Fleeing the USA

[rogue06]

From what I read ... the Trump rule had not yet taken effect, and Biden suspended all such rules for 60 days pending review. Doesn't sound like what you wrote.

Temporary huh? So why was placing a $35 cap on insulin pens included in the BBB proposal then? It already existed and then was eliminated. And the BBB version excluded tens of millions of people that had been covered under Trump.

It appears, the left wanted to give Biden credit for it, but like EVERYTHING old Joe touches turns into a stinking pile of crap, now nobody gets it and people continue to pay up to ten times more for their medicine.

LET'S GO BRANDON!

Why indeed. Begged question .. did all Democrat proposed legislation stink? And does poop being on ice make it stink more? I would have thought less.

Their desire to throw pallets full of cash in every direction has greatly exacerbated the inflation that is gripping the country. Before old Joe puttered into the White House inflation wasn't even on the list of things that Americans worried about. Now thanks to the duffer and his fellow travelers in Congress it ranks number one.

And let us not forget how old Joe and his keepers reacted to inflation as it started to rise to rates unseen since the 70s -- first they downplayed it, then joked about it, declared it was only temporary, and then slammed NBC News anchor Lester Holt for even asking about it. Then, while still laughing off the evidence of long-term high level inflation (economists are currently saying $7/gallon fuel prices are not impossible), old Joe boasted of the supposed "strongest first-year economic track record of any president in the last 50 years" and boasted oabout how he "outperformed" expectations during his first year in office. No wonder Obama dog-washer David Axelrod scolded old Joe telling him he needs to start "painting a credible, realistic picture" and stop trying to blame businesses for rising costs.

I guess that's a rhetorical question. Sounds like you weren't too enthused with it yourself?

No. Did the Democrats get onboard with building a wall along our Southern border or not. If you can fault the Republicans for not supporting leftwing tax and spend policies then to be consistent you must also blame Democrats for not supporting Republican initiatives. But you don't, preferring to revel in arrogant hypocrisy.

Did they literally try to invalidate the entire election over 60 times in court and stir their minions up to try to overthrow a government session? You always get sore losers, but this time it's special.

In just the 2016 election Hillary responded just like Trump and tried to invalidate the entire election in a large number of state courts -- including Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and elsewhere. In her case she sued over claims of voter intimidation, and just like Trump, she lost all of them.

And speaking of Michigan... do you remember how the Democrats quickly got a judge to stop the recount after it started to expose widespread fraud? More votes from precincts than there were eligible voters.

It's that BLM thing again, isn't it? I watched the Capitol riot all day on TV and was shocked out of my tiny mind. What I found most instructive was the immediate reaction of GOP leaders. They condemned the whole thing and blamed Trump. I guess having been assaulted in their own inner sanctum shocked the politics out of them for a while and they gave their honest feelings. Didn't last of course. Back to BLM for a sec, how many wrongs make a right?

Much like how Republicans made the mistake of believing the MSM concerning the Russian collusion delusion, it sounds like they made the same mistake on J6. And make no mistake about it, those who try to minimize J6 as nothing more than overeager tourists getting a bit wild, are just as bad as those on the left (including the MSM) who characterized the months long violent rioting, looting and burnings as "mostly peaceful" or "fiery but peaceful" and where Jerrold I-pooped-in-my-pants-in-public Nadler going so far as to proclaim that antifa is just "a myth." What happened in D.C. was a riot -- although not nearly as violent as many of those that took place the previous summer.

As for politicians responding to "having been assaulted in their own inner sanctum" you have to love the little drama queen (AOC) tearfully regaling how she was scared for her life -- even though she wasn't even there. She was in another building completely unaffected by the riots.

I'm not going to check all that. There, you can declare victory now.

Do you really think I'll let you off the hook that easily? Noooooooo.

Here is an abbreviated version:

It isn't just Hillary and old Joe. The same is true for folks like Robert Reich (Clinton's Secretary of Labor), the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)^[1], Rep. Mad Max(ine) Waters (D-Ca.), Donna Brazile (Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000 and head of the Democratic National Committee), and former President Jimmy Carter since they have also claimed that Trump wasn't legitimately elected.

Likewise, Sen. Cory I-am-Spartacus Booker (D-Pa) also called him illegitimate and Sen. Bernie Sanders told George Stephanopoulos that Trump stole the election but wouldn't use the term "illegitimate" when asked, using the excuse that "Those are just words."

Rep. Jerrold Pooped-my-pants-in-public Nadler (D-NY) declared on CNN that "...the Russian weighing-in on the election, the Russian attempt to hack the election and, frankly, the FBI’s weighing-in on the election, I think, makes his election illegitimate, puts an asterisk next to his name."

And there was Don Beyer (D-Va.) who refused to attend Trump's inauguration because he declared that "I will not be part of normalizing or legitimizing a man whose election may well have depended on the malicious foreign interference of Russia’s leaders."^[2] He was joined by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) who referred to Trump as the "president semi-elect."

