This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Any real convictions?
Does anyone doubt that Trump would support abortion on demand, open borders, and socialism if it benefited him personally to do so? The simplest explanation for everything Trump does is in terms of his ego.
Trump believes in nothing other than his own ego. He'll say one thing at 10 AM and the exact opposite at 2 PM. I've even watched him contradict himself in the same sentence! Next to "cannot be trusted" in the dictionary is a picture of Trump.
We've seen multiple videos and articles put together where the current Democratic champions of our current partisan impeachment were appalled at the very concept of a partisan impeachment when the target was a Democrat. Politicians are slimy snakes whose positions are weather vanes. Voters aren't much better when it comes to their willingness to apply equal standards to both sides.
This will get me in trouble, no doubt, but the Apostle Paul says in Phillipians that regardless of people's motivations in preaching the gospel of Christ, whether out of love or some pretense, Christ is still preached, and for that he rejoiced.
Imperfect vessel though he is, Trump gives conservatives many things to rejoice over, such as the appointment of non-progressive judges. So whether Trump had an honest conviction on something, or whether some Democrat made him mad and he is governing out of revenge on Democrats, or whether he saw an opportunity to get the world talking about him, the policies he is choosing to enact are still often friendly to conservatives.
Politics is about getting your way, not canonizing a saint. Absolutely no one will vote against their own interests.
Were you ever correct! As long as you are quoting Paul, might I throw this into the pot?
"Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Be'lial?"
If there ever was a personification of "iniquity" in American history, his name would be Donald Trump. No Christian has any business associating with such.
No Christian has any business associating with such.
So no Christian should ever vote? I could count on one hand the number of presidential candidates I've seen that I would trust with a secret or babysitting my children or having the passwords to my bank accounts. Those seeking power are almost never the ones who should have it.
Out of curiosity, what advice would you give a Christian for the 2020 election who genuinely believes progressive policies are often harmful, believes that the Democratic Party and their progressive allies are hostile toward Christian beliefs, and then has a choice to vote for either the above or Donald Trump, whose policies they find to be less harmful to the country and friendlier to the faith? Don't vote for the policies they favor because Trump isn't a good guy?
I would advise such a person to either vote 3rd party or not vote at all. I myself disagree with many policies endorsed by the Democratic Party, but that is a far call from supporting an objectively evil person - what Reagan called an "evildoer". (We were discussing, after all, objectivity on another thread.)
You say Trump "isn't a good guy", but that is whitewashing the turd. He's not just "not a good guy" - he is an active and deliberate defiler and desecrator of all that is good, holy, and true.
"Do you plan on putting me into a gulag?" Pretty sure I don't have to ask Trump that one."
Yet it was Trump who authorized putting thousands of migrant workers into what are essentially concentration camps, and who forcibly separated young children from their mothers.
Legion of Logic: That which is good, even when done in the name of the Devil, is still done for the sake of God; and that which is evil, even when done in the name of God, is still done for the sake of the Devil.
It's funny, really. Donald Trump tells us he is a Republican, and so he is a Republican, even when he plans to build on other people's private land and institutes tariffs that harm the economy. He tells us he is a Christian, and so he is a Christian, even when he openly lusts after women, gives in to fits of rage, and shows little charity to refugees who come seeking asylum, or poorer areas of the country hit by disaster. He tells us he is a proud American, and so he is a proud American, even when he colludes with our enemies, alienates our allies, and even with a court packed in his favour, balks at the mere suggestion that the supreme law of the land can apply to himself. Yet whatever the Democrats say, they are lying and evil and not to be trusted, for they will surely doom us all.
People like Donald Trump can aid a good cause... in the *short* run. In the long run, associating your beliefs, your causes, with wickedness will taint them by association: if not in fact, then in the eyes of those whom you would convince to support you. Do you wish people to say, "Those Christians! Always talking about 'snatching women by the pussy'; such terrible people!" (Before you say it cannot happen to the Christian faith, I would point out how many people now associate Catholic priests with paedophilia. It has happened before, and will likely happen again.) I tell you, the best policy is not to support somebody because he tells you he is on your side, but only to support a person you believe is a good person. Do not fall into the common fallacy that all politicians are evil! Most politicians went into their career because they had a cause to support; if some of them have lost their way since, there are still many who have not, and others who can yet find their way once more.
Ignore what people call themselves. Do not look at the "D" or "R" that follows their name on the ballot, but take the time beforehand to study them. Look at their policies - not what they say their policies are, but the policies they have carried out. Look at their beliefs. Look at their actions in their personal life. There will, of course, be no candidate who agrees with you perfectly in all things; for all people are different, and have their own paths to follow. But find the best person from the entire selection, and actually *look*, instead of assuming from the start that one person is right and all others are wrong.
Perhaps, having done the research, having looked into all the candidates, you will still believe that Donald Trump is the best man for the job. In that instance, we will have to disagree; but so long as you have actually done the research, rather than nodding your head at the first person who asks you to follow in the name of your faith, I can *respect* such a choice, even if I believe it wrong. But there is no more virtue in supporting a man who simply says, "I am your leader"; than there is in a dog following its master.
Also, bmiller: Hillary isn't even running, and the only candidate who's supported anything like a gulag (namely, "detention centers") isn't a Democrat. You're not *thinking*, you're just *following*.
It's kind of embarrassing to see people who claim to be Christians think it's OK stretch the truth by claiming that US immigrant Service Processing Centers are the same as Soviet gulags.
Your posting is one of the most lucid, cogent, and powerful political statements I have read in a long time. I applaud you!
You are absolutely right about the perils of guilt by association. As a Catholic, I am constantly having to answer for the criminal actions of pedophile priests. If the weirdly cultish bond between Evangelicals and Trump is not somehow broken, then all of Christendom will suffer from conflating the Faith with the actions of a compulsive narcissist, a serial adulterer, a sexual assaulter (and probable rapist), a pathological liar, a friend and enabler of dictators everywhere, and a defiler of all that is good, holy, and true. You think the churches are emptying now? They'll be deserted after 4 more years of Trump!
In 2009, Michigan GOP chair Saul Anuzis infamously said, "There are two types of people, Democrats and Americans." Well. After the Republican Senate's refusal to even allow witnesses in their sham "trial", we can confidently say that there are only two types of people, Republicans and Americans.
Those are wise words, Jeremy. I said similar things in the 2016 election trying to get people to support any Republican but Trump. I even supported Jim Webb (D) over Trump. I ultimately sat out the 2016 election.
Your words work better when choosing a nominee, though. What percentage of people on either side do you think would realistically vote against all of their own policy preferences just because the other guy is more public with his moral failures and the media is more eager to highlight them?
Republicans in the Senate had no constitutional obligation but to judge the partisan rush hit job House Democrats sent them. If it was as ironclad a case as Pelosi and Schiff made it out to be, then additional witnesses should not be required. Not the Senate's place to do the House's job for them simply because the House cried over using the courts and impeached instead.
