Dates of the Presidential Debates and Feast days.

A friend sent this:

They scheduled the 3 presidential debates.

The first one is the feast of St. Michael the Archangel (Sept. 29)

The second one is on the feast of St. Teresa of Avila. (Oct. 15)

The third one is on the feast of St. John Paul II. (Oct. 22)

There is one vice presidential debate scheduled and it’s on the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. (Oct. 7)

Please share this post!
Share

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in I'm just askin'... and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Dates of the Presidential Debates and Feast days.

  1. JonPatrick says:

    There are those whose political acumen I respect, who say there won’t be any debates. It is pretty clear that Joe Biden would not be up to dealing with a truly spontaneous exchange. The only way I can see this working is if they leak the questions in advance, and if he has someone coaching him via an earpiece. Probably easier to do if they insist on him debating remotely from his basement in Wilmington rather than in person, but I doubt Trump would go along with that.

  2. NOCatholic says:

    Father Z didn’t say this, but I will.

    The debates falling on these feast days, is no coincidence.

    St Michael, St Teresa of Avila, St John Paul II, Our Lady of the Rosary — pray for us!

  3. SKAY says:

    Kamala is already talking about what the “Harris” / Biden administration will do.

    I am praying daily for our great country and our current President.

  4. Bob says:

    JonPatrick, I would have to agree and say there won’t be any PRESIDENTIAL debates, but my thinking is there will be Vice-Presidential debates. Biden sorry to say, is not capable of debating head to head with anyone never mind Trump. The people propping up the former vice-president as the head of the Dems do not seem to have any compassion or pity for Biden and his dementia. It’s sad. They will find a way to keep him from debating no matter the excuse and will be pushing for Harris/Pence debate for she is the only one of that team who may have a chance of “shining” if you will. We are in a sad state in this country.

    In response to the dates the debates are scheduled, if there ARE debates and Trump/Biden attend then like NOCatholic says, those feast days are not a coincidence in my view. God does not joke around and there are no coincidences when God is involved. Remember this: Trump was not suppose to win by any odds and he did. I had never seen so many people pray for an unknown candidate to win as I saw in 2016. Not only did he win, without God on his side there is no mortal on Earth who could have withstood 4+ years of outright abuse and attempts to oust a president and still accomplish what’s he has. Those feast days were chosen, not by Republicans and Democrats but by Heaven.

  5. JustaSinner says:

    Joe Biden couldn’t get out of the dark with a lit flashlight, so I agree, no Trump/Biden Comedy Hours.

  6. hwriggles4 says:

    I hope voters realize how dangerous Harris would be as Vice President. Tulsi Gabbard had enough chutzpah to really call out Harris during the presidential debates (yes, really, and Tulsi earned my respect for calling out Harris). Tulsi also called out Harris for calling the Knights of Columbus a “hate group.”

    Voters, please exercise common sense. Harris favors open borders, Medicare for all, late term abortion, and I think she favors student loan forgiveness (I paid mine back – even had a low interest rate, and payment didn’t begin until six months after graduation). Those of us over 40 will not see retirement until 75 if these things happen.

    Here’s another thing – please don’t stay home on election day. Voters may not like any candidates, but please don’t stay home – vote for the lesser of the two evils.

  7. WmHesch says:

    Counting and legal challenges must stop by Dec. 8th… and the electoral votes will officially be tallied on Jan. 6th by VP Pence.

    This is the year to pull out all the stops with traditional Vigils for Immaculate Conception and Epiphany

  8. NOCatholic says:

    @hwriggles4: Fully agree about Tulsi Gabbard, she was the least bad of the Democratic group of candidates.

    Biden and Harris (and yes, there will be Presidential debates, Biden might be sketchy but he will show up, he needs to, to be credible) are definitely bad, reliably so. But (and here is where I’m in the minority on this blog), Trumps’ insecure, undisciplined outlook that sees only friends and enemies instead of citizens of a democracy, is also unfit and capable of catastrophe, despite the good he has done. If Trump becoming President was God’s providence, then it was also His providence to prevent Trump from catastrophe. As it is, we have not been that far off.

    I won’t stay home on Election Day — there are plenty of down ballot races, and the Democrats need to be kept from controlling the Senate, but I don’t know whether Trump or Biden will be the “least bad” going forward. Sorry, but that’s the way I see it.

    Don’t just go vote. Pray, pray pray, for our country. We should all be agreed on that. I’ve been praying the Rosary Novena since the Assumption for our country.

  9. Semper Gumby says:

    NOCatholic wrote: “…but I don’t know whether Trump or Biden will be the “least bad” going forward.”

