What's not 'debatable' is what that despicable piece of trash masquerading as the president said:
...While speaking at conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s memorial service in Arizona on Sunday, Trump said he disagreed with Kirk on wanting the best for his opponents.
“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” Trump said. “I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry.”
His comments came after Kirk’s widow, Erika, said she forgave the man who killed her husband and that “the answer to hate is not hate.”
We should be grateful that Erika Kirk is a far superior person to Donald Trump. I would hope that even MG agrees with that.
My feeling is that now that we no longer have to contend with Kirk's rhetoric, perhaps there's more likely to be "healthy debate and exchanging of ideas". It has been clear for a long time that those who "foster violence" in the US are very largely on the right of the political spectrum - also fostering misinformation, misogyny and racism.
OTOH, who knows if his non-trad widow will be worse.
Two things. The healthy debate WAS occurring as the result of the work Charlie Kirk was doing. He was exercising his free speech rights while at the same time encouraging 'the opposition' to do the same. Second, the outcome of his assassination by someone that had moved towards the left has resulted in a peaceful and non-violent reaction by all those associated with the goals of the Turning Point organization and those that have gathered in memorial services.
Erika, in fact, forgave the killer.
Whether that might be said if it had been a progressive/leftist activist that had been killed by a far right 'wing nut' is debatable.
Regards,
MG
Whether the assassin was "someone that had moved towards the left" is debatable, unless you count moving from the very extreme right to the less extreme right.
I'll wait to see what direction TPA takes before considering whether things have changed for the better.
Do you remember the rampage that the left went on, and all of the public calls for retribution over the politically motivated assassinations of the Hortmans by a right wing "nut job"? Is that what you're talking about? /s
It has been established for a long time that both the divisive and violent rhetoric and the violent actions in the US political arena come overwhelmingly from the right. Remember Jan 6th?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Two things. The healthy debate WAS occurring as the result of the work Charlie Kirk was doing. He was exercising his free speech rights while at the same time encouraging 'the opposition' to do the same. Second, the outcome of his assassination by someone that had moved towards the left has resulted in a peaceful and non-violent reaction by all those associated with the goals of the Turning Point organization and those that have gathered in memorial services.
Erika, in fact, forgave the killer.
Whether that might be said if it had been a progressive/leftist activist that had been killed by a far right 'wing nut' is debatable.
Regards,
MG
Whether the assassin was "someone that had moved towards the left" is debatable, unless you count moving from the very extreme right to the less extreme right.
I'll wait to see what direction TPA takes before considering whether things have changed for the better.
Do you remember the rampage that the left went on, and all of the public calls for retribution over the politically motivated assassinations of the Hortmans by a right wing "nut job"? Is that what you're talking about? /s
It has been established for a long time that both the divisive and violent rhetoric and the violent actions in the US political arena come overwhelmingly from the right. Remember Jan 6th?
Yes, I do. That's why we should ALL condemn political violence from wherever it comes. It seems no one party or political ideology is free of sin.
Whether the assassin was "someone that had moved towards the left" is debatable, unless you count moving from the very extreme right to the less extreme right.
I'll wait to see what direction TPA takes before considering whether things have changed for the better.
Do you remember the rampage that the left went on, and all of the public calls for retribution over the politically motivated assassinations of the Hortmans by a right wing "nut job"? Is that what you're talking about? /s
It has been established for a long time that both the divisive and violent rhetoric and the violent actions in the US political arena come overwhelmingly from the right. Remember Jan 6th?
Yes, I do. That's why we should ALL condemn political violence from wherever it comes. It seems no one party or political ideology is free of sin.
Regards,
MG
Did you miss the "/s"? I suspect that you did - there was no such rampage.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Earlier I mentioned that there were some posters that I have chosen to put on ignore. I gave reasons then why when I did so. As a result, my participation is curtailed to the point where I respond only to those that at this point in time (and after a lot of thought) I believe are serious 'seekers' and/or 'friendly's' rather than those that simply have an agenda to tear down the church or its members. I cannot spend the time or bandwidth or emotional/intellectual resources going the rounds with those that continue to rehash past grievances/grudges.
As a result, there may be some things said that might be designed to come my way that don't get read. It is what it is.
I have enjoyed being able to interact in a civil fashion with some posters recently. Morley and malkie come to mind. That is the way it ought to be. That is all I have time and energy for.
There is only one of me and I have other things that interest me. But I do find interacting with some folks interesting and informative. And I don't mind the pushback if done appropriately.
Earlier I mentioned that there were some posters that I have chosen to put on ignore. I gave reasons then why when I did so. As a result, my participation is curtailed to the point where I respond only to those that at this point in time (and after a lot of thought) I believe are serious 'seekers' and/or 'friendly's' rather than those that simply have an agenda to tear down the church or its members. I cannot spend the time or bandwidth or emotional/intellectual resources going the rounds with those that continue to rehash past grievances/grudges.
As a result, there may be some things said that might be designed to come my way that don't get read. It is what it is.
I have enjoyed being able to interact in a civil fashion with some posters recently. Morley and malkie come to mind. That is the way it ought to be. That is all I have time and energy for.
There is only one of me and I have other things that interest me. But I do find interacting with some folks interesting and informative. And I don't mind the pushback if done appropriately.
Regards,
MG
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
