Jeff Bezos is Now Worth 200 Billion

[glennds]

It becomes a fight for Power/Control .

Or in some historical cases, survival.

[doodle]

Would it be so hard for the 99 percent, if they really cared, to stop buying from Amazon? Problem solved.

It's another example of a well known economic concept called tragedy of the commons. This particular issue stemming from the negative cumulative effects of rational individual choices needs to be addressed in our capitalist system through policy. Extreme adherence to the principle of individual choice when we know for a fact that this has unintended negative outcomes isn't much of a realistic policy prescription unless one favors long term negative outcomes for the whole of society.

You are contradicting yourself. If it is a capitalist society, and you want innovation which in turn provides jobs and stimulation to the economy, there has to be incentive to take risks with time and capital. Negative outcomes to some, positive outcomes to others. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs at Amazon, at FedEx or UPS that deliver packages, at the oil companies that make the gasoline that the trucks run on,at the truck manufacturers that make the vehicles used to deliver, etc.

Not understanding contradiction....tragedy of commons is well known and proven phenomenon. When individuals make rational decisions in their own best interests the cumulative effect of these individual decisions could have net negative outcomes for these same individuals. Amazon is great for consumers,...but we aren't just consumers, we are workers and citizens who generally like active vibrant communities. In the case of the latter our individual decisions as consumers have a net negative effect on other things we value....hence tragedy commons.

[shekels]

It becomes a fight for Power/Control .

Or in some historical cases, survival.

True.

[Mountaineer]

Re. the thread title - good for him. He won't be taking it with him when he croaks, so what do you think will become of his money/investments/assets then? Plowed back into the economy or coverted to gold and hoarded? Or something else? Or maybe given to Iran (at least it would be his to give and not the taxpayers).

[Ad Orientem]

Re. the thread title - good for him. He won't be taking it with him when he croaks, so what do you think will become of his money/investments/assets then? Plowed back into the economy or coverted to gold and hoarded? Or something else? Or maybe given to Iran (at least it would be his to give and not the taxpayers).

Rem acu tetigisti. I am not so concerned with Mr. Bezos having earned a staggering fortune, provided he is paying his fair share in taxes (which is highly unlikely but we will set that aside for the moment). Broadly speaking though he earned the money and once he's paid his taxes what he does with it is his business. What alarms me is what happens to his fortune, and other similar ones, after he dies. The great threat to democracy and society doesn't come from people like Bezos who work hard, build a better mousetrap, and reap the rewards. It comes from the succeeding generations, that in most cases do little or nothing to earn the money but become staggeringly wealthy by virtue of winning the genealogical lottery. Vast inherited dynastic fortunes that simply accumulate and snowball generation after generation are the great threat. Sanders is wrong in his desire for a wealth tax which in addition to be grossly unfair, is also unconstitutional on its face. But I have no sympathy for the children of plutocrats. The traditional policy to prevent these obscene hereditary fortunes has been the death tax, which is both eminently fair and constitutional. Alas, anti-tax fanatics have succeeded in demonizing it.

IMO the estate tax should be left as is up to $100 million. Every dollar above that should be taxed at 50% and every dollar above $1 billion should be taxed at 75%. Even then my guess is Bezos' kids will not wind up on public relief.

[doodle]

Re. the thread title - good for him. He won't be taking it with him when he croaks, so what do you think will become of his money/investments/assets then? Plowed back into the economy or coverted to gold and hoarded? Or something else? Or maybe given to Iran (at least it would be his to give and not the taxpayers).

