Given Trump’s foreign policy successes it’s no wonder they didn’t want to talk foreign policy at the last debate.
And here’s yet another. This is historic folks. And note how he took care of the Americans who’ve been waiting 2 decades for financial compensation for their injuries by Sudan.
“Trump: Sudan to join UAE, Bahrain in recognizing Israel”
“President Donald Trump announced Friday that Sudan will start to normalize ties with Israel, making it the third Arab state to do so as part of U.S.-brokered deals in the run-up to Election Day.
The announcement came after the North African nation agreed to put $335 million in an escrow account to be used to compensate American victims of terror attacks. The attacks include the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by the al-Qaida network while its leader, Osama bin Laden, was living in Sudan. In exchange, Trump notified Congress on Friday of his intent to remove Sudan from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.
It was foreign policy achievement for Trump just 11 days before Election Day. Previously, the Trump administration engineered diplomatic pacts between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — the first since Jordan recognized Israel in the 1990s and Egypt in the 1970s.
Trump said at least five other countries want to come into the deal, which is collectively called the Abraham Accords.
The new recognitions of Israel unify Arab nations around their common enemy, Iran. They also upend the traditional Arab strategy of refusing to normalize relations with Israel before an independent Palestinian state is created.”
But take a lawyer. Don’t fall into another of the FBI’s perjury traps. They’ve been sitting on that laptop for a year and did nothing. I doubt they suddenly become helpful in bringing these traitors to justice now. Don’t trust them.
“FBI to interview Hunter Biden’s ex-associate Bobulinski, Senate committee says
Bobulinski reached out to the FBI about a meeting, senior administration official tells Fox News”
“The FBI has agreed to interview former Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski, Bobulinski’s lawyers told the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which released a statement Friday.
The FBI has asked Bobulinski, who went on the record Thursday to accuse former Vice President Joe Biden of lying about his involvement with his son’s business dealings, to turn over copies of his phones, according to the committee.
The FBI declined to comment “in keeping with our standard practice of neither confirming nor denying the existence of an investigation.” A senior administration official told Fox News that Bobulinski or his lawyers reached out to the FBI about a meeting, not the other way around.
The Senate Homeland Security Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, which have been investigating Hunter Biden’s business dealings, said their interview with Bobulinski scheduled for Friday morning was postponed.
“I appreciate that the FBI has a job to do, and I am glad they are finally taking an interest in these concerning financial matters that our Committees have been investigating for months,” Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said.”
Even though it wasn’t. The terms Hunter signed when he left it said if he abandoned it for more than 90 days, the shop owns it. Sorry, Hunter agreed to these terms, so the narrative while changed, it’s still false.
“Buzzfeed Tries To Dismiss Hunter Biden Emails As ‘Stolen,’ Gives No Evidence To Support Claim”
“Media outlets continue to claim the bombshell emails detailing Biden family corruption are “misinformation” or “disinformation” without providing evidence of such. Neither Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden nor his son Hunter, at the center of the scandal, have made such claims.
The latest claim comes from Buzzfeed, which reported late Thursday night that the emails contained on a computer hard drive apparently belonging to Hunter were “stolen.”
——–
“In the paragraph, Buzzfeed links to a story about Twitter censoring the original New York Post article about the emails. That article, however, doesn’t prove the emails were stolen.”
““Contrary to Twitter’s claims, there’s nothing to suggest at this point the laptop was stolen. The Post reported in its first bombshell story that the laptop came into its possession after it was declared abandoned property at a computer repair shop in Delaware. The store owner told the Post it was dropped off in April 2019 and the owner, suspected to be Hunter Biden, never paid for the service or came to retrieve the computer. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Fox News he found the hard drive at the store in Delaware after its owner contacted an associate and in turn, gave it to the Post,” The Federalist reported.
Buzzfeed also claims in that paragraph that The Wall Street Journal “essentially published a debunk” of the whole scandal. This is not true. The Wall Street Journal merely notes that there are no corporate records that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s business dealings.”
“Report: Hunter Biden and Business Partners Knew Contacts Worked for Chinese Intelligence
“Mr. [James] Gilliar reminds him [Bobulinski] that those on the Chinese side ‘are intelligence so they understand the value added.’””
“The Wall Street Journal‘s Kim Strassel reported that Hunter Biden and his business associates knew that their Chinese contacts worked for Chinese intelligence.
Strassel said the editorial staff at WSJ received more emails and texts from former associate Tony Bobulinski regarding the lucrative Chinese deals Hunter wanted for his family. ”
—-
“Bobulinski relayed fears to the others that Hunter might become a problem:
Mr. Bobulinski’s text messages show he was recruited for the project by James Gilliar, a Hunter associate. Mr. Gilliar explains in a December 2015 text that there will be a deal between the Chinese and “one of the most prominent families from the U.S.” A month later he introduces Rob Walker, also “a partner of Biden.” In March 2016, Mr. Gilliar tells Mr. Bobulinski the Chinese entity is CEFC, which is shaping up to be “the Goldmans of China.” Mr. Gilliar promises that same month to “develop” the terms of a deal “with hunter.” Note that in 2015-16, Joe Biden was still vice president.
As the deal takes shape in 2017, Mr. Bobulinski begins to question what Hunter will contribute besides his name, and worries that he was “kicked out of US Navy for cocaine use.” Mr. Gilliar acknowledges “skill sets [sic] missing” and observes that Hunter “has a few demons.” He explains that “in brand [Hunter is] imperative but right know [sic] he’s not essential for adding input.” Mr. Bobulinski writes that he appreciates “the name/leverage being used” but thinks the economic “upside” should go to the team doing the actual work. Mr. Gilliar reminds him that those on the Chinese side “are intelligence so they understand the value added.”
Hunter barely makes an appearance while his associates formulate a deal. He shows up at the end with his own demands, which causes more problems with Bobulinski:
This dispute almost derails the deal. Hunter is hardly visible through most of the work, until final contract negotiations ramp up in mid-May. He brings in his uncle Jim Biden for a stake. (Mr. Gilliar in a text message soothes Mr. Bobulinski with a promise that Jim’s addition “strengthens our USP”—unique selling proposition—“to the Chinese as it looks like a truly family business.”) Hunter in texts and emails wants offices in three U.S. cities, “significant” travel budgets, a stipend for Jim Biden, a job for an assistant, and more-frequent distributions of any gains. As for annual pay, he explains in an email that he expects “a hell of a lot more than 850” thousand dollars a year (the amount Mr. Bobulinski, the CEO, is getting), since his ex-wife will take nearly all of it.
Mr. Bobulinksi pushes back, warning Mr. Gilliar in a text that they need to “manage” Hunter because “he thinks things are going to be his personal piggybank.” The duo worry about his “mental state,” substance abuse, and his ability to make meetings.
Hunter fired back that his name is “his contribution” and yells at Bobulinski:”
“WSJ Columnist Shreds Claim That Joe Biden is Free and Clear of China Corruption Scheme Allegations”
“Hunter Biden’s ex-business partner Tony Bobulinski has flipped. He said he needed to come forward and set the record straight. Joe Biden has become a source of inquiry for some outlets regarding corruption allegations again. His son, Hunter, had his trove of emails exposed by The New York Post, showing that the former VP did indeed know a lot about the business dealings of his son. One, in particular, that’s drawing attention is this China deal, where some person noted as the “big guy” was slated to get a 10 percent equity stake in this arrangement. The Chinese firm no longer exists, the deal fell through, but it started when Joe was vice president. Mr. Bobulinski says “big guy” is Joe Biden. The firm had ties to a rival government. So, Joe is a liar who knew what was going on, he was reportedly referred to as the “chairman,” Hunter often called him to get approval to sign off on deals, and he used the office of the vice presidency to enrich his family. That’s the Biden Doctrine. Get paid and worry about the rest later. He’s shown to even go rogue on foreign policy to protect Hunter and his family’s interests.
