US Election Outcome

[Witness1970]

On 8/23/2024 at 4:32 PM, Tortuga said:

I think it would be interesting (read hilarious) if Kamala Harris is elected the President of the US. For many years there has been speculation here that a bombastic person like Trump would bring the right conditions for fulfillment of bible prophecy. Many thought it was reasonable that he would be in office when the GT starts. If Harris is elected, then all of the speculation is wrong, or we have to wait another four years..

The problem with that thinking is that Trump will be president (or dictator) of one nation.  What about all the other nations?  If Kamala Harris is elected, Trump will scream "rigged election" and his MAGA group will believe it.  Wil they be better prepared to overthrow the government this time as some have said?  I guess we can wait and see.

 

In the long run, as everyone here knows, God's Kingdom will come regardless of the outcome of the election!

[Pjdriver]

2 hours ago, Witness1970 said:

The problem with that thinking is that Trump will be president (or dictator) of one nation.  What about all the other nations?  If Kamala Harris is elected, Trump will scream "rigged election" and his MAGA group will believe it.  Wil they be better prepared to overthrow the government this time as some have said?  I guess we can wait and see.

 

In the long run, as everyone here knows, God's Kingdom will come regardless of the outcome of the election!

We know which side you favor. 

[Sheep]

5 hours ago, Witness1970 said:

The problem with that thinking is that Trump will be president (or dictator) of one nation.  What about all the other nations?  If Kamala Harris is elected, Trump will scream "rigged election" and his MAGA group will believe it.  Wil they be better prepared to overthrow the government this time as some have said?  I guess we can wait and see.

 

In the long run, as everyone here knows, God's Kingdom will come regardless of the outcome of the election!

tsk, tsk. One Trump supporter said that if he isn't elected, there is certain to be civil war! Every city will be in an uproar (or: bloodbath), that will not stop until he is in office again. Who knows what else would happen? I'm glad I don't live in the US, and I feel sorry for those who do!

[BLEmom]

Read the annual meeting spoilers for clarification on what does and doesn’t matter with the election outcome. lol 

[Witness1970]

tsk, tsk. One Trump supporter said that if he isn't elected, there is certain to be civil war! Every city will be in an uproar (or: bloodbath), that will not stop until he is in office again. Who knows what else would happen? I'm glad I don't live in the US, and I feel sorry for those who do!

12 hours ago, BLEmom said:

Read the annual meeting spoilers for clarification on what does and doesn’t matter with the election outcome. lol 

If there is violence, as some have claimed it will be, how widespread would it be.  The Capitol in Washington would be a primary target I guess.  Other large cities could see violence (possible of probably, I don't know), but will it get out into rural areas like where I live.  I don't have any answers.  This is all assuming that those who are expecting violence are correct.  None of us know a lot of the details.  (Many of the citizens of Germany in the years before WWII were probably unaware of a lot of the things that were going on.  They continued to live their lives as always.)

 

Again, God's Kingdom is the answer.  Whatever else happens before then will be only temporary.

 

I quoted the wrong post at first.  Actually, maybe I should not have quoted anyone!

Edited October 6 by Witness1970

[Pjdriver]

12 hours ago, Witness1970 said:

as some have claimed 

 

Don't believe everything you hear.  We may see a  skirmish or two, like the last time. The biggest concern is these  wars, and inflation, crime etc....Those same old "4 Horsemen".

 

Of course we know ultimately what the outcome will be.  People are so afraid of what Trump might do.  It’s like those paranoid about climate change. These are just red herrings....set in place by certain political factions.

 

IMO it seems more likely the attack on religion would come from the anti-religious side of the isle. So I’m cheering for them ..... just to bring this system down as quick as possible. 

Just sayin’ 

[Ahuvah]

33 minutes ago, Pjdriver said:

 

Don't believe everything you hear.  We may see a  skirmish or two, like the last time. The biggest concern is these  wars, and inflation, crime etc....Those same old "4 Horsemen".

 

Of course we know ultimately what the outcome will be.  People are so afraid of what Trump might do.  It’s like those paranoid about climate change. These are just red herrings....set in place by certain political factions.

 

IMO it seems more likely the attack on religion would come from the anti-religious side of the isle. So I’m cheering for them ..... just to bring this system down as quick as possible. 

Just sayin’ 

My dear brother Burt,

Wouldn't it be a kind thing to help our brothers and sisters to be neutral in  hearts and thoughts by being neutral ourselves?