Hmmm.. I know it was a long time ago, but I voted against my own policy preferences when I supported Barry Goldwater (showing my age here). But I thought (and still do) that he was an honorable man and I would be proud to have him represent me.
I'm glad to know that Legion considers arcane minutiae of "constitutional obligations" to supercede the actual pursuit of truth. Reminds me of the Pharisees who condemned Jesus for healing on the Sabbath (horrors!).
I know. I LOVE telling people that I am the only person I know who voted for both George McGovern and Barry goldwater, and then watch them try to do the math.
1972 was the first presidential election I voted in, and I was dead set against the war in Vietnam, so I voted for the candidate who had pledged to end the damned thing. But I always had a soft spot in my heart for Goldwater. He was the real deal. I may not have agreed with him on many issues, but I knew he would never lie to me. He said what he meant and meant what he said.
He was the real deal. I may not have agreed with him on many issues, but I knew he would never lie to me. He said what he meant and meant what he said.
You knew him personally. How could you vote for a person you knew who would do this?
Today I stood at the graveside of Philip Berrigan, a man who stood up to the powers that be, to the world-engirdling military-industrial complex, to the false gods of empire and violence, to the “law” of the United States, to brainwashed and ignorant public opinion, and against the global culture of death. A man who dedicated his life to peace, justice, nonviolence, brotherhood, to all that is good, true, and beautiful, to love… to God.
Today, he lies in a simple grave in a poorly maintained, unmanicured cemetery in one of the poorest neighborhoods of Baltimore. A junk yard is right across the street. A gnarly tree shades his six feet of Earth, his only comfort now.
I don’t think I prayed. I was too overwhelmed. I stood silent for a while, made the Sign of the Cross, and thought about what greatness lay before me. Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governors have their grand marble monuments lit up at night and surrounded by ornate gardens and chiseled quotations from their speeches. Poor Philip’s stone was carved simply with “Love One Another”. I didn’t actually cry then, but I am now as I write this.
So in the end, who is better off? I’ll take Philip’s simple stone over the gaudy mausoleums lining Constitution Avenue in D.C. any day. We truly do not deserve to have shared the same planet with such as this.
Berrigan, while still a priest, married former nun Elizabeth McAlister in 1969 by mutual consent.[3] In 1973, they legalized their marriage, and were subsequently excommunicated by the Catholic Church.
At the risk of engaging in blatant "whataboutism", you could say the same thing about the mindset of rightists. Instead of remaining faithful to their marital vows, they routinely and regularly engage in multiple divorces and/or serial adulteries.
So what? Anyone that disagrees with leftists are hyperpartisan according to leftists. If leftists wish to admire traitors, it says a lot about leftists.
Thanks. That illustrates another observation of mine.
Leftists subordinate everything to the political (including faith). My claim was that he was a traitor to his faith but your response was about the political order.
Priests make a vow of celibacy. This priest not only did not honor his vow, he did not honorably withdraw from the priesthood and therefore his vow, but instead violated his vow while remaining a priest. The analogy you used of people divorcing and marrying again failed since this situation is analogous to taking a second wife while still being married.
Now I suspect if this priest had conservative views or even no political views at all, you would agree that he was a horrible priest and a dishonorable man. Instead, since he was a leftist radical, you consider him a great man.
Though married, in the tradition of Frenchmen of higher social class, Dumas had numerous affairs (allegedly as many as forty). In his lifetime, he was known to have at least four illegitimate children, although twentieth-century scholars found that Dumas fathered three other children out of wedlock.
It's interesting who you quote. Especially in this context.
I am surprised you do not honor the memory of Philip Berrigan. He was a staunch defender of life, from conception to natural death. He knew that abortion was a great evil, and preached uncompromisingly against it every day of his life. But I guess that must have been just "leftism", and so doesn't count.
Some might consider it to be a heroic virtue for a radical leftist priest to oppose murdering the innocent but I consider it just not being a heretic. I can only hope you would follow his example in this respect.
But I didn't accuse him of being a heretic. Just a traitor to his vows. And his vows were not to me or the state, but to God.
I worked up my first impressions from yesterday into a prose poem, in the style of Walt Whitman. I was utterly overwhelmed by my brief moments at Berrigan's grave, and still can't process them totally. I scarcely exaggerate in calling them a theophany. I cannot hold my feelings inside. I feel compelled to share them.
So here it is:
I left muddy footprints behind me as I approached the grave - it rained this morning. Not much to see here. St. Peter’s Cemetery is by no means picturesque. A simple stone marks the grave. Philip Francis Berrigan I read. Weeds, uncut grass, and unmanicured graves, scattered seemingly at random, make up the background.
That, and the Beep! Beep! Beep!
Of trucks backing into their spaces in the salvage yard right outside the fence, And the rumble of others leaving, having disgorged their load.
But silence is fitting here And I allow such noise no entry into my mind, my thoughts.
So I stood at the graveside of Philip Berrigan, a man who STOOD UP to the powers that be, to the world-engirdling military-industrial complex, to the false gods of empire and violence.. and war, to the “law” of the United States of America, to brainwashed and ignorant public opinion,
and who stood against the global culture of death.
A man who dedicated his life to peace, justice, nonviolence, brotherhood, to all that is good, true, and beautiful, to love… to God.
Today, Philip lies in his simple grave in one of the poorest neighborhoods of Baltimore. A gnarly tree shades his six feet of Earth, his only comfort now.
I don’t think I prayed. I was too overwhelmed. No Benedictus, no Magnificat, no Te Deum, (though their words would have been most appropriate) I stood silent for a while, made the Sign of the Cross, and thought about what greatness lay before me.
Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governors have their grand marble monuments lit up at night surrounded by ornate gardens with chiseled quotations from their (many) speeches. Poor Philip’s stone was carved simply with “Love One Another”. I didn’t actually cry then, but I am now as I write this.
Salvage. How fitting it is that the Salvage Yard lies so near. Philip dedicated his life to salvaging what he could from the wreckage of ignorance, hatred, violence, and war. How odd that what is salvaged from such is truth, peace, and love.
Damn it, I'm crying again.
I’ll take Philip’s simple stone over the gaudy imperialist mausoleums lining Capital Mall any day. We truly do not deserve to have shared the same planet with such as this.
My opinion is that until and unless Bernie registers as a Democrat, he has no business running for the party's nomination. He shouldn't even be on the ballot.
Victor is asking us here about convictions, which are ultimately based on a belief in objective morality. My conviction is that Sen. Sanders never had any ethical or moral right to compete for the Democratic nomination in the first place.
If you want to play in the game, then get on a team. Would you let some "generic" player get on the field when it's the Red Sox v. the Yankees? Of course you wouldn't!
On the other hand, maybe I need to reconsider. The DNC is practicing the ultimate in fairness by redistributing Bernie's points.
