Chairman of the bored
I am just curious here.... are you mocking him because of his religious views? I don't think I would vote for him over RB, but I am trying to better understand the intention behind your post. Personally, I applaud him for his views, but it does not mean that I would vote for him.September article about our mayoral contest
Why should voters elect you?
I would like to help all of the citizens of Grand Rapids to live a more happier, healthier and productive life based on the principles given to us in God’s holy scriptures -- the Bible.
If elected, what will your top three priorities be?
1. To proclaim the glory and the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only “answer” to every one of our problems and challenges.
2. To address the No. 1 “civil rights” issue of our day ... the murder of the precious and unwanted children of Grand Rapids that may be destined to be destroyed through their murder (commonly referred to as “abortion”).
3. To seek to make the city of Grand Rapids a “sanctuary city” for all unwanted children destined to be murdered through abortion.
Yesterday, the incumbent received 23,715 votes, compared to 4,476 for Schutte and 82 write-ins.
I am just curious here.... are you mocking him because of his religious views? I don't think I would vote for him over RB, but I am trying to better understand the intention behind your post. Personally, I applaud him for his views, but it does not mean that I would vote for him.
He is a preacher... the irony is so was the very popular mayor before the current mayor who was not able to run again because of new term limits.I see candidates like this as complete idiots out of touch with the world. Yes, Christ is everything. Yes, Jesus is Lord, to you. The rest of us atheists, Muslims, Jews, Hindu, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters might not believe what you do and as a public servant you should recognize that diversity. Also, being mayor or whatever isn't about spreading the word of God. If you want that job go become a preacher.
Ummm... yea dude... that was my point.Why should a mayor be recognized as pro-life or choice. Why should a mayor be recognized as Christian or not. None of these things will make you a better or worse mayor.
This stuff gets on my nerves too when it is a national or global issue. Yes there are always best practices that you can do such as environmental incentives for new development, but other things... like banning guns, should not be up to a mayor when the Constitution is super clear on it.Maybe it's short sighted of me, but things like life/choice is a national problem. Your job as mayor is to keep the streets repaired and economic development and whatever other city level stuff needs to be done. If you can't do anything about it then it's not a local issue.
You end up getting crap like my last commissioners who banned a certain type of birth control because if you took a whole bunch it could cause a miscarriage. So your "expert" knowledge is going to make it so a woman can't get the proper birth control because some random person might abuse it against doctor's orders. Might as well ban everything. Except guns or capital punishment, because they aren't part of the pro life debate (this line is just to stir up Mskies
What do you plan to say? You need like three good sound bites that are really going to resonate.Got a call yesterday from a producer at NBC News who wanted to discuss their field trip next week. They are visiting my fair city to develop a story about how this former GOP stronghold is turning blue.
I simply can't imagine how they could have found me or why they think I would know/care anything about all this ...
View attachment 47094
Their plan is to spend a week here talking to people (not just me) with the premise of "long-time GOP strongholds are turning blue."What do you plan to say? You need like three good sound bites that are really going to resonate.
This is a national media platform. My (unsolicited) advice would be to try to tie what's going on in GR with a larger national trend. The GOP has been losing suburban voter support in important congressional districts across the country as recently demonstrated by the 2018 midterms (and even more recently the 2019 elections in Virginia). Young conservatives who may have once been proud to find a home in the town that raised Gerald Ford are increasingly disenchanted and alienated by how the party has seemingly abandoned its traditional message of fiscal conservatism and now spends its political capital in defending the actions of a "leader" who openly admires and courts this country's foes.
Using the words "Betsy Devos" and "criminal" in the same sentence is surely worth mention too.
They are not a monolithic group.No. They won't. They can't. They elected to go all-in and can hardly back out at this point.
Why not? To me, Christians have purposely mixed church and state in politics and I think it's a horrible thing. (And mind you, I'm Christian.)being openly pro-life christian should not be recognized as a horrible thing for a mayor to be.
Of course he will be impeached. As he should be. The travesty of justice will occur when he is acquitted in the senate trial based on party affiliation as opposed to his conduct.As much as I don't like him... he isn't going to get impeached. Those in DC are not smart enough to make it happen without substantial fallout.
Personally, I don't think it is a horrible thing. I think that there are particular absolutes in life that should be the foundation of of what we do. For example, earlier this week was World Kindness day and a hospital in Pittsburgh dressed all the kids as Mr. Rogers. Fred Rogers was a Presbyterian minister and everything that he put out in the media as founded in Christian beliefs. But he did in a nonabrasive way. Many of our founding fathers did the same thing.Why not? To me, Christians have purposely mixed church and state in politics and I think it's a horrible thing. (And mind you, I'm Christian.)
When you take this into context and read the 1st amendment:Thomas Jefferson said:I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
They further solidify the idea that congress cannot pass laws that would prevent someone from practicing their religious rituals, beliefs, or traditions, nor can the determine that everyone should practice one religion over another. It does not say that you can't practice fasting during Ramadan or preventing you from attending church on Easter Morning, or anything in between.1st amendment said:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There is no question that he should be impeached... but I don't think that the democrats have it in them to actually make it happen and for the Senate to convict him. I would love to be wrong, but from what I read last night no how it went yesterday, I don't think it's going to happen.Of course he will be impeached. As he should be. The travesty of justice will occur when he is acquitted in the senate trial based on party affiliation as opposed to his conduct.
