Amen sister, if for nothing else to cleanse your soul and get in the faces of the heathen christians' (small c intended) who love their orange god. Their angst when anyone dares to attack the vile humanoid they elected is truly fascinating.
Better yet, thanks for the reminder how these phonies rejoice in hanging meaningless slogans around their necks; this one it truly a work of art: "Courageous Conservatives PAC."
There was a time and place when there were courageous conservatives. You know, the ones who believed in morals, values and had serious religious beliefs. So sad to see so many dismantled, neutered and left worshiping at the alter of trump.
I’d like to hope 20-33% of voting “conservatives” see it this way and vote accordingly in the fall, perhaps not as an endorsement of democrats, but as a protest vote against what is undeniably awful character, precedent and blasphemy all at the same time by the no longer recognizable grand old party. My expectations are low though.
"President Trump endorsed a GOP challenger to Rep. Nancy Mace’s (R-S.C.) campaign for South Carolina governor on Friday, backing Lt. Gov. Pam Evette in the contest."
"The president lauded Evette as an 'America First Patriot' who 'never wavered' in a Truth Social post on Friday evening."
"'Pam Evette is a good friend, fighter, and WINNER, and will be a terrific Governor of South Carolina,' Trump wrote. 'Pam has my Complete and Total Endorsement — SHE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!'"
"Mace responded in a social media post on Friday evening, suggesting that her advocacy for the release of the Justice Department’s files related to its probe into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein contributed to the president’s decision not to back her."[1]
It's been extremely amusing to see which Republicans thought that Trump was authentic about releasing the Epstein Files in 2024[2] (e.g. Mace, Massie), and the rest who knew that there was no way in hell that was happening.
The actual story will be what happens to these Senators when their terms end. When leftists refer to "what republican voters demand" they prefer tight helpful heuristics like "authoritarianism".
It is snappy!
Maybe SC Republicans believe in an old-style gentility and they would faint at the terrible blandishments leveled upon them. "Oh. My. Where are my smelling salts, Eugenia? Did they call us... racist?" Or maybe they're built of sterner stuff and already to face down the race grifters and remove office holders who don't have the stomach for a fight.
Could go either way. I'm looking forward to finding out.
No leftists were mentioned in this piece. No leftists write for this site. It was a Republican-majority state Congress that rejected the redistricting plan pushed by the Trump regime and the puppet governor, McMaster.
And did you get the gist of the post, at all? Graham, who has made it his goal to be seen as the premiere Trump crotch-sniffer is now being deemed "not MAGA enough." It's an expected outcome when a party loses all sense of principle and the sole focus becomes to please one man, rather than to serve the best interest of the nation.
Well. You're talking like a leftist, using their phrasing. Possibly you are actually sincere when you use it. I don't judge them to be.
Your Graham story illustrates my theme. MAGA voters don't like Graham. They think he's a snake. Trump bows to the voters when he doesn't have a clear goal he thinks is worth the reputation loss (such as Iran).
I am a STAUNCH conservative, of the Coolidge/Goldwater/Reagan variety. I voted Republican my entire adult life, up until Trump came on the scene and I saw an unserious, unqualified, corrupt vulgarian amassing a cult of personality. Nothing about him is built on anything other than self-aggrandizing and personal enrichment, all off of the backs of struggling Americans. I became an Independent, still very much a conservative, but I would not bear allegiance with a party that has forsaken everything I once believed they stood for.
Trump operates solely on grievance and outright lies. He spits on our Constitution. He dishonors the efforts of every patriot from the very conception of our nation. I say to you and everyone, as I've said since he entered the scene, if a candidate does not adhere to the founding documents of our country, he is NOT a patriot and he is a danger to us all. We dont have to like a candidate. We dont have to agree with their policies. We DO, however, have to insist they follow and respect our laws. We MUST insist that our elected officials be men and women of good character.
Trump does not and never was.
Above that, however, I am a Christian [and a pastor's wife, no less]. I abhor the bastardizing of the faith I hold dear, all for political gain. This notion that 'intolerance' is a 'lost Christian virtue' is SO ABYSMALLY WRONG!! The nature of Christ is love. Love comes from tolerance - not of sin. Jesus never accepted sin. He did, however, love the sinner. Encounters with Jesus always ended with him firmly, but lovingly admonishing them to "go, and sin no more." That's how you win souls and change a culture. You wont do it through legislation. There is no partisan Heaven. This push to secure the evangelical vote through lies and a perversion of the Gospel should drive any Christian with discernment into a righteous anger. Unfortunately, too many have closed their eyes and their hearts, making politics their god.
He is a vulgarian. Blue bloods loath the man. He's exploited his overall package (wealth, reasonable looks (...) height, etc.) to live a largely oversexed life. He's no Christian...well except that's not my call. He's a narcissist. He certainly remembers grudges and shouts loudly about the various wrongs done him. Where we differ on that last bit might be that I know them generally to be actual wrongs now and I'm unsure if you do. No problem. There's lots to not like.
"Spits on the constitution". Which part? I suspect this will be an important answer.
"He is not a patriot". That's your judgement. Fine. I disagree.