    Fair, no one knows the situation in, say, 2023. Though, it’s easy to distinguish Pres. Trump’s record from what Biden and Harris plan to inflict on this country.

  10. WVC says:

    @NOCatholic – you seem very eager to encourage people to not vote for Trump even if they don’t vote for Biden. You certainly take every opportunity to air your personal animosity against President Trump. As Semper Gumby said, when one compares the actual record and the official platforms – it’s pretty darn obvious to see which one is “least bad.”

  11. W0BPH says:

    Also note that November 2, All Souls Day, is election day vigil! We will be (barring utter chaos in the cities) at an EF Mass at Our Lady of Good Council, KCMO.

  12. NOCatholic says:

    @WVC: What I have is, not “personal animosity” but a considered judgement (opinion, if you prefer) that Donald Trump’s personality and tmeperament make him unsitable and risky to exercise the powers of the President of the United States. That is an entirely separate issue from his intentions and his actions thus far. God’s providence has shileded us, thus far, from that risk while allowing us the benefits of his actions to safeguard life, and religious liberty. And we all agree that Biden, because of his intentions, is unsuitable to be President.

    I don’t know how you get to animosity. If anything, the last time I aired this on Father Z’s blog, and provided witnesses to back up my concerns, I saw animosity directed toward those people — and even to me personally (not from you).

    Yes, not voting for either Trump or Biden is a legitimate option, as long as it is understood that one of those two will win (and as long as you vote in downballot races and not just stay home). No harm in pointing that out. If you take that as “encouragement,” fine. But regardless, we should all be praying for our country, no matter who we vote for.

  13. WVC says:

    @NOCatholic – I should explain my use of “personal animosity” – it appears that your opinion about President Trump is formed not by his actions as President nor his stated intent but almost exclusively by the personal testimony of those who have attacked his character. When one relies on character assassination as the primary form of argument it should come as no surprise that those called upon to provide testimony will then also have their personal characters attacked. It also seems that the personal testimony of those who have praised his character (of which there is a significant amount from many different walks of life) don’t have any influence on how you’ve formed your opinion of Mr. Trump. Yes, God’s providence shields us from much, but to assume God has somehow shielded us from a complete catastrophe that Trump would have clearly caused otherwise is to treat Trump unfairly. It’s arguing on hypotheticals impossible to prove or disprove.

    Regarding Biden, I think it’s clear based on my observations of his own actions to say not only are his intentions to be condemned but his actual physical and mental fitness are highly suspect (not in terms of character quirks, like Trump, but in actual cognitive powers, as in those suffering from dementia). Whether it’s a formal type of mental deterioration, that normally associated with senility, or side effects of the open brain surgery he had back in the day, I’m not qualified to say. But it’s not hard to watch Mr. Biden in action and be able to discern he clearly has lost some level of his grip on reality. If the Presidential debates actually happen (I will not be surprised if they don’t), it should be fascinating to watch Joe Biden attempt to maintain mental integrity the entire time. Right now he can’t seem to even handle scripted questions and answers via teleprompter from the safety of his own basement and practically flees from press conferences so as not to be forced to answer unscripted questions.

    If one wants to talk about Mr. Biden’s personal character, there’s many a closet full of scandalous skeletons that can be examined (especially in the Ukraine), but it’s not necessary.

    That Biden, even if he were to serve a full term, would be able to stand against the incredibly angry and energized Left with AOC and her squad at its head is to presume upon God’s Providence to work quadruple overtime in the near future. And I think we can agree that the current Left in this country is rabidly anti-Christian, anti-White, anti-heterosexual, and anti-Life. They are defined not by what they support but by what they hate.

    And we haven’t even mentioned Supreme Court justices.

    The truth is there’s a great deal of damage a bad actor can do in the office of the President. Remember, we went from tacit approval of homosexual relationships right past legalized gay “marriage” for the entire country straight to transgender read-a-longs with kids in public libraries in 8 years of Obama. There really isn’t a great deal of good that a good actor can do as President in terms of the Culture War (if we even want to still call it a War – at this point I think it’s more helpful to recognize that our side has entirely lost and, at best, has a 700+ year Reconquista ahead of us). However, just as last time, Trump, at the very least, buys normal, sane Christians in this country who just want to raise their children in the Faith another four years of breathing room. That’s worth a lot for someone like me who has 7 kids. I’m dreading when the Democrats in my own state turn their sights on us homeschoolers.

    If there are folks who still find Trump so repugnant that they cannot support him, they do not deserve any kind of condemnation. However, to suggest that a Trump second term is just as evil as a Harris/Biden administration is simply wrong and assumes those of us who do support Trump are supporting an evil just as potent as that of the anti-American Left.

