I Would Have Said; I HAVE Said, "No Way Will I Vote For Trump!"

[Kathianne]

I may change my mind, IF:

https://hotair.com/karen-townsend/2024/05/04/is-winsome-sears-on-trumps-short-list-for-a-running-mate-n3787758


Is Winsome Sears on Trump's Short List for a Running Mate?KAREN TOWNSEND 1:00 PM | May 04, 2024



AP Photo/Steve Helber
Is Winsome Sears on former President Trump's short list of potential running mates? She's an interesting choice under consideration, if true.


With Biden's America in chaos and plagued with crime, a strong proponent for law and order would fit in well with Trump's strong support for law enforcement. Sears is a former Marine and she is tough on crime.


She's a rising star in Republican politics. Like Trump, she is known for delivering unfiltered opinions on controversial topics. At a time when college campuses are being disrupted by pro-Hamas demonstrations, the Trump campaign may be thinking about a strong show of support for law and order to contrast with Biden's cowardice in addressing the problem.


And, she is a black woman. Sears would provide a sharp contrast to Kamala Harris on a debate stage.


She told Neil Cavuto on Fox Business Channel that "We're not doing crazy in Virginia" when asked about campus protests.






One story in NewsNation is that there may be a problem with Sears if she is chosen because she was born in Jamaica.


A hurdle (or not) is that she was born in Jamaica and thus, could never serve as the President of the United States — something my source says Trump sees as a benefit as she would never seek to oust him. But, it is unclear if she would be able to perform the duties of the President should Trump become ill, hospitalized, or die in office due to the country of her birth.


There is the 12th Amendment to consider. "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."


Still fun to think about. Sears is pretty great.


Ironically, Kamala Harris's father is Jamaican.


The speculation on a potential running mate for Trump is heating up as we get closer to the Republican convention coming up this summer. A short list of four people popped up in the news this week - Senators Marco Rubio, Tim Scott, and J.D. Vance made the list. Also on the list was North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum.


Tim Scott has been rumored to be a Trump favorite since he suspended his presidential campaign and endorsed Trump. Scott campaigns with Trump on the road. As with all politicians, there are pros and cons with Scott.


Pros: The genial South Carolinian would be the GOP’s first black vice presidential nominee. Victory would set him up well to be just the second black president and would set up a useful contrast with Vice President Kamala Harris. Worked well with Trump during his first term. A solid fundraiser whose optimism might smooth over Trump’s “American Carnage” rough edges.


Cons: Scott’s presidential campaign this year floundered as he struggled to connect with Trump-era Republican voters. His support for criminal justice reform isn’t the positive it was before crime reemerged as a top issue in 2020. Not from a state that is really in doubt in November. While fairly benign compared to the matters being discussed in Trump’s Stormy Daniels hush money trial, the recently engaged Scott’s carefully guarded dating life seemingly fascinates political reporters.


Choosing a black running mate could put an ugly comment Joe Biden made on the campaign trail back into play. Remember when Biden told a predominantly black audience that Mitt Romney would put them back in chains in 2012? Biden is hemorrhaging black voter support according to polls.


In 2012, while he was vice president and campaigning for President Barack Obama in Virginia, Biden told a diverse crowd of 800 that the Republican challenger Mitt Romney wanted to repeal financial regulations and added: “He’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules — unchain Wall Street! They’re going to put you all back in chains!” While Biden was referring to Republican economic policies, our insider said, “It’s not a good look for him right now. Telling African Americans they will be back in chains, with the slavery reference… and especially since the community feels forgotten by the Biden administration as the migrant crisis gets worse.”


The veepstakes is a fun parlor game. Trump said he will make his choice known closer to the convention. We know one person who is off the shortlist now - South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem. She isn't likely to get a cabinet position, either.


South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem not only blew up her (slim) shot at being Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick when she bragged about shooting a rambunctious puppy in her soon-to-be-released book, “No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward.” She also blew up any chance she had of being picked to serve on Trump’s cabinet or in another prestigious post, my insiders say.


“She’s done. Out,” a major Republican donor told me. “Trump doesn’t exactly like dogs, but he knows people love them and isn’t going to be associated with this. This is a dumber move than Mitt Romney’s dog story.”


There is a deep bench of potential Republican choices for Trump to consider. The most important consideration is who can follow him and run in 2028 if Trump is successful in winning the election in November.

[Black Diamond]

14656

[SassyLady]

I love Winsome

[fj1200]

I may change my mind, IF:

Was thinking similar re: Scott.

[Kathianne]

Was thinking similar re: Scott.

I like Scott, but he seems too sold on Trump.

[fj1200]

I like Scott, but he seems too sold on Trump.

There is that. But I did predict that he would be the VP pick the second that I heard him drop out of the race and endorse trump. I'm still running with it.

[NightTrain]

I sure could go for $2 gas, mean tweets and world peace right about now.

[Mr. P]

I sure could go for $2 gas, mean tweets and world peace right about now.

Same here.. Never Trump or Maybe if... just doesn't make any sense to me.

[fj1200]

I sure could go for $2 gas, mean tweets and world peace right about now.


Same here.. Never Trump or Maybe if... just doesn't make any sense to me.

The rambling spiteful buffoon does not inspire. As of now I can only say who I won't vote for.

[Kathianne]

The rambling spiteful buffoon does not inspire. As of now I can only say who I won't vote for.
Yep. Many of his policies were great, unfortunately he isn't. 1/6 was not OK, that the dems have used the corruption of the executive branch to illustrate just how unjust our legal system is, doesn't excuse Trump's role in the abomination.

That so many now deeply believe that he actually won, is also Trump's doing. Again, while the Dems played Covid masterfully to make laws that far and away benefitted them, blame Trump's folks and the GOP.

Both parties seem bound and determined to make the citizens feel the system is beyond saving. Maybe it is, but I'll not vote for the leaders pushing that.

[Gunny]

Yep. Many of his policies were great, unfortunately he isn't. 1/6 was not OK, that the dems have used the corruption of the executive branch to illustrate just how unjust our legal system is, doesn't excuse Trump's role in the abomination.

That so many now deeply believe that he actually won, is also Trump's doing. Again, while the Dems played Covid masterfully to make laws that far and away benefitted them, blame Trump's folks and the GOP.

Both parties seem bound and determined to make the citizens feel the system is beyond saving. Maybe it is, but I'll not vote for the leaders pushing that.Agree with all. But Biden is making it REALLY hard:laugh:

[SassyLady]

The rambling spiteful buffoon does not inspire. As of now I can only say who I won't vote for.

He inspires massive amounts of people. Just not your type.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/usa-usa-usa-president-trump-arrives-outside-mclaren/

[SassyLady]

Yep. Many of his policies were great, unfortunately he isn't. 1/6 was not OK, that the dems have used the corruption of the executive branch to illustrate just how unjust our legal system is, doesn't excuse Trump's role in the abomination.

That so many now deeply believe that he actually won, is also Trump's doing. Again, while the Dems played Covid masterfully to make laws that far and away benefitted them, blame Trump's folks and the GOP.

Both parties seem bound and determined to make the citizens feel the system is beyond saving. Maybe it is, but I'll not vote for the leaders pushing that.
Trump had nothing to do with why I believe he won. Common sense says Biden could only win from fraud.

[fj1200]

He inspires massive amounts of people. Just not your type.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/usa-usa-usa-president-trump-arrives-outside-mclaren/

Plenty of people are inspired by populist rhetoric. Populist rhetoric is a bit more attractive than small-government conservatism these days.

[revelarts]

Plenty of people are inspired by populist rhetoric. Populist rhetoric is a bit more attractive than small-government conservatism these days.
Who's promoting or representing small-government conservatism these days?

Conservatives who want to project U.S. power all over the world have never really been small-government conservatives.
You can't do unlimited military industrial complex and small-government conservatism.

What politicians do you have in mind who really promote small-government conservatism these days?
What policies of Trumps are against small-government conservatism?
I know he TALKED about "health care" which he never did.
But off hand i can't think of any other major BIG gov't liberal policies, or BIG gov't conservative policies.

