Hey, if New Yorkers could park on the sidewalks, park blocking fire hydrants, park across driveways, and all of that, it would solve the NYC parking shortage problem!
The question is: Would New York miss the half a billion dollars in revenue if New Yorkers refrained from such activities?
A Barna survey shows that 96% of "spiritually active, governance-engaged conservative Christians" in the USA support Trump. I also noted Barna's statement that, among voters, there is a group of people who are reluctant to publicly identify with Trump for fear of retaliation. Barna said in the statement that he thinks there is large group of “hidden” or “shy” Trump voters who will not disclose their preferences to pollsters or others and that the group is expanding as the election nears. “There does appear to be a ‘hidden’ Trump vote, probably in the range of four to eight percentage points,” Barna said. “Once the Trump support base was alerted to such a ‘hidden’ base of Trump support, that awareness of the ‘hidden’ support seems to have generated momentum among other Trump supporters to either refuse to answer surveys, thus skewing survey samples, or to provide misleading answers to the candidate preference question, thereby skewing the measured response.” Barna noted that “some conservative voters have described how unsafe they felt when asked to divulge their candidate preference to a researcher they did not know and had no reason to trust regarding confidentiality and security. The events in the streets lately have stoked those fears.” He also pointed out that “there are a number of instances where the national media have misrepresented the incidence of party identification of the voting population, effectively skewing the survey results. “In each case discovered so far, the proportion of Democrats has been unrealistically inflated, and the proportion of Republicans has been diminished, giving the Democrats a false advantage in the presidential preference estimates. “Polls by CBS News, Fox News, CNN, You Gov, and Reuters, among others, have all released surveys based on samples with distorted proportions of party identification.” Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/polit...ost-unanimously-for-trump-survey_3559110.html We have had a Trump bumper sticker in our house that we never put on the vehicle, because my wife is afraid that the vehicle will be vandalized. She isn't happy with having the US flag hanging on the front of the house, but I do that anyway. (We had a "Back the Blue" yard sign to show support for local police, but it got stolen!) There definitely is a group out there who want to limit the exercise of free speech in the furtherance of their socialist/communist objectives.
John Piper got himself into something of a brouhaha recently by speaking against Christian support of Donald Trump. I mention it here mainly because it reflects the basic problem afflicting Christians and their politics these days: many do not like Trump the man, but think he is better on policy; others feel that Trump's failings as a man are so serious as to require a vote for someone else. The question is, are we voting for a man, or for an agent of political policy? I wish we could vote for a man, but I'm not sure our political system has ever produced such a specimen. George Washington, perhaps, though hagiography obscures much of the man himself. Calvin Coolidge ("silent Cal", as he was called) maybe. Politicians at that level are a corrupt, power-hungry breed. 'Twas ever thus. James Earl Carter was, by all accounts, a fairly devout Evangelical; he was also an objectively horrible President. Lyndon B. Johnson was an amoral, racist, and vulgar man...but he was a very effective President. JFK was a Roman Catholic. Nixon was a Quaker. Ronald Reagan came from a Presbyterian background. Religious affiliation tells us very little about how a President will govern. I think most Christians in the US understand that Trump is a (very) flawed man. A vote for him is not an affirmation of his lifestyle or personal habits. I think this is what Piper and Christians like him get wrong. We understand that Trump is in many ways an awful person. But we also know that secular politics is not like religious faith: good intentions don't count. Results matter. A "good" President is one who delivers policy wins on issues his voters care about. Trump has governed as a rock-solid conservative for the past four years -- far more so than anyone would have guessed, in fact, given his record in public life prior to 2016. He is the most pro-life President we've had in office in my lifetime (as measured by actual policy rather than personal viewpoint). Romans 13:1-7 is the usual verse trotted out as Biblical support for this sort of quandary, and it is certainly a true and wise teaching. But I also point people to Federalist 51, written by James Madison: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Christians must, above all, remember that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. We may differ on how to run our earthly governments, but in the end, none of it matters. God's Kingdom is what we work for, what we live for, what we pray for. All the rest is just making the best of what we have to work with.