Remember, Hunter was on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma in 2014 when Joe was helming our policy initiatives there. Burisma paid Hunter $50k/month and reportedly got returns in the forms of access to top Obama officials. Oh, and legal protection; Joe was able to get the prosecutor looking into Burisma fired. How? He threatened to withhold aid. Now, The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel threaded all the dates, emails, and communications together regarding the China deal and it’s not pretty for Joe. Some noted that Joe is clear of the China stuff because his name isn’t on the documents. Strassel had a thread noting how that’s not true. Joe isn’t out of the woods, and she added the key questions that should be asked of the former VP regarding this China arrangement ”
2) The doc w/proposed equity stakes said Hunter was going to hold 10% for the "big guy." Tony Bobulinski, Hunter's partner, says the big guy is Joe–and Bobulinski presumably told that to the FBI today. Got to wonder why he'd risk a false statement charge if that wasn't true.
4) Bobulinski also presumably telling FBI he met with Joe, and that Joe was at some level aware of the deal. Note also that Biden camp did not provide answer to the WSJ news question about that meeting.
5) So here are the right questions for Joe: a) are you "big guy"? b) While Chinese $$ never materialized, were u at one point–via a Hunter–in line to have an equity share? c) Did u meet with Hunter's partner? d)how does any this comport w/ your claims to not talk biz w/Hunter?
“Furious liberals demand CNN fire Obama adviser Van Jones for saying Trump ‘doesn’t get credit’ for the ‘good things’ he has done for the black community
Van Jones appeared on Jake Tapper’s daily CNN broadcast on Friday afternoon
Tapper blasted Trump for saying he’s done most for African Americans since Lincoln
During Thursday’s debate, Trump said he was ‘least racist person in the room’
Jones said Trump ‘doesn’t get credit’ for ‘good things’ he did for black people
Trump has been praised by Jones for supporting criminal justice reform
President signed into law First Step Act to ease sentences for nonviolent crimes
Jones is said to have worked with Jared Kushner in crafting the legislation “
I read with dismay of Phil Vischer (Veggie Tales) and John Piper urging voters to not vote for Trump. Vischer is said to be voting for Biden? Because of Trump’s moral failures and abortion isn’t that big of a deal? I am flabbergasted. Piper not commenting on just who he will vote for. The comments I read affirming Vischer’s stance was alarming to me coming from professing followers of Christ. 😞
NancyJill – Piper set out his case, but then said that he understood that not everyone would see it the same way, and should do what they feel they should do. As DJ said, it was a powerful piece, even if you don’t agree with his conclusion. (If you missed it, I shared it on both threads yesterday.)
The encouraging news on the abortion rate is that it is has been steadily going down for years, even under presidents who are Democrats.
Thanks Kizzie…I missed what you posted so now will search back to read … I read about Piper on some other blog and Eric Metaxas wrote about Vischer’s announcement….
It seems to me that Christians should also take into consideration what parameters God set up for government and not just the moral life of the leaders. I would love wonderful, saintly statesmen, but we have seldom had them. Most of the time we had no idea of what was going on with those who were in office. Now we have 24/7 news coverage and cell phone cameras everywhere. We also have news sources who are obviously using their jobs to promote certain stories and ignore others.
Government was meant to promote the good and punish evil. Those governing were not to accept bribes nor favor rich or poor. They were to promote justice for all. They were to keep the peace and protect the citizens as much as possible.
Which candidate and party is trying to force people to accept evil and promote it? Which is trying to stifle free speech? We don’t just vote for a candidate, but for the party. It is the party platform that will be used as a basis for governing as much as possible. Those who stray from it will be punished politically. Like it or not that is the way it is.
I don’t see any wonderfully moral people running for president. Lying is immoral as well as taking advantage of your position to gain wealth. Trying to force people to do evil is not moral. Scaring vulnerable people is not moral and so forth.
The press has no problem (for the most part) showing us one person’s immorality while sheltering the other person’s. This is not new this election just more obvious. Furthermore, our own reputations can make us shy away from supporting someone. None of us want to be thought of accepting immorality or supporting evil. That charge is not new and has been used against politicians and those who vote for them since the beginning. Motives are difficult to discern in others, whether Christian leaders or politicians. Our own are even easily rationalized. There is another reason for prayer.
Piper does what frustrates me the most. He assumes that doing what he feels is right absolves him from the consequences of the liberal, far left policies that those taking over will implement.
“John Piper is one of the most respected Christian leaders in America, and I personally hold him in high esteem. Yet I differ with his suggestion that Christians might do best by sitting out the presidential election, since a vote for either Trump or Biden cannot be justified.
Before sharing my differences, though, I want to share my points of affirmation.
Where We Agree
First, I wholeheartedly agree with Pastor Piper that the foremost calling of a minister of the gospel “is to lead people to see Jesus Christ, trust his forgiveness for sins, treasure him above everything in this world, live in a way that shows his all-satisfying value, and help them make it to heaven with love and holiness.”
Second, I deeply share his concern that many American pastors have failed to develop “real, radical Christians,” Christians who will be willing to die for Jesus.
Third, I agree with Pastor Piper that our obsession with the elections and the well-being of America undermines the reality that we are citizens of a higher kingdom and that we are only passing through this world.
Fourth, I concur that the character flaws of our president have been very damaging. As Piper wrote, “When a leader models self-absorbed, self-exalting boastfulness, he models the most deadly behavior in the world. He points his nation to destruction. Destruction of more kinds than we can imagine.”
Fifth, I have no problem with a Christian saying he or she cannot vote for either candidate. I have always respected that view, even if it is not my own. I have a massive problem with a self-identified pro-life, pro-Bible Christian voting for Biden and the Democrats.
Sixth, I respect the humility with which Pastor Piper presents his viewpoint, making clear that he is not telling anyone else how to vote.
Seventh, I agree with him that, whatever path we take, it must enhance, not detract, from our witness for Jesus.
Readers of my book Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test? will know that I have expressed many similar views as well.
That being said, I differ with Pastor Piper’s assessment of the situation and with his comparison of the personal failings of Trump with the policies of the Democratic party.
How Pastor Piper Weighs a Candidate’s Personal Sins Alongside His Policies
He writes, “I remain baffled that so many Christians consider the sins of unrepentant sexual immorality (porneia), unrepentant boastfulness (alazoneia), unrepentant vulgarity (aischrologia), unrepentant factiousness (dichostasiai), and the like, to be only toxic for our nation, while policies that endorse baby-killing, sex-switching, freedom-limiting, and socialistic overreach are viewed as deadly.”
He notes that the first list of sins is not only deadly in this world but also deadly forever. How, then, can Christians vote for someone who embodies the former sins (such as “unrepentant boastfulness”) in the name of fighting against the latter sins (such as abortion)?
He adds, “I think it is a drastic mistake to think that the deadly influences of a leader come only through his policies and not also through his person.”
The answer, for me, is simple.
Realistic Expectations of Our Political System
To begin with, the political system itself is earthly and flawed, with all candidates being far from perfect. While it would be ideal for our presidents to be shining examples of morality and character, very few in our history would live up to that ideal. This is not to make excuses but rather to be realistic.
Next, it is one thing to elect a boastful, divisive leader. It is another thing to empower a party that will sanction the killing of the unborn. Or strip away religious freedoms. Or give free reign to foreign, tyrannical regimes.
When it comes to Trump, we can vote for his policies while saying, “I don’t like many of the things he does and feel his example is often very destructive. I will therefore speak out when he acts wrongly and will model something different in my own life.”
But a vote for Biden and the Democrats is a vote to empower a party that wants to impose an overtly godless agenda.
Pastor Piper writes, “I find it bewildering that Christians can be so sure that greater damage will be done by bad judges, bad laws, and bad policies than is being done by the culture-infecting spread of the gangrene of sinful self-exaltation, and boasting, and strife-stirring (eristikos).”