  14. NOCatholic says:

    @WVC: Thanks for the clarification. But it appears you are now projecting “personal animosity” on the people I identified previously in support of my views. Certainly. neither Mary Trump nor John Bolton are beyond being personal (Ms Trump in particular being a family member). But both are professionals, Mary Trump a psychologist who observed her uncle Donald Trump up close, and John Bolton who has worked under several Presidents in formulating national security policy. Dismissing their arguments as “character assassination” is a bit extreme.

    In any case, I had come to the same conclusions they did as early as 2016. I did not rely on them, but cited them publicly as support. It appears you would rather not believe that they can be objective observers, or that Trump has flaws that impact his suitability to be President.

    And both candidates have problems in Ukraine. You touched in Biden’s (and I largely agree with your assessment of him). But we all know, or should, know how Trump subordinated US foreign policy and military aid to Ukraine to serve his personal political interests. I argue not from hypotheticals, but observable personality traits plus his actions. While I affirm he has done much good, especially with the judicial nominations, that’s not his whole story.

    “However, to suggest that a Trump second term is just as evil as a Harris/Biden administration is simply wrong and assumes those of us who do support Trump are supporting an evil just as potent as that of the anti-American Left.”

    Not my intent to accuse anyone of “supporting evil”. Between Trump and Biden, they both have serious problems but in ways that don’t line up in opposition cleanly, so the choice between them, or neither of them, was difficult. I don’t blame anyone who sees the same evidence I do and comes to a different conclusion. But I am dismayed by a view of Trump that sees no problems or dangers at all, and judges solely on Trump’s positions versus Biden’s. We are voting not for issues, but for people. A President needs to have character and integrity as well as the right views on issues, including life and other moral issues.

  15. Semper Gumby says:

    WVC: Good points.

    NOCatholic: You are now accusing WVC of “personal animosity” simply because he is communicating a different perspective. Calm down. Your insistence in this and previous discussions on trumpeting two books by “professionals” has met with a solid counter-argument by others. Them’s the breaks sometimes.

    You highlight that both of your authors are “professionals.” Okey-dokey: Dr. Josef Mengele was a professional, so was Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Your Argument by Label is unpersuasive.

    Furthermore, note that there are also professionals who support Pres. Trump, and two books titled A Catholic Vote for Trump and The Catholic Case for Trump- which are in addition to the Victor Davis Hanson book I recommended to you several weeks ago.

    “But I am dismayed by a view of Trump that sees no problems or dangers at all, and judges solely on Trump’s positions versus Biden’s.”

    You can alleviate your dismay by, again, grasping the fact that others differ from you in opinion and perspective. Every commenter here need not purchase a ticket on your Bash Trump train- particularly when Trump supporters are routinely shot, stabbed and beaten.

    “We are voting not for issues, but for people.”

    You are, again, presuming to speak for the entire electorate. Do not be surprised by pushback. Those “issues” which you dismiss are quite important to many people.

    Now, it is true that people comprise an Administration. As our host and others have pointed out numerous times here for months consider, for example, SCOTUS nominations when deciding between a Trump administration and a Biden-Harris administration. Which also means…consider the downside of a Biden-Harris victory and the Warlord of CHAZ as the next Secretary of Defense. Cheers.

  16. NOCatholic says:

    @Semper Gumby: WVC can speak for himself if he wants. I can’t help noticing you are fond of complaining about my “presumption.” You seem to take it personally that I (to adopt a phrase from you) am not on the “Trump train” and am not shy about expressing it. Not that it matters, but I did view a video where Victor Davis Hanson discussed his views about Donald Trump. I disagreed with him and with you, just as you clearly want to disagree with people like Mary Trump and John Bolton. (Your mention of other “professionals” is a red herring).

    Very well, we disagree. As you say, we differ on opinion and perspective. “Them’s the breaks sometimes.”

    I won’t engage in extended dialog with you, as it would likely be pointless. But I will say this. You object to the phrase, “We are voting not for issues, but for people” and call it — again — presumption. But that’s a fact, not an opinion. Will “pro-life” versus “pro-abortion” appear on your ballot? Donald Trump and Joe Biden will appear on mine (along with a write-in blank).

  17. NOCatholic says:

    I have to admit, the demise of Ruth Bader Ginsburg this evening resulting in a Supreme Court opening, will make things even more — interesting.

    May she rest in peace.

  18. Semper Gumby says:

    NOCatholic: Interesting.

    “WVC can speak for himself if he wants.”

    Of course. He doesn’t need your permission- just our host’s.

    “But I will say this. You object to the phrase, “We are voting not for issues, but for people” and call it — again — presumption. But that’s a fact, not an opinion.”

