Commentary: Why I Don't Intend To Watch the Democratic Debates

1. 25 candidates for POTUS in the same party at one time is called one thing: overcrowding the boat, which will eventually sink it. To rock the boat and run for POTUS is one matter. To, (whether deliberately or inadvertently) overcrowd the boat especially on rough-enough seas, let alone when you have the same basic ideas as everyone else on the boat, is another.
2. Some of them really aren't running for POTUS, anyway. To those not really running for POTUS, with all due respect and seriously, please get off of the boat and vie for what you really want in some other way—you can get power, 15 minutes of fame, a chance to be the running mate of the ultimate nominee, another idea for a way to continue to speak out against Trump, or whatever else in another way.
3. While I can bipartisanly work with those whom are at least being honest in remaining on Trump's real ship in continuing to speak out and support Special Counselor Mueller, I—as I covered on a Twitter thread—am a Republican for a reason—and, for example, to have "Medicare for All" and exclude everyone but "people of color, women, and immigrants" (as Ben Jealous implied that he wanted to do) in the name of progressivism isn't it (and people like him are increasingly becoming representative of the Democratic Party, as they claim to want to include all groups while they even go as far as to embrace radical movements such as "Black Lives Matter", radical feminism with free-for-all abortions, and even the Abolish ICE movement in quite a few cases—and which, might I add, is no better than turning ICE into a Neo Gestapo, as abolishing ICE altogether instead of reforming it would also hurt asylum seekers and other legal immigrants as well as DREAmers). Besides, I've seen how RINO Trump is still the far-left Democrat that he ever was—and the Neo-Tammany Hall type at that—and is trying to destroy the GOP—I'm not, so to speak, going to jump the ship on which I currently sail and jump onto the ship of the person whom's trying to destroy the ship on which I'm riding. 
4. I'm waiting to see who the Republican nominee is, and I'm certainly doing another write-in vote if Trump ends up being the nominee after all—and especially if after Special Counselor Mueller testifies and Congress decides to not to allow him to indict Trump, I'm doing a write-in vote. I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary last time, and I'm not voting for RINO Trump or an open Democrat this time—and I skipped some ballot questions last time because I wasn't sure whether the Republican in question was a Trumpite RINO or an actual Republican.

In conclusion, then, for me as a Republican to watch an overcrowded boat be at risk for sinking, anyway, while some of the 25 different people on the boat go for spotlight grabs would be a waste of my time, and especially because the boat is Trump's real boat, anyway.

¹PS ICE is absolutely being turned into a Neo Gestapo when it's depriving children and vulnerable adults as well as every other immigrant at detention centers of basic hygiene items, dignity, and other human rights, not to mention because a xenophobic illegitimate POTUS is currently in charge of ICE. Besides, as I've said, the immigrants are the figurative guinea pigs for Trump's real goal—to target especially Jews (myself included) and build a wall to keep us in more than keep others out—and his roundups are also practices for his real aspirations.

So in re detention centers being turned into modern-day concentration camps, AOC is right—and I as a Jew surely am not jumping onto a ship whose Alt Right (Modern Far Left in re nationalist socialism) wants to murder me on one hand, and whose Far Left on the other hand wants a "two-state solution" (basically, for the State of Israel to be destroyed—as if Anti-Zionist and Haredi-posing-as-chiloni Netanyahu and the Agudat Yisra'el-Shas-Likud-UTJ-Yisra'el Beitenu coalition aren't doing that enough, and even trying more to do so than the "Palestinians" are).

On a Wilkes-Barre High School Debate, Fragmented Computers, and Segregation

I think that Vice President Walker knows what he's saying. Besides, the two schools have clearly worked together in the past (I did my research here.), and consolidating them would just make their working together (among other things) permanent. Also, think about Coughlin-Meyers JSHS like a computer: if you don't want a fragmented computer with too many files in the first place, you don't want what could easily be one school continuing to be two schools. In addition, Vice President Walker (quite literally) is putting the schoolboard's money where his mouth is: for the people whom actually want to have the concept of school choice, he's giving it to them.