We Can Model Godlier Conduct
My response, again, is simple: Trump is one man, and as destructive as his words and conduct can be — just look at the warnings in Proverbs about foolish kings — we can vote for him by the millions while at the same time modeling godlier conduct.
On the other hand, if those with a different agenda are empowered, their policies will affect us by the millions.
Put another way, if voting for a boastful man can potentially save millions of babies’ lives, can that vote be justified? If voting for a man with a sexually immoral past can give support to persecuted minorities in China, can that vote be justified? If voting for a man who often lies and exaggerates can stop the rise of an anti-God socialism, can that vote be justified?”
The right wing echo chamber needs to give up on the Hunter Biden story.
Its based on emails — so 2016; Republicans made Hilary’s emails a campaign issue yet after the election — nothing. I don’t think independent votes will be fooled twice.
Rudy G. is in the middle of this. His trip to the Ukraine resulted in Trump’s impeachment. While in Ukraine he consorted with know Russian agents looking for dirt on Hunter — now he miraculously finds in a NJ repair shop. The man is shameless and after the Borat episode he has even less credibility.
The FBI won’t get involved this time — there will be no Comey letter.
The other people involved have very little credibility — a federal inmate looking for reduced jail time alleges ….
Who leaves a computer at a repairs shop and forgets about it? The manufacture sends you a box you ship it back via UP or FedEx and they ship it back fixed even if you forget about it. Rich people don’t get laptops repaired at a shop. They send them back for a new one. And who stores emails on a laptop — its in the “cloud” or in a server. Most people, especially a business man, will clean out a laptop before sending it away.
Finally, even if you take the emails at face value, the only credible assertion so far is Hunter was CCed. I’m sure if I was too look at my “junk” inbox I’ve been CCed by a Nigerian prince but that doesn’t make me culpable. Other than that, it appears Hunter name dropped his father. Who doesn’t name drop to get a job or account….. its how most people are hired; just look at the Trump — Jared Kushner a failed real estate developer would never be hired as presidential adviser if it wasn’t for his father or Ivanka’s 15 Chinese patents obtained in the last 4 years, etc. A quarter of all Harvard students are leagcies. Perhaps that explains Tiffany at Georgetown Law.
As Joe Biden said, produce the tax returns or stop talking about corruption. Trump has a Chinese bank account and has paid over 200,000$ in taxes to China. According to reports, he received 17$ million in that account and 15$ million was removed shortly after in 2017. Other reports have in debt by $400 million to foreign banks (personal not corporate debt). From other sources we know one of the few banks to loan him money in the last decade is the Deutsche Bank — the bank of choice for the Russian mob.
Rasmussen polls are flawed — they are almost always 2-3% off in favor of Republicans and sometimes even worse. It its true there’s been a slight uptick in black approval but not by that much — a flawed sample size focusing more on establish middle class suburban blacks rather than urban working class blacks is my guess.
Why consider criminal justice reform solely an African American issue? Sure it affects them but it affects others and quite frankly the credibility of the US in general is affected. Any country with that many people in prison has an international credibility issue.
Its pretty hard to have a foreign policy debate when Americans are banned from the rest of the world due to the mismanagement of Covid. Its true there’s been a change in the middle east but I’m not sure its a positive in the long run. While the Iran deal gave the US a balanced policy, the US now appears to be all in in supporting the Israeli-Saudi alliance. Turkey, a NATO member, used to be an Israeli ally but they’ve moved towards Iran upset with the US presence in Syria and Iraq. With the US firmly on the Saudi side look for Turkey to move closer to Russia and Iran, possibly leaving NATO. This will give Russia land access to the middle east.
Speaking of Covid, reports indicate the White House has essentially given up and will allow cornovirus spread unchecked hoping for herd immunity.
Our political views are usually a product of our environment. To change opinions or to dissent usually indicates you’ve been thinking whereas to continue support for the same is usually a reflex. Piper has obviously done some thinking whereas the rhetorical excess of the rebuttal indicates a reflex.
Calling Biden — godless, baby killing and far left does indicate a lack of thought.
Biden is a practicing Catholic whereas Trump is a practicing narcissist. Trump is probably the most corrupt president since the Harding administration — there is nothing redeemable here. The label godless is more appropriate for Trump.
Biden is pro choice but that doesn’t mean baby killing — yes I know most of you don’t view it that way. However, the consensus has emerged among those under 50 or 40 that they themselves would not get an abortion but they don’t want the gov’t to decide. Pro life won the moral argument and pro choice won the political argument. And as abortions are in steady decline, lower than pre Roe vs Wade, to push the issue with gov’t interference probably won’t help. Canada with no abortion restrictions at all has seen an even greater decline.
On a personal level, who do you see paying for their mistress’s abortion? I have a hard time seeing Biden ever having a mistress let alone paying for an abortion. In Trump’s case, we know he pays off his mistresses so paying for an abortion is not off the table.
The Trump admin has been responsible for the deaths of children in their custody, has placed children in overcrowded pens and separated young children from their parents. This was done deliberately — to scare illegal immigrants from coming to the US. In other words they created conditions that led to the death of children and the break up of families solely to fulfill their immigration policy — that is not pro life. And even now over 500 children are without parents. Biden wouldn’t not do that and definitely not that. And I would argue Biden’s Catholicism — the idea of social justice and compassion are very Catholic — is part of his policy here. His religion does inform him here whereas the Trump admin is obviously not religiously informed here.
And finally — far left?? Please, I’m far left, Sander is left, and Biden is a centrist.
Biden once opposed federal funding for abortion but has suddenly now backtracked on that more moderate position. I think his “moderate-centrist” reputation is being dismantled as he tries to appease the rest of his more leftward party that’s agreed to go to bat for him in exchange.
It’s interesting to remember that many prominent Democrats were once staunchly pro-life, which seemed fitting with the overall liberal concerns then for life and protecting the weak. Jesse Jackson and Edward Kennedy were once pro-life.
… in the early 1970s, liberals were not only part of the pro-life campaign but, in fact, were the dominant voice in the movement, shaping pro-life ideology and framing the cause as a progressive fight for the civil rights of the unborn and the value of human life.
If one could travel back in time forty-four years to observe the first pro-life rally ever held on the National Mall in Washington, DC—a rally which the National Youth Pro-Life Coalition (NYPLC) organized in September 1972—liberals would have been in evidence everywhere. In keeping with NYPLC cofounder Sue Bastyr’s description of her organization as “an extremely liberal group,” the protest on the Mall featured a keynote address from the antiwar Lutheran minister Richard John Neuhaus, who had served as a delegate for George McGovern at the Democratic National Convention earlier that summer. “The anti-abortion forces are not instruments of political and social conservatism,” Neuhaus declared. “Rather they are related to the protest against the Indochina war, the militarization of American life, and the social crimes perpetrated against the poor.”1
Pro-lifers’ success in framing their campaign as a human rights cause linked to the progressive politics of the antiwar movement and the War on Poverty contributed to their legislative victories in the early 1970s, when they defeated dozens of proposed abortion legalization bills. In 1972, the pro-life movement enjoyed the support of the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, as well as the most high-profile liberal Democratic senator in Washington.2
After Roe v. Wade, this situation changed: pro-lifers who found themselves marginalized in the Democratic Party made new alliances with conservative Republicans, who did not necessarily share their larger values. Yet the pro-life movement’s conversion to conservatism was never complete; the movement retained vestiges of its liberal heritage, and these traces of liberal ideology became the key to the movement’s continued political saliency. …
_______________________________
Another shift going on, I think, is the Democrat party becoming more the party of the well-heeled while the GOP becoming more home to the working class – otherwise known in liberal circles as the “deplorables”?
Interesting to watch the parties evolve and sometimes start changing places on issues and constituencies.