He should quit whining about how he earned them and how we're a democracy! From others according to their means to others according to their needs. Right?
On the one hand, the DNC giving Bernie Sanders, an independent, access to their resources has got to rankle.
On the other hand, Sanders could use their refusal as an excuse to indeed run as an independent. Guess who is absolutely guaranteed to win if he does that?
Looks to me like the Democrats are trying to steer him long enough for him to lose the nomination and then be more obligated to support the winner. On his own, he'll do nothing but split the left.
Up until today, I've been a loyal Biden supporter. But if he continues to stumble, I'll happily shift allegiance to Bloomberg. Sanders is a non-starter (with me). He'd be massacred in November, and my number one priority is to get Trump outa there!
On the other hand, Sanders could use their refusal as an excuse to indeed run as an independent. Guess who is absolutely guaranteed to win if he does that?
That's never gonna happen. Bernie is being paid off and is playing his role to lose but keep the most radical leftists in the Dem camp. I bet they either vote for Trump or don't vote at all. I have it on good authority if Bernie loses, they will "drag MSNBC's staff by their hair, one by one out of MSNBC, and burn them to death in the street."
bmiller said... The fact that Sanders won in only one county in Iowa (the largely urban Scott county) is telling.
According to the cheater cheater pumpkin eater DNC "vote counters".
Sure, because otherwise a left-wing Jew with a Brooklyn accent would do so well in Iowa. The fact that he and Buttegieg are practically tied indicates he would do well in the MidWest.
It's almost as if both parties suck, and which one sucks the most is entirely dependent upon which more closely aligns with one's own policy preferences.
How many people have you seen condemn both Trump and Pelosi for their behavior at the SOTU address? I have yet to see one. And a seemingly one hundred percent reliable indicator of who gets criticized is who the viewer voted for. Sad times indeed.
I've heard they haven't spoken to each other since that Syria discussion where they insulted each other. But regardless, they should have put that aside for the SOTU.
"How many people have you seen condemn both Trump and Pelosi for their behavior at the SOTU address?"
What is there to criticize Pelosi for? Considering the pile of falsehoods, half truths, and outright lies that the president had handed her, I thought she was quite restrained in merely tearing it up. Personally, I would have taken a match to it.
She refused to use the proper protocol in the formal introduction. Even John Boehner did that for Obama.
She acted like a child in the capacity as the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
She upset at least one of the guests by ripping up the speech, and insulted all of them by doing so.
She didn't applaud over good news for the country. Partisanship at its most disgusting.
Trump is responsible for none of those behaviors. That is entirely on Nancy Pelosi. I don't care if her copy of the speech was her face photoshopped onto a donkey with "neener neener" written on it, she acted like a petulant brat.
I'd be happy to describe Trump's behavior as well, if you feel I'm being hypocritical in my analysis. Both of them were pathetic.
How so? I saw nothing but decorum under fire. It's hard to show no reaction to a spate of non-stop lies.
"She didn't applaud over good news for the country."
The "good news" was all falsehood and/or half truths. EVERY BIT of good news that Trump trumpeted was attributable to his predecessor (a.k.a., Obama).
The bit of theater at the end was necessary for the health of the nation. Allowing such a travesty of a speech (worthy of Benito Mussolini) in the hallowed halls of our national capitol to go unanswered would itself have been truly inappropriate.
To quote Dante, "Ill manners were best courtesy to him." (Inferno, Canto XXIII)
Doesn't matter if someone thinks Obama "deserved" it. Obama and Boehner absolutely did not like each other, yet in their capacity as President and Speaker, they acted like adults at the SOTU. Nancy Pelosi acted like a juvenile moron trying to show off for her friends.
I saw nothing but decorum under fire.
Agreed, and decorum was under fire from Nancy Pelosi, among others.
It's hard to show no reaction to a spate of non-stop lies.
Even if it had been non-stop lies (it literally wasn't), no, no it is not hard to show no reaction to a lie. I personally know this for a fact, under circumstances much more personally impactful than she was facing. She was pathetic.
The "good news" was all falsehood and/or half truths.
You agreed in your next sentence that there was good news. And she STILL didn't clap for it. Partisanship over country defines Nancy Pelosi to the core.
attributable to his predecessor (a.k.a., Obama).
Yes yes, everything bad that happened from 2009 to 2016 was Bush's fault and everything good that has happened under Trump is Obama's genius.
Or, to be a little more factual, not so much.
The bit of theater at the end was necessary for the health of the nation.
The rabid anti-Trump members of the left are not "the nation", and only they required that ridiculous theater. The majority of the nation approved of the speech by an overwhelming margin and would have been just fine without Pelosi's tantrum at the end.
Allowing such a travesty of a speech (worthy of Benito Mussolini) in the hallowed halls of our national capitol to go unanswered would itself have been truly inappropriate.
Plenty of media "fact checkers" were waiting to pounce, and Democrats gave a response through Governor Gretchen Whitmer. We did not need Pelosi to prove she lacks the temperament for her office.
To clarify, looks like she pre-ripped them during the speech, so it's not quite as pathetic as it would have been pre-ripped before she heard any of it.
Well, you can't blame her alone. Here's the list of things all the Dems either didn't applaud or actually jeered:
- job creation - higher wages - lower African American and Hispanic unemployment rates - bonuses for employees - securing the border - fighting the opioid epidemic - merit-based immigration - the American flag and the national anthem - in God we trust - a path to citizenship - Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital - diminishing the Islamic State - lower prescription drug costs - defense and modernizing our nuclear arsenal
- job creation Almost 2 million more jobs were created in the last 36 months of Obama's administration than during the first 36 months of Trump's administration. So what's to cheer?
- higher wages Wages are flatter in terms of inflation adjusted dollars today than they have ever been - ever. Again, no reason to cheer.
- lower African American and Hispanic unemployment rates Which began under the Obama administration. Trump simply hasn't gotten around to destroying the programs in place when he took office that accomplished this.
- bonuses for employees Huh? Why clap for that? Trump has nothing to do with such.
- securing the border You know my opinion on that issue. I would have booed, were I there.
- fighting the opioid epidemic No matter who was in office, we'd be fighting this war. Nothing special about Trump to applaud.
- merit-based immigration Horrible idea. Again, I would have (loudly) booed.
- the American flag and the national anthem Zzzzz.... I like motherhood and apple pie, too.
- in God we trust Does not belong on our currency. It is the very definition of blasphemy.
- a path to citizenship Which Trump is making harder and harder. How about a path for the Dreamers?
- Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital Terrible idea.
- diminishing the Islamic State Like it has been diminished. Dream on.
- lower prescription drug costs HR-3.
- defense and modernizing our nuclear arsenal "Nuclear weapons are an affront crying out to Heaven." (Pope Francis, 23 Nov 2019) Unilateral nuclear disarmament now!