Rem acu tetigisti. I am not so concerned with Mr. Bezos having earned a staggering fortune, provided he is paying his fair share in taxes (which is highly unlikely but we will set that aside for the moment). Broadly speaking though he earned the money and once he's paid his taxes what he does with it is his business. What alarms me is what happens to his fortune, and other similar ones, after he dies. The great threat to democracy and society doesn't come from people like Bezos who work hard, build a better mousetrap, and reap the rewards. It comes from the succeeding generations, that in most cases do little or nothing to earn the money but become staggeringly wealthy by virtue of winning the genealogical lottery. Vast inherited dynastic fortunes that simply accumulate and snowball generation after generation are the great threat. Sanders is wrong in his desire for a wealth tax which in addition to be grossly unfair, is also unconstitutional on its face. But I have no sympathy for the children of plutocrats. The traditional policy to prevent these obscene hereditary fortunes has been the death tax, which is both eminently fair and constitutional. Alas, anti-tax fanatics have succeeded in demonizing it.

IMO the estate tax should be left as is up to $100 million. Every dollar above that should be taxed at 50% and every dollar above $1 billion should be taxed at 75%. Even then my guess is Bezos' kids will not wind up on public relief.

What if what he does with it is use it buy political persuasion to further personal gain...perhaps rewrite sections of tax code to own benefit? Laws limiting workers unions, labor laws, anti trust legislation, corporate liability, etc. Etc....if money is speech and 3 individuals hold the same wealth as bottom 50 percent of our society I am concerned what he spends his money on.

[doodle]

I find it a bit ironic how mountaineer so strongly defends these wealthy oligarchs considering his love of Jesus and how the Bible handles the topic of wealth.

[Xan]

I find it a bit ironic how mountaineer so strongly defends these wealthy oligarchs considering his love of Jesus and how the Bible handles the topic of wealth.

It is much harsher on covetousness than it is of wealth. And never does it give any quarter to the idea that it's okay to take wealth from somebody by force (quite the opposite), only that it should be given voluntarily.

[Xan]

Re. the thread title - good for him. He won't be taking it with him when he croaks, so what do you think will become of his money/investments/assets then? Plowed back into the economy or coverted to gold and hoarded? Or something else? Or maybe given to Iran (at least it would be his to give and not the taxpayers).

Rem acu tetigisti. I am not so concerned with Mr. Bezos having earned a staggering fortune, provided he is paying his fair share in taxes (which is highly unlikely but we will set that aside for the moment). Broadly speaking though he earned the money and once he's paid his taxes what he does with it is his business. What alarms me is what happens to his fortune, and other similar ones, after he dies. The great threat to democracy and society doesn't come from people like Bezos who work hard, build a better mousetrap, and reap the rewards. It comes from the succeeding generations, that in most cases do little or nothing to earn the money but become staggeringly wealthy by virtue of winning the genealogical lottery. Vast inherited dynastic fortunes that simply accumulate and snowball generation after generation are the great threat. Sanders is wrong in his desire for a wealth tax which in addition to be grossly unfair, is also unconstitutional on its face. But I have no sympathy for the children of plutocrats. The traditional policy to prevent these obscene hereditary fortunes has been the death tax, which is both eminently fair and constitutional. Alas, anti-tax fanatics have succeeded in demonizing it.

IMO the estate tax should be left as is up to $100 million. Every dollar above that should be taxed at 50% and every dollar above $1 billion should be taxed at 75%. Even then my guess is Bezos' kids will not wind up on public relief.

I certainly have some sympathy for what you're saying, although I don't see how this opinion can come from a monarchist. Would the royal lineage be exempt from your death tax?

In any case: maybe you can make a point that society would be better off if ne'er-do-wells could not inherit vast fortunes. But here's the big problem as I see it: who DOES get to inherit the vast fortune? Is the government a better heir than a child? I don't know that it is. Or maybe the point of your confiscatory death tax is to drive people to give their wealth to charity?

[Ad Orientem]

Re. the thread title - good for him. He won't be taking it with him when he croaks, so what do you think will become of his money/investments/assets then? Plowed back into the economy or coverted to gold and hoarded? Or something else? Or maybe given to Iran (at least it would be his to give and not the taxpayers).