[fj1200]

Who's promoting or representing small-government conservatism these days?

Conservatives who want to project U.S. power all over the world have never really been small-government conservatives.
You can't do unlimited military industrial complex and small-government conservatism.

What politicians do you have in mind who really promote small-government conservatism these days?
What policies of Trumps are against small-government conservatism?
I know he TALKED about "health care" which he never did.
But off hand i can't think of any other major BIG gov't liberal policies, or BIG gov't conservative policies.

As I've said before I used to think most Republican voters were small government people but I've learned otherwise starting around say 2015. Many of them like big government just not the lefts version thereof. Unfortunately populism is having a moment but I'm hoping conservatism wins out in the long run.

[Kathianne]

As I've said before I used to think most Republican voters were small government people but I've learned otherwise starting around say 2015. Many of them like big government just not the lefts version thereof. Unfortunately populism is having a moment but I'm hoping conservatism wins out in the long run.
I used to. It seems Trump and now minions have enraptured the bulk of where hope used to lay. I'm very pessimistic about reasonable conservatives or more reasonable liberals. There's very little middle left.

[revelarts]

I used to. It seems Trump and now minions have enraptured the bulk of where hope used to lay. I'm very pessimistic about reasonable conservatives or more reasonable liberals. There's very little middle left.

What middle ground policies are you thinking of here?
Or are you thinking more in terms of a general spirit of competitive but cordial rivalry with cooperation/compromise in gov't?
Or something else?

[revelarts]

As I've said before I used to think most Republican voters were small government people but I've learned otherwise starting around say 2015. Many of them like big government just not the lefts version thereof. Unfortunately populism is having a moment but I'm hoping conservatism wins out in the long run.

What populist policies do you think are a problem at this point?
And again
What policies of Trumps are against small-government conservatism?

[Kathianne]

What middle ground policies are you thinking of here?
Or are you thinking more in terms of a general spirit of competitive but friendly rivalry with cooperation/compromise in gov't?
Or something else?

I'm talking about the ability to understand that others may very well be good people and disagree with you intensely. Friendly disagreements, those without any hope of converting the others to your point of view, may require both sides to move towards a middle, losing some of what's desired, but also keeping or gaining some. Then able to shake hands and wait for the next opportunity to move your points forward.

The unwise on campuses today are just reflective of the 'adults' they've observed since birth and have been educated by since 5 years of age. No compromise, willing to hit the enemy over the head with a metal bat, you know, to gain their point. Intimidation is the name of the game and winning is everything NOW is the endgame. In many cases the educators and parents are out there with them. So mature and so very, very fatal for our type of government.

This didn't start with Trump, not by a long shot. What he did, just like 1/6 is make it inevitable that others would pick up the challenge, on one side or the other. Obama did the same, but in ways less prone towards immediate violence-though the underlying promise was there. Biden has just frustrated everyone to such a degree that folks are ready to just attack anyone and often it's playing out on the streets of the cities.

Just a President, no matter how influential for good or bad, is not along in cause. Nope, there's a huge number of educators, business/banking, social leaders, famous/infamous helping them with their ultimate desired outcomes.

[revelarts]

I'm talking about the ability to understand that others may very well be good people and disagree with you intensely. Friendly disagreements, those without any hope of converting the others to your point of view, may require both sides to move towards a middle, losing some of what's desired, but also keeping or gaining some. Then able to shake hands and wait for the next opportunity to move your points forward.

The unwise on campuses today are just reflective of the 'adults' they've observed since birth and have been educated by since 5 years of age. No compromise, willing to hit the enemy over the head with a metal bat, you know, to gain their point. Intimidation is the name of the game and winning is everything NOW is the endgame. In many cases the educators and parents are out there with them. So mature and so very, very fatal for our type of government.

This didn't start with Trump, not by a long shot. What he did, just like 1/6 is make it inevitable that others would pick up the challenge, on one side or the other. Obama did the same, but in ways less prone towards immediate violence-though the underlying promise was there. Biden has just frustrated everyone to such a degree that folks are ready to just attack anyone and often it's playing out on the streets of the cities.

Just a President, no matter how influential for good or bad, is not along in cause. Nope, there's a huge number of educators, business/banking, social leaders, famous/infamous helping them with their ultimate desired outcomes.

I get that.
That's a very real loss.

And I think that's something that has to start from our side. With what you mentioned. acknowledging the humanity of the everyone who doesn't agree with us.
That's simply a FACT. and it must be a basis, at least from us, for any conversation & work. (foreign and domestic BTW)
What i don't know is WHERE we can legitimately compromise. we've kind of backed up to the edge of cliff in compromises over the past 50 years.
So that many consider "the middle" is what the FAR left used to be. And what was consider the middle right is considered the EXTREME Populist Isolationist right.

What do you think can be a point of compromise for the right ...if the other side were willing to talk?

[Kathianne]

I get that.
That's a very real loss.

And I think that's something that has to start from our side. With what you mentioned. acknowledging the humanity of the everyone who doesn't agree with us.
That's simply a FACT. and it must be a basis, at least from us, for any conversation & work. (foreign and domestic BTW)
What i don't know is WHERE we can legitimately compromise. we've kind of backed up to the edge of cliff in compromises over the past 50 years.
So that many consider "the middle" is what the FAR left used to be. And what was consider the middle right is considered the EXTREME Populist Isolationist right.

What do you think can be a point of compromise for the right ...if the other side were willing to talk?

IMO, things are so very dysfunctional it's probably a good idea to start with the basics:


Expecting people to refrain from cursing as President, on Congressional floor, in classrooms, in boardrooms...
Treating all, those agreeing and those disagreeing with basic courtesy-please, thank you, you first...
Going to the trouble to dress appropriately and with a nod to those one is going to interacting with that they are important enough of your time-Work, school, restaurants, (I for one don't want to see your butt crack. I assume no one is looking for a peek at 70 year old cleavage?)

It's a start.

Then there is again an acknowledgement that we are not always on the winning side, regardless of how 'right' or moral. I've said many times before, I AM pro-life. I know that the vast majority of Americans are not for the extreme position of abortion birth or even a bit beyond. However, many are not in line with my thinking either-rape, incest, physical life of the mother. States though are much more responsive to their citizens than the fed. It's the right level to be dealing with the law on this topic, imo. I don't think NY, IL are going to pass abortion laws I think right, but many other states will. OTOH, the courts will step in when things go too far-such as the resurrection of AZ law.

The system of government we HAD, was built only for incremental change-had to intellectually fight for every yard. Now our country of infants on right and left, must have their way or the war will come.

[Gunny]

IMO, things are so very dysfunctional it's probably a good idea to start with the basics:Expecting people to refrain from cursing as President, on Congressional floor, in classrooms, in boardrooms...
Treating all, those agreeing and those disagreeing with basic courtesy-please, thank you, you first...
Going to the trouble to dress appropriately and with a nod to those one is going to interacting with that they are important enough of your time-Work, school, restaurants, (I for one don't want to see your butt crack. I assume no one is looking for a peek at 70 year old cleavage?)

It's a start.

Then there is again an acknowledgement that we are not always on the winning side, regardless of how 'right' or moral. I've said many times before, I AM pro-life. I know that the vast majority of Americans are not for the extreme position of abortion birth or even a bit beyond. However, many are not in line with my thinking either-rape, incest, physical life of the mother. States though are much more responsive to their citizens than the fed. It's the right level to be dealing with the law on this topic, imo. I don't think NY, IL are going to pass abortion laws I think right, but many other states will. OTOH, the courts will step in when things go too far-such as the resurrection of AZ law.

The system of government we HAD, was built only for incremental change-had to intellectually fight for every yard. Now our country of infants on right and left, must have their way or the war will come.

Nailed it.

[fj1200]

What populist policies do you think are a problem at this point?
And again
What policies of Trumps are against small-government conservatism?