Almost 2 million more jobs were created in the last 36 months of Obama's administration than during the first 36 months of Trump's administration. So what's to cheer?
The fact that we are gaining jobs instead of losing them? That's something to applaud, don't you think?
Which began under the Obama administration.
And has continued under Trump. That's something to applaud, don't you think?
Nothing special about Trump to applaud.
So fighting the opioid epidemic isn't something to applaud?
Like it has been diminished. Dream on.
It is an incontrovertible fact that ISIS has lost almost all of its territory. The word "diminished" means nothing if that doesn't describe a diminished group.
Also, isn't that something to applaud?
The House of Representatives, but in particular the Speaker, should be willing to set aside petty partisanship in order to applaud good things for our country. All she proved is that she isn't fit for the office - nor is any Democrat that refused to applaud.
The House of Representatives, but in particular the Speaker, should be willing to set aside petty partisanship in order to applaud good things for our country.
I suppose that would mean the Dems would have to love their fellow citizens more than they hate Trump. Guess they're showing the independents (and quite a few regular Democrats) that they're the party of hate.
You guys are so blinded by your ideology. I don't hate Trump. I resist him, in the same way that I would have resisted Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo, were I alive in the 1940s. Trump is an enemy of America, more dangerous than Robert E. Lee or Admiral Yamamoto. It is every American patriot's (among whom I consider myself) DUTY to oppose him with all of our being. The alternative is too terrible to contemplate, yet unfortunately all too possible.
18 U.S. Code § 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally U.S. Code Notes prev | next
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Dang, am I ever in trouble! Over the course of my 35 years of public service, I must have destroyed hundreds of thousands of "records, proceedings, maps, books, papers, documents, or other things" in the course of my duties. I especially recall one day in which I personally burned several cubic yards of documents, prior to my office relocating to another building.
I mean, all I said was that Pelosi also acted like a brat and breached every rule of decorum for her office, as well as refused to applaud for good things going on in the country. I'm not sure my ideology blinds me to anything there - particularly when you say Trump is worse than two men responsible for half a million dead Americans.
The alternative is too terrible to contemplate, yet unfortunately all too possible.
The way things are going with the Democrats' ineptitude, Trump will get reelected. Four years after that, he'll be out of office. "Too terrible to contemplate" seems a bit of a stretch, since any president following Trump can undo his policies just like Trump did Obama, Obama did Bush, Bush did Clinton, etc.
The alternative is too terrible to contemplate, yet unfortunately all too possible.
OMG! If we don't stop him he'll bring the troops home, stop China from cheating, continue to bring jobs back to the poor and middle class and numerous other things that will make America peaceful and prosperous. Noooooooooo!!!!!
Legion of Logic said... How many people have you seen condemn both Trump and Pelosi for their behavior at the SOTU address? I have yet to see one. And a seemingly one hundred percent reliable indicator of who gets criticized is who the viewer voted for. Sad times indeed.
Right now my first, last, and ONLY priority is removing Trump from office. I couldn't care less who manages to do that. So I rank my preferences on a scale of who I think is best able to beat Trump in the election.Between Bloomberg and Buttigieg, I think Bloomberg would be the stronger candidate.
I firmly believe that 4 more years of Trump will utterly destroy our country. The USA will be something our great grandchildren read about in their history books, like we today read about the Ottoman Empire. Those are the stakes.
Biden's slippage in New Hampshire is rather alarming. Absolutely disgusting when you consider that it's all due to Trumps's lies and conspiracy fantasies which the craven Republican Senate let him get away with. I guess crime does pay!
I have think seriously about whom I need to support. Right now it looks like Bloomberg. But I will enthusiastically support to the hilt whomever is nominated by the Democrats, no matter whether they're my 3rd, 4th, or even 5th choice. Trump needs to go!
Buttigieg will be the candidate unless Hillary's gang outflanks the other DNC riggers at the convention.
The only Dem candidate that has been able to win is one who no one ever heard of before and gets to general before anyone can investigate his past before election day. Like Barack and Bill before him and Jimmy before him.
bmiller said... Buttigieg will be the candidate unless Hillary's gang outflanks the other DNC riggers at the convention.
Clinton's gang has little problem with Buttigieg. It's Sanders (and to a lesser degree, Warren) they want out.
The only Dem candidate that has been able to win is one who no one ever heard of before and gets to general before anyone can investigate his past before election day. Like Barack and Bill before him and Jimmy before him
Unlike Republicans, because they don't care how morally dubious their candidates are.
115 comments:
He'd be a Democrat then and I wouldn't vote for him.
Trump believes in nothing other than his own ego. He'll say one thing at 10 AM and the exact opposite at 2 PM. I've even watched him contradict himself in the same sentence! Next to "cannot be trusted" in the dictionary is a picture of Trump.
Sounds like he's a politician.
We've seen multiple videos and articles put together where the current Democratic champions of our current partisan impeachment were appalled at the very concept of a partisan impeachment when the target was a Democrat. Politicians are slimy snakes whose positions are weather vanes. Voters aren't much better when it comes to their willingness to apply equal standards to both sides.
This will get me in trouble, no doubt, but the Apostle Paul says in Phillipians that regardless of people's motivations in preaching the gospel of Christ, whether out of love or some pretense, Christ is still preached, and for that he rejoiced.
Imperfect vessel though he is, Trump gives conservatives many things to rejoice over, such as the appointment of non-progressive judges. So whether Trump had an honest conviction on something, or whether some Democrat made him mad and he is governing out of revenge on Democrats, or whether he saw an opportunity to get the world talking about him, the policies he is choosing to enact are still often friendly to conservatives.
Politics is about getting your way, not canonizing a saint. Absolutely no one will vote against their own interests.
"This will get me in trouble, no doubt"
Were you ever correct! As long as you are quoting Paul, might I throw this into the pot?
"Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Be'lial?"
If there ever was a personification of "iniquity" in American history, his name would be Donald Trump. No Christian has any business associating with such.
No Christian has any business associating with such.
So no Christian should ever vote? I could count on one hand the number of presidential candidates I've seen that I would trust with a secret or babysitting my children or having the passwords to my bank accounts. Those seeking power are almost never the ones who should have it.
Out of curiosity, what advice would you give a Christian for the 2020 election who genuinely believes progressive policies are often harmful, believes that the Democratic Party and their progressive allies are hostile toward Christian beliefs, and then has a choice to vote for either the above or Donald Trump, whose policies they find to be less harmful to the country and friendlier to the faith? Don't vote for the policies they favor because Trump isn't a good guy?
I would advise such a person to either vote 3rd party or not vote at all. I myself disagree with many policies endorsed by the Democratic Party, but that is a far call from supporting an objectively evil person - what Reagan called an "evildoer". (We were discussing, after all, objectivity on another thread.)
You say Trump "isn't a good guy", but that is whitewashing the turd. He's not just "not a good guy" - he is an active and deliberate defiler and desecrator of all that is good, holy, and true.