Agreed, I wouldn't want to have Trump over for dinner and I wouldn't want my grandkids to emulate his behavior. But I appreciate the way he's kept many of his campaign promises and carried out policy. He's brought a lot of overseas troops home (from Syria, etc), helped reduce energy costs, brought back jobs and industry, substantially reduced the threat of N. Korea, and more.
On the subject of drug use and whether it's a victimless crime, today I read an article in Epoch Times (premium content for subscribers) called, "The True Cost of Marijuana: A Colorado Town That Went All-In." Pueblo, CO welcomed pot growing operations and dispensaries, believing that the industry would help revitalize their city. An ER doctor describes it as being "like a horror movie," as virtually every ER shift gets at least one patient with cannabinoid hyperemesis; the patients scream and vomit uncontrollably from chronic use of high-potency cannabis products. They also see many people with cannabis-induced psychoses (hallucinations, schizophrenia, extremely violent behavior). They observe children as young as eight acting as caretakers for their parents who keep themselves stoned out of their minds, and they see plenty of extremely psychotic teens. One of the doctors says he believes that the marijuana black market, prior to legalization, was a safer option because the highly concentrated products now developed by chemists and botanists weren’t prevalent. The docs estimate that 1/3 of all cases that come in to their ER are due solely to drug use. And if people use the strong stuff long enough or often enough, eventually their psychoses become irreversible. They say the extra medical costs alone should be a deterrent to marijuana legalization; dealing with a case of cannabinoid hyperemesis costs around $5,000 in the ER. It works out to around $1,800,000 per year at just this one ER, and since most of the patients are on Medicaid, all of us taxpayers are covering the bills. Pueblo now has a population that's about 41% on Medicaid. Many people cannot work any longer because they can't pass a drug test. Some employers have given up on drug testing because they are so short-handed (it's hard to find folks who are willing and capable to work) and because they figure they'd lose half their current work force if they demanded a sober work force and drug-tested them. But non-sober workers can be a safety risk! One employer in Pueblo, an engineer by training, says, “Our biggest issue with marijuana has been the lack of skilled workforce we can get. And almost zero unskilled workforce these days can pass a drug test, because they’re all testing hot for marijuana...We don’t want to hire alcoholics, just like we don’t want to hire potheads. There’s no difference to me as an employer. It impacts their workmanship, it impacts their safety, it impacts my safety.” The crime rate in Pueblo is high and the schools have a bad reputation. It's hard for the city to attract businesses and industries, and it's hard to keep medical professionals since Medicaid doesn't pay well (it's hard for a med practice to survive on the low rates). The drug problem is much worse in Colorado now than it was before pot was legalized. It doesn't just hurt the users. It hurts their children, their parents, and others. Financially it hurts all of us. And there's the collateral damage to innocent bystanders, like when a user becomes violent or inebriated and winds up harming others physically. Think about head-on car crashes, for instance. One guy described in the article was walking around swinging a steel bar and screaming; he was tased twice and it didn't stop him, then given three different sedatives and that didn't put him down either; it took 3 cops, 5 ER personnel and 3 security guards to restrain him until a 4th sedative was administered and kicked in.
Christians are people who follow the teachings and example of a man, albeit a very unique man being without sin and of incomparable wisdom. That alone should make our political perspective different than the world's Voting for a man who seems to promise political 'salvation' from the ills of society, as we see it, can lead towards a willingness even to vote for the anti-christ on the basis of his promises rather than his character and his moral rectitude. On the other hand, if Jesus of Nazareth's followers had bravely stood up and voted for him when offered the choice between The Christ, a peace preaching prophet, and Barabbas a war mongering national terrorist hero, the human race might not be guilty of 'Deicide', though those who voted to kill him would still be overwhelmingly representative of the human race's predisposition to solve its problems by the judicious use of violence both physical and political. So not voting at all, even when both candidates are significantly imperfect is not a satisfactory solution to political corruption either. That option got Christ, an innocent man crucified. .