We KNOW that any take down of religion will be by Jehovah’s hand via the UN, it's NOT dependant on who wins or loses an election. 

[Brandon]

14 hours ago, Witness1970 said:

I'm glad I don't live in the US

Your profile page says North Carolina though

[Sheep]

1 hour ago, Brandon said:

Your profile page says North Carolina though

He was quoting one of my posts, but didn't put it in a quote box. That's why it looks like it's his comment.

[Miss Bea]

Iʼm trying so hard to be really neutral with political business. (None of mine) Then I seee this. I think, “What is this doing here? Then I think, “Bea, don’t be judgmental”. So, off I go to see what’s it all about. 
Maybe I didn’t read enough posts. 
Then I think again, “Bea, what are you doing here”. It’s on me this time. 
Sorry for the rant. 
My husband carefully keeps up with his side of the debacle. On the TV. And he is hard of hearing. TV. Loud.
A good friend of mine has a husband who does likewise. (But he’s a brother) She told me not to make any mistake. If you listen to it, it will affect you. 
So, we all struggle. All of us. 
It’s none of my business, and I just want it over. And done with. 
I have enough on my plate without Satan’s political pinky sticking itself in my business. Thank you. 

[50gumbys]

I'm planning a trip from Australia home to Canada in 2025. 

I'm thinking of going through Vancouver to Toronto instead of going through the States like I've done in the past. 

Just thinking ahead and not needing the hassles.

Just in case ...

[Witness1970]

9 hours ago, Brandon said:

Your profile page says North Carolina though

I made a mistake on the quote.  I am living in North Carolina.

[Kwabena]

Yh, so after reading all the messages in this thread this is the syntax for the plurality  (if not majority) of the posts:

 

Start with "I'm neutral."

Then "Mrs. Harris ===😉"

Then "Mr. Trump === 😡😡😡"

Then "God's Kingdom ...." (well, I gotta put it in here somewhere).

Oh, and don't forget, I'm neutral ✌🏿

 

 Click "Submit Reply"

 

And please, I said the majority, not all posts.

 

🙆🏿‍♂️🙆🏿‍♂️😁

Life is hard oh hmm 😂😂

Edited October 7 by Kwabena

[LeolaRootStew]

2 minutes ago, Kwabena said:

I'm neutral ✌🏿

 

Ironically, the "peace" sign is a political hand-signal. 

 

According to AI: The "V for Victory" sign, formed by raising the index and middle fingers in a V shape, was popularized by Winston Churchill during World War II as a symbol of resistance and hope. Initially introduced by Belgian politician Victor de Laveleye in 1941, it later became associated with peace during the 1960s, particularly among anti-war activists and the counterculture movement.

[Kwabena]

1 minute ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

Ironically, the "peace" sign is a political hand-signal. 

 

According to AI: The "V for Victory" sign, formed by raising the index and middle fingers in a V shape, was popularized by Winston Churchill during World War II as a symbol of resistance and hope. Initially introduced by Belgian politician Victor de Laveleye in 1941, it later became associated with peace during the 1960s, particularly among anti-war activists and the counterculture movement.

Uh oh. 😂😂. Hmm, never knew. 

I've been using that symbol as a  bye-bye sign for ages. Little did I know it is a Belgian politics thingy. 

 

I guess it's time for my 23andme DNA test. Perhaps I'm 100% Belgian. You never know 😂😂 

[Pjdriver]

19 hours ago, Ahuvah said:

My dear brother Burt,

Wouldn't it be a kind thing to help our brothers and sisters to be neutral in  hearts and thoughts by being neutral ourselves?

We KNOW that any take down of religion will be by Jehovah’s hand via the UN, it's NOT dependant on who wins or loses an election. 

 

I’m SorryAmanda, I didn’t mean it that way   it was said with tongue in cheek. This topic probably not the best idea. 

Edited October 7 by Pjdriver

[Hope]

On 8/24/2024 at 1:49 PM, Hope said:

Y'know, I've had the opposite thought. The ignition key to it all is the expression of "peace and security," right?  In general, women are far less likely than men are to call things peaceful, if they're not. I think we have a different perception of peace and security. It's much more than simply the absence of war.

 

Therefore, if all the rah-rah unity, acceptance and intelligence of a Harris regime declares such a thing, I think people will believe it. It might really look like it. 