Rem acu tetigisti. I am not so concerned with Mr. Bezos having earned a staggering fortune, provided he is paying his fair share in taxes (which is highly unlikely but we will set that aside for the moment). Broadly speaking though he earned the money and once he's paid his taxes what he does with it is his business. What alarms me is what happens to his fortune, and other similar ones, after he dies. The great threat to democracy and society doesn't come from people like Bezos who work hard, build a better mousetrap, and reap the rewards. It comes from the succeeding generations, that in most cases do little or nothing to earn the money but become staggeringly wealthy by virtue of winning the genealogical lottery. Vast inherited dynastic fortunes that simply accumulate and snowball generation after generation are the great threat. Sanders is wrong in his desire for a wealth tax which in addition to be grossly unfair, is also unconstitutional on its face. But I have no sympathy for the children of plutocrats. The traditional policy to prevent these obscene hereditary fortunes has been the death tax, which is both eminently fair and constitutional. Alas, anti-tax fanatics have succeeded in demonizing it.

IMO the estate tax should be left as is up to $100 million. Every dollar above that should be taxed at 50% and every dollar above $1 billion should be taxed at 75%. Even then my guess is Bezos' kids will not wind up on public relief.

What if what he does with it is use it buy political persuasion to further personal gain...perhaps rewrite sections of tax code to own benefit? Laws limiting workers unions, labor laws, anti trust legislation, corporate liability, etc. Etc....if money is speech and 3 individuals hold the same wealth as bottom 50 percent of our society I am concerned what he spends his money on.

My general attitude towards money and politics is that every citizen who has the franchise should be allowed to give what they want, to candidates they want, subject to the following conditions...

* The recipient is a candidate in an election where the donor has the right to vote on the election for that specific candidate.
* The PAC is only involved in elections where the donor has the right to vote in those specific elections.

So no person or entity can donate a single dime unless they have the right to vote in the specific election they are donating money to influence. That would exclude corporations, special interest groups and unions. And no person could donate any money to influence an election where they don't have the right to vote. So while I could donate as much as I want in the presidential election and the election for my local congressman and or senator here in Florida, I could not donate a dime to any political campaign or PACs in California or Texas.

It's imperfect, but it is probably as fair as one can get.

[Mountaineer]

I find it a bit ironic how mountaineer so strongly defends these wealthy oligarchs considering his love of Jesus and how the Bible handles the topic of wealth.

Having wealth is not the problem that is addressed in Scripture. It is when one makes wealth into an idol, i.e. a first commandment issue, another small g god that is revered above the one and only God, as I understand it. Do you interpret differently?

[Ad Orientem]

Re. the thread title - good for him. He won't be taking it with him when he croaks, so what do you think will become of his money/investments/assets then? Plowed back into the economy or coverted to gold and hoarded? Or something else? Or maybe given to Iran (at least it would be his to give and not the taxpayers).

Rem acu tetigisti. I am not so concerned with Mr. Bezos having earned a staggering fortune, provided he is paying his fair share in taxes (which is highly unlikely but we will set that aside for the moment). Broadly speaking though he earned the money and once he's paid his taxes what he does with it is his business. What alarms me is what happens to his fortune, and other similar ones, after he dies. The great threat to democracy and society doesn't come from people like Bezos who work hard, build a better mousetrap, and reap the rewards. It comes from the succeeding generations, that in most cases do little or nothing to earn the money but become staggeringly wealthy by virtue of winning the genealogical lottery. Vast inherited dynastic fortunes that simply accumulate and snowball generation after generation are the great threat. Sanders is wrong in his desire for a wealth tax which in addition to be grossly unfair, is also unconstitutional on its face. But I have no sympathy for the children of plutocrats. The traditional policy to prevent these obscene hereditary fortunes has been the death tax, which is both eminently fair and constitutional. Alas, anti-tax fanatics have succeeded in demonizing it.