I have a list of questions I hypothetically pose to potential candidates to choose the one I'll vote for.
Before this year I didn't have to ask:
"Do you plan on putting me into a gulag?"
Pretty sure I don't have to ask Trump that one. Pretty sure I will have to ask whoever the Dems select (probably Hillary).
"Do you plan on putting me into a gulag?" Pretty sure I don't have to ask Trump that one."
Yet it was Trump who authorized putting thousands of migrant workers into what are essentially concentration camps, and who forcibly separated young children from their mothers.
"First they came for the Communists..."
Legion of Logic: That which is good, even when done in the name of the Devil, is still done for the sake of God; and that which is evil, even when done in the name of God, is still done for the sake of the Devil.
It's funny, really. Donald Trump tells us he is a Republican, and so he is a Republican, even when he plans to build on other people's private land and institutes tariffs that harm the economy. He tells us he is a Christian, and so he is a Christian, even when he openly lusts after women, gives in to fits of rage, and shows little charity to refugees who come seeking asylum, or poorer areas of the country hit by disaster. He tells us he is a proud American, and so he is a proud American, even when he colludes with our enemies, alienates our allies, and even with a court packed in his favour, balks at the mere suggestion that the supreme law of the land can apply to himself. Yet whatever the Democrats say, they are lying and evil and not to be trusted, for they will surely doom us all.
People like Donald Trump can aid a good cause... in the *short* run. In the long run, associating your beliefs, your causes, with wickedness will taint them by association: if not in fact, then in the eyes of those whom you would convince to support you. Do you wish people to say, "Those Christians! Always talking about 'snatching women by the pussy'; such terrible people!" (Before you say it cannot happen to the Christian faith, I would point out how many people now associate Catholic priests with paedophilia. It has happened before, and will likely happen again.) I tell you, the best policy is not to support somebody because he tells you he is on your side, but only to support a person you believe is a good person. Do not fall into the common fallacy that all politicians are evil! Most politicians went into their career because they had a cause to support; if some of them have lost their way since, there are still many who have not, and others who can yet find their way once more.
Ignore what people call themselves. Do not look at the "D" or "R" that follows their name on the ballot, but take the time beforehand to study them. Look at their policies - not what they say their policies are, but the policies they have carried out. Look at their beliefs. Look at their actions in their personal life. There will, of course, be no candidate who agrees with you perfectly in all things; for all people are different, and have their own paths to follow. But find the best person from the entire selection, and actually *look*, instead of assuming from the start that one person is right and all others are wrong.
Perhaps, having done the research, having looked into all the candidates, you will still believe that Donald Trump is the best man for the job. In that instance, we will have to disagree; but so long as you have actually done the research, rather than nodding your head at the first person who asks you to follow in the name of your faith, I can *respect* such a choice, even if I believe it wrong. But there is no more virtue in supporting a man who simply says, "I am your leader"; than there is in a dog following its master.
Also, bmiller: Hillary isn't even running, and the only candidate who's supported anything like a gulag (namely, "detention centers") isn't a Democrat. You're not *thinking*, you're just *following*.
Jeremy,
Hillary isn't running....yet. The convention hasn't even started.
Also, you're apparently unaware of the Bernie Bros videos.
You aren't even *following* the news.
It's kind of embarrassing to see people who claim to be Christians think it's OK stretch the truth by claiming that US immigrant Service Processing Centers are the same as Soviet gulags.
Jeremy,
Your posting is one of the most lucid, cogent, and powerful political statements I have read in a long time. I applaud you!
You are absolutely right about the perils of guilt by association. As a Catholic, I am constantly having to answer for the criminal actions of pedophile priests. If the weirdly cultish bond between Evangelicals and Trump is not somehow broken, then all of Christendom will suffer from conflating the Faith with the actions of a compulsive narcissist, a serial adulterer, a sexual assaulter (and probable rapist), a pathological liar, a friend and enabler of dictators everywhere, and a defiler of all that is good, holy, and true. You think the churches are emptying now? They'll be deserted after 4 more years of Trump!
Guilt by association is a fallacy. And voting for a candidate doesn't associate you with them.
I don't think all Democrats are horn-dogs just because Bill Clinton is still considered their most popular president. People who do need help.
My 2 favorite presidents are FDR and Eisenhower, one from each party. Second tier would be Coolidge and Kennedy. Again, one from each party.
So as you can see, I am totally non-partisan.
Ha ha! Good one.
In 2009, Michigan GOP chair Saul Anuzis infamously said, "There are two types of people, Democrats and Americans." Well. After the Republican Senate's refusal to even allow witnesses in their sham "trial", we can confidently say that there are only two types of people, Republicans and Americans.
Selah.
Those are wise words, Jeremy. I said similar things in the 2016 election trying to get people to support any Republican but Trump. I even supported Jim Webb (D) over Trump. I ultimately sat out the 2016 election.
Your words work better when choosing a nominee, though. What percentage of people on either side do you think would realistically vote against all of their own policy preferences just because the other guy is more public with his moral failures and the media is more eager to highlight them?
Republicans in the Senate had no constitutional obligation but to judge the partisan rush hit job House Democrats sent them. If it was as ironclad a case as Pelosi and Schiff made it out to be, then additional witnesses should not be required. Not the Senate's place to do the House's job for them simply because the House cried over using the courts and impeached instead.
Democrats and Americans.
Hmmm.. I know it was a long time ago, but I voted against my own policy preferences when I supported Barry Goldwater (showing my age here). But I thought (and still do) that he was an honorable man and I would be proud to have him represent me.
I'm glad to know that Legion considers arcane minutiae of "constitutional obligations" to supercede the actual pursuit of truth. Reminds me of the Pharisees who condemned Jesus for healing on the Sabbath (horrors!).
Goldwater ran for president in 1964.
The voting age wasn't raised to 18 till 1971 and was 21 before that, so you are 77?
We better treat the frail old guy kindly.:-)
I am 67. I voted for Barry Goldwater in 1974 for Arizona Senator. It was his second to last campaign. (By 1980, I was living in Maryland.)
I actually went fishing with Goldwater in 1974, at Mormon Lake in northern Arizona. We did not discuss politics.
OK youngster. I got the impression we were talking about presidents.
I know. I LOVE telling people that I am the only person I know who voted for both George McGovern and Barry goldwater, and then watch them try to do the math.
1972 was the first presidential election I voted in, and I was dead set against the war in Vietnam, so I voted for the candidate who had pledged to end the damned thing. But I always had a soft spot in my heart for Goldwater. He was the real deal. I may not have agreed with him on many issues, but I knew he would never lie to me. He said what he meant and meant what he said.
He was the real deal. I may not have agreed with him on many issues, but I knew he would never lie to me. He said what he meant and meant what he said.
You knew him personally. How could you vote for a person you knew who would do this?
