Ex-President Trump to Speak

This is simply not true.

 

Your premise is faulty. Yes, in many areas, "the person who pays the piper picks the tune," but in REAL journalism (not websites like thedailycaller.com, or pundit media), there is a practice of journalism that separates the ideology of the owner(s) from the editorial and news departments. There are standards and practices in real journalism, and gutsy practitioners of the craft who built trust with their readers by presenting the truth as they understand it, even if it goes against their own ideology. If you were a regular Washington Post reader (I am an admirer and subscriber), you will see that they are fact-checking the Biden Administration and calling him out on things several times a week. They regularly go after Democrats and were especially critical of AOC when she first came into office and made a lot of false or misleading statements. I appreciate that sort of fearlessness, and regularly repost their fact-checks on my Facebook page. And that's one of the marks of good journalism. Moreover, I have trust in the Washington Post because whenever I do my own follow-up research and read through primary sources, I find their reporting extremely accurate. In business, this is called being a "trusted advisor" to a client. It brings loyalty to clients who actually want to know the truth about their situation (whether legal, scientific, facility-related, repair related, or news related). For instance, I have tremendous loyalty to automotive repair shops who correctly diagnose problems and then make repairs that resolve them without trying to add on a bunch of unnecessary work. I will pay a little more for that, knowing that long term I will pay less to have a reliable automobile.

No, of course not. But I do have experience in the media as a magazine managing editor for local and national magazines. I would talk to the advertising department to inform them of topics we were planning to cover in upcoming issues, and also keep track of ad sales month to month to know how many sigs (a sheet of paper for a printing press that is divided and bound into groups of 16 magazine pages, front and back) we were printing each month, so I would know how much editorial content we needed to keep 70% of the magazine space devoted to editorial content. But beyond that, advertising never dictated stories we would cover, persons we would interview, or product reviews. And the owners also did not dictate editorial policy, but looked at the circulation figures and the profitability of the magazine. If the magazine was making money, had a consistent and growing subscriber base, and was trusted by the reader, I was considered a success.

So I know how this works on a small scale. And from friends also in the legitimate media (television, major newspapers), it is essentially the same culture.

He has created his own legal troubles. The disposition of those cases will be decided by the courts, or by Mr. Trump himself if he wants to settle or make a plea deal.

I'm not a huge fan of the new administration. I'm not a Democrat, so there will be a lot of things I will disagree with. I will continue to contact my representatives, as well as the Biden Administration directly, regarding specific issues I feel strongly about. That's the same thing I have done for the past 30 years.

Sure. Many of us are part of America. There are many differing views about things, but true Americans believe in the rule of law, our Constitution, and our system of government.

 

You are welcome to your opinion. I think your opinion is in error, but you are entitled to be in error. So am I.

 

They are for women making the choice whether or not to terminate their pregnancies. That's quite different that the overstatement that they are "for abortion," since that mean that their default position is to abort every embryo/fetus unless the the woman demands that the state not terminate her pregnancy.

I'm sure you understand the importance of speaking truthfully, especially about positions we disagree with.

Says who? You? I've never said anything like that.

Moreover, I don't "overlook" anything.

I am for the 2nd Amendment. Mr. Trump claimed to be. I agreed with his theoretical position (theoretical, because I don't think he did anything helpful for it). I disagree with the Biden Administration's theoretical position on the 2nd Amendment (as well as Biden's role in the 1994 "Assault Weapons (sic) ban"), and will be quite vocal about my views if he decides to get behind certain gun control measures.

I supported Mr. Trump's theoretical inexpensive healthcare for all "plan," which has apparently never existed, even though they were always "two weeks" away from major milestones/implementation of the plan. I have never liked Obamacare, for many reasons, but I am generally supportive of a public/private option for healthcare that no one seems to be proposing. I'm planning to submit my idea to the Biden Administration just to see if it has any merit (I know I don't truly understand the scale and complexity of the problem, but I may be able to provide a workable insight for the issue.)

I know a lot of people "overlooked" or even defended demonstrably false things that Trump said "because of the other things [they] liked." But not many had the courage to call out the falsehoods since TDS (Trump Delusion Syndrome) did not allow any dissent and people would be viciously attacked if they questioned the veracity of whatever Trump said that day, even if it contradicted something he said the day before.

So please spare me the outrage.

 

Trust me, I am not the one in error here. We know there were hundreds of thousands of illegitimate votes because they were only allowed due to changes made by unelected officials in the 11th hour and not legislatures as the Constitution requires.

 

Remember that the US was and is in a state of emergency, where state and local officials have more authority to take quick action. Changing election rules to enable mail-in voting is a reasonable a prudent step for state officials to take during a deadly pandemic that is only now starting to wane. That's why the allegations and court cases have no traction in the courts.

What is that so hard to grasp?

 

They do not have the authority to circumvent the Constitution. No it is not a reasonable or prudent step for non-elected officials to take that action. They do not have that authority.