IMO the estate tax should be left as is up to $100 million. Every dollar above that should be taxed at 50% and every dollar above $1 billion should be taxed at 75%. Even then my guess is Bezos' kids will not wind up on public relief.

What if what he does with it is use it buy political persuasion to further personal gain...perhaps rewrite sections of tax code to own benefit? Laws limiting workers unions, labor laws, anti trust legislation, corporate liability, etc. Etc....if money is speech and 3 individuals hold the same wealth as bottom 50 percent of our society I am concerned what he spends his money on.

My general attitude towards money and politics is that every citizen who has the franchise should be allowed to give what they want, to candidates they want, subject to the following conditions...

* The recipient is a candidate in an election where the donor has the right to vote in the election for that specific candidate.
* The PAC is only involved in elections where the donor has the right to vote in those specific elections.

So no person or entity can donate a single dime unless they have the right to vote in the specific election they are donating money to influence. That would exclude corporations, special interest groups and unions. And no person could donate any money to influence an election where they don't have the right to vote. So while I could donate as much as I want in the presidential election and the election for my local congressman and or senator here in Florida, I could not donate a dime to any political campaign or PACs in California or Texas.

It's imperfect, but it is probably as fair as one can get.

[Mountaineer]

Re. the thread title - good for him. He won't be taking it with him when he croaks, so what do you think will become of his money/investments/assets then? Plowed back into the economy or coverted to gold and hoarded? Or something else? Or maybe given to Iran (at least it would be his to give and not the taxpayers).

Rem acu tetigisti. I am not so concerned with Mr. Bezos having earned a staggering fortune, provided he is paying his fair share in taxes (which is highly unlikely but we will set that aside for the moment). Broadly speaking though he earned the money and once he's paid his taxes what he does with it is his business. What alarms me is what happens to his fortune, and other similar ones, after he dies. The great threat to democracy and society doesn't come from people like Bezos who work hard, build a better mousetrap, and reap the rewards. It comes from the succeeding generations, that in most cases do little or nothing to earn the money but become staggeringly wealthy by virtue of winning the genealogical lottery. Vast inherited dynastic fortunes that simply accumulate and snowball generation after generation are the great threat. Sanders is wrong in his desire for a wealth tax which in addition to be grossly unfair, is also unconstitutional on its face. But I have no sympathy for the children of plutocrats. The traditional policy to prevent these obscene hereditary fortunes has been the death tax, which is both eminently fair and constitutional. Alas, anti-tax fanatics have succeeded in demonizing it.

IMO the estate tax should be left as is up to $100 million. Every dollar above that should be taxed at 50% and every dollar above $1 billion should be taxed at 75%. Even then my guess is Bezos' kids will not wind up on public relief.

What if what he does with it is use it buy political persuasion to further personal gain...perhaps rewrite sections of tax code to own benefit? Laws limiting workers unions, labor laws, anti trust legislation, corporate liability, etc. Etc....if money is speech and 3 individuals hold the same wealth as bottom 50 percent of our society I am concerned what he spends his money on.

My general attitude towards money and politics is that every citizen who has the franchise should be allowed to give what they want, to candidates they want, subject to the following conditions...

* The recipient is a candidate in an election where the donor has the right to vote in the election for that specific candidate.
* The PAC is only involved in elections where the donor has the right to vote in those specific elections.

So no person or entity can donate a single dime unless they have the right to vote in the specific election they are donating money to influence. That would exclude corporations, special interest groups and unions. And no person could donate any money to influence an election where they don't have the right to vote. So while I could donate as much as I want in the presidential election and the election for my local congressman and or senator here in Florida, I could not donate a dime to any political campaign or PACs in California or Texas.

It's imperfect, but it is probably as fair as one can get.

[Ad Orientem]

Re. the thread title - good for him. He won't be taking it with him when he croaks, so what do you think will become of his money/investments/assets then? Plowed back into the economy or coverted to gold and hoarded? Or something else? Or maybe given to Iran (at least it would be his to give and not the taxpayers).