Today I stood at the graveside of Philip Berrigan, a man who stood up to the powers that be, to the world-engirdling military-industrial complex, to the false gods of empire and violence, to the “law” of the United States, to brainwashed and ignorant public opinion, and against the global culture of death. A man who dedicated his life to peace, justice, nonviolence, brotherhood, to all that is good, true, and beautiful, to love… to God.
Today, he lies in a simple grave in a poorly maintained, unmanicured cemetery in one of the poorest neighborhoods of Baltimore. A junk yard is right across the street. A gnarly tree shades his six feet of Earth, his only comfort now.
I don’t think I prayed. I was too overwhelmed. I stood silent for a while, made the Sign of the Cross, and thought about what greatness lay before me. Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governors have their grand marble monuments lit up at night and surrounded by ornate gardens and chiseled quotations from their speeches. Poor Philip’s stone was carved simply with “Love One Another”. I didn’t actually cry then, but I am now as I write this.
So in the end, who is better off? I’ll take Philip’s simple stone over the gaudy mausoleums lining Constitution Avenue in D.C. any day. We truly do not deserve to have shared the same planet with such as this.
Rest in peace, Philip. It's what you worked for.
Berrigan, while still a priest, married former nun Elizabeth McAlister in 1969 by mutual consent.[3] In 1973, they legalized their marriage, and were subsequently excommunicated by the Catholic Church.
This fact explains a lot.
"This fact explains a lot."
Like what?
It explains the mindset of leftists.
Instead of remaining faithful to their vows or at least renouncing their vows and leaving their orders, they just decided to became traitors.
Of course they knew best because, they were leftists.
At the risk of engaging in blatant "whataboutism", you could say the same thing about the mindset of rightists. Instead of remaining faithful to their marital vows, they routinely and regularly engage in multiple divorces and/or serial adulteries.
I'm not impressed by your hyperpartisan blinders.
I'm not impressed by your hyperpartisan blinders.
So what? Anyone that disagrees with leftists are hyperpartisan according to leftists.
If leftists wish to admire traitors, it says a lot about leftists.
"The difference between treason and patriotism is only a matter of dates."
(Alexandre Dumas)
Thanks. That illustrates another observation of mine.
Leftists subordinate everything to the political (including faith). My claim was that he was a traitor to his faith but your response was about the political order.
Priests make a vow of celibacy. This priest not only did not honor his vow, he did not honorably withdraw from the priesthood and therefore his vow, but instead violated his vow while remaining a priest. The analogy you used of people divorcing and marrying again failed since this situation is analogous to taking a second wife while still being married.
Now I suspect if this priest had conservative views or even no political views at all, you would agree that he was a horrible priest and a dishonorable man. Instead, since he was a leftist radical, you consider him a great man.
Though married, in the tradition of Frenchmen of higher social class, Dumas had numerous affairs (allegedly as many as forty). In his lifetime, he was known to have at least four illegitimate children, although twentieth-century scholars found that Dumas fathered three other children out of wedlock.
It's interesting who you quote. Especially in this context.
"you consider"
Now who is the relativist, and who believes in objective reality? I do not "consider" Philip Berrigan to be a great man. He IS one.
I am surprised you do not honor the memory of Philip Berrigan. He was a staunch defender of life, from conception to natural death. He knew that abortion was a great evil, and preached uncompromisingly against it every day of his life. But I guess that must have been just "leftism", and so doesn't count.
Some might consider it to be a heroic virtue for a radical leftist priest to oppose murdering the innocent but I consider it just not being a heretic. I can only hope you would follow his example in this respect.
But I didn't accuse him of being a heretic. Just a traitor to his vows. And his vows were not to me or the state, but to God.
I worked up my first impressions from yesterday into a prose poem, in the style of Walt Whitman. I was utterly overwhelmed by my brief moments at Berrigan's grave, and still can't process them totally. I scarcely exaggerate in calling them a theophany. I cannot hold my feelings inside. I feel compelled to share them.
So here it is:
I left muddy footprints behind me as I approached the grave - it rained this morning.
Not much to see here. St. Peter’s Cemetery is by no means picturesque.
A simple stone marks the grave. Philip Francis Berrigan I read.
Weeds, uncut grass, and unmanicured graves, scattered seemingly at random, make up the background.
That, and the Beep!
Beep!
Beep!
Of trucks backing into their spaces in the salvage yard right outside the fence,
And the rumble of others leaving, having disgorged their load.
But silence is fitting here
And I allow such noise no entry into my mind, my thoughts.
So I stood at the graveside of Philip Berrigan, a man who STOOD UP
to the powers that be,
to the world-engirdling military-industrial complex,
to the false gods of empire and violence.. and war,
to the “law” of the United States of America,
to brainwashed and ignorant public opinion,
and who stood against the global culture of death.
A man who dedicated his life
to peace,
justice,
nonviolence,
brotherhood,
to all that is good, true, and beautiful,
to love… to God.
Today, Philip lies in his simple grave in one of the poorest neighborhoods of Baltimore.
A gnarly tree shades his six feet of Earth, his only comfort now.
I don’t think I prayed. I was too overwhelmed.
No Benedictus, no Magnificat, no Te Deum,
(though their words would have been most appropriate)
I stood silent for a while,
made the Sign of the Cross,
and thought about what greatness lay before me.
Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governors
have their grand marble monuments
lit up at night
surrounded by ornate gardens
with chiseled quotations from their (many) speeches.
Poor Philip’s stone was carved simply with “Love One Another”.
I didn’t actually cry then, but I am now as I write this.
Salvage. How fitting it is that the Salvage Yard lies so near. Philip dedicated his life to salvaging what he could from the wreckage of ignorance, hatred, violence, and war. How odd that what is salvaged from such is truth, peace, and love.
Damn it, I'm crying again.
I’ll take Philip’s simple stone over the gaudy imperialist mausoleums lining Capital Mall any day.
We truly do not deserve to have shared the same planet with such as this.
Rest in peace, Philip. It's what you worked for.
Thanks for sharing.
We have different ideas of who should be venerated.
Looks like Bernie is being cheated again. It's an early start this time.
My opinion is that until and unless Bernie registers as a Democrat, he has no business running for the party's nomination. He shouldn't even be on the ballot.
So it's OK to cheat him?
Finally we have an plausible explanation why we still don't know the results.
They should never have allowed him to run to begin with. He's an Independent. Let him run as an Independent.
The DNC made the rules to allow him in. Now they are cheating him.
Is that fair? Or is fairness something alien to the DNC?
Just a rhetorical question.:-)
Victor is asking us here about convictions, which are ultimately based on a belief in objective morality. My conviction is that Sen. Sanders never had any ethical or moral right to compete for the Democratic nomination in the first place.
If you want to play in the game, then get on a team. Would you let some "generic" player get on the field when it's the Red Sox v. the Yankees? Of course you wouldn't!