AJ – That piece doesn’t mean that Piper is wrong, it means that Piper and Brown have differing opinions on the subject. Piper did not say that he is going to vote for Biden. He may vote third party or may abstain from voting for president. He is keeping his decision private. Even Brown says:
“Fifth, I have no problem with a Christian saying he or she cannot vote for either candidate. I have always respected that view, even if it is not my own. I have a massive problem with a self-identified pro-life, pro-Bible Christian voting for Biden and the Democrats.”
I found this portion to be good advice, and I wish more Christians would apply it:
“We Cannot Become Apologists for the President, But the Stakes are Too High Not to Vote for Him
What we cannot do, as I have been shouting for years now, is become apologists for the president. That, without question, demeans our witness. But to say that we cannot vote for him when the stakes are so high is, in my view, to miss the larger point.
One of my evangelical colleagues wrote to me last week, saying, “The gospel witness has been destroyed, especially among the younger generations. The final straw was the support of Donald Trump by these groups. The non-believing world is appalled by the hypocrisy. The only folks who don’t see it are most of the Evangelical world.”
DJ – A while back, I read something that showed how the two parties tend to gradually switch stances on matters. If one party starts to embrace Position A, which had been the stance of the other party, then the other party will gradually evolve into embracing Position B instead. I can’t remember the examples that were given, but one thing I have seen, just in the last decade (I think, maybe it has been longer) is the issue of free speech. That used to be a liberal stance, and now it tends to be conservatives embracing it.
DJ — Not surprised by pro-life Democratic politicians and supporters. Part of it is the Catholic influence — pro life for Catholics means no abortion, no death penalty and social justice for the poor. Its a consistent position. This was probably the starting position for Biden and other Catholic democrats. In a post Roe vs Wade world, abortion was seen as a personal right or at the very least as part and parcel of bodily autonomy — a classical liberal position (ie capitalism free market libertarian) which should have been a Republican ideal. However, Nixon’s southern strategy meant appealing to the social conservatism of the South — so the Republican party became a contradictory party of economic liberalism and social conservatism. Once pro life became part of the Republican agenda (not something that occurred prior to the Reagan era), there was a gradual movement of pro life democrats. Those that stayed made compromises and stayed because social justice issues appealed to them as an affirmation of pro life.
As for current shifts in party adherence, its more Democrats continuing to solidifying their position as the urban party and Republicans as the party of the rural working class. Given the continued urbanization, the Democrats will become the stronger party unless the Republican party expands beyond its base. Strangely, the Republican party does nothing to reward their base — other than social conservatism — their economic platform rewards their wealthy donors.
hwesseli: The most corrupt US president in history? That’s Obama territory, and Biden as VP was steeped in the corruption. He’s only continued it in recent years, as the facts are bearing out.
Give up on the Hunter Biden story? You and Dems/liberals would of course love that. Here is some light reading for you just for starters – the actual Senate Committee(s) report on the Hunter Biden-Burisma Corruption scandal:
You are wrong about the fact pattern on almost everything you type… you may be a proud “far left” liberal, but you would do well to find some better sources for your news.
Kizzie — the last paragraph of your quote is extremely accurate. Non-evangelicals and non religious people weren’t surprised by evangelicals voting Republican and Trump — that was expected. It was their defense of Trump and apologist attitude towards his behavior, tweets,etc. It was the laying of hands and defending him as a Cyrus which appalled people — the mass hypocrisy. Twenty years ago, impeaching Clinton for lying about an affair was the moral thing to do but now paying off a stripper with campaign funds is okay.
The Republican hypocrisy in Supreme Court appointments in election years will affect the legitimacy of the court. Similarly, the hypocrisy of evangelicals with Trump will affect views of their legitimacy in the political arena.
The link isn’t working properly, but you can go to the link at 4:55pm and type “Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption” in the search engine, then scroll down and click on #11.
There were a few Democrat holdouts, of course, but they soon enough were silenced and shut down.
A colleague once told me she left the GOP for the Democratic part on the issue of abortion (her quibble was the GOP platform that particular year was pro-life). But I pointed out to her that there was a lot more diversity on the issue with the Republican party than was “allowed” in the Democrat party.
Kizzie, excellent point about how Christians can’t afford to become apologists for politicians. It will likely come back to bite and embarrass you — and, in some people’s minds, will reflect upon the faith and the God you profess.
Obama corrupt?? You don’t think Trump would’ve spent the last four years investigating him if that was true?? Obama ran the cleanest admin in decades — if he didn’t the Republicans would have nailed him to the wall.
As for Trump — he never put his business in a trust; Foreign dignitaries rented entire floors of his Washington hotel and bought memberships to Mar a logo; they didn’t need either it was a straight up bribe. Every time Trump stayed at one of his resorts for a golf weekend his business charged the secret service to stay there. Eric claimed they only charged 50$ per room; receipts show it to be an excess of 600$ per night per room. Meanwhile he kept a Chinese bank account in which millions were moved in and out. He owes over 400$ million to foreign banks probably DB. The list is endless —
The grifting is commonplace that his campaign managers are starting to do the same; treating campaign funds as their own account paying for clothes, holidays, personal electronics etc. Its gotten so bad that Trump is being conned by his own staff and can no longer afford TV time.
One can be “pro-choice” in the Republican party, but one isn’t hardly allowed to be pro-life in the modern-day Democrat party.
That is somewhat related to the freedom of speech issue Kizzie brought up, the new liberalism (which isn’t classic liberalism) is very big on restrictions whether it be of beliefs or speech.
Tychius — checked some of it out — seems like a lot of noise with very little substance. I found it interesting on the front page of your link; the Republicans are focused on Hunter Biden ie digging dirt on their opponent while the Democrats seem focused on ensuring people vote safely and covid in general. Also saw that even the Wall Street Journal and Fox are admitting there’s not much to the Bobulinski story.
Not sure “freedom of expression” is any greater on either side of the aisle. A pro-choice Republican would probably feel as uncomfortable as a pro-life Democrat especially given the emotions of this particular issue. I’ve know Conservatives in Canada who, personally pro life, have tried to convince other conservatives not to raise the issue and accept the national consensus. They’ve been called a liberal troll and more.
In a capitalist society, many claim there is freedom of speech but speech is often curtailed for lack of funds. When mass media funded by large corporations drowns out independent dissent, it may not be censorship but the effect is the same. Some voices are not heard.
Although pressure can be the reason for change, sometimes the force of an argument or a gradual change does occur. Marriage equality is an issue in which many politicians changed their mind not all of it because of pressure but due to force of debate or gradual change. Similarly, pro choice arguments gradually became more accepted even when evidence for fetal development and life supported pro life arguments. The two have coexisted in which pro life is the moral position and pro choice is the legal/political position that people can hold at the same time.
I really think we need to extend some grace to our brothers and sisters during what is a very difficult time. Different “take,” all based on scripture, are understandable — or should be.
Amen, DJ. God has quite a few people with quite a few different experiences, He is bringing them all together in His way. He does not need our correction. He desires our obedience.
Wandering Views 
Given Trump’s foreign policy successes it’s no wonder they didn’t want to talk foreign policy at the last debate.
And here’s yet another. This is historic folks. And note how he took care of the Americans who’ve been waiting 2 decades for financial compensation for their injuries by Sudan.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-bahrain-israel-united-arab-emirates-sudan-07fe32a9ac1bd3afe5c503d4ff6bc859?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP
“Trump: Sudan to join UAE, Bahrain in recognizing Israel”
“President Donald Trump announced Friday that Sudan will start to normalize ties with Israel, making it the third Arab state to do so as part of U.S.-brokered deals in the run-up to Election Day.
The announcement came after the North African nation agreed to put $335 million in an escrow account to be used to compensate American victims of terror attacks. The attacks include the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by the al-Qaida network while its leader, Osama bin Laden, was living in Sudan. In exchange, Trump notified Congress on Friday of his intent to remove Sudan from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.
