Kamala Harris, when pressed on her “Turn the Page” campaign slogan keeps repeating that the problem is “the past 10 years”, ignoring the fact that 6 of the past 10 years have been presided over by P-BO and Biden/Harris. What a bizarre notion.
She also insisted that the US was “a democracy”.
She’s not very bright. I’m shocked that she's been anointed to this role after recieving zero votes.
Up here in the People's republic there is quite the uproar about the upcoming loss of federal COVID funding for schools. Now, to the best of my knowledge the COVID "threat" is virtually gone and there's no significant risk of future outbreaks on a massive scale. Yet, several years after COVID ceased to be problem our schools are still clinging to this increased funding. They aren't even pretending that it's being spent on COVID related expenses, they just got used to the extra "free" money from the feds and want people from across the country to fund our local schools. It seems surprising that these districts are so stupid as to have thought that this temporary, emergency, funding for COVID isn't going to last forever and for non-COVID related expenses.
Heaven forbid we look at the damage done to students due to the response to COVID.
https://x.com/wil_da_beast630/status/1846534514417209504?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
The unmitigated idiocy of DFL politicians and their desire to pander to their captive groups is staggering. That Clinton thought this was appropriate is simply stupid.
https://x.com/carolmswain/status/1846534531395858936?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
So the Biden/Harris DOJ is suing now to stop Virginia from enforcing a law that has been on the books for 20 years, but they're not interfering with an election or trying to let non citizens vote.
https://x.com/jacquiheinrich/status/1846408586689139171?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
What could possibly go wrong by allowing un-vetted, military aged males, from countries with a history of terrorist activity, into the US unsupervised?
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-plagiarism-claim-smart-crime-1968831
Harris plagiarized sections of her book on criminal justice (ironic that theft is a crime), from Wikipedia and this doesn't seem to bother her rabid supporters. The fact that she was so lazy as to plagiarize from Wikipedia, just makes it worse.
https://x.com/wil_da_beast630/status/1845272256899055831?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
That so many people are so committed to believing these hoaxed perpetrated by the MSM when they've been dis proven for so long, shows a high level commitment to slavishly believing whatever they are told as long as it comes from the approved sources.
https://x.com/williejmontague/status/1845378458458718586?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
BVMLTT
"My experience in conversation with narcissists is that generally they talk about themselves and don’t ask outbound questions. They are almost never interested in your life or what you think. The Trump I’ve seen in longform podcasts comes across as gracious and not self-absorbed. I was surprised to see him asking his interlocutors a lot of questions from a position of actually wanting to learn about their experience/life and what they know. He did this with
. It’s almost like he’s a different person when he’s not in an adversarial interview. You can challenge him, as did about his treatment of Mike Pence / Jan 6 and did about the impact of his rhetoric on the all in pod, but if he’s not in a combative mode, then you get insights and direct answers out of him. The press has for so long framed themselves as the victim vis-a-vis Trump, complaining about how he calls them the “Enemy of the People.” And sure at times he has not treated them kindly, especially at his rallies. But now that the podcasters are having a go and doing the media’s job, it’s pretty clear to me that Trump’s antagonism to the corporate media is almost entirely their fault. To be considered in the good graces of their fellow media elites who saw themselves as the last defensive line of the Resistance, journalists were in chronic performative opposition to him. The result is that he was treated very badly and constantly maligned; many of his policies that were characterized as racist or borne out of bigotry that were rolled forward under the Biden admin, were no longer racist or bigoted. The American people are not stupid. They see through this. Among the fissures that animate this election, one of the major ones is the alternative media world of podcasting vs the mainstream press. Current trends don’t bode well for the latter. America will be all the better for it."Melissa Chen
I think this makes a couple of good points.
1. That "Journalism" or what used to be "journalism" has passed into the hands of those outside the traditional media, and that's not a bad thing.
2. That the image of Trump portrayed in the MSM, may not be completely accurate.
https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/1845164687492517902?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://www.dailyjournal.com/article/320947-police-frown-on-s-f-da-s-drug-arrest-plan
So while Harris has a record of jailing low level drug offenders (predominantly black), she also wanted to turn drug offenders loose the first two times they got caught. How anyone can take her seriously at this point is beyond me.
"Christians, you have the choice between a non-Christian and an ANTI-Christian. Vote accordingly. God has sovereignly given us the choice between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. The choice is really simple. One of these candidates will be FAR worse for our country than the other one. Kamala will attempt to legalize abortion at any stage of pregnancy at the federal level. Trump wants to leave it to the states. Kamala wants to throw pro-lifers in prison. She wants to indoctrinate, castrate, and sterilize your kids. She wants to flood our nation with immigrants to attain a permanent electoral majority. Trump opposes the weaponization of the DOJ against pro-lifers, he opposes the castration and sterilization of children, and is dead set on closing our border. You’re not voting for a pastor. You’re voting for a candidate who can and hopefully will accomplish some of your political priorities. Trump may not be a Christian, but at least he isn’t Anti-Christian. You have a chance come November 5th to peacefully oppose the rising tide of leftist tyranny. Please do not waste your vote."