Jesus was fully Man...and also fully God. No other human being, now or ever, can make that claim. Jesus Christ is sui generis, unique, and unrepeatable. To compare any other human ruler to Jesus Christ is so wildly off the mark that it's not even wrong. It's a complete category error. If you are expecting any other human being to even approach Christ in conduct, aspect, or wisdom, you wish in vain. Christians aspire to be remake ourselves in Christ's image, but with the knowledge that -- fallen as we are -- we will never be able to do so. We know Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King because of his fruits, not because of his claims: he not only said he was the only Begotten son of God, he proved it via miracles, prophecy, and supernatural manifestation (being raised physically from the dead by God the Father primary among them). No man anywhere ever in the history of mankind can be as Jesus Christ was. We must not look for Christlike perfection in our leaders, but for skills and abilities that lead to outcomes that work to God's ends. As I said before, good intentions are worthless in politicians if they do not lead to policy results. We look for good intentions in our pastoral leaders because God knows their hearts and will judge them accordingly . We do not have God's power to see into men's hearts; all we see is what men do. We can take good works as evidence of saving faith (Hebrews 11:1) but only God knows for sure (James 2:14-26). Luke 6:43-45: "“For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."
In today's homily, our rector pointed out the difference between relative moral differences and absolute moral differences. One politician may be more or less apt to engage in insults or demeaning remarks than another politician; that's an example of a relative moral difference. One politician supports the right to life and another politician does not; that's an absolute moral difference because of the nature and fundamental importance of the right to life. And our rector stated that one cannot legitimately base one's vote on the relative moral differences between two candidates at the expense of an absolute moral difference, for the latter consideration so greatly outweighs the former as to make the former trivial in comparison. Every Sunday, we pray that people everywhere will respect all life, including the unborn and the elderly. It occurs to me that praying the prayer, but failing to take action consistent with that prayer when voting, would be hypocritical.
Not quite sure why you imagine I'm "expecting any other human being to even approach Christ in conduct, aspect, or wisdom", I'm simply saying we follow a man and that should make us as able to know good trees from bad by the deeds they do, which means we should by rights be more discerning of the hearts intent than your average worldling. Otherwise Jesus Christ would not have offered this advice. A very appropriate quote, especially when the person choices offered on the ballot paper are producers of questionable 'fruit'. "for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks". Which candidate does the most exaggeratedly abundant speaking do you suppose? And does Luke 6:43-45 include Tweeting I wonder? .
See post #410 right above yours. Only one major candidate supports the right of the unborn to live. On the right to life, he doesn't just talk, he walks the walk.
Like most non North Americans I find it difficult to understand American Politics and Religion, save that it seems a different beast. The Australian political spectrum is dominated by the LNP Coalition to the right and the Labor/Green alliance to the left. It is generally recognised that both sides of the political spectrum have people who support a faith position and those who don't. The Church is not committed to either party, and a number of our recent Prime Ministers bear that out. John Howard LNP Anglican Kevin Rudd ALP Anglican Julia Gillard ALP Atheist Tony Abbott ALP Catholic Malcolm Turnbull LNP Catholic Scott Morrison LNP Charismatic Whilst our faith is likely (and indeed it is desirable) to inform our political position, I would regard it as poor form to suggest that all people of faith are going to come to the same conclusion. The difficulty that is presented is in determining what represents a relative or and absolute moral difference. Is the right to life an absolute moral value? In the case on an unborn child is the risk of the mother's life and health a moral question, or not? In reality these are the hard cases that will always be a challenge when it comes to moral decisions. In the question of the commitment of certain crimes, we must ask the question which crimes deserve the infliction of capital punishment. At what point is it reasonable to assert the crime established with certainty means that the perpetrator has forfeited their right to life? In the case of a pandemic how much do we believe that leadership should be helping people to protect themselves and each other from the devastating effects. The USA now reports 231,000 deaths from Covid 19. In the Australian Media the US President was presented as saying 'it is what it is' as a response to this. Does the right life extinguish in the face of a pandemic? And if not, then what is our expectation of leadership. I have no doubt that there are many many Christians who will vote for one candidate or another validly following their faith informed conscience. That does not make them wrong or right. We need as Christians to recognise that other Christians may validly reach other conclusions. Clearly the right to life is but one moral issue to be considered among many others. We live in a highly connected world, and though I have no say in who is to be the next POTUS and am very aware that whatever the result is, it will have some ramifications on my life, especially in the value and earnings of my superannuation.
