. You pretty much have to be arrogant to be President, even a narcissist. The successful candidate must have supreme self confidence. A Christian, of course, must have confidence in God and a mature Christian will have some humility. But we are not examining his faith, though I believe he is a believer and the more I see of him, the less I believe he is a baby Christian.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Mumsee, I don’t see anything about family in shambles in my post above and I don’t remember the context for that. But a man with two or three divorces and some adulterous liasions (sp?) certainly could have had that said about at least his past behavior. His infamous recorded words about how to treat women colored the last election and made sure quite a few women (including me) wouldn’t vote for him in that election. (I was already strongly disinclined not to vote for him, but that was confirmation. I lean toward voting for president even if I have to do so holding my nose, and that election I just could not.) Some of his business decisions would have hurt a lot of people badly. Those are all “past” but were still decisions made by an adult well into middle age and thus relevant in evaluations.

    Watching the first debate this year said to me that this is a man who can’t control himself even when it’s clearly in his own best interest to do so, or who cannot see how he comes across. I think Pence (in the VP debate) handled himself wisely in “talking past the appointed time” when he phrased some of his answers as long, convoluted sentences, knowing that it’s unfair to insist a man quite talking mid-sentence. 🙂 So he’d get an extra 20 or 30 seconds or whatever on his own turn to speak. Trump would start talking over Biden on Biden’s turn and refuse to stop even when the moderator told him to. It isn’t a good look for the president of the United States to remind everyone of the schoolyard bully and brat who doesn’t listen to the teacher.

    He also has handled certain aspects of the Covid-19 issue in ways that at least give the appearance of gambling with the public health. Some details of large gatherings in which people have gotten sick, for instance, and some of the casualness of things he said. The media isn’t going to like him no matter what, but it doesn’t help when he shoots himself in the foot. A very conservative friend of mine sent me a couple of e-mails expressing her angst because she feels like she has no choice but to vote for Trump to keep Trump out of the White House, but she’s distressed because Pennsylvania doctors pleaded with Trump to cancel his rally there with Covid numbers spiking, but he went ahead and held it. Maybe other doctors told him it’s OK to come, who knows, but there are too many instances like this one for full comfort in some of his decision making.

    But again, my point was never to dissuade anyone from voting for him; it was to say it’s a legitimate choice for people to make, to choose not to vote for president at all. I also think he has made enough good choices in his first term that others can in good conscience vote for him. I wouldn’t try to persuade people either way in this election, but just say that there’s a case to be made for either side. He isn’t trustworthy and sometimes that is more a sense than it is definable. I wouldn’t hire him as president of my company or send my teen daughter to be an intern for him, and president of the USA is a much bigger role with a lot more people counting on him.

    BTW, as to his being a Christian, I simply have never heard anything that suggests he knows what that means. Here is someone asking him in 2015, for instance, if he has ever asked God for forgiveness, and the answer is not one a Christian would make. First he goes on and on praising Norman Vincent Peale (who is hardly orthodox–someone who sat under him wouldn’t be being fed any more than someone sitting under Obama’s pastor would be), and then he answers in other ways, but there is no mention of Christ and in effect his answer is no I haven’t but I’m religious. That doesn’t men he hasn’t become a believer since then, but that at least at that point, his statements about being a Christian weren’t backed up with any understanding of what that means. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKLVIm7Q0IQ


  30. Cheryl, you are correct, I misremembered. You said on the Oct 19 open thread:

    Or, in this case, one favors abortion, and the other is opposed to abortion but has made an utter shambles of his personal life and has huge character red flags.


  31. OK, yes, in that case the personal life includes multiple marriages and adultery and such investment choices as a casino and a fake university, and multiple bankruptcies. There are reasons for some caution.


  32. Cheryl, I totally agree that his past is not pretty. But then, looking at his family, it appears to be a group of people who enjoy each other’s company.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.