So you're saying the DNC has no objective convictions. I can't argue with you.
But if they allow designated hitters, they shouldn't knee-cap them when they go to the plate.
The DNC were fools for ever allowing Sanders onto their ballot. No argument there.
Ha ha. Nice dodge.
On the other hand, maybe I need to reconsider. The DNC is practicing the ultimate in fairness by redistributing Bernie's points.
He should quit whining about how he earned them and how we're a democracy! From others according to their means to others according to their needs. Right?
The fact that Sanders won in only one county in Iowa (the largely urban Scott county) is telling. Sanders would get clobbered in the Heartland.
On the one hand, the DNC giving Bernie Sanders, an independent, access to their resources has got to rankle.
On the other hand, Sanders could use their refusal as an excuse to indeed run as an independent. Guess who is absolutely guaranteed to win if he does that?
Looks to me like the Democrats are trying to steer him long enough for him to lose the nomination and then be more obligated to support the winner. On his own, he'll do nothing but split the left.
Up until today, I've been a loyal Biden supporter. But if he continues to stumble, I'll happily shift allegiance to Bloomberg. Sanders is a non-starter (with me). He'd be massacred in November, and my number one priority is to get Trump outa there!
Let's see what happens.
The fact that Sanders won in only one county in Iowa (the largely urban Scott county) is telling.
According to the cheater cheater pumpkin eater DNC "vote counters".
On the other hand, Sanders could use their refusal as an excuse to indeed run as an independent. Guess who is absolutely guaranteed to win if he does that?
That's never gonna happen. Bernie is being paid off and is playing his role to lose but keep the most radical leftists in the Dem camp. I bet they either vote for Trump or don't vote at all. I have it on good authority if Bernie loses, they will "drag MSNBC's staff by their hair, one by one out of MSNBC, and burn them to death in the street."
Sanders would get clobbered in the Heartland.
He'd be massacred in November
But aside from that, isn't he the candidate that best represents what you want for the country?
Starhopper, would you then disagree with this take from CNN?
Wait.
Isn't the point of the OP that we shouldn't vote for people who lack convictions and who would change positions just for votes?
Bloomberg. "Stop and Frisk". Hello?
bmiller said...
The DNC made the rules to allow him in. Now they are cheating him.
Is that fair? Or is fairness something alien to the DNC?
You mean, as opposed to other political parties that let strangers run for their highest office without push back?
bmiller said...
The fact that Sanders won in only one county in Iowa (the largely urban Scott county) is telling.
According to the cheater cheater pumpkin eater DNC "vote counters".
Sure, because otherwise a left-wing Jew with a Brooklyn accent would do so well in Iowa. The fact that he and Buttegieg are practically tied indicates he would do well in the MidWest.
with a Brooklyn accent
That's Brooklyn? I can barely understand anything he says.
Iowa RNC Caucus completed without a hitch.
Just saying.
"Iowa RNC Caucus completed without a hitch."
That's easy to do when you've only got one candidate. Elections in the old Soviet Union were also noted for their remarkable efficiency.
Hey Joe Walsh was running against Trump.
Life's been good to him so far.
But really?
The Dems actually want to be the old Soviet regime but apparently have lost the touch of rigging elections and having anyone believe they didn't.
"The Dems [...] apparently have lost the touch of rigging elections"
That's OK, because the Republicans have found it.
It's almost as if both parties suck, and which one sucks the most is entirely dependent upon which more closely aligns with one's own policy preferences.
Both parties are made up of politicians. I expect politicians to behave like politicians, not saints.
I just like to poke fun at those who watch shenanigans and think their politicans are above it. It's like they believe pro wrestling is real.
How many people have you seen condemn both Trump and Pelosi for their behavior at the SOTU address? I have yet to see one. And a seemingly one hundred percent reliable indicator of who gets criticized is who the viewer voted for. Sad times indeed.
I've seen commentators criticize both.
I've heard they haven't spoken to each other since that Syria discussion where they insulted each other. But regardless, they should have put that aside for the SOTU.
"How many people have you seen condemn both Trump and Pelosi for their behavior at the SOTU address?"
What is there to criticize Pelosi for? Considering the pile of falsehoods, half truths, and outright lies that the president had handed her, I thought she was quite restrained in merely tearing it up. Personally, I would have taken a match to it.
What is there to criticize Pelosi for?
Kind of feel sorry for her. She was talking to herself and grimacing. Looks like dementia.
Oh. And Orange Man Good!
What is there to criticize Pelosi for?
Point demonstrated.
She refused to use the proper protocol in the formal introduction. Even John Boehner did that for Obama.
She acted like a child in the capacity as the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
She upset at least one of the guests by ripping up the speech, and insulted all of them by doing so.
She didn't applaud over good news for the country. Partisanship at its most disgusting.
Trump is responsible for none of those behaviors. That is entirely on Nancy Pelosi. I don't care if her copy of the speech was her face photoshopped onto a donkey with "neener neener" written on it, she acted like a petulant brat.
I'd be happy to describe Trump's behavior as well, if you feel I'm being hypocritical in my analysis. Both of them were pathetic.
I don't know. Who could restrain themselves from reacting to "neener neener"?
"Even John Boehner did that for Obama."
Obama deserved it.
"She acted like a child"
How so? I saw nothing but decorum under fire. It's hard to show no reaction to a spate of non-stop lies.
"She didn't applaud over good news for the country."
The "good news" was all falsehood and/or half truths. EVERY BIT of good news that Trump trumpeted was attributable to his predecessor (a.k.a., Obama).
The bit of theater at the end was necessary for the health of the nation. Allowing such a travesty of a speech (worthy of Benito Mussolini) in the hallowed halls of our national capitol to go unanswered would itself have been truly inappropriate.
To quote Dante, "Ill manners were best courtesy to him." (Inferno, Canto XXIII)
Some people have TDS.
But 76% don't and prefer he keeps things going in a positive direction.
Obama deserved it.
Doesn't matter if someone thinks Obama "deserved" it. Obama and Boehner absolutely did not like each other, yet in their capacity as President and Speaker, they acted like adults at the SOTU. Nancy Pelosi acted like a juvenile moron trying to show off for her friends.
I saw nothing but decorum under fire.
Agreed, and decorum was under fire from Nancy Pelosi, among others.
It's hard to show no reaction to a spate of non-stop lies.
Even if it had been non-stop lies (it literally wasn't), no, no it is not hard to show no reaction to a lie. I personally know this for a fact, under circumstances much more personally impactful than she was facing. She was pathetic.
The "good news" was all falsehood and/or half truths.
You agreed in your next sentence that there was good news. And she STILL didn't clap for it. Partisanship over country defines Nancy Pelosi to the core.
attributable to his predecessor (a.k.a., Obama).
Yes yes, everything bad that happened from 2009 to 2016 was Bush's fault and everything good that has happened under Trump is Obama's genius.