I'm not interested in rehashing every position he may or may not take. He may have some small-government positions but he generally stumbles into them. His followers are not really into advancing a conservative ideology are the? They're following a person. That is one of the base presumptions of my "populism is evil" position (there's a thread about it).

[revelarts]

I'm not interested in rehashing every position he may or may not take. He may have some small-government positions but he generally stumbles into them. His followers are not really into advancing a conservative ideology are the? They're following a person. That is one of the base presumptions of my "populism is evil" position (there's a thread about it).

Pragmatically.
If you are for small gov't conservatism, and ANY candidate even stumbles INTO most of the policies that promote it, doesn't it make sense for you to vote for that person?
Especially of no other candidates are available or are moving in that direction at all?

I understand the general dislike of Trump, and your fears of populism.
But if the current form of populist POLICIES are a in fact largely Small Gov't Conservatism, what's your real beef?

And Ok, You say you don't want to rehash EVERY Trump position.
How about ONE Trump Small Govt Conservative policy that you support?
And ONE of Trump's evil populist policies that you think is horrifying and will destroy us all?

Concerning your fear of populism, Seems to me that after Trump is gone I dont see that there's anyone on the horizon much like him.
So the so-called "populist" aspects you fear will probably fade away a lot.
Plus, as you said, there haven't been many real small govt conservatives in leadership or the rank-&-file republicans for a LONG time anyway.
Most of the leadership and Rank-&-File are not principals based folks generally speaking.
Personally I'm more concerned about the unprincipled pragmatist than the unprincipled populist.

[fj1200]

Pragmatically.
If you are for small gov't conservatism, and ANY candidate even stumbles INTO most of the policies that promote it, doesn't it make sense for you to vote for that person?
Especially of no other candidates are available or are moving in that direction at all?

I understand the general dislike of Trump, and your fears of populism.
But if the current form of populist POLICIES are a in fact largely Small Gov't Conservatism, what's your real beef?

And Ok, You say you don't want to rehash EVERY Trump position.
How about ONE Trump Small Govt Conservative policy that you support?
And ONE of Trump's evil populist policies that you think is horrifying and will destroy us all?

Concerning your fear of populism, Seems to me that after Trump is gone I dont see that there's anyone on the horizon much like him.
So the so-called "populist" aspects you fear will probably fade away a lot.
Plus, as you said, there haven't been many real small govt conservatives in leadership or the rank-&-file republicans for a LONG time anyway.
Most of the leadership and Rank-&-File are not principals based folks generally speaking.
Personally I'm more concerned about the unprincipled pragmatist than the unprincipled populist.

I think your first paragraph is exactly counter to things that you have said in the past like "why vote for that guy they're just all the same."

I never said that they were largely small government, I said, "some." And populist policies in this case are not for advancing conservatism, they are for advancing a person.

As I said before I'm not going to rehash it. There are other threads. He is unworthy of my vote.

Again, don't summarize what I say. There are plenty of trump minions around that my confidence that they'll go away isn't sky high.

[revelarts]

I think your first paragraph is exactly counter to things that you have said in the past like "why vote for that guy they're just all the same."
That's a poor summery of what I've said over the years.
I don't mind making detailed policy distinctions, and have for many candidates over time here.
I'd be happy to rehash it, There are other threads where i make LIST of differences. sad thing is it's usually in primaries.
After that I tend to list the similarities in the poverty and horrors of the candidates. Yes.
BTW FJ, Have i ever talked to you about Ron Paul?:cool:



I never said that they were largely small government, I said, "some." And populist policies in this case are not for advancing conservatism, they are for advancing a person.
As I said before I'm not going to rehash it. There are other threads. He is unworthy of my vote.
Again, don't summarize what I say. There are plenty of trump minions around that my confidence that they'll go away isn't sky high.

Ok "Some" small government polices.
Does Biden support ANY?

Trump can't run after 4 years, from a pragmatist POV, and a small government Principled POV it seems to me that someone like yourself would hold your nose and vote Trump.
Like I did for Bush Jr the 2nd time.
I didn't vote for Biden or Trump last time but Trump was not as bad as I expected him to be.
This time around I'm sadly leaning into voting Trump, if for no other reason than to cancel my wife's vote for Biden.. her anti-trump vote really.
but there are other reasons too.

[Kathianne]

IMO, things are so very dysfunctional it's probably a good idea to start with the basics:Expecting people to refrain from cursing as President, on Congressional floor, in classrooms, in boardrooms...
Treating all, those agreeing and those disagreeing with basic courtesy-please, thank you, you first...
Going to the trouble to dress appropriately and with a nod to those one is going to interacting with that they are important enough of your time-Work, school, restaurants, (I for one don't want to see your butt crack. I assume no one is looking for a peek at 70 year old cleavage?)

It's a start.

Then there is again an acknowledgement that we are not always on the winning side, regardless of how 'right' or moral. I've said many times before, I AM pro-life. I know that the vast majority of Americans are not for the extreme position of abortion birth or even a bit beyond. However, many are not in line with my thinking either-rape, incest, physical life of the mother. States though are much more responsive to their citizens than the fed. It's the right level to be dealing with the law on this topic, imo. I don't think NY, IL are going to pass abortion laws I think right, but many other states will. OTOH, the courts will step in when things go too far-such as the resurrection of AZ law.

The system of government we HAD, was built only for incremental change-had to intellectually fight for every yard. Now our country of infants on right and left, must have their way or the war will come.

Well here I am after work, sort of reading through semi-news and come across this article. So weird, it totally dovetails with what I was thinking about above as for a 'return' to civility:

https://www.oursundayvisitor.com/how-to-solve-social-chaos-treat-people-as-persons-not-things/


How to solve social chaos: Treat people as persons, not things

by Elizabeth Scalia
May 3, 2024 13 mins read
social chaos
Protesters in Minneapolis gather around the entrance of a police station May 28, 2020, as demonstrations continue after a white police officer was caught on a bystander's video pressing his knee into the neck of George Floyd, an African American, who later died at a hospital. (CNS photo/Carlos Barria, Reuters)


There was video available, but the still photos were more than enough to see.


On an April morning in Queens, New York, a 68-year-old woman was ascending the steps outside an Orthodox church when a 16-year-old male, who had been following her, swiftly moved ahead. Overtaking the woman, he bounded to the top of the stairs and then shoved her to the concrete pavement below.


It wasn’t difficult to imagine the awful thud and crack of a skull fracturing.


As the woman lay injured and unmoving, the boy — yes, he is still only a boy — rifled through her coat pockets, grabbed her handbag and her keys. He then allegedly made off with her car (which was older than he), leaving his victim in a pool of blood.


Whether she was dead or alive seemed of no consequence to him.


Initial reports indicated that the suspect, Jayvaun Prince, already had a rap sheet with multiple arrests for robbery and misdemeanor assaults, and that he was suspected in the harassment and robbery of another elderly woman the week previous.


This is just one moment of horror in a city whose stunned population is — like those in other American cities — blinking wide-eyed at the swift acceleration of the social breakdown happening all around.


We look on in horror at these scenes, and the oddly disinterested policies from our elected leaders which help them along, and we know instinctively that something must be done. It’s what we say to ourselves or to each other: “Something needs to be done! Someone needs to do something!”


And then we turn the page, or our minds blip as our fingers scroll down to whatever just got posted to social media.


We rarely consider ourselves to be the “someone” who might possibly have a hand in the “something” that needs doing. In truth, we aren’t thinking about it long enough for such a notion to bubble up to the surface. As a people, we have developed matchstick attention spans that flash-flame and then die out in seconds.


Very little is really getting through to us, anymore. War, cultural chaos, stupid movies, political corruption, religious scandals gone unaddressed — nothing registers beyond the blink, beyond the blip of screen motion.


Meanwhile the bill for our inattention grows larger, its delivery nearer, every day.

Reclaiming shame and guilt
There may yet be a way to turn things around — a means of reorienting the troubling trajectory of our society — but it will require things that we, as a culture, increasingly do not seem to possess: focused attention, compromise, creative thinking on accountability and, most challengingly, a willingness to reclaim and reappreciate what we long ago tossed aside as unnecessary: feelings of shame, or even — dare I say it — guilt, which are gateways to considered and authentic remorse.