Then of course, you have Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.), repeatedly saying that the reason that they had to proceed with the impeachment at warp speed was because they had to keep Trump from running in 2020 and stealing another election -- even after the Mueller Report and Mueller's Congressional testimony had cleared him of collusion. Keep in mind that Schiff is the clown who kept saying he had a mountain of evidence that was irrefutable proof of collusion, but for some strange reason he never shared any of this supposed "evidence" with Mueller or released any of it since then.^[3]

As an aside about the aforementioned Hillary (post #4), after "graciously conceding" she, like Trump, was also involved in a bunch of lawsuits in states like Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, Michigan and elsewhere. In her case she sued over claims of voter intimidation. She, like Trump, lost all of them.

Finally, I don't want to overlook the hypocritical MSM who clutch at their pearls when Trump questioned the 2020 results, but sang a whole different tune four years earlier: Here are the editorials run in the Washington Post (Trump is an illegitimate president whose election is tainted by fraud), U.S. News & World Report (The Illegitimate Victor), the Los Angeles Times (It's Becoming Clear: Trump Is an Illegitimate President^[4]), the Guardian (One year on, Donald Trump is still an illegitimate president), Salon (Trumps presidency is illegitimate) and American Prospect (An Illegitimate Presidency).

And while we're at it, let's also not overlook the whole "Not My President Movement" which held Not My Presidents' Day rallies in over 30 cities on Presidents' Day and the New York Times ran an editorial Not My President, Not Now, Not Ever (a Washington Post-ABC poll found that a third of "Hillary Clinton supporters say Donald Trump's presidential victory is not legitimate"). There were already multiple instances of violent anti-Trump protests well before he was even elected. And the day after he was elected there was rioting in Oakland for three or four days, mostly caused by students from Berkeley. IIRC, when school authorities claimed the violence was done by outside agitators a number of students stepped forward and denied this was the case and proudly took responsibility.

Similar rioting took place in a number of other cities as well. Enough so that a reporter for the Chicago Tribune boasted that, unlike elsewhere, the protests in that city were "devoid of any of the heavy vandalism of effigy burning that occurred elsewhere"





1. No surprise there since he regarded every single Republican elected president while he was a Congressman as being illegitimate. For him if a Republican won it was because of fraud. But to be specific, according to the Washington Post (WaPo):

Rep. John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia and civil-rights icon, told NBC's Chuck Todd in an interview for Sunday's "Meet the Press" that he believes Russia's alleged hacking aimed at helping Trump in the 2016 race makes Trump an illegitimate president.

Asked whether he would forge a relationship with President-elect Trump, Lewis said, "It's going to be very difficult. I don't see this president-elect as a legitimate president."

He added: "I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton." Lewis called it a "conspiracy" and added: "That's not right. That's not fair. That's not the open democratic process."

2. If he said he won't be part of legitimizing Trump's presidency then he thinks it was illegitimate.

3. In much the same way that Buzzfeed repeatedly insisted they actually "saw the documents" that showed that Trump told Cohen to lie before Congress, even doubling down on the claim after Mueller took the unusual action of calling their report bogus. AFAICT, they're still insisting that they saw these non-existent documents. So much for believing anything they ever say.

4. The online version changed the title to "Was the 2016 election legitimate? It's now definitely worth asking the question" but Real Clear Politics had the story with the original title.

I'll note that one of the current rising stars among the Democrats, Stacey Abrams, after losing decisively here in Georgia when she ran for governor in 2018 still refuses to concede. Her refusal is considered admirable among those on the left.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I try once in a while to have a cogent thought. Thank you.

Yes, there is no guarantee that we will avoid pain. I have a dear friend, in her mid 70's who has suffered for over 30 of those years with Post-Polio Syndrome. Her pain is tremendous, and it is now affecting her muscles so that some days she is so weak she can barely get out of bed. A few years ago she had shingles on top of the PPS, and yet, I have never heard her complain aside from sharing how she feels some days. I haven't seen her in person for about 3 years because she finds it more and more difficult to leave the house, and with covid I haven't been able to visit her. She speaks of God's strength and peace and joy through it all. She knows He is strengthening her spiritual muscles, as I've mentioned to her many times.

And she puts me to shame with my petty complaints about arthritis and so on.

Pain of illness, pain of persecution, pain of loss of loved ones, so much in this life that can cause despair and loss of trust in the Lord's sovereignty and providence. Those who teach comfort and health and wealth are indeed false teachers.

Absolutely, health and wealth pastors are false teachers. I know one health and wealth pastor who lost his health and then his ministry because people couldn't believe what he preached anymore.

While health and wealthers have gotten a lot of attention, those who mostly preach comfort don't. I've come to realize how subtle the comfort message can be but over time, how destructive it can be.

That's very true. And God brought persecution to them because they hung around Jerusalem instead of going out to spread the gospel. But we don't know if that is what He has in store for us. My dad used to say that when we tried to look too far into the future, and "what would I do if I I ended up in this situation" questioning, that we're borrowing grace. God's provision and protection is sufficient for today, and he will give us all the grace we need to face whatever may come our way in the future.

I agree. Unfortunately, I was brought up to plan ahead as much as is possible. Sometimes I just can't find the balance between prudent planning and borrowing grace.