 

Then... who knows?  🤷🏻‍♀️🤔

 

New thought - women also tend to be more collaborative than dealing on their own, as men tend to do. That's a mindset that might encourage nations to give up power to the UN, rather than continuing the "Ango-America to the rescue" routine.

 

Just a wee snack for rumination.. 😊 that's all

[Tortuga]

11 minutes ago, Hope said:

 

New thought - women also tend to be more collaborative than dealing on their own, as men tend to do. That's a mindset that might encourage nations to give up power to the UN, rather than continuing the "Ango-America to the rescue" routine.

 

Just a wee snack for rumination.. 😊 that's all

So, you are saying that when Jehovah has the world powers turn over their power and authority to the UN that it will be easier for him to tell the women what to do? 

[Kwabena]

16 minutes ago, Tortuga said:

So, you are saying that .......to tell the women what to do?

😂😂😂

IYKYK😜😁

[Pjdriver]

On 8/24/2024 at 4:49 PM, Hope said:

The ignition key to it all is the expression of "peace and security," right?  In general, women are far less likely than men are to call things peaceful, if they're not. I think we have a different perception of peace and security.

 

Women as politicians are very different than the typical woman.  They will tell you what you want to hear if it benefits them.....just like any male politicians. It’s the person not the Gender.  

 

[Hope]

2 hours ago, Tortuga said:

So, you are saying that when Jehovah has the world powers turn over their power and authority to the UN that it will be easier for him to tell the women what to do? 

No.

[Hope]

1 hour ago, Pjdriver said:

 

Women as politicians are very different than the typical woman.  They will tell you what you want to hear if it benefits them.....just like any male politicians. It’s the person not the Gender.  

 

I'm not really talking about politics. More about how women and men tend to react to things. 

[Datsun_120Y]

On 8/21/2024 at 10:37 AM, computerwiz said:

 

That's not what I'm hearing. Plenty think a woman president can run the country better. Or are voting for her because of her "credentials" : she's a woman.

 

And I think it will happen just to say "humans tried everything". A woman president for the first time ever for a super power.....and then the end will come.

 

They're never really the ones running it , isn't there always someone else or a group behind the curtains?

[Datsun_120Y]

2 hours ago, Pjdriver said:

 

Women as politicians are very different than the typical woman.  They will tell you what you want to hear if it benefits them.....just like any male politicians. It’s the person not the Gender.  

 

The statement that women politicians are vastly different from the typical woman and will tell people what they want to hear if it benefits them, just like male politicians, is a complex and multifaceted issue .Research suggests that women in politics often face unrealistic expectations and stereotypes, being forced to walk a tightrope between acceptable femininity and masculinity ¹. They're expected to be caring, empathetic, and compassionate, yet strong, authoritative, and decisive.

 

This double standard can lead to women politicians being perceived as insincere or manipulative, even when they're simply navigating the complexities of politics. In reality, women politicians are not inherently different from the average woman; they're just as diverse and multifaceted as any group of people.

 

It's also important to recognize that politicians, regardless of gender, often tailor their messages to appeal to their audience. This doesn't necessarily mean they're being dishonest; it's a strategic move to build support and achieve their goals.

 

Ultimately, it's the individual's character, values, and actions that matter, not their gender. We should focus on evaluating politicians based on their policies, track record, and leadership style, rather than making assumptions based on gender.

 

[computerwiz]

3 hours ago, Datsun_120Y said:

The statement that women politicians are vastly different from the typical woman and will tell people what they want to hear if it benefits them, just like male politicians, is a complex and multifaceted issue .Research suggests that women in politics often face unrealistic expectations and stereotypes, being forced to walk a tightrope between acceptable femininity and masculinity ¹. They're expected to be caring, empathetic, and compassionate, yet strong, authoritative, and decisive.

 

This double standard can lead to women politicians being perceived as insincere or manipulative, even when they're simply navigating the complexities of politics. In reality, women politicians are not inherently different from the average woman; they're just as diverse and multifaceted as any group of people.

 

It's also important to recognize that politicians, regardless of gender, often tailor their messages to appeal to their audience. This doesn't necessarily mean they're being dishonest; it's a strategic move to build support and achieve their goals.

 

Ultimately, it's the individual's character, values, and actions that matter, not their gender. We should focus on evaluating politicians based on their policies, track record, and leadership style, rather than making assumptions based on gender.

 

 

That sounds like an AI generated response. 🤔

 

Last I checked were not evaluating any politician. They all are failures.