Rem acu tetigisti. I am not so concerned with Mr. Bezos having earned a staggering fortune, provided he is paying his fair share in taxes (which is highly unlikely but we will set that aside for the moment). Broadly speaking though he earned the money and once he's paid his taxes what he does with it is his business. What alarms me is what happens to his fortune, and other similar ones, after he dies. The great threat to democracy and society doesn't come from people like Bezos who work hard, build a better mousetrap, and reap the rewards. It comes from the succeeding generations, that in most cases do little or nothing to earn the money but become staggeringly wealthy by virtue of winning the genealogical lottery. Vast inherited dynastic fortunes that simply accumulate and snowball generation after generation are the great threat. Sanders is wrong in his desire for a wealth tax which in addition to be grossly unfair, is also unconstitutional on its face. But I have no sympathy for the children of plutocrats. The traditional policy to prevent these obscene hereditary fortunes has been the death tax, which is both eminently fair and constitutional. Alas, anti-tax fanatics have succeeded in demonizing it.

IMO the estate tax should be left as is up to $100 million. Every dollar above that should be taxed at 50% and every dollar above $1 billion should be taxed at 75%. Even then my guess is Bezos' kids will not wind up on public relief.

I certainly have some sympathy for what you're saying, although I don't see how this opinion can come from a monarchist. Would the royal lineage be exempt from your death tax?

In any case: maybe you can make a point that society would be better off if ne'er-do-wells could not inherit vast fortunes. But here's the big problem as I see it: who DOES get to inherit the vast fortune? Is the government a better heir than a child? I don't know that it is. Or maybe the point of your confiscatory death tax is to drive people to give their wealth to charity?

* In a monarchy the sovereign is not a citizen but the physical embodiment of the state. He doesn't pay taxes. He receives them.
* Other members of the royal family do not inherit very much, except for the heir.
* Members of the royal family not expected to succeed to the throne either join the military or church, or perform some other service to the crown and people agreeable to the sovereign. For which they would receive a stipend from the royal purse at the sovereign's pleasure. Alternatively, they can get a job.
* "Is the government a better heir than a child? " Assuming they are not being deprived of the means to live, yes. There are legitimate functions of government for the public good that require money. The state does not operate on voluntary donations. That means taxes. So all that remains is figuring out who benefitted the most from living in the country and enjoying all the privilege's, rights and benefits of the same, and who can bear the taxes with the least amount pain. My answer is the children of a man who died leaving $200 billion will probably still be Ok if they end up with a mere $50 billion.

[doodle]

I find it a bit ironic how mountaineer so strongly defends these wealthy oligarchs considering his love of Jesus and how the Bible handles the topic of wealth.

Having wealth is not the problem that is addressed in Scripture. It is when one makes wealth into an idol, i.e. a first commandment issue, another small g god that is revered above the one and only God, as I understand it. Do you interpret differently?

No, but I find it strange that you come out in defense of Bezos so strongly when a large part of his productive workforce qualifies for food stamps and probably has no health insurance. Seems kind of strange that someone who has dedicated their life to Jesus would defend a man who has accumulated 200 billion on the backs of individuals who need government assistance to feed their families....sounds almost as if you defending pharoah.

[Mountaineer]

I find it a bit ironic how mountaineer so strongly defends these wealthy oligarchs considering his love of Jesus and how the Bible handles the topic of wealth.

Having wealth is not the problem that is addressed in Scripture. It is when one makes wealth into an idol, i.e. a first commandment issue, another small g god that is revered above the one and only God, as I understand it. Do you interpret differently?

No, but I find it strange that you come out in defense of Bezos so strongly when a large part of his productive workforce qualifies for food stamps and probably has no health insurance. Seems kind of strange that someone who has dedicated their life to Jesus would defend a man who has accumulated 200 billion on the backs of individuals who need government assistance to feed their families....sounds almost as if you defending pharoah.

