The Consequences of Biden | National Review

SSgt Charles Ankner - I appreciate your compliments, but I'm far from an intellectual. Just a good ol' boy from the hills of Tennessee. Thank you for some very valid thoughts on this subject. In a short and concise a manner I can frame it... I believe the Constitution was an amalgam of "Enlightenment" philosophy (some of which is not 100% compatible with fundamentalist Christianity), and compromises that recognized the many different sects and beliefs within the newly formed Republic. Some attempt to twist this into a "barrier" through which faith cannot pass... others ignore the fact that it functionally precludes one view from ousting another. For myself, we are "in this world" as Christians... but not "of this world". In that sense, I do not require the Government pass laws that suppress other ideologies ... but I do require my government not seek to suppress those I hold, or tolerate actions that do. There are of course beliefs which are not compatible with such "compromise" in any form. Clearly, those cannot be at peace with a Constitutional view either.

From the perspective of someone who was brought up in the 80's. We , as a country, have moved steadily to the left. Abortion, civil rights, same sex marriage, divorce, domestic violence, opening traditionally male professions to women (Law enforcement, fire fighting, military). In the 80's and early 90's my views and beliefs were considered far left. I advocated for LGBT to be in the military, marriage, survivor benefits, to the detriment of my career (my belief has always been if they can do the job, who they sleep with is irrelevant), today, I am considered an alt right racist, transphobe, and a host of other isms/ists for not supporting the plethora of different genders, believing in a secure border, believing that immigrants should be vetted, that if you have not transitioned, there should be a third bathroom, that biology trumps mental beliefs, just to name a few. My views, stances, and beliefs have not changed, what changed is the left.

LCDR Joshua Gillespie - I really cannot disagree, or find fault, with most of what you have written here. My only reply would be that most of the racism I grew up with was very subtle in nature. Inappropriate nick names for children, 'harmless' jokes, and so on. Go in peace, Sir.

SGT Edward Wilcox - You too.

Agree completely. The danger of a one-party system, and the removal of existing checks and balances (e.g., the minority filibuster), is greater than any single policy shift. Policies and laws can always be repealed if the People find them flawed. But a single party system without balance...will always seek to retain and add to its own power...and will not bow to the People, but will expect the People to kneel.

Col Joseph Lenertz - You mean, like we had under Reagan and Bush 1 and Bush 2?

SGT Edward Wilcox - No. Neither one advocated for removing checks and balances.

SSgt Charles Ankner - That is a sad thought. I am not there yet.