It was foreign policy achievement for Trump just 11 days before Election Day. Previously, the Trump administration engineered diplomatic pacts between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — the first since Jordan recognized Israel in the 1990s and Egypt in the 1970s.
Trump said at least five other countries want to come into the deal, which is collectively called the Abraham Accords.
The new recognitions of Israel unify Arab nations around their common enemy, Iran. They also upend the traditional Arab strategy of refusing to normalize relations with Israel before an independent Palestinian state is created.”
LikeLike
Good.
But take a lawyer. Don’t fall into another of the FBI’s perjury traps. They’ve been sitting on that laptop for a year and did nothing. I doubt they suddenly become helpful in bringing these traitors to justice now. Don’t trust them.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-interview-request-hunter-biden-ex-associate-tony-bobulinski-senate-committee
“FBI to interview Hunter Biden’s ex-associate Bobulinski, Senate committee says
Bobulinski reached out to the FBI about a meeting, senior administration official tells Fox News”
“The FBI has agreed to interview former Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski, Bobulinski’s lawyers told the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which released a statement Friday.
The FBI has asked Bobulinski, who went on the record Thursday to accuse former Vice President Joe Biden of lying about his involvement with his son’s business dealings, to turn over copies of his phones, according to the committee.
The FBI declined to comment “in keeping with our standard practice of neither confirming nor denying the existence of an investigation.” A senior administration official told Fox News that Bobulinski or his lawyers reached out to the FBI about a meeting, not the other way around.
The Senate Homeland Security Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, which have been investigating Hunter Biden’s business dealings, said their interview with Bobulinski scheduled for Friday morning was postponed.
“I appreciate that the FBI has a job to do, and I am glad they are finally taking an interest in these concerning financial matters that our Committees have been investigating for months,” Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said.”
LikeLike
The Gestapo have arrived.
https://twitter.com/ConservCityGirl/status/1319679971959492608
LikeLike
The narrative is changing.
Out: “Russian disinformation”
In: “Stolen property”
Even though it wasn’t. The terms Hunter signed when he left it said if he abandoned it for more than 90 days, the shop owns it. Sorry, Hunter agreed to these terms, so the narrative while changed, it’s still false.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/buzzfeed-tries-to-dismiss-hunter-biden-emails-as-stolen-gives-no-evidence-to-support-claim
“Buzzfeed Tries To Dismiss Hunter Biden Emails As ‘Stolen,’ Gives No Evidence To Support Claim”
“Media outlets continue to claim the bombshell emails detailing Biden family corruption are “misinformation” or “disinformation” without providing evidence of such. Neither Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden nor his son Hunter, at the center of the scandal, have made such claims.
The latest claim comes from Buzzfeed, which reported late Thursday night that the emails contained on a computer hard drive apparently belonging to Hunter were “stolen.”
——–
“In the paragraph, Buzzfeed links to a story about Twitter censoring the original New York Post article about the emails. That article, however, doesn’t prove the emails were stolen.”
““Contrary to Twitter’s claims, there’s nothing to suggest at this point the laptop was stolen. The Post reported in its first bombshell story that the laptop came into its possession after it was declared abandoned property at a computer repair shop in Delaware. The store owner told the Post it was dropped off in April 2019 and the owner, suspected to be Hunter Biden, never paid for the service or came to retrieve the computer. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Fox News he found the hard drive at the store in Delaware after its owner contacted an associate and in turn, gave it to the Post,” The Federalist reported.
Buzzfeed also claims in that paragraph that The Wall Street Journal “essentially published a debunk” of the whole scandal. This is not true. The Wall Street Journal merely notes that there are no corporate records that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s business dealings.”
LikeLike
They knew exactly what they were doing, and who they were doing it with.
They also knew it was illegal.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/10/report-hunter-biden-and-business-partners-knew-contacts-worked-for-chinese-intelligence/
“Report: Hunter Biden and Business Partners Knew Contacts Worked for Chinese Intelligence
“Mr. [James] Gilliar reminds him [Bobulinski] that those on the Chinese side ‘are intelligence so they understand the value added.’””
“The Wall Street Journal‘s Kim Strassel reported that Hunter Biden and his business associates knew that their Chinese contacts worked for Chinese intelligence.
Strassel said the editorial staff at WSJ received more emails and texts from former associate Tony Bobulinski regarding the lucrative Chinese deals Hunter wanted for his family. ”
—-
“Bobulinski relayed fears to the others that Hunter might become a problem:
Mr. Bobulinski’s text messages show he was recruited for the project by James Gilliar, a Hunter associate. Mr. Gilliar explains in a December 2015 text that there will be a deal between the Chinese and “one of the most prominent families from the U.S.” A month later he introduces Rob Walker, also “a partner of Biden.” In March 2016, Mr. Gilliar tells Mr. Bobulinski the Chinese entity is CEFC, which is shaping up to be “the Goldmans of China.” Mr. Gilliar promises that same month to “develop” the terms of a deal “with hunter.” Note that in 2015-16, Joe Biden was still vice president.
As the deal takes shape in 2017, Mr. Bobulinski begins to question what Hunter will contribute besides his name, and worries that he was “kicked out of US Navy for cocaine use.” Mr. Gilliar acknowledges “skill sets [sic] missing” and observes that Hunter “has a few demons.” He explains that “in brand [Hunter is] imperative but right know [sic] he’s not essential for adding input.” Mr. Bobulinski writes that he appreciates “the name/leverage being used” but thinks the economic “upside” should go to the team doing the actual work. Mr. Gilliar reminds him that those on the Chinese side “are intelligence so they understand the value added.”
Hunter barely makes an appearance while his associates formulate a deal. He shows up at the end with his own demands, which causes more problems with Bobulinski:
This dispute almost derails the deal. Hunter is hardly visible through most of the work, until final contract negotiations ramp up in mid-May. He brings in his uncle Jim Biden for a stake. (Mr. Gilliar in a text message soothes Mr. Bobulinski with a promise that Jim’s addition “strengthens our USP”—unique selling proposition—“to the Chinese as it looks like a truly family business.”) Hunter in texts and emails wants offices in three U.S. cities, “significant” travel budgets, a stipend for Jim Biden, a job for an assistant, and more-frequent distributions of any gains. As for annual pay, he explains in an email that he expects “a hell of a lot more than 850” thousand dollars a year (the amount Mr. Bobulinski, the CEO, is getting), since his ex-wife will take nearly all of it.
Mr. Bobulinksi pushes back, warning Mr. Gilliar in a text that they need to “manage” Hunter because “he thinks things are going to be his personal piggybank.” The duo worry about his “mental state,” substance abuse, and his ability to make meetings.
Hunter fired back that his name is “his contribution” and yells at Bobulinski:”
LikeLike
Like I said, I have zero confidence the FBI will get this right, but…..
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/10/24/wsj-columnist-lays-out-the-right-questions-to-ask-joe-biden-about-shady-china-deal-allegations-n2578713
“WSJ Columnist Shreds Claim That Joe Biden is Free and Clear of China Corruption Scheme Allegations”
“Hunter Biden’s ex-business partner Tony Bobulinski has flipped. He said he needed to come forward and set the record straight. Joe Biden has become a source of inquiry for some outlets regarding corruption allegations again. His son, Hunter, had his trove of emails exposed by The New York Post, showing that the former VP did indeed know a lot about the business dealings of his son. One, in particular, that’s drawing attention is this China deal, where some person noted as the “big guy” was slated to get a 10 percent equity stake in this arrangement. The Chinese firm no longer exists, the deal fell through, but it started when Joe was vice president. Mr. Bobulinski says “big guy” is Joe Biden. The firm had ties to a rival government. So, Joe is a liar who knew what was going on, he was reportedly referred to as the “chairman,” Hunter often called him to get approval to sign off on deals, and he used the office of the vice presidency to enrich his family. That’s the Biden Doctrine. Get paid and worry about the rest later. He’s shown to even go rogue on foreign policy to protect Hunter and his family’s interests.