Josh Haymes
https://x.com/gunthereagleman/status/1844361158201049569?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMY
Harris trying to insert herself into a position in the hurricane response, when both Biden and De Santis have made it clear that they are working together well, is just stupid.
https://x.com/patriciaheaton/status/1843762611273297979?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
More CBS news trashing whatever credibility it once had.
https://irannewsupdate.com/news/human-rights/a-surge-of-executions-in-iran-the-grim-reality-behind-the-numbers/
But, but, but, Israel is the really bad actor in the Middle East, it's Israel. How did Iran get a seat or chairmanship of a UN committee on Human Rights?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw2jQONEPkM
BVMLTT
https://www.city-journal.org/article/charleroi-pennsylvania-grapples-with-surge-of-haitian-migrants
Please, bring in more unvetted immigrants who have no intention of assimilation.
Kamala Harris sat for a rare interview with a revered journalism institution, 60 minutes, recently. As usual her answers were incoherent, and one answer in particular was really bad. It was so bad that the real journalists at the revered 60 Minutes, a part of revered CBS news, decided that they would edit the answer from a totally different question into the interview as if it was her answer to the question asked. Now it's been a while since I got me degree in journalism, so I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that this sort of manipulation was a journalistic no-no. Especially for real journalists with revered journalism institutions.
What this sounds like, to me, is election interference. It's a deliberate attempt to portray Harris falsely as a way to help her get elected. Again, it's been a while, but I'm pretty sure that using the public airwaves for this sort of thing is a journalistic no-no.
Unfortunately, 60 minutes has a history of this sort of interference. Remember when they insisted that it was impossible to verify the Hunter Biden laptop? Well, it was verified, no thanks to folks like those at 60 Minutes.
It also seems unseemly that someone in charge of a broadcast news division would be donating large amounts of money to Harris.
Maybe real journalists don't still adhere to the ethics I learned back in the day, maybe it's now perfectly fine to manipulate interviews to benefit one candidate. Maybe we shouldn't revere these real journalists as much as we do. Maybe it's significant that about 98% of MSM journalists are left leaning.
Who knows, my faith in journalistic ethics has been shaken.
https://x.com/patriciaheaton/status/1843762611273297979?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/hansmahncke/status/1843848152329372002?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/10/10/wendy-mcmahon-cbs-kamala-harris-interview-donate-democrats/
https://nypost.com/2024/10/10/media/ex-cbs-staffers-call-for-outside-probe-of-60-minutes-interview-with-kamala-harris-amid-editing-scandal/
https://nypost.com/2024/10/10/business/harris-campaign-distances-itself-from-cbs-controversial-edits/
https://winteryknight.com/2024/10/11/fbi-revises-2022-violent-crime-rates-upward-up-6-6-from-previous-numbers/
I could be wrong, but this seems like it could be bad news fir the Harris/Walz campaign and for the Biden/Harris regime.
"Just as Jesus noted: We will know good trees by their good fruit and we can know good people by their good actions and lives."
Except Jesus didn't actually say what Dan claims He said.
He did say: "15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Jesus was literally talking about "false prophets", yet Dan has twisted Jesus' words to support his hunches. He was specifically talking about drawing a distinction between "prophets" who spoke the Truth and were in accordance with Jesus' Gospel, and those who were "false".
But, what happens when we look at the context, and not just Dan's cherry picked paraphrase.
"3 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 [c]Because narrow is the gate and [d]difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
Jesus precedes Dan's proof text, with a clear statement that causes problems for Dan and his "almost all people are good" as well as his hunches about Heaven and Hell. Clearly Jesus is telling us that few people will find the "way which leads to life" and many will find the "way that leads to destruction". Now Dan has been explicit about what he believes will NOT happen in Hell, but incredibly vague about what he believes WILL happen. This raises the paraphrase of Dan's ever present question. "Will YHWH destroy those "good" people who've only committed a few minor sins?" Clearly Dan disputes that YHWH will punish people eternally, but he's been silent on destroying them.
Then Jesus goes on to say:
"
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"
Jesus seems pretty clear that many people who do "good" things in His "name" will be cast out as people who practice "lawlessness". So, maybe Jesus is telling us that looking at the "good" things people do, even in His name is not enough to determine whether or not people are "good". Because it sure sounds like people who "practice lawlessness", is not "good" people even if they appeared to be.
This seems like one more instance of Dan cherry picking a proof text, paraphrasing that text, and using his paraphrase (without the context) to support one of his hunches.