As far as segregation, real segregation "is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age or sex"¹. By the way, I as well know what I'm saying²: any of my ancestors and their relatives who attended Coughlin³ didn't get a choice as to whether they'd be openly of their ethnic group ("race") or open about their religious choices—consolidating schools and giving school choices are as related to bigotedly segregating as defragging and cleaning up computers is: they aren't! Let me know, though, when saving taxpayer money and real-estate space, and giving school choice are related to—for example—being implicitly and explicitly hostile to Jews on ethnic and/or religious grounds, and then we'll talk! 

¹Or ability, though never mind us people with disabilities, again 🙄

²Except apparently about people with disabilities—but hey, what's new? 🙄 Ableism is ingrained into the culture and as old as the Anti Semitism that my ancestors faced—when a third of the angels fell, they were intent as bringing ableism into the to-be-created world as they were to bring Anti Semitism, perhaps especially because they foreknew that many Jews would have disabilities.

³Paradoxically enough, the one who I know attended Coughlin ended up being a busha and a boged—never mind that he was one of the ones given a Yiddish diminutive and a second-generation pogrom survivor whose first-generation-pogrom-survivor mother was closest to him and my other great-granduncle whom she gave a Yiddish diminutive. In his (and the other great-granduncle's) eyes, exploiting another one of my great-granduncles—and probably my great-great-grandma, too—was totally okay!

In Response To A Friend's Facebook Post, And Then In Response Another Person's Replies (With Some Additions)

I maintain that "Coker" (1977) needs to be overturned. After all, being in support of capital punishment for rape is being pro life. As I chimed in on the original post, and then replied to the friend of the friend (names omitted):

I myself am pro life, and I guarantee that rape would happen less were "Coker" (1977) overturned. An overturn would effect an automatic overturning of "Kennedy" (2008), by the way, and I say that rapists should face the possibility of capital punishments since they've all but left their victims physically dead. Of course, the rapists who also physically murder their victims (including by effecting victims' deaths due to STDs, suicides, and fatal injuries besides STDs) also ought to face the possibility of capital punishments. 

I don't want to see rapists be able to take lives anymore, and I don't advocate capital punishment for rapists lightly. In my own families' cases:

1.  I'm pretty sure that one of my mom's sisters was raped either by a priest before she was a teen or even by Father Maskell himself (Mom denies the possibility since my aunt apparently defended him, though my grandmother and I don't deny it—I even told Mom that she could've been Stockholmed,) That aunt, by the way, died nine years and a week ago due to alcoholism that onset when she was 13 (She was born in November 1951 and was the first graduate of Keough, which opened in 1965.). She also told my sister that she liked Jesus, but not the Church. Looking back and even right after she died,  I knew that (when I saw the pictures at the funeral home) she was a pretty-enough young girl for perverted priests to want to target her.
2. A cousin of my dad (Ziggy Churnetski) participated in a gang rape in the 1920s (and he was sadly in prison for only five years and had to pay a fine of only $500. He even eventually married, and I have no idea whether his wife was his victim.) 
3. Another cousin of my dad raped someone else and murdered another person. (I wish that his victim's sister, Lana Wood, would come out with it, by the way—as I've said, there's something in that Danilovich water, and I should've figured that rape wouldn't escape our side of the family. Ziggy was Great-Granddad's once-removed cousin.)
4. In short, I've heard about and seen what rapists can do to people.

I also don't find abortion acceptable in any case (though I used to find abortion acceptable in cases of rape and incest—God decided that my being fully pro life would take my now-ex younger stepsister, of all people, pointing out to me that abortion would be an unfair punishment to the baby, and she wasn't exactly the best stepsister in the world). In fact, if for nothing else, keeping a rape-conceived baby might be a practical measure in terms of getting a DNA sample from him or her to figure out or confirm who raped his or her mother. Besides, there are many couples whom want to adopt children; and my mom's cousin's husband ended up adopting her child when they as a couple could not have children.

