To me that implies the existence of the person before or between incarnations.

Jesus said John the Baptist was the return of Elijah (as predicted in Malachi 4), so it would not be out of character with the thinking at the time (pre-533).

It's also worth noting that “causing a woman to miscarry” — the closest thing to abortion mentioned in the Bible — does not carry the same penalty as murder, so they are not equated.

To those objecting, I understand the arguments against donating, but Christie can't be the only one on stage criticizing Trump and supporting the Constitution. The message would be tied to the messenger, and he has baggage.

But if two people talk about the importance of upholding the rule of law, it will make an impression beyond people's feelings about a candidate. They would reinforce each other's points, and people would have to consider them. It would make the debate about at least one idea, and not a series of screen tests for VP.

Besides, Trump's fans will be watching the slobber fest from Bowtie Boy. The ones watching will be looking for an alternative rather than a running mate for Trump.

It would be witness intimidation or some such, dressed up as free speech. Unfortunately I think it would benefit Chunk E. Cheese; it would seem to some deluded folk that he was being persecuted for political opinion.

This won't be popular here, but I think we should try to make his first incarceration about the truly monumental stuff if at all possible. The country as a whole would accept incarceration if it appears he deserves it, truly deserves it. I am not minimizing witness tampering, intimidation or interference. They are corrosive, but political violence is worse. Hs conduct will be considered at sentencing. Incarceration would be a distraction, a circus.

My hunch is that Smith is aware of the dangers of a fractured country; but of course that will not deter him from doing his job. He has faced worse and won. Trump can get away with a lot, until he can't. His ultimate fate is sealed, IMO, so I don't mind giving him a few apparent wins.

Not sure how the judge will rule on the social posts, though. Trump's good at toeing the line, like the mobster he is. I hope she tears him a new one, but we proceed with the case.

Then they start to get it.

Other people's pain sucks, but some people can tune it out. One's own pain is more immediate and pressing. That's human nature, and perfectly understandable. But the difference makes the transition harder and more pronounced for those unfamiliar or uncomfortable with empathy and compassion.

Just having a name on the ballot is not very expensive, but it does give us a voice in the debate.

If we don't show up and field a candidate, it makes us look weak or afraid to debate. It reinforces the idea they have that we can't support our positions because they are indefensible. So stand there and say your piece. Even if you don't win — and you likely won't — you will gain a modicum of respect for defending your beliefs. That incrementally changes the caricature the other side has about us, and opens the door for future gains. It also affects the national conversation; our ideas can get repeated on radio call-in shows, letters to the editor, and so on. Giving up without a fight does none of that.

There is always the possibility that a Republican candidate will be engulfed in a scandal big enough to turn off voters. If we have a candidate ready to fill the void, we have a chance at taking that seat; if we don't, that opportunity is lost.

#18: “ Mueller found no conspiracy” would be less ambiguous if it was “Mueller did not find a conspiracy.”

This may seem like a trivial point, but it can give ammo to our opponents, who are quick to say things like, “Mueller said no collusion!”

The first statement can be read as an authoritative finding (proving a negative), whereas the sacond is more circumspect, clear, and accurate.

If Mueller had been able to discover exactly what Kilimnik did with the sensitive internal campaign data Manafort gave him, he might have had a chance to prove conspiracy. But that's a huge ask for anyone with knowledge of Russia. However, we know the campaign data contained identifiable information on voters — that's the input.

The output was the Cambridge Analytical scandal, where the data on each voter was matched with their social media, and a psychological portrait created. This was then analyzed to estimate likeliness of voting, and for which candidate. They were then microtargeted cheaply by buying Facebook ads — weapons-grade psyops, built by Russian military intelligence personnel — to move them in a particular direction. So disaffected Bernie voters were shown fake articles on why it was pointless to vote, both parties are the same, etc. Republicans were shown inspiring messages or told how all the attacks on Trump wre “lies.”

The operation only had to move the needle a small percentage to have a big impact on the race. The results speak for themselves.

Manafort-Kilimnik is the beginning of a huge blind spot for U.S. investigators. We simply can't see what Russia did with the data, in order to prove conspiracy. But the input and output are evident.

(He is indeed required to assist, as pointed out upthread.)

The DoJ has personnel to make the arrest if he does not turn himself in, which I think he will. Trump wants no perp walk for the cameras.

DeSantis' statement is meant to shore up his standing with Trump's base, which he will need. DeSantis could be the last man standing and benefit politically, but then again, Trump could run from prison and win as a martyr.

I think that last scenario is unlikely — people will give up on a prisoner for president — but I've learned to never say never with this guy.

simultaneously a member of the executive and legislative branches, and neither, whenever subpoenaed.

Obviously, this was not the outcome we had hoped for. Holding both chambers would have made a world of difference for the country, and benefitted our party for 2024.

This might be the second best outcome for our party, but I wonder if it wasn't the better outcome for our country. We demonstrated to election deniers that we can lose. That should give them pause: after all, if we were capable of rigging elections, wouldn't we have saved the House? We wanted it badly, and didn't get it.

I wonder, though: if we did keep both chambers, what would that do politically? The election deniers would have hit the roof, with accusations flying everywhere. J6-style attacks could have been staged at state capitols, and the country pushed closer to breaking apart.

But now? Barely a peep. The RNC was quick to boast about winning the House. No problem with those ballots.

While I would have greatly preferred to continue checking agenda items off our list, I would not at the expense of a second civil war. This outcome is bittersweet, but maybe a little sweeter when you consider an alternative timeline of utter chaos.

As it stands, we dodged a bullet. We blunted the worst of the expected red wave, and it was not a humiliating defeat for either side. Republicans won't be able to get anything done for the people. The election results were widely accepted, and seemed to go fairly smoothly.

Nothing is ever permanent in politics, so an uneasy truce may be the best we can hope for at this point. Democracy, like justice, must be continually safeguarded. Our country is battered, but holding. We live to fight another day.