Well, all I can say is that an understanding of confessional Lutheran theology might help you; you don't have to agree with it, just know how we interpret Scripture. Kingdom of the left (civil realm) and kingdom of the right and knowing that God is in charge of both. Most confessional Lutherans (as opposed to the CINO liberal Lutherans) are not social justice warriors as some of your writings indicate that you lean toward. We live in a country where the "law of supply and demand" somewhat is important. I have no grudge against Amazon for paying only what is required to get the workers they need; if people can get a better deal elsewhere, I'd encourage them to go for it. I'm a proponent of equal opportunity (not equality of outcome). We are equal in faith in the promises of Christ, not in our status in the kingdom of the left. Although Christians can thrive in all forms of government, I kind of like the government we have and what our Constitution stands for. I'm not a proponent of a welfare state (kingdom of the left issue) but do think the local congregation should support its members who are in need when they don't have families to support them in their times of need (i.e. the widows and orphans discussed in Scripture). What do you stand for?

[doodle]

Would you not classify Jesus as the original social justice warrior? Seems like his stirring the pot pissed of the rich and powerful and that's why he was killed.

[Mountaineer]

Would you not classify Jesus as the original social justice warrior? Seems like his stirring the pot pissed of the rich and powerful and that's why he was killed.

No.

Re. upsetting the rich and powerful, that would be mainly the Roman Caesar; his "tax base" was dwindling because of the many who converted to Christianity and no longer would buy meat that had been sacrificed to idols as an example. Add to that, the Christians refused to worship Caesar as a god. The subsequent persecution and falling of many into apostacy (including many priests) in order to save their temporal heads led to the Donatist heresy of which I believe Cyprian was the 'grandfather' of that movement.

I'm waiting to hear what you stand for, other than "Christian man bad".

[doodle]

Really? I find that surprising...because of the common social justice issues...race, gender, sexual orientation, healthcare, nationality, immigration, education... I have a hard time believing Jesus would side with those in society seeking to maintain the status quo or even put it into reverse ...on the contrary his message was quite radical. I think most so called Christians today would condemn their own prophet should he be interviewed on the evening news. I dislike most Christians today because I find their hypocrisy nauseating. They claim allegiance to Jesus yet live their lives according to beliefs that violate almost everything Jesus stood for. From my experience the best Christians I have met are atheists.

What do I stand for? That's a tough question....probably the truth...in so far as I can understand it.

[Mountaineer]

Really? I find that surprising...because of the common social justice issues...race, gender, sexual orientation, healthcare, nationality, immigration, education... I have a hard time believing Jesus would side with those in society seeking to maintain the status quo or even put it into reverse ...on the contrary his message was quite radical. I think most so called Christians today would condemn their own prophet should he be interviewed on the evening news. I dislike most Christians today because I find their hypocrisy nauseating. They claim allegiance to Jesus yet live their lives according to beliefs that violate almost everything Jesus stood for. From my experience the best Christians I have met are atheists.

What do I stand for? That's a tough question....probably the truth...in so far as I can understand it.

I shall pray for you. And hope that you study up on the Confessional Lutheran Two Kingdoms doctrine; it may help you understand the difference betweey hypocrisy and parodox, unless of course you suffer from CDS. Blessings and best wishes. Hopefully your local drug store has an adequate supply of Pepto-Bismol to help with your nausea and optical rectitis.

[doodle]

Not to steer this too far off topic....Let's take Trump as an example of a person masquerading as a Christian and taking into account his huge Evangelical base. He has repeatedly stated that he favors the old testament punishment of an eye for an eye....and it is quite evident by the way that he mercilessly excoriated his opponents that he believes in it.

Jesus on the other hand criticized the notion of an eye for an eye, and preached a turning of the cheek. How do you square this contradiction? Why do so called Christians who supposedly hold the word of Jesus as the word of God side with the message of a man who openly contradicts their prophet and God?