You pointed out his lies. I'm curious what you are thinking of? There are things he's said it thought were lies and I was proven wrong. I wonder which of the possible lies do you think of first? Is there a cluster you're thinking of?
(first "Christianity" paragraph removed)
"Intolerance is a lost Christian virtue": Is that a Trump quote? I'd say tolerance is a crap virtue if it is any kind of virtue. Muslims have an explicit doctrine of lying to infidels so they can stick it to 'em later. They have another one that makes all infidels the chattel of believers. In an environment like that tolerance is... mistaken. That's merely one example of how tolerance must be tempered with wisdom. I think when wisdom leads to intolerance, that's a virtue. So, yeah. I can make the case. From a biblical perspective, go back and read what the god you serve thought about the altars to the gods of other peoples in among his people. You can probably find some more examples if you try.
But I'm mostly interested to the questions above: what lies and which parts of the constitution.
Thanks.
Late admission: I didn't really attempt to claim intolerance to be specifically a Christian virtue. So mismatch on my actual work vs the task I took up. I could claim it's because I don't stamp things Christian usually, but that would be a lie. I don't think it is either, but I do think it is a human one. Can Christ transform all the hearts in the world? A Christian says yes, and then no intolerance is required... But in the meantime, there's the slight problem of Allah's Flying Rape Squad (October 7th) and similar. Some things are intolerable.
"'Spits on the constitution'. Which part? I suspect this will be an important answer."
The Emolument Clauses (Article I, Section 9): "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
The Emolument Clauses (Article II, Section 1): "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."
The War Powers Clause (Article I, Section 8): On Congress having the power to "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water..."
The Coinage Clause (Article I, Section 8): On Congress having the power to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures..."
The Appropriations Clause: (Article I, Section 9): On Congress having the power to spend: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
14th Amendment (Section 1): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
14th Amendment (Section 3): "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
14th Amendment (Section 4): "But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
Just because we have a coward as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Roberts) and a corrupt Associate Justice (Thomas) doesn't mean that these clauses are or should be optional, and subject to the discretion of the President (and his SCOTUS enablers) whether they should actually be followed.
"Senator Graham is being attacked for his past policy stances, even though he has more than earned his Trumpian kneepads."
Oh my! ;-)
Amen sister, if for nothing else to cleanse your soul and get in the faces of the heathen christians' (small c intended) who love their orange god. Their angst when anyone dares to attack the vile humanoid they elected is truly fascinating.
Better yet, thanks for the reminder how these phonies rejoice in hanging meaningless slogans around their necks; this one it truly a work of art: "Courageous Conservatives PAC."
There was a time and place when there were courageous conservatives. You know, the ones who believed in morals, values and had serious religious beliefs. So sad to see so many dismantled, neutered and left worshiping at the alter of trump.
I’d like to hope 20-33% of voting “conservatives” see it this way and vote accordingly in the fall, perhaps not as an endorsement of democrats, but as a protest vote against what is undeniably awful character, precedent and blasphemy all at the same time by the no longer recognizable grand old party. My expectations are low though.
Indeed.
I love this comment. Do you have a sister named Eugenia, perchance?
Trump take (SC) Governor.
"President Trump endorsed a GOP challenger to Rep. Nancy Mace’s (R-S.C.) campaign for South Carolina governor on Friday, backing Lt. Gov. Pam Evette in the contest."
"The president lauded Evette as an 'America First Patriot' who 'never wavered' in a Truth Social post on Friday evening."
"'Pam Evette is a good friend, fighter, and WINNER, and will be a terrific Governor of South Carolina,' Trump wrote. 'Pam has my Complete and Total Endorsement — SHE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!'"
"Mace responded in a social media post on Friday evening, suggesting that her advocacy for the release of the Justice Department’s files related to its probe into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein contributed to the president’s decision not to back her."[1]
It's been extremely amusing to see which Republicans thought that Trump was authentic about releasing the Epstein Files in 2024[2] (e.g. Mace, Massie), and the rest who knew that there was no way in hell that was happening.
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5902146-trump-endorses-pam-evette-over-mace/
[2] https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-jeffrey-epstein-years-including-2024-campaign-trail/story?id=123778541
The actual story will be what happens to these Senators when their terms end. When leftists refer to "what republican voters demand" they prefer tight helpful heuristics like "authoritarianism".
It is snappy!
Maybe SC Republicans believe in an old-style gentility and they would faint at the terrible blandishments leveled upon them. "Oh. My. Where are my smelling salts, Eugenia? Did they call us... racist?" Or maybe they're built of sterner stuff and already to face down the race grifters and remove office holders who don't have the stomach for a fight.
Could go either way. I'm looking forward to finding out.
No leftists were mentioned in this piece. No leftists write for this site. It was a Republican-majority state Congress that rejected the redistricting plan pushed by the Trump regime and the puppet governor, McMaster.
And did you get the gist of the post, at all? Graham, who has made it his goal to be seen as the premiere Trump crotch-sniffer is now being deemed "not MAGA enough." It's an expected outcome when a party loses all sense of principle and the sole focus becomes to please one man, rather than to serve the best interest of the nation.