You are correct, they wanted no part of having the government establish a national religion and did not want the government to suppress any religion. But there was never an intention to have it hinder the expression of religion. George Washington was private about his Anglican background in some aspects, but there are numerous political letters where he closed with something along the lines of "may God be with you". Ben Franklin suggested paying for guidance at the second continental congress to seek the Lord's guidance. Despite losing faith in the Church, he maintained his faith in a Christian God and proclaimed such in an 1823 letter he wrote to John Adams where he stated 'The God to whom you and I acknowledge and adore." If you read through the letters and similar correspondence of the founding fathers, they did not hide their faith under a basket, but they did not say "I am passing this law because I am a Christian" and it is because of that omission that so many people wrongly believe that there is a freedom FROM religion instead of a freedom OF religion.The founding fathers created a wall of separation between church and state, not to protect the government from the church. Rather, it was to protect the church from the government. Remember, George III was not only the King of England, he was also head of the Church of England - the official national church. The founding fathers had seen how poorly that worked and wanted no part of it.
I am in 100% agreement and unfortunately most of those who claim to be Christian live lives very different than biblical teaching. It does not matter if they have an R or D behind their name. But it does not mean that the idea of living a christian life should be avoided or kept quite if you are making a run for political office.My problem with the whole Christian politician thing is this: Politicians scream faith through words. Mr. Rodgers screams faith through action. Which one would you trust and which one is more likely to be Jesus approved?
It's just because in this current version of the Crusades, they're seen as the bad guys.To take it a step farther I don't care if you live a Muslim kind of life or any other religion. They all carry the same basic values at their core and sadly they all get bastardized just the same.
There's a bill in our lege that would exchange Columbus day for election day.My county is going to vote on adding Election Day on even numbered years as a paid holiday for county employees (I don't know how this would affect staff in the Clerk's office who work with the local cities, villages, and townships administering the election).
In the grand scheme of things, I'm skeptical that that making Election Day a national holiday would have a significant impact on increasing voter turnout but it's a start. While I won't scoff at an extra paid day off, I'd like to see the state offer more opportunities for casting votes early. Maybe making it a paid holiday for us county workers would at least get the conversation started here in Michigan.
I particularly enjoyed the R-Texas cutting her off mid-reply with "you're done," and the post-gavel whining about "disparaging remarks."I watched the entire hearing and was as gobsmacked as Schiff was with the Trumpster's morning tweet in the middle of the D portion of the hearing.
Big reveal today. I went through the FB comments and found some more interview candidates for them.Got a call yesterday from a producer at NBC News who wanted to discuss their field trip next week. They are visiting my fair city to develop a story about how this former GOP stronghold is turning blue.
I simply can't imagine how they could have found me or why they think I would know/care anything about all this ...
View attachment 47094
I like this. I'm going to start declining meetings if the organizers are just using my presence as something to brag about too.North Korea says it doesn’t want Trump meeting if it’s just something for him to brag about
Joking aside, I'm of the opinion Trump handed Kim a diplomatic win a couple years ago - for which we got absolutely zero in return (heck, we even lost with the deal in terms of military readiness by our unilaterally refraining from conducting the annual joint ops training we do with ROK) - simply by agreeing to a face-to-face meeting with the dictator in response to his sabre rattling. Kim can now claim with some legitimacy thanks to Cheeto that he's an 'equal'.I like this. I'm going to start declining meetings if the organizers are just using my presence as something to brag about too.
I agree 100%Joking aside, I'm of the opinion Trump handed Kim a diplomatic win a couple years ago - for which we got absolutely zero in return (heck, we even lost with the deal in terms of military readiness by our unilaterally refraining from conducting the annual joint ops training we do with ROK) - simply by agreeing to a face-to-face meeting with the dictator in response to his sabre rattling. Kim can now claim with some legitimacy thanks to Cheeto that he's an 'equal'.
The other day I was just trying to remember what the world was like before Trump. And for that matter, picture the world after Trump. Can you picture President Pete tweeting about Mitch McConnell's stupid ideas?I agree 100%
Sometimes I sit and try to figure out if there is a country or region of the world where we have improved relations now compared to before Trump took office. I cannot think of any. He wants to be cozy with folks like Duarte and Putin and Kim but congress (neither house) has gone along on that ride and has often worked to increase sanctions, against Trump's wishes.
The U.S. used to be a beacon for stability in terms of foreign relations, especially since our foreign policy didn't really change much from leader to leader depending on who was in office and what letter followed their name. Thanks to Trump's desire to unilaterally pull out of treaties, trade deals, and other cooperative efforts for seemingly no other reason than Obama supported it, we have lost so much influence around the world, especially in developing nations or places we were trying to build strategic relationships with, that it will probably take at least a few terms just to get back to even.