[mossrose]

I agree. Unfortunately, I was brought up to plan ahead as much as is possible. Sometimes I just can't find the balance between prudent planning and borrowing grace.

Oh, indeed! As old as I am, it's not easy to keep that balance, and I fail more often than not.

[rogue06]

Oh, indeed! As old as I am, it's not easy to keep that balance, and I fail more often than not.

[mossrose]

I said that just for your benefit.

[rogue06]

I said that just for your benefit.

I suspected as much

[mossrose]

I suspected as much

[Alien]

Do you really think I'll let you off the hook that easily? Noooooooo.

I guess not.

Very shortly after returning here, I made a firm rule for myself. Discuss anything but politics. I just broke that rule, and in doing so illustrated the wisdom of it.

Basically my political position is so far removed from yours (and the prevailing position here) that we can't have a measured discussion where each side looks for agreement, or at least acknowledges the other's point of view. Unfortunately, that is so much more common these days than it was. I had friends with whom I could have a political discussion where we disagreed on pretty much everything and still be friends. Now we are either not friends or we studiously avoid certain subjects.

This is not a personal attack on you or anyone here. It's just part of the reason I don't feel as comfortable here as I used to.

[rogue06]

I guess not.

Very shortly after returning here, I made a firm rule for myself. Discuss anything but politics. I just broke that rule, and in doing so illustrated the wisdom of it.

Basically my political position is so far removed from yours (and the prevailing position here) that we can't have a measured discussion where each side looks for agreement, or at least acknowledges the other's point of view. Unfortunately, that is so much more common these days than it was. I had friends with whom I could have a political discussion where we disagreed on pretty much everything and still be friends. Now we are either not friends or we studiously avoid certain subjects.

This is not a personal attack on you or anyone here. It's just part of the reason I don't feel as comfortable here as I used to.

While the conventional wisdom is never discuss religion or politics, I and my friends frequently discuss both -- often vehemently disagreeing -- and then go out grab a bite to eat and have a good time.

Personally, I think there has been a shift in the general population from assuming someone you disagree with is wrong to presuming that they are evil. Both sides do it and it is as caustic an approach as one can have.

[firstfloor]

Maybe it’s not the world that has changed, but you have become a soldier in the Groyper Army.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Maybe it’s not the world that has changed, but you have become a soldier in the Groyper Army.

That's way out of line. Please leave the thread and do not return.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Persecution is on it's way in, all over. We've seen it more in North America this past couple of years than ever before, but scripture tells us that we WILL have some persecution in some degree or another.

I think it is wise for us to consider this and recognize that the Lord is going to be returning, sooner now than ever, and that is what we need to keep our faith fixed on.

Persecution is definitely coming. The Lord is definitely returning.

However, I think it's a little too egotistical for people in the US or Canada to assume that just because we are going to be persecuted means the Lord's return is imminent. I won't ignore the possibility. It does seem you could be setting up a weak believer for disappointment if persecution comes to the US or Canada soon, but the Lord doesn't return for, say, another 1,000 years.

[Thoughtful Monk]

True, but when it gets to that point (where they're actually hunting you down), it won't really matter where you live. At that point, there will no place to hide unless you TOTALLY leave civilization and run and hide someplace in the hills, but most people couldn't survive like that.

I phrased on my response poorly. I apologize.

You have a point that at least today; the Internet is a reasonable reliable source of information. With care, it's also a good way to communicate with others.

However, one should look at how the Chinese government employs the Internet to influence and watch-over their people. That's coming here, i.e., the Western world and it's probably closer than we realize. Europe is probably doing the best job of resisting but they'll fold eventually.

To be more accurate on what I mean by "tracking you down" I mean determine that your opinions do not conform to society's standards and it's time to cancel you. Just look already how many people have suffered because of Internet postings.

As I've said, the Internet is not the conservative Christians friend.

[mossrose]

Persecution is definitely coming. The Lord is definitely returning.

However, I think it's a little too egotistical for people in the US or Canada to assume that just because we are going to be persecuted means the Lord's return is imminent. I won't ignore the possibility. It does seem you could be setting up a weak believer for disappointment if persecution comes to the US or Canada soon, but the Lord doesn't return for, say, another 1,000 years.

I believe it is imminent. There is nothing in prophecy about Christ left to fulfill but His return.

I am saying that it is certainly closer today than it was 2000 years ago!

And we need to live as if it were today.

[NorrinRadd]

I recently re-listened to an interview with Gordon Fee back around 2010 or so, talking about his Revelation commentary. One can listen or read the transcript here. His view is that, except for the final two chapters, everything the book was specifically addressing took place centuries ago, leading up to the fall of the Roman Empire. So, we can learn principles about living under repressive anti-Christian regimes, but there is no point in trying to match news events with things described in the book, or in trying to figure out who "the antichrist" is. There is also no point in hoping to get bailed out by "the Rapture," since the common view of that is a fantasy. And there is also no assurance that the Great Tribulation will last only seven years, since the Tribulation spoken of in Revelation took place back then, and actually lasted about 200 years.