Well. You're talking like a leftist, using their phrasing. Possibly you are actually sincere when you use it. I don't judge them to be.
Your Graham story illustrates my theme. MAGA voters don't like Graham. They think he's a snake. Trump bows to the voters when he doesn't have a clear goal he thinks is worth the reputation loss (such as Iran).
Their phrasing?
Which part is 'their phrasing'?
I am a STAUNCH conservative, of the Coolidge/Goldwater/Reagan variety. I voted Republican my entire adult life, up until Trump came on the scene and I saw an unserious, unqualified, corrupt vulgarian amassing a cult of personality. Nothing about him is built on anything other than self-aggrandizing and personal enrichment, all off of the backs of struggling Americans. I became an Independent, still very much a conservative, but I would not bear allegiance with a party that has forsaken everything I once believed they stood for.
Trump operates solely on grievance and outright lies. He spits on our Constitution. He dishonors the efforts of every patriot from the very conception of our nation. I say to you and everyone, as I've said since he entered the scene, if a candidate does not adhere to the founding documents of our country, he is NOT a patriot and he is a danger to us all. We dont have to like a candidate. We dont have to agree with their policies. We DO, however, have to insist they follow and respect our laws. We MUST insist that our elected officials be men and women of good character.
Trump does not and never was.
Above that, however, I am a Christian [and a pastor's wife, no less]. I abhor the bastardizing of the faith I hold dear, all for political gain. This notion that 'intolerance' is a 'lost Christian virtue' is SO ABYSMALLY WRONG!! The nature of Christ is love. Love comes from tolerance - not of sin. Jesus never accepted sin. He did, however, love the sinner. Encounters with Jesus always ended with him firmly, but lovingly admonishing them to "go, and sin no more." That's how you win souls and change a culture. You wont do it through legislation. There is no partisan Heaven. This push to secure the evangelical vote through lies and a perversion of the Gospel should drive any Christian with discernment into a righteous anger. Unfortunately, too many have closed their eyes and their hearts, making politics their god.
"Authoritarianism" was the word, I believe.
He is a vulgarian. Blue bloods loath the man. He's exploited his overall package (wealth, reasonable looks (...) height, etc.) to live a largely oversexed life. He's no Christian...well except that's not my call. He's a narcissist. He certainly remembers grudges and shouts loudly about the various wrongs done him. Where we differ on that last bit might be that I know them generally to be actual wrongs now and I'm unsure if you do. No problem. There's lots to not like.
"Spits on the constitution". Which part? I suspect this will be an important answer.
"He is not a patriot". That's your judgement. Fine. I disagree.
You pointed out his lies. I'm curious what you are thinking of? There are things he's said it thought were lies and I was proven wrong. I wonder which of the possible lies do you think of first? Is there a cluster you're thinking of?
(first "Christianity" paragraph removed)
"Intolerance is a lost Christian virtue": Is that a Trump quote? I'd say tolerance is a crap virtue if it is any kind of virtue. Muslims have an explicit doctrine of lying to infidels so they can stick it to 'em later. They have another one that makes all infidels the chattel of believers. In an environment like that tolerance is... mistaken. That's merely one example of how tolerance must be tempered with wisdom. I think when wisdom leads to intolerance, that's a virtue. So, yeah. I can make the case. From a biblical perspective, go back and read what the god you serve thought about the altars to the gods of other peoples in among his people. You can probably find some more examples if you try.
But I'm mostly interested to the questions above: what lies and which parts of the constitution.
Thanks.
Late admission: I didn't really attempt to claim intolerance to be specifically a Christian virtue. So mismatch on my actual work vs the task I took up. I could claim it's because I don't stamp things Christian usually, but that would be a lie. I don't think it is either, but I do think it is a human one. Can Christ transform all the hearts in the world? A Christian says yes, and then no intolerance is required... But in the meantime, there's the slight problem of Allah's Flying Rape Squad (October 7th) and similar. Some things are intolerable.
"'Spits on the constitution'. Which part? I suspect this will be an important answer."
The Emolument Clauses (Article I, Section 9): "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
The Emolument Clauses (Article II, Section 1): "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."
The War Powers Clause (Article I, Section 8): On Congress having the power to "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water..."
The Coinage Clause (Article I, Section 8): On Congress having the power to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures..."
The Appropriations Clause: (Article I, Section 9): On Congress having the power to spend: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
14th Amendment (Section 1): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
14th Amendment (Section 3): "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
14th Amendment (Section 4): "But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
Just because we have a coward as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Roberts) and a corrupt Associate Justice (Thomas) doesn't mean that these clauses are or should be optional, and subject to the discretion of the President (and his SCOTUS enablers) whether they should actually be followed.
Bravo.
Holy shit, dude. Let her think about what she cares about. Do you go around to gameshows whispering answers to the contestants?
That being said, Roberts is worse than a coward. He's a cipher.
If this is the new Racket. Adios.
This is the Old Racket, with its flag planted longer than Matt Taibbi's pale imitation.
This is "The Racket News", not "Racket News". It's been around for years before Taibbi's Substack.
Blame the algo for putting this in your feed.
We'll miss you.
Come on. Hang out. Maybe poke some fun?