    Nope, it’s opinion. Expand your thinking beyond the names on the ballot. Some people detest Trump but will vote for him because of the issues, likewise with Biden-Harris. There is the act, then there is the motivation behind the act.

    “(Your mention of other “professionals” is a red herring).”

    Nope, have a look-see at “Argument by Label.” It will actually help you, as grasping that concept will assist you in sharpening your repetitive argument.

    “I won’t engage in extended dialog with you, as it would likely be pointless.”

    *chuckle*

  19. Semper Gumby says:

    NOCatholic wrote: “But we all know, or should, know how Trump subordinated US foreign policy and military aid to Ukraine to serve his personal political interests.”

    So let it be written, so let it be done- Pharaoh

  20. NOCatholic says:

    Testimonies from former Trump administration staffers keep coming out. I just listened to a podcast interview with Miles Taylor, former chief of staff of the Department of Homeland Security, describing the utter chaos of working in the Trump administration, thanks to Donald Trump. I’m never going to vote for Biden, but he made a case for not supporting Trump that’s hard to ignore.

    In voting for President, we are not just voting for their issues, but for the whole person. That’s a fact.
    Biden’s personal shortcomings, not just his objectively immoral views, have been discussed at length. Donald Trump is not free of serious problems, and no one who decides to vote for him should kid themselves about that.

  21. Semper Gumby says:

    NOCatholic wrote:

    “…no one who decides to vote for him should kid themselves about that.”

    A repetitive harangue.

    Consider your own comment from today under a different post:

    “…an individual responsibility and choice.”

  22. WVC says:

    @NOCatholic – Speaking for myself (!!) I honestly don’t have that much interest in this topic. However, you keep trying to make a case against Trump at every opportunity, which is why you’re provoking responses here in the comment threats. Whether it’s your intent or not, you continue to try to represent support for Trump as an evil equivalent to supporting Biden. I can’t possibly guess at your reasons for doing so, but it’s not going to win you many pals on this website. It’s also not true.

    The point I’ve tried to make but which I apparently still haven’t communicated well is that you are making a personal judgment about a man’s character based upon the testimony of others. You haven’t met the man (I can safely assume) nor had any meaningful interactions with those who directly know him. You’re taking, as indisputable testimony, the word of folks you also haven’t met, so long as they agree with your presumption that Trump is a bad person. You dismiss out of hand the testimony of other people whom you haven’t met if it goes against your presumption (really, there are a lot of people in various field, professional and otherwise, who have spoken very highly of Trump). At this point, it’s simply not an argument. It’s really little more than gossiping.

    The case folks have made against both Bolton and Mary Trump is that there are reasons to doubt their testimony as being unbiased. The testimony of many other ex-staffers are also difficult to accept as unbiased, especially the anonymous ones. Having worked in and with the Federal government for a long time, I would say with confidence that many of the Federal employees are very liberal, even within the DoD. What they perceive as chaos or disorder may actually be that or it may be a perception resulting from their own political disagreement with a new direction taking place within their department or it might just be flat out lies. In certain cases, long existing inefficiencies or biases have been rooted out, and that disruption has caused many who were comfortable with the “old way of doing things” to be exasperated – that doesn’t mean change wasn’t warranted.

    As a counter-balance, there are many other folks, both professional and personal, who have testified that Trump is doing a fantastic job and is a decent bloke. My own Father-In-Law, himself a Never-Trumper, admitted to me that his dealings with different medical groups (he’s somewhat high up in the medical profession) have revealed the Trump administration’s response to the Coronavirus was more organized and cut through the red tape faster than he would have ever believed possible. It pained him to admit it, and he still doesn’t like Trump, but he had to be honest about the Trump administration which worked with the medical community, the scientific experts, and the representatives of private industry to do what was being recommended. Dr. Fauci (whom I personally can’t stand) has repeatedly testified that President Trump has been extremely cooperative and supportive, even when it’s clear that they personally don’t think much of each other.

    To sum up – you don’t have any reasonable objection with Trump’s platform nor do you have any reasonable objection to his past performance. You only object to your reading of the personal traits of someone you haven’t met, and you’ve confirmed your opinion from the testimony of other folks you haven’t met (and whom people here have cast reasonable doubt with regard to those witnesses objectivity). That’s simply not a solid case upon which to draw a comparison with Harris/Biden who openly support evil, have indicated they will do all in their power to further that which is evil, and who are on the record as having actively supported evil in the recent and distant past.

    Even if it’s a vote for a person and not policies, it’s a case of a flawed human being who has openly committed to trying to do good on one side and a flawed (possibly senile) human being who has openly committed himself to supporting evil on the other side. Still not much of a choice.

    And now there’s definitely an empty judge’s chair at stake . . .

Comments are closed.