(By the way, I hope that my now-ex stepsisters can see that my sister and I weren't talking slanderously when we pointed out what my dad is like—and even though, thank God, he never sexually abused us, verbal and other non-sexual abuse is still abuse—and my now-ex stepmother seems to have seen that. Incidentally, I feel sorry for my dad at this point—he's repeated the "Hurt people hurt people" cycle, and his life choices have caught up to him.)

Can The LGBTQ Militants Please Cool It—And Can the Proselytizy Non-LGBT Militants Cool It?

1. I'm a Jewish Christian whom believes that homosexuality is a thorn in the flesh and not a choice. In fact, I've argued that Paul (who got his words right from Jesus, per Galatians 1:6-12) may have struggled with it—as the "Pharisee of Pharisees" and Gamali'el's impudent student (cf. Shabbat 30b), Paul would've known the yet-to-be codified Yevamot 63b and and Sifra Acharei Mot 9:8—and, so to speak, that's a hard pill to swallow. Paul even asked God to take the thorn in the flesh away three times, and the word "flesh" in Greek can mean something related to the flesh or carnality. By the way, an example of orientation and lifestyle being two different matters would be in regards to Paul if he was homosexual. Also, that's why some get LGBTQ conversion therapy in any case—they don't want to be LGBTQ people, and they want God to heal them if He wills.
2. I've talked about that relative's high school classmate whom later chose to be celibate—and he became celibate once he became a strong Christian, and he even dated a girl in high school in part to try to be straight. By the way, Jesus did say that marriage is between one man and one woman when the Pharisees asked him if divorce violated Torah (cf. Matthew 19:1-10. Also cf. 19:11-13 on eunuch celibacy, which can apply to other kinds of celibacy as well).
3. Contrary to what some argue, the First, Ninth, and 14th Amendments give no room to deny the right to same-sex marriage in at least this day and age—we go either back to the nominally-Christian days or allow freedom of religion for everyone. We don't proselytize like, for instance, one of Frank Peretti's "Prophet"—sharing our faith, yes; forcibly trying to make disciples, no. Peretti's character "Prophet" Barrett—and Peretti himself, by having his character stay at the rally and encouraging real people to do that—needed to back off. Shaking the dust off of one's feet and letting God grow the seed (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:5-8) don't mean nothing—reasonless words are not included in the Bible. Besides, even Lot—whom rebuked the Sodomites—didn't threaten to kill the Sodomites, despite that he judged righteously (cf. Proverbs 31:9, Matthew 7:1-3, 1 Corinthians 5). Also, we're to judge ourselves as well as others without hypocrisy—that's what "judge not lest be judged" and "make sure of your calling and election" mean.
4. I have LGBTQ family members and friends, and I don't force them to be straight or celibate LGBTQ types.
5. If LGBTQ people want to take risks (about which the CDC warns), that's their business—that doesn't mean that you can't point out that even the secular CDC warns that there are medical risks (e.g., exposure to higher rates of STDs) that same-sex couples take.
6. Hatred of people whom practice certain religions sometimes come from the proselytizy ones that give the religious groups as wholes bad names.
7. Everybody in the LGBTQ orientation-and-lifestyle debate needs to stop taking each other's words out of context, much less use reading-comprehension and listening skills in the first place.

In conclusion, the LGBTQ proselytizers and the Non-LGBTQ proselytizers can back off and understand that orientation is different from lifestyle, we're to judge ourselves and others without hypocrisy, etc.. 

A Poll Regarding The First Trump-Clinton Debate

Are you going to bed after the debate or staying up to watch the post-debate coverage? #debates #debates2016 #debatenight

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) September 27, 2016

A Poll Regarding The 2016 Presidential Debates

Will you be watching the #2016PresidentialDebates?

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) September 25, 2016

Ideally, 1,000 votes would be recorded.

Via Survey System Sample Size Calculator with both the 2014 population numbers and the 2016 population numbers (The 2016 sample size surprised me! I would've thought that a bigger sample was needed!)