Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

It's obviously satire.

They're implying that less deaths are less significant and more deaths are more significant and that the issue isn't how exactly the deaths were caused and/or whether/how they were preventable, but merely who was president.

Basically it's a game of pushing presidents and government generally into spending as much as possible in anticipation of all sorts of risks from natural disasters to pandemics.

There is never any consideration in this kind of propaganda of what negative effects spending has by people who think that "there's more money to spend so spend it."

What it implies that 6 civilian deaths under a democrat are equal to tens of thousands of civilian deaths under a republican.

Double standard?

Where are the endless hearings to access Trump's negligence like was done to Hillary?

No, suddenly the republicans are no longer pro-life. Only when it suits them.

Jesus called people like this, ὑποκριταί hypokritai.... "Hypocrites".

Where have you been? There have been endless hearings and investigations since Trump started campaigning. Some of those hearings were predicated by an illegal investigation.

Every investigation of Killary had a legal and constitutionally supported process. Not so with Trump, which Barr and Durham will prove.

You can't compare these things in that way. Every death is caused by specific causes and conditions with numerous contingencies and multiple people who are responsible for different aspects, PLUS there are natural factors that are beyond human control, i.e. acts of God.

What you are saying is like saying that a person who murders their child gets in more trouble than someone who loses four children in a house fire.

It is just idiotic to compare tragedies in this way. Every situation is very complex and there are many different perspectives about what could have prevented it, how, and whether or not people are responsible for doing so.


So this all comes down to equality of persecution?


Pro-life is about choosing abstinence to avoid abortion because abortion is killing and not just a little procedure you get once in a while so you don't have to come to terms with pregnancy as something that can happen despite birth control being used.


Jesus died for your sins; aborted in His 30s.

https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/04/13/poll-bidens-national-lead-trump-disappears/

A possible VP? Not too popular in Michigan.


Who are the authoritarians?
https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/04/13/petition-to-recall-michigan-governor-gretchen-whitmer-floods-with-signatures/

Trump reportedly said he would reject a bailout package if it included aid to keep the US Postal Service functioning
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-reportedly-said-reject-bailout-193313887.html


Comment:
With hundreds of thousands of people dropping dead because of Trump's incompetence, let's get dumbo in the midst of all of this to ruin our mail too!?? The republicans want to ruin healthcare, our water, our standing in the world why not shut off our ability to buy toilet paper from Amazon?

He shut off our government's pandemic response and now the post office?

That is a lie, and a stupid one, even for you.

Jesus was not "aborted", he was murdered.

A fetus is not a "living soul". You cannot murder something that is not alive to begin with... That is why the word abort is used. It is disconnect the pathway towards potential life. Much like how male sperm is aborted also.

A person is not a living soul until they breath through their nostrils.

Maybe you should start actually believing in this book you claim to follow?

Genesis 2:7 King James Bible
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul [nephesh kai].

Comment:
Do you know what it does not say?

That Adam was a living soul before God breathed through his nostrils... No Adam was a living soul only after that event. Does a fetus breathe through their nostrils? No. So biblically, are they a living soul? No.

Instead of a nephish kai, breathless man was a nephish moot. A dead soul, a moot soul.

Dictionary.com
Moot
Having little or no practical relevance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision.

Comment:
No, before that Adam was just dust from the ground... "Having little or no practical relevance."

Your view on life is against biblical teaching.

But you never really believed in the Bible anyway did you?

He was executed.

Soul in the Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_in_the_Bible

Excerpt:
The only Hebrew word traditionally translated "soul" (nephesh) in English language Bibles refers to a living, breathing conscious body, rather than to an immortal soul.[5] In the New Testament, the Greek word traditionally translated "soul" (ψυχή) "psyche", has substantially the same meaning as the Hebrew, without reference to an immortal soul. In the Greek Septuagent psyche is used to translate each instance of nephesh.[6]

WIKIPEDIA

This is where Wikipedia posts stuff about religion and usually when there is in parenthesis (no citation given) Wikipedia makes the reader believe there is a citation.