Remember, Hunter was on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma in 2014 when Joe was helming our policy initiatives there. Burisma paid Hunter $50k/month and reportedly got returns in the forms of access to top Obama officials. Oh, and legal protection; Joe was able to get the prosecutor looking into Burisma fired. How? He threatened to withhold aid. Now, The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel threaded all the dates, emails, and communications together regarding the China deal and it’s not pretty for Joe. Some noted that Joe is clear of the China stuff because his name isn’t on the documents. Strassel had a thread noting how that’s not true. Joe isn’t out of the woods, and she added the key questions that should be asked of the former VP regarding this China arrangement ”
LikeLike
———-
LikeLike
🙂
Let’s hope this is accurate.
LikeLike
#WalkAway
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8874461/Van-Jones-says-Trump-doesnt-credit-good-things-African-Americans.html
“Furious liberals demand CNN fire Obama adviser Van Jones for saying Trump ‘doesn’t get credit’ for the ‘good things’ he has done for the black community
Van Jones appeared on Jake Tapper’s daily CNN broadcast on Friday afternoon
Tapper blasted Trump for saying he’s done most for African Americans since Lincoln
During Thursday’s debate, Trump said he was ‘least racist person in the room’
Jones said Trump ‘doesn’t get credit’ for ‘good things’ he did for black people
Trump has been praised by Jones for supporting criminal justice reform
President signed into law First Step Act to ease sentences for nonviolent crimes
Jones is said to have worked with Jared Kushner in crafting the legislation “
LikeLike
Weekend at Biden’s. 🤣
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read with dismay of Phil Vischer (Veggie Tales) and John Piper urging voters to not vote for Trump. Vischer is said to be voting for Biden? Because of Trump’s moral failures and abortion isn’t that big of a deal? I am flabbergasted. Piper not commenting on just who he will vote for. The comments I read affirming Vischer’s stance was alarming to me coming from professing followers of Christ. 😞
LikeLike
NancyJill – Piper set out his case, but then said that he understood that not everyone would see it the same way, and should do what they feel they should do. As DJ said, it was a powerful piece, even if you don’t agree with his conclusion. (If you missed it, I shared it on both threads yesterday.)
The encouraging news on the abortion rate is that it is has been steadily going down for years, even under presidents who are Democrats.
LikeLike
Thanks Kizzie…I missed what you posted so now will search back to read … I read about Piper on some other blog and Eric Metaxas wrote about Vischer’s announcement….
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems to me that Christians should also take into consideration what parameters God set up for government and not just the moral life of the leaders. I would love wonderful, saintly statesmen, but we have seldom had them. Most of the time we had no idea of what was going on with those who were in office. Now we have 24/7 news coverage and cell phone cameras everywhere. We also have news sources who are obviously using their jobs to promote certain stories and ignore others.
Government was meant to promote the good and punish evil. Those governing were not to accept bribes nor favor rich or poor. They were to promote justice for all. They were to keep the peace and protect the citizens as much as possible.
Which candidate and party is trying to force people to accept evil and promote it? Which is trying to stifle free speech? We don’t just vote for a candidate, but for the party. It is the party platform that will be used as a basis for governing as much as possible. Those who stray from it will be punished politically. Like it or not that is the way it is.
I don’t see any wonderfully moral people running for president. Lying is immoral as well as taking advantage of your position to gain wealth. Trying to force people to do evil is not moral. Scaring vulnerable people is not moral and so forth.
The press has no problem (for the most part) showing us one person’s immorality while sheltering the other person’s. This is not new this election just more obvious. Furthermore, our own reputations can make us shy away from supporting someone. None of us want to be thought of accepting immorality or supporting evil. That charge is not new and has been used against politicians and those who vote for them since the beginning. Motives are difficult to discern in others, whether Christian leaders or politicians. Our own are even easily rationalized. There is another reason for prayer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here’s a respectful piece on why Piper is wrong.
Piper does what frustrates me the most. He assumes that doing what he feels is right absolves him from the consequences of the liberal, far left policies that those taking over will implement.
https://stream.org/pastor-john-piper-and-the-2020-elections-a-respectful-response/?fbclid=IwAR0I-2BxV5eMylBwWK8dOZLD8tp5R2XMrpbMG8ch0h5XmCj6_zgquCGOPqY
“John Piper is one of the most respected Christian leaders in America, and I personally hold him in high esteem. Yet I differ with his suggestion that Christians might do best by sitting out the presidential election, since a vote for either Trump or Biden cannot be justified.
Before sharing my differences, though, I want to share my points of affirmation.
Where We Agree
First, I wholeheartedly agree with Pastor Piper that the foremost calling of a minister of the gospel “is to lead people to see Jesus Christ, trust his forgiveness for sins, treasure him above everything in this world, live in a way that shows his all-satisfying value, and help them make it to heaven with love and holiness.”
Second, I deeply share his concern that many American pastors have failed to develop “real, radical Christians,” Christians who will be willing to die for Jesus.
Third, I agree with Pastor Piper that our obsession with the elections and the well-being of America undermines the reality that we are citizens of a higher kingdom and that we are only passing through this world.
Fourth, I concur that the character flaws of our president have been very damaging. As Piper wrote, “When a leader models self-absorbed, self-exalting boastfulness, he models the most deadly behavior in the world. He points his nation to destruction. Destruction of more kinds than we can imagine.”
Fifth, I have no problem with a Christian saying he or she cannot vote for either candidate. I have always respected that view, even if it is not my own. I have a massive problem with a self-identified pro-life, pro-Bible Christian voting for Biden and the Democrats.
Sixth, I respect the humility with which Pastor Piper presents his viewpoint, making clear that he is not telling anyone else how to vote.
Seventh, I agree with him that, whatever path we take, it must enhance, not detract, from our witness for Jesus.
Readers of my book Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test? will know that I have expressed many similar views as well.
That being said, I differ with Pastor Piper’s assessment of the situation and with his comparison of the personal failings of Trump with the policies of the Democratic party.
How Pastor Piper Weighs a Candidate’s Personal Sins Alongside His Policies
He writes, “I remain baffled that so many Christians consider the sins of unrepentant sexual immorality (porneia), unrepentant boastfulness (alazoneia), unrepentant vulgarity (aischrologia), unrepentant factiousness (dichostasiai), and the like, to be only toxic for our nation, while policies that endorse baby-killing, sex-switching, freedom-limiting, and socialistic overreach are viewed as deadly.”
He notes that the first list of sins is not only deadly in this world but also deadly forever. How, then, can Christians vote for someone who embodies the former sins (such as “unrepentant boastfulness”) in the name of fighting against the latter sins (such as abortion)?
He adds, “I think it is a drastic mistake to think that the deadly influences of a leader come only through his policies and not also through his person.”
The answer, for me, is simple.
Realistic Expectations of Our Political System
To begin with, the political system itself is earthly and flawed, with all candidates being far from perfect. While it would be ideal for our presidents to be shining examples of morality and character, very few in our history would live up to that ideal. This is not to make excuses but rather to be realistic.
Next, it is one thing to elect a boastful, divisive leader. It is another thing to empower a party that will sanction the killing of the unborn. Or strip away religious freedoms. Or give free reign to foreign, tyrannical regimes.
When it comes to Trump, we can vote for his policies while saying, “I don’t like many of the things he does and feel his example is often very destructive. I will therefore speak out when he acts wrongly and will model something different in my own life.”
But a vote for Biden and the Democrats is a vote to empower a party that wants to impose an overtly godless agenda.