A recent article in The Wrap revealed that those exact two emotions, shame and guilt, were meant to be characters in the upcoming 2024 Pixar film “Inside Out 2,” which assigns personas to the emotions moving through a 13-year-old girl. Shame and Guilt, however, were edited out of the final cut. “It was not fun to watch,” the director said. “It was too heavy.”

Those emotions have been edited out of society, too, because they really are heavy. In the 21st century, no one wants to look at anything that makes us feel bad about ourselves, especially if the thing we’re looking at is our own unwillingness to be humbled and the condition of our needy and deficient interior lives.


Encountering the article on social platform X, Catholic author and speaker Leah Libresco Sargeant observed that our reluctance to entertain shame and guilt “really undersells shame as a spur to repentance and reconciliation. It’s a relief as a parent to see kids learn to sorrow over hurting others and want to make things right vs hurtling along oblivious.”


Perfectly right. If our destination is human wholeness and maturity then we, and our kids, need to be able to travel the “heavy” and uncomfortable paths needed to get there.


Sri Lanka
Nuns march while holding images of the victims of 2019 Easter bomb attack, next to St. Sebastian’s Church, one of the attacked churches, during the second anniversary in Negombo, Sri Lanka, April 21, 2021. The attorney general of Sri Lanka has requested the chief justice appoint a special trial-at-bar to hear cases against 25 suspects accused of involvement in the Easter attacks that killed 279 people, including 37 foreign nationals. (CNS photo/Dinuka Liyanawatte, Reuters)

Defining sin


For many, a Catholic writer bringing up shame cues an eye roll or a sigh and a wisecrack about “Catholic guilt,” but that’s just brain sloth. “Catholic guilt” is a cheap, overused punchline that has harmfully mischaracterized and socially diminished the value of a formed conscience; it has little to say to anyone younger than my own boomer generation. It’s unlikely that people coming through religious education or Catholic schools in the past 30 or so years even have a clue as to what “Catholic guilt” means. The charge has devolved into an intellectually lazy broadside used against something that is quite real, but which we’re no longer supposed to talk about — the actuality of sin. The fact of sin and our own accountability for its effects.


Some will react to these words — shame, guilt, sin, accountability — with an instinctive and visceral dislike, arguing that while shame and guilt are nuisances to the conscience, sin is too subjective, and too bound up with Christian over-scrupulosity, to be reliably defined and that accountability can only be outlined by authorities.


The Education of the Conscience


“The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.”


— Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1784


Interestingly, the brilliant writer and self-proclaimed atheist Terry Pratchett gave us an excellent starting place for identifying sin in his wildly creative novel “Carpe Jugulum” wherein the elderly, pipe-smoking Granny Weatherwax instructs the young Quite Reverend Mightily Oats on the matter.


“… sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”


“It’s a lot more complicated than that –“


“No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”


“Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes –“


“But they starts with thinking about people as things. …”


Granny has indisputably nailed the fundamental fact of sin and the place where almost all of our missed marks originate. As Pratchett himself demonstrated, one needn’t be religious, or indeed any sort of believer at all, to understand and embrace this moral cornerstone: People are not things, and when we forget that, we fall into sometimes harrowing sin.


Responding to violence


If, whether we are religious or deeply secular, we can agree that it is morally wrong to treat people as things, can that help us respond to the growing, unfocused violence and senseless human degradation all around us?


Well, this is where focused attention and compromise come into play — attention that acknowledges our shared concerns about social chaos and how to address it, coupled with enough cooperation for persons to willingly withhold their knee-jerk instincts to take offense over clumsy rhetoric in order to serve the larger project. That might mean conceding together that — while tons of ink have been spilled on the immorality of either professing a “wrong” opinion or disrespecting a “correct” one — not enough is being said about how we shouldn’t rob each other; we shouldn’t toss people to the ground; we shouldn’t mock or bully anyone whose burden we haven’t borne; we shouldn’t sell our bodies or other people’s bodies — we shouldn’t commodify people at all, not even by making videos of their mistakes or their tragedies and then uploading them for monetization or even just for “likes.”


These “obvious” things need to be proclaimed without partisanship and then collectively recognized as valid and valuable moral positions. This is how — without professing fealty to a political stand or a particular religion, or any religion at all — society can begin the process of forming responsible social and individual consciences.


As important as that is, forming our consciences will mean not just enumerating all the things we should know better than to do, or all the ways we humans can fail ourselves or others, but also acknowledging that accountability matters, and what that might look like beyond calls for “more police, more jail time.”


The dignity of the human person


“The dignity of others is to be respected in all circumstances, not because that dignity is something we have invented or imagined, but because human beings possess an intrinsic worth superior to that of material objects and contingent situations. This requires that they be treated differently. That every human being possesses an inalienable dignity is a truth that corresponds to human nature apart from all cultural change.”


— Pope Francis in Fratelli Tutti (“All Brothers”) 2020


More police might have meant there was a cop nearby that Orthodox church in Queens. It would not have done anything, though, to prevent the interior impulse, apparently unchallenged, that led Jayvaun Prince to execute his shameful alleged act.


So, what should we do with Jayvaun and his unformed, shame-resistant conscience? Remember, he is only 16 and he’s been arrested five times. Do we throw him in jail, where — if he is not physically and sexually abused — he will only learn how to become better at being worse?


Wouldn’t that be just throwing him away like a thing?


France


A protester offers flowers to French riot police during a demonstration by the “yellow vests” movement in Paris. They were protesting the French government’s reform plan. OSV News photo/Gonzalez Fuentes, Reuters

Forming consciences
While in police custody, Jayvaun made an unsuccessful attempt at suicide. What parent among us can look at him and his story and not think, “This kid is in trouble; he needs help.”


Without being a theologian or a healthcare professional, it’s still pretty obvious to me — a mere parent — that this teen needs personal attention and patient guidance toward better mental health and moral wellness. How do we help to form his conscience, though? How do we teach him to hate his crimes, and the nebulous instincts behind them, without losing hope that he can still avoid a future written only in cuffs and bars — that change, especially at his age, is still possible?


Creative accountability comes into play here. Rather than writing off Jayvaun’s future with a prison sentence, perhaps he needs to “serve time” (supervised, of course) at a hospital or rehab center where his victim and others like her are laboring to reclaim their lives and see the full, long-lasting effects of his brief actions. Perhaps he should be enlisted to help feed people who are not yet able to feed themselves due to injuries sustained by violence, or watch them take their first halting, unsteady steps. Perhaps he needs to see the anger of families dealing with such injuries, and the fear and insecurity that victims of senseless violence carry with them for the rest of their lives.


Perhaps he needs to face his own victim and hear that she cannot forgive him for what he has done to her life, or — if there is grace, and grace is a real thing — that she can.


Real conscience formation can start there, with permitting Jayvaun to feel the sense of real shame, real remorse that comes with witnessing the results of our selfishness, our reckless disregard for the humanity of another. Real humility can come from participating, even in the smallest ways, in the cleaning up of our own messes.


And humility and remorse can become stepping stones to changing for the better. Exposure to the suffering of others could even — taking the idea to its height — inspire a troubled young man to pursue a life in service to such persons and the education he would need to do it.


Seeking a solution
I’m completely aware that this sounds like a pipe dream and that there would be a million details to creating a program such as this and its offshoots. But please don’t dismiss these thoughts as idealistic dreaming, especially if you’re not willing to think outside the box yourself. Instead, why not imagine such a program and try to spot all of its promise and challenges?


Yes, it would probably mean in-house (or halfway-house) arrest and ankle bracelets and someone from law enforcement or social services escorting him to and from the medical centers. It would mean protecting Jayvaun from the wrath of victims and their families. It would mean mental health professionals and possibly parental sorts of volunteers checking in with him and asking him how he felt about these things, and really listening to his answers.