This is incorrect.

According to the Bible, the souls is a separate entity from the body.

The soul alone is not a living entity without the body but it is an entity in itself.

Just as the body is an entity but alone is not a living entity without the soul.

Then Google goes on to inform us of Wikipedia's erroneous thought:

According to Genesis 2:7 God did not make a body and put a soul into it like a letter into an envelope of dust; rather he formed man's body from the dust, then, by breathing divine breath into it, he made the body of dust live, i.e. the dust did not embody a soul, but it became a soul—a whole creature.

Comment:
Nothing in the Bible says this breath is "divine".

It is merely breath. Just like animals breathe (and fart too). Noting divine about that either.

This is when you get people telling us what the Bible says and what the Greek Septuagint says without actually studying them to confirm the veracity of what they say it says.

They get Wikipedia to repeat what they believe without citations and this makes them feel like what they believe is true when it is not.

These same people cannot tell you what the difference between soul and spirit is either. When you ask them the difference they look at you perplexed as if they have never even considered the question before. Don't they both mean the same thing interchangeable?

Yet they go on Wikipedia and tell us what the soul is not...

Body, soul and spirit are 3 separate things.

Executed implies guilt... Murdered implies innocence...

Hebrews 4:5
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but [Jesus] was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Executed implies he was found guilty. Murder implies murder.

Other polls have biden still in the lead. What are the fox pollsters smoking?

so far your predictions have proved wrong. Of course now trump has completely suborned DOJ and made it another servile lackey so gods alone know what they'll fo, but justice is very likely not going to be it. We're now well into the era of actual witch hunt, and it's what the Trump admin is doing.

Greek isn't erroneous for a Christian Bible. Greek is the original Christian Old Testament.

"The Early Christian church used the Greek texts,[2] since Greek was a lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time and the language of the Greco-Roman Church while Aramaic was the language of Syriac Christianity. The relationship between the apostolic use of the Septuagint and the Hebrew texts is complicated. Although the Septuagint seems to have been a major source for the Apostles, it is not the only one. St. Jerome offered, for example, Matthew 2:15 and 2:23, John 19:37, John 7:38, and 1 Corinthians 2:9[47] as examples found in Hebrew texts but not in the Septuagint. Matthew 2:23 is not present in current Masoretic tradition either; according to Jerome, however, it was in Hosea 11:1. The New Testament writers, freely used the Greek translation when citing the Jewish scriptures (or quoting Jesus doing so), implying that Jesus, his apostles, and their followers considered it reliable.[9][24][2]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Americans are dying because the Democrats paralyzed the government with a frivolous impeachment witch hunt throughout the first month of the pandemic.

You can't get more precise than the original text. And for a Christian Old Testament, the original text was Greek.



I am not aware of any language impediment involved with translating from the original Christian Greek.



I disagree. The early Christians clearly used the Septuagint as their Old Testament.



I'm unconvinced that there is any error here.

However, even if there is an error here, "an error that involves a quotation of the Septuagint" is not the same thing as "an error in the Septuagint".



It's nothing that I've heard of before. But I have heard that there are differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. What you are referring to here may be one of those differences.



I see no such victory. I still see the Septuagint as the original Christian Old Testament.



It is the only difference that I am directly aware of, and it is probably the most important difference. But it is not my reasoning.

My reasoning is the mere fact that the Septuagint is the original Christian Old Testament and was written with a pro-Christian bias, while the Masoretic Text is not the original Christian Old Testament and was written with an anti-Christian bias.

I'd not hesitate to recommend the Masoretic Text as a source for a Jewish holy book however.

NEWS ALERT: Jill Karofsky wins 10-year seat on Wisconsin Supreme Court
Published on April 13, 2020 in Breaking News/Elections

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Dane County Circuit Judge Jill Karofsky defeated conservative Justice Dan Kelly to win a 10-year term on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in results released Monday from last week’s chaotic spring election.