Pastor Piper writes, “I find it bewildering that Christians can be so sure that greater damage will be done by bad judges, bad laws, and bad policies than is being done by the culture-infecting spread of the gangrene of sinful self-exaltation, and boasting, and strife-stirring (eristikos).”
We Can Model Godlier Conduct
My response, again, is simple: Trump is one man, and as destructive as his words and conduct can be — just look at the warnings in Proverbs about foolish kings — we can vote for him by the millions while at the same time modeling godlier conduct.
On the other hand, if those with a different agenda are empowered, their policies will affect us by the millions.
Put another way, if voting for a boastful man can potentially save millions of babies’ lives, can that vote be justified? If voting for a man with a sexually immoral past can give support to persecuted minorities in China, can that vote be justified? If voting for a man who often lies and exaggerates can stop the rise of an anti-God socialism, can that vote be justified?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
The right wing echo chamber needs to give up on the Hunter Biden story.
Its based on emails — so 2016; Republicans made Hilary’s emails a campaign issue yet after the election — nothing. I don’t think independent votes will be fooled twice.
Rudy G. is in the middle of this. His trip to the Ukraine resulted in Trump’s impeachment. While in Ukraine he consorted with know Russian agents looking for dirt on Hunter — now he miraculously finds in a NJ repair shop. The man is shameless and after the Borat episode he has even less credibility.
The FBI won’t get involved this time — there will be no Comey letter.
The other people involved have very little credibility — a federal inmate looking for reduced jail time alleges ….
Who leaves a computer at a repairs shop and forgets about it? The manufacture sends you a box you ship it back via UP or FedEx and they ship it back fixed even if you forget about it. Rich people don’t get laptops repaired at a shop. They send them back for a new one. And who stores emails on a laptop — its in the “cloud” or in a server. Most people, especially a business man, will clean out a laptop before sending it away.
Finally, even if you take the emails at face value, the only credible assertion so far is Hunter was CCed. I’m sure if I was too look at my “junk” inbox I’ve been CCed by a Nigerian prince but that doesn’t make me culpable. Other than that, it appears Hunter name dropped his father. Who doesn’t name drop to get a job or account….. its how most people are hired; just look at the Trump — Jared Kushner a failed real estate developer would never be hired as presidential adviser if it wasn’t for his father or Ivanka’s 15 Chinese patents obtained in the last 4 years, etc. A quarter of all Harvard students are leagcies. Perhaps that explains Tiffany at Georgetown Law.
As Joe Biden said, produce the tax returns or stop talking about corruption. Trump has a Chinese bank account and has paid over 200,000$ in taxes to China. According to reports, he received 17$ million in that account and 15$ million was removed shortly after in 2017. Other reports have in debt by $400 million to foreign banks (personal not corporate debt). From other sources we know one of the few banks to loan him money in the last decade is the Deutsche Bank — the bank of choice for the Russian mob.
LikeLike
Rasmussen polls are flawed — they are almost always 2-3% off in favor of Republicans and sometimes even worse. It its true there’s been a slight uptick in black approval but not by that much — a flawed sample size focusing more on establish middle class suburban blacks rather than urban working class blacks is my guess.
Why consider criminal justice reform solely an African American issue? Sure it affects them but it affects others and quite frankly the credibility of the US in general is affected. Any country with that many people in prison has an international credibility issue.
Its pretty hard to have a foreign policy debate when Americans are banned from the rest of the world due to the mismanagement of Covid. Its true there’s been a change in the middle east but I’m not sure its a positive in the long run. While the Iran deal gave the US a balanced policy, the US now appears to be all in in supporting the Israeli-Saudi alliance. Turkey, a NATO member, used to be an Israeli ally but they’ve moved towards Iran upset with the US presence in Syria and Iraq. With the US firmly on the Saudi side look for Turkey to move closer to Russia and Iran, possibly leaving NATO. This will give Russia land access to the middle east.
Speaking of Covid, reports indicate the White House has essentially given up and will allow cornovirus spread unchecked hoping for herd immunity.
LikeLike
Our political views are usually a product of our environment. To change opinions or to dissent usually indicates you’ve been thinking whereas to continue support for the same is usually a reflex. Piper has obviously done some thinking whereas the rhetorical excess of the rebuttal indicates a reflex.
Calling Biden — godless, baby killing and far left does indicate a lack of thought.
Biden is a practicing Catholic whereas Trump is a practicing narcissist. Trump is probably the most corrupt president since the Harding administration — there is nothing redeemable here. The label godless is more appropriate for Trump.
Biden is pro choice but that doesn’t mean baby killing — yes I know most of you don’t view it that way. However, the consensus has emerged among those under 50 or 40 that they themselves would not get an abortion but they don’t want the gov’t to decide. Pro life won the moral argument and pro choice won the political argument. And as abortions are in steady decline, lower than pre Roe vs Wade, to push the issue with gov’t interference probably won’t help. Canada with no abortion restrictions at all has seen an even greater decline.
On a personal level, who do you see paying for their mistress’s abortion? I have a hard time seeing Biden ever having a mistress let alone paying for an abortion. In Trump’s case, we know he pays off his mistresses so paying for an abortion is not off the table.
The Trump admin has been responsible for the deaths of children in their custody, has placed children in overcrowded pens and separated young children from their parents. This was done deliberately — to scare illegal immigrants from coming to the US. In other words they created conditions that led to the death of children and the break up of families solely to fulfill their immigration policy — that is not pro life. And even now over 500 children are without parents. Biden wouldn’t not do that and definitely not that. And I would argue Biden’s Catholicism — the idea of social justice and compassion are very Catholic — is part of his policy here. His religion does inform him here whereas the Trump admin is obviously not religiously informed here.
And finally — far left?? Please, I’m far left, Sander is left, and Biden is a centrist.
LikeLike
Biden once opposed federal funding for abortion but has suddenly now backtracked on that more moderate position. I think his “moderate-centrist” reputation is being dismantled as he tries to appease the rest of his more leftward party that’s agreed to go to bat for him in exchange.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to remember that many prominent Democrats were once staunchly pro-life, which seemed fitting with the overall liberal concerns then for life and protecting the weak. Jesse Jackson and Edward Kennedy were once pro-life.
_______________________________
https://www.getprinciples.com/the-liberal-origins-of-the-pro-life-movement/
… in the early 1970s, liberals were not only part of the pro-life campaign but, in fact, were the dominant voice in the movement, shaping pro-life ideology and framing the cause as a progressive fight for the civil rights of the unborn and the value of human life.
If one could travel back in time forty-four years to observe the first pro-life rally ever held on the National Mall in Washington, DC—a rally which the National Youth Pro-Life Coalition (NYPLC) organized in September 1972—liberals would have been in evidence everywhere. In keeping with NYPLC cofounder Sue Bastyr’s description of her organization as “an extremely liberal group,” the protest on the Mall featured a keynote address from the antiwar Lutheran minister Richard John Neuhaus, who had served as a delegate for George McGovern at the Democratic National Convention earlier that summer. “The anti-abortion forces are not instruments of political and social conservatism,” Neuhaus declared. “Rather they are related to the protest against the Indochina war, the militarization of American life, and the social crimes perpetrated against the poor.”1
Pro-lifers’ success in framing their campaign as a human rights cause linked to the progressive politics of the antiwar movement and the War on Poverty contributed to their legislative victories in the early 1970s, when they defeated dozens of proposed abortion legalization bills. In 1972, the pro-life movement enjoyed the support of the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, as well as the most high-profile liberal Democratic senator in Washington.2
After Roe v. Wade, this situation changed: pro-lifers who found themselves marginalized in the Democratic Party made new alliances with conservative Republicans, who did not necessarily share their larger values. Yet the pro-life movement’s conversion to conservatism was never complete; the movement retained vestiges of its liberal heritage, and these traces of liberal ideology became the key to the movement’s continued political saliency. …
_______________________________
LikeLike
Another shift going on, I think, is the Democrat party becoming more the party of the well-heeled while the GOP becoming more home to the working class – otherwise known in liberal circles as the “deplorables”?