[doodle]

Really? I find that surprising...because of the common social justice issues...race, gender, sexual orientation, healthcare, nationality, immigration, education... I have a hard time believing Jesus would side with those in society seeking to maintain the status quo or even put it into reverse ...on the contrary his message was quite radical. I think most so called Christians today would condemn their own prophet should he be interviewed on the evening news. I dislike most Christians today because I find their hypocrisy nauseating. They claim allegiance to Jesus yet live their lives according to beliefs that violate almost everything Jesus stood for. From my experience the best Christians I have met are atheists.

What do I stand for? That's a tough question....probably the truth...in so far as I can understand it.

I shall pray for you. And hope that you study up on the Confessional Lutheran Two Kingdoms doctrine; it may help you understand the difference betweey hypocrisy and parodox, unless of course you suffer from CDS. Blessings and best wishes. Hopefully your local drug store has an adequate supply of Pepto-Bismol to help with your nausea and optical rectitis.

Pray for me, lol. I love Christian passive aggressiveness. Because Christ's message is so convoluted and confusing that it requires one to study Lutheran doctrines to understand. Sounds to me like these are mental gymnastic exercises that you put yourself through in order to silence the extreme cognitive dissonance that you must suffer from trying to square your personal beliefs with a contradictory radical message you claim allegiance to.

[doodle]

Ok, Boomer. I actually agree with a fair number of Trump's ideas and policies...it's the implementation and leadership style he displays that is so abysmal. Wrong personality for the job. That matters

[Mountaineer]

Really? I find that surprising...because of the common social justice issues...race, gender, sexual orientation, healthcare, nationality, immigration, education... I have a hard time believing Jesus would side with those in society seeking to maintain the status quo or even put it into reverse ...on the contrary his message was quite radical. I think most so called Christians today would condemn their own prophet should he be interviewed on the evening news. I dislike most Christians today because I find their hypocrisy nauseating. They claim allegiance to Jesus yet live their lives according to beliefs that violate almost everything Jesus stood for. From my experience the best Christians I have met are atheists.

What do I stand for? That's a tough question....probably the truth...in so far as I can understand it.

I shall pray for you. And hope that you study up on the Confessional Lutheran Two Kingdoms doctrine; it may help you understand the difference betweey hypocrisy and parodox, unless of course you suffer from CDS. Blessings and best wishes. Hopefully your local drug store has an adequate supply of Pepto-Bismol to help with your nausea and optical rectitis.

Pray for me, lol. I love Christian passive aggressiveness. Because Christ's message is so convoluted and confusing that it requires one to study Lutheran doctrines to understand. Sounds to me like these are mental gymnastic exercises that you put yourself through in order to silence the extreme cognitive dissonance that you must suffer from trying to square your personal beliefs with a contradictory radical message you claim allegiance to.

I am truly sorry you don’t understand - Ephesians 2:8-10. Romans 10. I hope God opens your ears and your heart. Although life Has much suffering, it can also be filled with peace and comfort. To God be the glory.
https://t.e2ma.net/message/b9i28z/nyu9pg9b

[doodle]

Ok, Boomer. I actually agree with a fair number of Trump's ideas and policies...it's the implementation and leadership style he displays that is so abysmal. Wrong personality for the job. That matters

So you would prefer a demented person who is the captive of the communist left?
Ok, zoomer.

Communist left, hahahaha. That's hyperbolic bitchute BS. There are no communist politicians currently holding office. Even Bernie Sanders is a centrist by most Western industrialized standards and Biden is far closer to center. Now, given a moderate Republican....I'd pick them over Biden at this point. But that's not an available option. Trump is wholy unfit from a personality standpoint to lead this nation. No matter whether I agree with many of his policies, the ends do not justify the means. He is a disgrace to the office and our country.