Think not what your country can do for you, think how you can use the presidency to get away from multiple prosecutions under the law. Not a good reason for wanting the yoke of office.
I'm not surprised, really, that someone on the far side of the pond would have the wrong idea about our president's motivations. Folks in the US get a huge dose of slanted misinformation from MSM as it is, but it's even harder for those outside the US to see clearly through all the mud being thrown up on the windows. What does surprise me is that people outside the US would continue to advertise their level of misinformation. Trump isn't running for reelection because he fears prosecution. However, he acknowledges the facts of reality, for Kamala Harris has stated her desire to have him prosecuted. At the same time, anyone who isn't blinded by Trump-hatred and who understands the situation knows that there's no real case to prosecute and Harris et. al. are just blowing political smoke.
Stop the count now, while I'm still winning! So much for democracy. How dare they go on counting votes which I think are votes against me. Now, now, Donald, don't chew the carpet.
From the Epoch Times: With no winner declared in the 2020 presidential election, the Trump campaign on Nov. 4 requested a recount in Wisconsin and filed lawsuits to halt vote counting in Michigan and Pennsylvania until Republican observers are granted access to the facilities counting and processing ballots. - - - - “As votes in Michigan continue to be counted, the presidential race in the state remains extremely tight as we always knew it would be. President Trump’s campaign has not been provided with meaningful access to numerous counting locations to observe the opening of ballots and the counting process, as guaranteed by Michigan law,” Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien said in a statement. It seems there is a bit of a shortfall in transparency inside some counting rooms. But of course, MSM spins that and tries to make it sound as if Trump just wants the rest of the ballots to remain uncounted. I feel sorry for the poor folks who've been deceived by MSM. NBC went so far as to reach the illogical conclusion in a news report (which I witnessed) that all Michigan ballot-counting rooms have GOP observers because the reporter saw a GOP representative in one counting room in one Michigan city. No doubt the Trump haters who watched that broadcast were mightily convinced; sheeple believe what they wish.
What is the evidence that this is actually true? We are now very used to lies from the White House calculated to gain popular support or smokescreen the facts by presetation of "alternative 'truth' ". It is now an expected response. "Meaningful access", what might that mean? That looks very much like 'political speak' for (we have to make it look as if something is amiss but we have no proof of it, so we'll say 'meaningful' so that if the accusation turns out to be proved spurious we can't actually be accused of lying, if taken to court). "Meaningful", stuffed in the sentence, get's us 'legally', off the hook. Interesting that in States where Trump is marginally behind, his supporters are chanting "Count every vote - count every vote", yet in states where Trump is marginally ahead his supporters are shouting "Stop the count - stop the count". It's farcical. Crazy that in the USA of all countries, it should even be necessary to say "Every vote should be counted" and "The people will decide". It isn't supposed to be like Russia you know. I blame the American immature, competative obsession to "win at any cost, by any method", and never allowing onself to be seen as a loser. .
I blame the American immature, competative obsession to "win at any cost, by any method", and never allowing onself to be seen as a loser.