Interesting to watch the parties evolve and sometimes start changing places on issues and constituencies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
AJ – That piece doesn’t mean that Piper is wrong, it means that Piper and Brown have differing opinions on the subject. Piper did not say that he is going to vote for Biden. He may vote third party or may abstain from voting for president. He is keeping his decision private. Even Brown says:
“Fifth, I have no problem with a Christian saying he or she cannot vote for either candidate. I have always respected that view, even if it is not my own. I have a massive problem with a self-identified pro-life, pro-Bible Christian voting for Biden and the Democrats.”
I found this portion to be good advice, and I wish more Christians would apply it:
“We Cannot Become Apologists for the President, But the Stakes are Too High Not to Vote for Him
What we cannot do, as I have been shouting for years now, is become apologists for the president. That, without question, demeans our witness. But to say that we cannot vote for him when the stakes are so high is, in my view, to miss the larger point.
One of my evangelical colleagues wrote to me last week, saying, “The gospel witness has been destroyed, especially among the younger generations. The final straw was the support of Donald Trump by these groups. The non-believing world is appalled by the hypocrisy. The only folks who don’t see it are most of the Evangelical world.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
DJ – A while back, I read something that showed how the two parties tend to gradually switch stances on matters. If one party starts to embrace Position A, which had been the stance of the other party, then the other party will gradually evolve into embracing Position B instead. I can’t remember the examples that were given, but one thing I have seen, just in the last decade (I think, maybe it has been longer) is the issue of free speech. That used to be a liberal stance, and now it tends to be conservatives embracing it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DJ — Not surprised by pro-life Democratic politicians and supporters. Part of it is the Catholic influence — pro life for Catholics means no abortion, no death penalty and social justice for the poor. Its a consistent position. This was probably the starting position for Biden and other Catholic democrats. In a post Roe vs Wade world, abortion was seen as a personal right or at the very least as part and parcel of bodily autonomy — a classical liberal position (ie capitalism free market libertarian) which should have been a Republican ideal. However, Nixon’s southern strategy meant appealing to the social conservatism of the South — so the Republican party became a contradictory party of economic liberalism and social conservatism. Once pro life became part of the Republican agenda (not something that occurred prior to the Reagan era), there was a gradual movement of pro life democrats. Those that stayed made compromises and stayed because social justice issues appealed to them as an affirmation of pro life.
As for current shifts in party adherence, its more Democrats continuing to solidifying their position as the urban party and Republicans as the party of the rural working class. Given the continued urbanization, the Democrats will become the stronger party unless the Republican party expands beyond its base. Strangely, the Republican party does nothing to reward their base — other than social conservatism — their economic platform rewards their wealthy donors.
LikeLike
hwesseli: The most corrupt US president in history? That’s Obama territory, and Biden as VP was steeped in the corruption. He’s only continued it in recent years, as the facts are bearing out.
Give up on the Hunter Biden story? You and Dems/liberals would of course love that. Here is some light reading for you just for starters – the actual Senate Committee(s) report on the Hunter Biden-Burisma Corruption scandal:
Click to access HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf
You are wrong about the fact pattern on almost everything you type… you may be a proud “far left” liberal, but you would do well to find some better sources for your news.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kizzie — the last paragraph of your quote is extremely accurate. Non-evangelicals and non religious people weren’t surprised by evangelicals voting Republican and Trump — that was expected. It was their defense of Trump and apologist attitude towards his behavior, tweets,etc. It was the laying of hands and defending him as a Cyrus which appalled people — the mass hypocrisy. Twenty years ago, impeaching Clinton for lying about an affair was the moral thing to do but now paying off a stripper with campaign funds is okay.
The Republican hypocrisy in Supreme Court appointments in election years will affect the legitimacy of the court. Similarly, the hypocrisy of evangelicals with Trump will affect views of their legitimacy in the political arena.
LikeLike
Link fail. Try # 2…
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HS…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Click to access HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf
LikeLike
The link isn’t working properly, but you can go to the link at 4:55pm and type “Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption” in the search engine, then scroll down and click on #11.
LikeLike
Always interesting when politicians shift positions on issues of principle just … change their minds?
It’s more about political pressure being applied.
LikeLike
There were a few Democrat holdouts, of course, but they soon enough were silenced and shut down.
A colleague once told me she left the GOP for the Democratic part on the issue of abortion (her quibble was the GOP platform that particular year was pro-life). But I pointed out to her that there was a lot more diversity on the issue with the Republican party than was “allowed” in the Democrat party.
LikeLike
Kizzie, excellent point about how Christians can’t afford to become apologists for politicians. It will likely come back to bite and embarrass you — and, in some people’s minds, will reflect upon the faith and the God you profess.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Obama corrupt?? You don’t think Trump would’ve spent the last four years investigating him if that was true?? Obama ran the cleanest admin in decades — if he didn’t the Republicans would have nailed him to the wall.
As for Trump — he never put his business in a trust; Foreign dignitaries rented entire floors of his Washington hotel and bought memberships to Mar a logo; they didn’t need either it was a straight up bribe. Every time Trump stayed at one of his resorts for a golf weekend his business charged the secret service to stay there. Eric claimed they only charged 50$ per room; receipts show it to be an excess of 600$ per night per room. Meanwhile he kept a Chinese bank account in which millions were moved in and out. He owes over 400$ million to foreign banks probably DB. The list is endless —
The grifting is commonplace that his campaign managers are starting to do the same; treating campaign funds as their own account paying for clothes, holidays, personal electronics etc. Its gotten so bad that Trump is being conned by his own staff and can no longer afford TV time.
But I’ll read your link just out of curiosity
LikeLike
One can be “pro-choice” in the Republican party, but one isn’t hardly allowed to be pro-life in the modern-day Democrat party.
That is somewhat related to the freedom of speech issue Kizzie brought up, the new liberalism (which isn’t classic liberalism) is very big on restrictions whether it be of beliefs or speech.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tychius — checked some of it out — seems like a lot of noise with very little substance. I found it interesting on the front page of your link; the Republicans are focused on Hunter Biden ie digging dirt on their opponent while the Democrats seem focused on ensuring people vote safely and covid in general. Also saw that even the Wall Street Journal and Fox are admitting there’s not much to the Bobulinski story.
LikeLike
Not sure “freedom of expression” is any greater on either side of the aisle. A pro-choice Republican would probably feel as uncomfortable as a pro-life Democrat especially given the emotions of this particular issue. I’ve know Conservatives in Canada who, personally pro life, have tried to convince other conservatives not to raise the issue and accept the national consensus. They’ve been called a liberal troll and more.
In a capitalist society, many claim there is freedom of speech but speech is often curtailed for lack of funds. When mass media funded by large corporations drowns out independent dissent, it may not be censorship but the effect is the same. Some voices are not heard.
Although pressure can be the reason for change, sometimes the force of an argument or a gradual change does occur. Marriage equality is an issue in which many politicians changed their mind not all of it because of pressure but due to force of debate or gradual change. Similarly, pro choice arguments gradually became more accepted even when evidence for fetal development and life supported pro life arguments. The two have coexisted in which pro life is the moral position and pro choice is the legal/political position that people can hold at the same time.
LikeLike
Kizzie,
Yeah. And Piper’s is wrong. 🙂
LikeLike
Well, in your opinion?
I really think we need to extend some grace to our brothers and sisters during what is a very difficult time. Different “take,” all based on scripture, are understandable — or should be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen, DJ. God has quite a few people with quite a few different experiences, He is bringing them all together in His way. He does not need our correction. He desires our obedience.
LikeLike
So?
What, so that means they’re never wrong?
Piper clearly is, and Mr. Brown told you why.
LikeLike
Sigh.
LikeLike