It would be breathtakingly difficult. It would be incredibly challenging. It would be controversial — oh, yes, controversial — but it might be the sort of socially-acquired, cooperative parenting that this teenager (and seemingly generations) really needs in order to build a conscience and learn accountability. Hopefully, having faced the human wreckage wrought by thoughtless and violent past behavior, Jayvaun and others like him might gain a sense of what they want their futures to look like.


We’re all concerned about the direction our society is taking. We’re all saying “something must be done,” but we know that what’s currently being done is not working. Cities are falling apart because local and state legislators are writing bail reform (or no-bail reform) into law. District attorneys are loath to prosecute crimes committed without the use of conventional lethal weapons (which excludes stairway shoves to the cement) because the prisons are overcrowded and unable to offer real rehabilitation. And the police are outnumbered. And they know it.


Israel
A girl lights a candle, as people gather for a vigil in Tel Aviv, Israel, Nov. 7, 2023, to mark the one-month anniversary of the deadly attack by Palestinian Islamist group Hamas on Israel. (OSV News photo/Evelyn Hockstein, Reuters)
Embracing basic human morality
The old civil solutions are broken; they do not work in a society that teems without a conscience. The leadership is out of ideas. It might be time for the people — divided, but able to agree on the basic human morality identified here — to not only imagine a different way and suggest creative alternatives, but also work together to help an unformed generation learn important truths: that, quite contrary to what they’ve been told for decades, it’s okay and even necessary to feel guilty when they’ve done something really bad — like treating a person like a thing. That it’s good and useful to feel ashamed — to permit that nagging little voice within to say “you shouldn’t have done that; that was wrong,” especially if it means not making that error, not missing the mark in that sinful way, again.


As I write this, our Ivy League universities are roiling with frequent, often ugly demonstrations over the Israel-Hamas war. At Yale, a journalism student covering the story — a young woman who happened to be Jewish — was stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag carried by a male activist. The young man ran away after injuring her.


The Human Conscience
“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. … For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. … His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”


— Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1776, quoting Gaudium et Spes (“Joy and Hope”) 1965


She wasn’t seriously wounded, but, whether the contact was intentional or accidental, I couldn’t help thinking that if he’d been found and taken to the emergency center, too — and made to wait in the ER with her, and to watch the examinations and witness her sense of fear for both her vision and her future personal safety — it might have served toward accountability. If the young man could be made to see that he had treated a human being like an unimportant thing, it might create room for those dreaded, edited-out emotions that bring about remorse to grow within him. It might give him the time and space to consider that ideological passions — toward which his reckless activism will likely have little real impact — have, not unusually, led him down a thoughtless path of human devaluation.


It would be good if he could consider all that before, as often happens with ideological movements, he eventually — and all too late — sees his own humanness, his own life devalued as well.


Reclaiming human feelings
In an episode of “Life is Worth Living,” entitled “Liberal or Reactionary,” Bishop Fulton Sheen cautioned that there was a dangerous thing “in believing there are no sick people … only a sick society.” He wasn’t denying that a society can be sick — spiritually, mentally and materially ill, as ours does appear to be. He wanted to stress that individuals and individuality matter, and that if we want to live in a civilized world, then to the individual person attention must be paid. If every hair on our heads has been numbered as Jesus taught (Mt 10:26), then we each, as individuals, are necessary to the right turning of the world.


Individual lives lived in cooperation with each other activate society in the same way that individual atoms, moving together, activate and sustain the human body, and the very places we inhabit.


When we break an individual atom, we become the destroyer of worlds. Breaking an individual person does the same, one human world at a time. If we break enough individuals — and seeing people as things only breaks us, never builds — we unleash hell on earth.


Things are terrible, we can agree on that. What used to work, works no longer: We know that, too. “Someone needs to do something,” we say.


Well, you are someone, and I am someone, and the churches and the pubs and the boardrooms and the town centers are full of someones — many of whom are just looking for an idea, a solution, that they can get behind.


My idea is to reclaim the human feelings that have been tossed into the dustbin and forgotten, and to gift them to an aimless generation. Because consciences must be formed before they can be raised.


I’m open to all thoughts on how that can be accomplished, or even better ideas. Feel free to share them with me, if you like: escalia@osv.com.

[revelarts]

Well here I am after work, sort of reading through semi-news and come across this article. So weird, it totally dovetails with what I was thinking about above as for a 'return' to civility:

https://www.oursundayvisitor.com/how-to-solve-social-chaos-treat-people-as-persons-not-things/

So you're saying you want theocracy?

:poke:

[Kathianne]

So you're saying you want theocracy?

:poke:
I don't see the controls from the individual as theocracy, but feel free.

[revelarts]

I don't see the controls from the individual as theocracy, but feel free.

Thing is Kath, I posted similar and was accused by you, Gunny & FJ of wanting a theocracy!
And was beat about the head and neck on how wrong & oppressively protestant I was being. (to the point of lining up things to kill Catholics).

just sayin'
I mean I generally agree with what you posted, and happy we're on a similar track here.
just wonder what i said along this line before that set off the HOT opposition.

[Gunny]

Thing is Kath, I posted similar and was accused by you, Gunny & FJ of wanting a theocracy!
And was beat about the head and neck on how wrong & oppressively protestant I was being. (to the point of lining up things to kill Catholics).

just sayin'
I mean I generally agree with what you posted, and happy we're on a similar track here.
just wonder what i said along this line before that set off the HOT opposition.

Out of context, oversimplified selectivity for a complex argument. For my part, stating you want a theocracy in a thread regarding changing society/government stands, by your own words. That topic concerned the masses/voters and what they would go for.

While related, holding one's self personally accountable for one's behavior in regard to decorum/civility/manners/etc is another topic. I can't stand bad manners. Even when I am the one displaying them. No one is harder on me over it than I am myself. There is no reason for them, and usually, if I'm being rude it's because I have been provoked.

Try not to confuse with other topics because reality and my opinion/idealism are not the same. Was it up to me, everyone would strive to be Christ-like and follow Him and His teachings. Even those who do not believe in Him. For the simple reason that what He teaches is goodness and righteousness and would benefit individual Man and society. When you get to the part that has anything to do with the World/society we live in, let me know.

As far as the topic goes, you couldn't lock me in a room with Trump and he walk out of it in one piece. His personal and professional conduct is intolerable. That's to me as a Man and definitely as a Marine who knows sheeple strive to emulate leadership. The last being evidenced by the people who hang on every word the mannerless prig has to say. Look what he's done to divide not only the Nation but definitely the Republican party. He's got a handful of idiots bullying the House, and crackpots he supports running for office with no more qualifications than that they worship him.

I see that as going backward, and definitely away from any chance of anyone (society) returning to where people are civil and can agree to disagree without wanting the other person executed. It's not just the Dems or the Republicans. It's the people following the lead of their leaders.

[revelarts]

Out of context, oversimplified selectivity for a complex argument. For my part, stating you want a theocracy in a thread regarding changing society/government stands, by your own words. That topic concerned the masses/voters and what they would go for.

noo, *sigh*
I never said i wanted a theocracy, YOU and others misinterpreted what I said, and assumed that I wanted theocracy. And then went on to put what i said in the WORSE lights possible.




While related, holding one's self personally accountable for one's behavior in regard to decorum/civility/manners/etc is another topic. I can't stand bad manners. Even when I am the one displaying them. No one is harder on me over it than I am myself. There is no reason for them, and usually, if I'm being rude it's because I have been provoked.

Try not to confuse with other topics because reality and my opinion/idealism are not the same. Was it up to me, everyone would strive to be Christ-like and follow Him and His teachings. Even those who do not believe in Him. For the simple reason that what He teaches is goodness and righteousness and would benefit individual Man and society. When you get to the part that has anything to do with the World/society we live in, let me know.
if you went back and read what i said it's basically the same as what you just stated.
"Was it up to me, everyone would strive to be Christ-like and follow Him and His teachings. Even those who do not believe in Him. For the simple reason that what He teaches is goodness and righteousness and would benefit individual Man and society."
All I added was that Christ's ideals needed to be PROMOTED in society (not via govt) and maintained/revived in the laws ALREADY on the books.
But somehow you call that "theocracy".