The race was officially nonpartisan, but the high court has become heavily politicized in recent years. Liberal groups poured more than $2.4 million into the race for Karofsky, while conservatives spent more than $2.5 million for Kelly — who also drew President Donald Trump’s endorsement.

Karofsky’s victory narrows the court’s conservative majority to 4-3 and gives liberals a shot at seizing control when the next seat comes open in 2023.

Karofsky spent most of the campaign on the offensive, accusing Kelly repeatedly of being corrupt for consistently siding with conservative groups that come before the court. Kelly accused Karofsky of slandering him, and the court’s other conservatives questioned her ethics.

Wisconsin was the only state with an April election that didn’t postpone it to protect voters and poll workers from the coronavirus. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers issued a last-minute order on April 6 postponing in-person voting to June but the state Supreme Court struck the order down within hours. Kelly recused himself from that decision because he was running.

The election went on as planned on April 7. But the shifting deadlines forced many voters to decide between sitting the election out or venturing to the polls to cast their ballots in-person and risk contracting the virus.

Wisconsin’s bitter state Supreme Court race was close in early returns Monday, as conservative Justice Dan Kelly and liberal challenger Jill Karofsky vied in an election with implications for the ideological makeup of the court.

Take out lasagna
At stake was a 10-year term on the highly politicized court, which sided with Republicans in holding last week’s election despite widespread concerns about the coronavirus threat.

Conservatives hold a 5-2 advantage, meaning control wasn’t at stake with the result, but liberals were hoping for a Karofsky victory to shift the court at least slightly their way. If so, their next chance to flip the court would come in 2023.

Outside liberal and conservative groups spent a record amount trying to sway voters ahead of a most unusual election that saw record-high absentee ballots submitted and long lines at the polls due to consolidation caused by a shortage of workers amid the coronavirus outbreak.

Municipal clerks across the state started counting ballots from the April 7 election at 4 p.m. Monday, six days after the election, in an unprecedented timetable that resulted from the court fight over whether to hold the election.

The race between Kelly and Karofsky, a Dane County circuit judge, was nonpartisan in name only. In a marker of the stakes, the race drew the attention of President Donald Trump, who endorsed Kelly and tweeted his support.

Since conservatives have held a majority on the state Supreme Court, the Republican-dominated Legislature has been able to enact laws that enhanced the GOP’s position, including a voter ID requirement and limits on labor unions, despite legal challenges from Democrats.

Redistricting — the once-a-decade redrawing of congressional and legislative districts that has huge implications for political power — is widely expected to be the next big fight before the court.

Wisconsin stood apart from other states in sticking to its spring election date despite concerns about the danger to voters and poll workers from the virus. After the Republican-controlled Legislature refused to move the election, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers tried to do it himself, only to be overruled by the state Supreme Court.

Kelly didn’t participate in the court’s ruling but advocated publicly for proceeding with the vote.

Recent Supreme Court elections have been very close, with a recount in 2011 and one of the closest races in state history last year.

Karofsky tweeted a plea for donations to her campaign legal fund just hours before the ballots were to be counted, hinting at a possible recount or legal action by saying “we need to be ready to fight back against voter suppression and make sure votes are counted.”

Conservative outside groups supporting Kelly, who was endorsed by President Donald Trump, spent more than $2.5 million, while liberal groups backing Karofsky spent more than $2.4 million, according to a tally by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

Karofsky accused Kelly of being corrupt, alleging that he always sides with conservative groups when they come before the court. Kelly accused Karofsky of slandering him and the entire court; his conservative colleagues issued statements saying Karofsky’s bad behavior shows she’s not fit to serve on the court.

___

Associated Press writer Scott Bauer contributed to this report.

Comment:
President Doolittle's endorsement didn't do squat.

What part of mock trial don't you understand?

No wonder why your spirituality level is infantile.