 

I'm pro-Jesus, so I oppose things that former President Trump has done, hasn't done, and things he has said that are in opposition to Christian ethics and truth.

I'm pro-Jesus, so I oppose things that current President Biden has done, hasn't done, and things he has said, and perhaps will say, that are in opposition to Christian ethics and truth.

Persons who are more concerned about "image" or perception instead of what is actually true are propagandists. I try to resist the temptation to be a propagandist, especially when I comes to something I disagree with. Jesus expects us to be truthful and loving, even to our enemies, and that involves telling the truth about them with no shades of falsehood.

I explained it in my previous post. Unless you are a propagandist, a person who is "pro-abortion" wants everyone to have an abortion. It is the preferred choice. There aren't many "pro-abortion" people out there, but I'm sure there are some. The Biden Administration is for the right of women to make the choice for abortion. That's a very different thing.

That's a nice bit of propaganda that some Christians like to throw around. Most persons who support a woman's right to choose and abortion do not believe that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human person. Therefore, it cannot be murder. Murder is killing with knowing intent. Manslaughter is accidentally or mistakenly killing someone. The Bible recognizes the distinction, shouldn't people who claim that book as their authority also do so?

The sarcasm is not attractive. If you have a question, just ask me. If you disagree, make a good argument and/or show me scripture and you might change my mind.

I did. I don't know why you don't believe me about that. I didn't learn anything I haven't known for decades.

It's still great.

Please stop assigning stupid and demeaning opinions to me. I'm not a fan of Bezos. Do you know how I knew he bought the Washington Post? It was reported in 2013 AND the Washington Post constantly reminds its readers of it's ownership and other subsidiary relationships it has that might raise reader concerns about whether or not the reporting is skewed. They do that because they employ journalistic ethics. That's a far cry from Sean Hannity (a media pundit, but often refers to himself as a journalist) when he did not reveal his relationship with Michael Cohen and that he used to strategize with Trump almost every night about media coverage.

No, I don't think he is. The Editorial Department there would resign and that would cause most readers to drop the paper. He would ruin his investment. The only collateral newspapers have with their readers is their editorial integrity. If a newspaper or magazine loses that, they lose everything, including their revenue. Another way to know the Washington Post is not guided by Bezos is their reporting on his extramarital affair that ended up costing him multiple billions in a divorce, as well as public humiliation. They did not hold back.

I'm sure he does, but I don't actually know what it is. I rarely think about Bezos. Anyway, it doesn't affect the Washington Post.

It's simple:
(1) Trump has undermined any integrity the anti-abortion (aka "pro-life") movement had by his lack of moral character. The anti-abortion movement is a MORAL movement, and the embrace and alignment with an immoral person undermine the credibility of the cause.
(2) Christians who have betrayed Jesus by supported Trump in his immorality and dishonesty have lost their credibility with the general public to speak into the lives of people who are dealing with an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy. In fact, those of us who didn't support Trump at any point have our witness to Christ tarnished. The early church transformed the world, not by seeking power, but by living their fact consistently and sacrificially. They transformed their own culture, making infanticide, pederasty, and sexual slavery in the Greco-Roman world the exception rather than an everyday acceptable occurrence in their society. They did not try to become worldly leaders, but became servants to all, rescuing abandoned children from death by exposure or a life of slavery, and adopting them into loving families. They also served their neighbors by taking loving and respectful care of the bodies of persons who had died and giving them funerals.
(3) Trump was not "pro-life" since he didn't mind locking up refugees, separating children from parents, betraying the Kurds, attacking people with words (remember what Jesus said about words of contempt in the Sermon on the Mount) and actions, encouraging violence at his rallies, ignoring the murder of Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabia, etc.
(4) The political strategy for ending abortion that focuses on electing certain people to the Presidency so they can nominate certain Supreme Court Justices, who may possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, is an extreme long shot, at best, and it doesn't change the fact that overturning Roe v. Wade won't stop abortion. Even making abortion illegal won't stop abortion since it is relatively easy to induce miscarriages. People have been doing it since the days of ancient Egypt. Moreover, there are several different types of drugs that will induce miscarriages that will be relatively easy to obtain -- even easier than getting marijuana in a big city.

You don't understand me at all. Although I sincerely doubt Trump has any personal concern about abortion, those are not the only two options. Giving Trump "credit" for a few things he did only more closely associates him with the pro-life movement, harming it.

I don't like anyone who is currently in the public eye who has considered a run for President. The last time I had a lot of enthusiasm for a candidate, was for John Kasich in 2016. Prior to that is was Fred Thompson (deceased in 2015). Thompson's campaign fizzled quickly.

 

Voting law is state law, not federal law. Opening up mail-in voting does not disenfranchise anyone, so the Constitution doesn't really apply.

 

The Constitution says the LEGISLATURE makes the laws about voting, not unelected officials. So YES the Constitution absolutely applies.

 

So you would have to prove that they actually did so.