But in the OP kath posted they are saying the same, PROMOTING Christian ideals to EVERYONE. Not forcing. PROMOTING. talking, teaching, encouraging. Sometimes saying outright that it's BETTER than alternatives.
As Kath's OP does. saying that "SIN" is treating people like objects. Saying Shame and Guilt for doing that is real.
By default hoping that PROMOTING good values will translate into personal actions. in society & into govt.
Bottom line Kath wants ALL/MORE the politicians in gov't to act more like Christ... personally..., to follow his teachings in fulfilling their Gov't duties... like a theocracy right?
Or just agree with the same things Jesus teaches without believing in Jesus... so not a theocracy but aligning WITH Godly morals?
(what i'd been saying all along.)

But here's the thing,
The Idea the people are NOT things is a Christian Idea. One that resonates with most on a GUT level. (Because God built us that way.)
But the concept is not one that can be derived from the current teaching of science in school. The materialist scientific view is that we are all Just a collection of "matter" = things.
We all came from nothing and are going to nothing. It doesn't give a basis for the IDEA that people should be treated better than a dog, a fly or pack of cigarettes.





I see that as going backward, and definitely away from any chance of anyone (society) returning to where people are civil and can agree to disagree without wanting the other person executed. It's not just the Dems or the Republicans. It's the people following the lead of their leaders.
the way forward is by promoting God as REAL, Jesus Christ as King & his word as truth for everyone personally. (not via gov't)
The hopeful fallout from that is a better society & better gov't..


As far as leadership goes, this is why we all should look to JESUS as our leader, rather than men as our ultimate authority/example.
If we're following him it doesn't matter how poorly the president or CO or Boss or Mother or Father acts, WE KNOW better.


(waits for the new spin, misrepresentation and misinterpretation)

[fj1200]

That's a poor summery of what I've said over the years.
I don't mind making detailed policy distinctions, and have for many candidates over time here.
I'd be happy to rehash it, There are other threads where i make LIST of differences. sad thing is it's usually in primaries.
After that I tend to list the similarities in the poverty and horrors of the candidates. Yes.
BTW FJ, Have i ever talked to you about Ron Paul?:cool:



Ok "Some" small government polices.
Does Biden support ANY?

Trump can't run after 4 years, from a pragmatist POV, and a small government Principled POV it seems to me that someone like yourself would hold your nose and vote Trump.
Like I did for Bush Jr the 2nd time.
I didn't vote for Biden or Trump last time but Trump was not as bad as I expected him to be.
This time around I'm sadly leaning into voting Trump, if for no other reason than to cancel my wife's vote for Biden.. her anti-trump vote really.
but there are other reasons too.

You keep feeling the need to summarize me then I'll summarize you on occasion.

Does trump stumble into more conservative positions than biden? No question. Bottom line? They are both unworthy of my vote.

[Kathianne]

and this:

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/05/08/bombshell-fbi-staged-fake-photo-of-classified-documents-for-pr-purposes-n3787983


BOMBSHELL: FBI Staged Fake Photo of Classified Documents for PR PurposesDAVID STROM 8:00 AM | May 08, 2024



FBI
You know that famous photo of Trump's purloined Top Secret documents? The one that the FBI released that showed all those classified documents hidden in folders?


It's kinda, sorta faked. Staged. Not accurate at all. A sham. A con. Complete BS.






No, it's not a photoshop. That would be worse, I suppose. Maybe.


You see, those folders that scream Top Secret were brought by the FBI and the documents were inserted in them by FBI agents.


Think about this for a minute. The General Services Administration shipped these documents to Trump, which is why they are stuffed away in Mar a Lago in the first place. Then, the Archives met with the Biden administration to prod it to investigate Trump.


Then the FBI raids Mar a Lago, armed with folders screaming "Top Secret," photographs them, and releases the photo to the world, suggesting that Trump stole away with these documents in these folders screaming Top Secret.


Smells like a setup.


Julie Kelley has the scoop. And it is a big one.


It is the picture that launched a thousand pearl-clutching articles.


A few weeks after the armed FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022, the Department of Justice released a stunning photograph depicting alleged contraband seized from Donald Trump’s Palm Beach estate that day; the image showed colored sheets representing scary classification levels attached to files purportedly discovered in Trump’s private office.


Included as a government exhibit to oppose Trump’s lawsuit requesting a special master to vet the 13,000 items taken from his residence, the crime scene pic immediately went viral—just as Attorney General Merrick Garland, who authorized the unprecedented raid, intended.


At the time, even regime-friendly mouthpieces questioned the need and optics of the raid; the photo helped juice the DOJ’s justification for the storming of Trump’s castle.


“[The] question of whether Trump had classified material with him at his Mar-a-Lago resort has captured the public’s attention. The photo published by the government appears to answer that question quite affirmatively,” Washington Post resident fact checker Philip Bump wrote on August 31, 2022.


Some of Bump’s colleagues were more hyperbolic. An ex-CIA officer told ABC News the cover sheets indicated the highest level of secrecy, which in the wrong hands could have resulted in murder. “People's lives are truly at stake. Without being melodramatic, anything that helps an adversary identify a human source means life and death," intelligence expert Douglas London melodramatically warned in reaction to the photo.


The photo was staged precisely to create this outrage. Proof positive that Trump was a Russian spy or something. It is the Steele Dossier reborn.


The photo was staged.


The folders weren't there before the FBI TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE.


Amazing.


New court filings in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s espionage and obstruction case against Trump and two co-defendants conclusively demonstrate that the government used the cover sheets to deceive the public as well as the court. The photo was a stunt, and one that adds more fuel to this dumpster-fire case.


Jay Bratt, who was the lead DOJ prosecutor on the investigation at the time and now is assigned to Smith’s team, described the photo this way in his August 30, 2022 response to Trump’s special master lawsuit:


“[Thirteen] boxes or containers contained documents with classification markings, and in all, over one hundred unique documents with classification markings…were seized. Certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status. (Emphasis added.) See, e.g., Attachment F (redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the ‘45 office’).”


The DOJ’s clever wordsmithing, however, did not accurately describe the origin of the cover sheets. In what must be considered not only an act of doctoring evidence but willfully misleading the American people into believing the former president is a criminal and threat to national security, agents involved in the raid attached the cover sheets to at least seven files to stage the photo.


Classified cover sheets were not “recovered” in the container, contrary to Bratt’s declaration to the court. In fact, after being busted recently by defense attorneys for mishandling evidence in the case, Bratt had to fess up about how the cover sheets actually ended up on the documents.


Here is Bratt’s new version of the story, where he finally admits a critical detail that he failed to disclose in his August 2022 filing:


“[If] the investigative team found a document with classification markings, it removed the document, segregated it, and replaced it with a placeholder sheet. The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose.”


These two stories are different. At all. Last I checked, Judges don't like being lied to. Not even a little bit. The FBI and Special Counsel have been lying to the Court.


This revelation follows an earlier story in which the FBI admitted to mishandling the documents and scrambling them up, which is never, ever supposed to happen. They are doing a modified limited hangout, admitting that the documents aren't as they found them.


How much do you want to bet there is a reason for that?


But Jack Smith might have bigger problems. During the raid, agents took a box in its entirety if it contained papers with classified markings; the box usually contained other items, which is how the FBI ended up with so many of Trump’s personal belongings.


So, in order to flag the location of the alleged classified record in the box, agents, as Bratt noted, used the cover sheets as placeholders. (The classified records were then placed in a separate secure file.)


But now defense attorneys claim, and the special counsel concedes, that some placeholders do not match the relevant document. “Following defense counsel’s review of the physical boxes…and the documents produced in classified discovery, defense counsel has learned that the cross-reference provided by the Special Counsel’s Office does not contain accurate information,” attorneys representing Trump’s co-defendant Waltine Nauta wrote in a May 1 motion.


The motion forced the special counsel to admit the error. “In many but not all instances, the FBI was able to determine which document with classification markings corresponded to a particular placeholder sheet,” Bratt wrote.


In other words, in their zeal to stage a phony photo using official classified cover sheets, FBI agents might have failed to accurately match the placeholder sheet with the appropriate document. This is a potentially case-blowing mistake, particularly if the document in question is one of the 34 records that represents the basis of espionage charges against Trump.


Cases have fallen apart for less.


Further, the FBI "determined" the documents' classification status at the time of the raid without actually knowing if those documents were classified or not.


We could have expected the folders to tell us, but it turns out the folders were planted by the FBI. They are not dispositive at all. What appeared to be proof of Trump's guilt means nothing at all. Those could have been newspaper clippings in those folders or nothing at all.


The intelligence community determined whether the documents remained classified long after the raid, which is why the FBI took all sorts of things from Trump that were purely personal. They had no idea what was classified or not. They wanted everybody to believe they knew, but how could they? A "classified" marking on a document only tells you whether the material was at one time classified, not whether it remains so.


Which Bratt also admitted is an issue. After the boxes were transported from Florida to the hopelessly corrupt Washington FBI field office (another scandalous aspect of the case since the investigation should have been conducted in southern Florida not in another jurisdiction), a private company took scans of the inside of the boxes. But according to the defense team, the current condition of the boxes does not match the scans taken in August 2022.


Bratt explained that “there are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans.” He then offered a list of excuses including how some “boxes contain items smaller than standard paper such as index cards, books, and stationary, which shift easily when the boxes are carried, especially because many of the boxes are not full.”


It is safe to assume Judge Cannon will not take these new revelations lightly--particularly since Bratt also had to admit in the same filing that he did not tell her the truth when she asked about the condition of the boxes during a hearing last month. On April 12, Cannon directly asked Bratt, “are the boxes in their original, intact form as seized?” Bratt replied yes, but “with one exception, and that is that the classified documents have been removed and placeholders have been put in the documents [place.]”


Will any of this matter in the courtroom? Maybe, maybe not. The case is rigged, and the Special Counsel, the FBI, and the Justice Department don't even care if a guilty verdict holds up on appeal. The Judge may, though. And maybe even a jury.


But this is all about the election, which is why they staged that photo in the first place.


UPDATE: Unfortunately for Biden, the trial was just delayed because of so many outstanding issues.

[Gunny]

noo, *sigh*
I never said i wanted a theocracy, YOU and others misinterpreted what I said, and assumed that I wanted theocracy. And then went on to put what i said in the WORSE lights possible.



if you went back and read what i said it's basically the same as what you just stated.
"Was it up to me, everyone would strive to be Christ-like and follow Him and His teachings. Even those who do not believe in Him. For the simple reason that what He teaches is goodness and righteousness and would benefit individual Man and society."
All I added was that Christ's ideals needed to be PROMOTED in society (not via govt) and maintained/revived in the laws ALREADY on the books.
But somehow you call that "theocracy".

But in the OP kath posted they are saying the same, PROMOTING Christian ideals to EVERYONE. Not forcing. PROMOTING. talking, teaching, encouraging. Sometimes saying outright that it's BETTER than alternatives.
As Kath's OP does. saying that "SIN" is treating people like objects. Saying Shame and Guilt for doing that is real.
By default hoping that PROMOTING good values will translate into personal actions. in society & into govt.
Bottom line Kath wants ALL/MORE the politicians in gov't to act more like Christ... personally..., to follow his teachings in fulfilling their Gov't duties... like a theocracy right?
Or just agree with the same things Jesus teaches without believing in Jesus... so not a theocracy but aligning WITH Godly morals?
(what i'd been saying all along.)

But here's the thing,
The Idea the people are NOT things is a Christian Idea. One that resonates with most on a GUT level. (Because God built us that way.)
But the concept is not one that can be derived from the current teaching of science in school. The materialist scientific view is that we are all Just a collection of "matter" = things.
We all came from nothing and are going to nothing. It doesn't give a basis for the IDEA that people should be treated better than a dog, a fly or pack of cigarettes.




the way forward is by promoting God as REAL, Jesus Christ as King & his word as truth for everyone personally. (not via gov't)
The hopeful fallout from that is a better society & better gov't..


As far as leadership goes, this is why we all should look to JESUS as our leader, rather than men as our ultimate authority/example.
If we're following him it doesn't matter how poorly the president or CO or Boss or Mother or Father acts, WE KNOW better.


(waits for the new spin, misrepresentation and misinterpretation)

If you cannot see where paths separate, in YOUR own words, not sure what to tell you. I do not disagree with your statement regarding a way forward at a personal level. At the level of government and society it does not work if all are to be equal under the law. Either people are free to worship who or whatever the wish under the law, or they are not. If not, there is not equality.

Start with this board as an example. That I know of: Kathianne is Catholic. I am Baptist. Jim was raised Catholic. I suspect but do not know for a fact FJ is protestant and familiar with the Southern Baptist Convention. There is at least one atheist on this board I know of. Those examples barely scratch the surface at a National/societal level. So WHOSE God gets to be in charge? Does that not make everyone else and their God less? Less is not equal.

How do you appeal for votes to the minions that make up the industry that exists solely to disprove God? Or are they less people? Not on a personal level, but a legal one.

[Kathianne]

If you cannot see where paths separate, in YOUR own words, not sure what to tell you. I do not disagree with your statement regarding a way forward at a personal level. At the level of government and society it does not work if all are to be equal under the law. Either people are free to worship who or whatever the wish under the law, or they are not. If not, there is not equality.

Start with this board as an example. That I know of: Kathianne is Catholic. I am Baptist. Jim was raised Catholic. I suspect but do not know for a fact FJ is protestant and familiar with the Southern Baptist Convention. There is at least one atheist on this board I know of. Those examples barely scratch the surface at a National/societal level. So WHOSE God gets to be in charge? Does that not make everyone else and their God less? Less is not equal.

How do you appeal for votes to the minions that make up the industry that exists solely to disprove God? Or are they less people? Not on a personal level, but a legal one.

Vaguely I remember something like codifying Christian-Judeo values into law because of the known influence.

What I was addressing was the individual, raised by parents that instill the knowledge of right from wrong and a conscience that sets off bells when choosing wrongs. Something that was the norm up to baby boomers.

[Gunny]

Vaguely I remember something like codifying Christian-Judeo values into law because of the known influence.

What I was addressing was the individual, raised by parents that instill the knowledge of right from wrong and a conscience that sets off bells when choosing wrongs. Something that was the norm up to baby boomers.


I got it, and I agree. Starts at home with parenting and children. But it's more than that. Society glamorizes all the wrong things now. When we were kids good guys wore white hats and bad guys wore black and bad guys were reprehensible and never won. Now you got John Wick as the lesser of two evils when bottom line is he's a merciless killer. Just an example.

Now we got idiot punks who think terrorists are the victims:rolleyes:

[revelarts]

If you cannot see where paths separate, in YOUR own words, not sure what to tell you. I do not disagree with your statement regarding a way forward at a personal level. At the level of government and society it does not work if all are to be equal under the law. Either people are free to worship who or whatever the wish under the law, or they are not. If not, there is not equality.

Start with this board as an example. That I know of: Kathianne is Catholic. I am Baptist. Jim was raised Catholic. I suspect but do not know for a fact FJ is protestant and familiar with the Southern Baptist Convention. There is at least one atheist on this board I know of. Those examples barely scratch the surface at a National/societal level. So WHOSE God gets to be in charge? Does that not make everyone else and their God less? Less is not equal.
So maybe you can help me.
you say you see so clearly what I can not.
Just tell me where exactly I say the gov't is not supposed to treat ALL people equally under the law.
Where do I say people can not worship the way they please or are not free not worship at all.
show me that, or where it leads to that.



How do you appeal for votes to the minions that make up the industry that exists solely to disprove God? Or are they less people? Not on a personal level, but a legal one.
How do we appeal for votes is a different issue. And you have part of the answer with the word "APPEAL".
But how do we appeal for votes to the minions that make up the Anti-War industry and have a different view on suppling weapons & funds to Ukraine?
How do we appeal for votes to the minions that make up the Climate Change industry and has a different view on using oil gunny?
Are they lesser people? No.
The best we can do is PROMOTE the facts as best we can and APPEAL to their reason and emotions & hope people change on a PERSONAL level.
and vote along with us sometimes.
We shouldn't pretend we believe we stuff we do not.
And NO ONE is asking anyone to vote for people to go to Church.

Just because someone disagrees doesn't make them a lesser person on a personal or legal level.
No one looses any rights.
At least as long as no one pretends the constitution & bill of rights are flexible.

I just do not understand why you think promoting the reality of God to everyone would make me think other people are LESS than others in any sense.
Just the opposite.
It's because i believe God that I know everyone is made in the image of GOD. And that God gave us all rights, including rights to our own opinions. About everything. Even opinions about God... even wrong opinions about God.
No gov't has the legit right to take that away.

[revelarts]

Vaguely I remember something like codifying Christian-Judeo values into law because of the known influence.


What i said was Christian-Judeo values are ALREADY codified in our law.
And we should maintain and protect that.



What I was addressing was the individual, raised by parents that instill the knowledge of right from wrong and a conscience that sets off bells when choosing wrongs. Something that was the norm up to baby boomers.
What the OP you posted addressed was promoting decent folks, atheist or otherwise, shared Christian-Judeo values.
And pointed to Christ as a universal example.

But sure the ideas of right and wrong taught by parents.... who were influenced by Christian-Judeo values. marinated in more Christian culture.


Many decent folks, atheist or otherwise, agree that we've fallen morally, personally and as a culture.
many people want to move in a better direction towards more civility and sanity.
We agree, now, At this point, i think maybe this is where I rub people the wrong way.
I say, we will not get the fruits of a more civil & moral society without the roots of Christian-Judeo values.
We're operating off the FUMES of a generally more Christian culture.
The boomers parents homes, the pre-boomers schools, the pre-boomers universities, the pre-boomers churches, and yes the pre-boomers LAWS were all aligned with Christian-Judeo values.
Modernism in various forms creeped in and over time... 57 genders.


Gunny, can someone get bulked up muscles without working out?
If your grandpa ate right and worked all day and was strong does that mean that the grandkids will be?
To get what they had you've got to do what they did.
To get what they had morally we need to believe closer to what they believed.

We will not get the fruits of a more civil & moral society without the roots of Christian-Judeo values.
That's really all I'm saying.

[Gunny]

So maybe you can help me.
you say you see so clearly what I can not.
Just tell me where exactly I say the gov't is not supposed to treat ALL people equally under the law.
Where do I say people can not worship the way they please or are not free not worship at all.
show me that, or where it leads to that.


How do we appeal for votes is a different issue. And you have part of the answer with the word "APPEAL".
But how do we appeal for votes to the minions that make up the Anti-War industry and have a different view on suppling weapons & funds to Ukraine?
How do we appeal for votes to the minions that make up the Climate Change industry and has a different view on using oil gunny?
Are they lesser people? No.
The best we can do is PROMOTE the facts as best we can and APPEAL to their reason and emotions & hope people change on a PERSONAL level.
and vote along with us sometimes.
We shouldn't pretend we believe we stuff we do not.
And NO ONE is asking anyone to vote for people to go to Church.

Just because someone disagrees doesn't make them a lesser person on a personal or legal level.
No one looses any rights.
At least as long as no one pretends the constitution & bill of rights are flexible.

I just do not understand why you think promoting the reality of God to everyone would make me think other people are LESS than others in any sense.
Just the opposite.
It's because i believe God that I know everyone is made in the image of GOD. And that God gave us all rights, including rights to our own opinions. About everything. Even opinions about God... even wrong opinions about God.
No gov't has the legit right to take that away.

I cannot explain to you why you cannot make the distinction between one topic and another. I and others have tried every way possible in the simplest English to explain what is obvious. Since you obviously aren't a dummy, I can only conclude you don't get it because you don't want to, intended or not.

What I DO now is this:

Once, I had to run my 3 mile PFT run on a 1/4 mile track. Three miles is an intermediate run so you can't jog and pass, and it's too far to sprint. So you are pushing every step in serious discomfort. At the end when I crossed the finish line - the same line I started from - I may have run 3 miles but I effectively ended up right where I started having gone nowhere.

That would be all 3 variants of this same conversation:smoke:

[Black Diamond]

I cannot explain to you why you cannot make the distinction between one topic and another. I and others have tried every way possible in the simplest English to explain what is obvious. Since you obviously aren't a dummy, I can only conclude you don't get it because you don't want to, intended or not.

What I DO now is this:

Once, I had to run my 3 mile PFT run on a 1/4 mile track. Three miles is an intermediate run so you can't jog and pass, and it's too far to sprint. So you are pushing every step in serious discomfort. At the end when I crossed the finish line - the same line I started from - I may have run 3 miles but I effectively ended up right where I started having gone nowhere.

That would be all 3 variants of this same conversation:smoke:

Under Clinton you had to run a 30 yard circle 60 times i heard. :cool:

[Gunny]

Under Clinton you had to run a 30 yard circle 60 times i heard. :cool:On one leg :)

[revelarts]

I cannot explain to you why you cannot make the distinction between one topic and another. I and others have tried every way possible in the simplest English to explain what is obvious. Since you obviously aren't a dummy, I can only conclude you don't get it because you don't want to, intended or not.
What I DO now is this:
Once, I had to run my 3 mile PFT run on a 1/4 mile track. Three miles is an intermediate run so you can't jog and pass, and it's too far to sprint. So you are pushing every step in serious discomfort. At the end when I crossed the finish line - the same line I started from - I may have run 3 miles but I effectively ended up right where I started having gone nowhere.
That would be all 3 variants of this same conversation:smoke:

OK, no problem, if you don't mind, would you answer 2 questions with a "yes" or "no" for me & I'll drop it.

So just to be Clear
Maintaining and protecting the Judeo-Chrsitain based values that are ALREADY codified in our laws.
And generally (outside of gov't activities) publicly promoting that people become Christians or at least act more civil, more polite, more kind, "do unto others" (=more Christ like),

Is promoting a theocracy in your view?
And you think it's wrong for anyone to do those things?

[Gunny]

OK, no problem, if you don't mind, would you answer 2 questions with a "yes" or "no" for me & I'll drop it.

So just to be Clear
Maintaining and protecting the Judeo-Chrsitain based values that are ALREADY codified in our laws.
And generally (outside of gov't activities) publicly promoting that people become Christians or at least act more civil, more polite, more kind, "do unto others" (=more Christ like),

Is promoting a theocracy in your view?
And you think it's wrong for anyone to do those things?

You don't get to tailor my answers. I'm not Trump and you aren't the State of NY (that I know of).

I have not stated it was wrong to do any of those things. I have in fact agreed with most, on a personal level.

I HAVE stated that it won't sell to a non-secular society. Christians don't have to sold on Christianity. Non-Christians do. Christians such as myself who see where a government that promotes religion can go in the wrong hands balk at it. Better everyone have nothing equally than only those in power have what they want at the expense of everyone else. Iran comes to mind. If you don't think the US could/would go there, ask yourself how many times you've eaten those words in past 20 years and especially the past 4.

There is a difference between those two things.

[Kathianne]

You don't get to tailor my answers. I'm not Trump and you aren't the State of NY (that I know of).

I have not stated it was wrong to do any of those things. I have in fact agreed with most, on a personal level.

I HAVE stated that it won't sell to a non-secular society. Christians don't have to sold on Christianity. Non-Christians do. Christians such as myself who see where a government that promotes religion can go in the wrong hands balk at it. Better everyone have nothing equally than only those in power have what they want at the expense of everyone else. Iran comes to mind. If you don't think the US could/would go there, ask yourself how many times you've eaten those words in past 20 years and especially the past 4.

There is a difference between those two things.

Heck, just look at the 'best and brightest' at the Ivies. Sure are tolerant.