Or, to be a little more factual, not so much.
The bit of theater at the end was necessary for the health of the nation.
The rabid anti-Trump members of the left are not "the nation", and only they required that ridiculous theater. The majority of the nation approved of the speech by an overwhelming margin and would have been just fine without Pelosi's tantrum at the end.
Allowing such a travesty of a speech (worthy of Benito Mussolini) in the hallowed halls of our national capitol to go unanswered would itself have been truly inappropriate.
Plenty of media "fact checkers" were waiting to pounce, and Democrats gave a response through Governor Gretchen Whitmer. We did not need Pelosi to prove she lacks the temperament for her office.
Haha apparently she pre-ripped them before even hearing or reading it, so no it was not a reaction. It was a planned piece of juvenile theater.
To clarify, looks like she pre-ripped them during the speech, so it's not quite as pathetic as it would have been pre-ripped before she heard any of it.
And she STILL didn't clap for it.
Well, you can't blame her alone. Here's the list of things all the Dems either didn't applaud or actually jeered:
- job creation
- higher wages
- lower African American and Hispanic unemployment rates
- bonuses for employees
- securing the border
- fighting the opioid epidemic
- merit-based immigration
- the American flag and the national anthem
- in God we trust
- a path to citizenship
- Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital
- diminishing the Islamic State
- lower prescription drug costs
- defense and modernizing our nuclear arsenal
- job creation
Almost 2 million more jobs were created in the last 36 months of Obama's administration than during the first 36 months of Trump's administration. So what's to cheer?
- higher wages
Wages are flatter in terms of inflation adjusted dollars today than they have ever been - ever. Again, no reason to cheer.
- lower African American and Hispanic unemployment rates
Which began under the Obama administration. Trump simply hasn't gotten around to destroying the programs in place when he took office that accomplished this.
- bonuses for employees
Huh? Why clap for that? Trump has nothing to do with such.
- securing the border
You know my opinion on that issue. I would have booed, were I there.
- fighting the opioid epidemic
No matter who was in office, we'd be fighting this war. Nothing special about Trump to applaud.
- merit-based immigration
Horrible idea. Again, I would have (loudly) booed.
- the American flag and the national anthem
Zzzzz.... I like motherhood and apple pie, too.
- in God we trust
Does not belong on our currency. It is the very definition of blasphemy.
- a path to citizenship
Which Trump is making harder and harder. How about a path for the Dreamers?
- Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital
Terrible idea.
- diminishing the Islamic State
Like it has been diminished. Dream on.
- lower prescription drug costs
HR-3.
- defense and modernizing our nuclear arsenal
"Nuclear weapons are an affront crying out to Heaven."
(Pope Francis, 23 Nov 2019)
Unilateral nuclear disarmament now!
Almost 2 million more jobs were created in the last 36 months of Obama's administration than during the first 36 months of Trump's administration. So what's to cheer?
The fact that we are gaining jobs instead of losing them? That's something to applaud, don't you think?
Which began under the Obama administration.
And has continued under Trump. That's something to applaud, don't you think?
Nothing special about Trump to applaud.
So fighting the opioid epidemic isn't something to applaud?
Like it has been diminished. Dream on.
It is an incontrovertible fact that ISIS has lost almost all of its territory. The word "diminished" means nothing if that doesn't describe a diminished group.
Also, isn't that something to applaud?
The House of Representatives, but in particular the Speaker, should be willing to set aside petty partisanship in order to applaud good things for our country. All she proved is that she isn't fit for the office - nor is any Democrat that refused to applaud.
The House of Representatives, but in particular the Speaker, should be willing to set aside petty partisanship in order to applaud good things for our country.
I suppose that would mean the Dems would have to love their fellow citizens more than they hate Trump. Guess they're showing the independents (and quite a few regular Democrats) that they're the party of hate.
However, I think Starhopper is the right guy to advise the Dems.
If he wants my endorsement as Chief Strategy Officer, I'll give him my resounding support.
You guys are so blinded by your ideology. I don't hate Trump. I resist him, in the same way that I would have resisted Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo, were I alive in the 1940s. Trump is an enemy of America, more dangerous than Robert E. Lee or Admiral Yamamoto. It is every American patriot's (among whom I consider myself) DUTY to oppose him with all of our being. The alternative is too terrible to contemplate, yet unfortunately all too possible.
Just remember. You have my full endorsement.
Meanwhile: Oopsy Nancy
18 U.S. Code § 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Dang, am I ever in trouble! Over the course of my 35 years of public service, I must have destroyed hundreds of thousands of "records, proceedings, maps, books, papers, documents, or other things" in the course of my duties. I especially recall one day in which I personally burned several cubic yards of documents, prior to my office relocating to another building.
Notwithstanding, I still endorse you, but only specifically for the Democrat Party Chief Strategy Officer.
They routinely destroy documents...or hide them in their pants.
And a sincere and Happy Aquitimas!
You guys are so blinded by your ideology
I mean, all I said was that Pelosi also acted like a brat and breached every rule of decorum for her office, as well as refused to applaud for good things going on in the country. I'm not sure my ideology blinds me to anything there - particularly when you say Trump is worse than two men responsible for half a million dead Americans.
The alternative is too terrible to contemplate, yet unfortunately all too possible.
The way things are going with the Democrats' ineptitude, Trump will get reelected. Four years after that, he'll be out of office. "Too terrible to contemplate" seems a bit of a stretch, since any president following Trump can undo his policies just like Trump did Obama, Obama did Bush, Bush did Clinton, etc.
The alternative is too terrible to contemplate, yet unfortunately all too possible.
OMG! If we don't stop him he'll bring the troops home, stop China from cheating, continue to bring jobs back to the poor and middle class and numerous other things that will make America peaceful and prosperous. Noooooooooo!!!!!
Legion of Logic said...
How many people have you seen condemn both Trump and Pelosi for their behavior at the SOTU address? I have yet to see one. And a seemingly one hundred percent reliable indicator of who gets criticized is who the viewer voted for. Sad times indeed.
Well said.
Noooooooooo
No doubt this scream is due to Adam Schiff warning us that Trump might sell Alaska to Russia for election assistance.
Possibly the single stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone say on any topic.
Starhopper, earlier you said your support would swing from Biden to Bloomberg. Any reason it wouldn't instead go to Buttigieg? He seems more likable.
Legion,
Right now my first, last, and ONLY priority is removing Trump from office. I couldn't care less who manages to do that. So I rank my preferences on a scale of who I think is best able to beat Trump in the election.Between Bloomberg and Buttigieg, I think Bloomberg would be the stronger candidate.
I firmly believe that 4 more years of Trump will utterly destroy our country. The USA will be something our great grandchildren read about in their history books, like we today read about the Ottoman Empire. Those are the stakes.
Biden's slippage in New Hampshire is rather alarming. Absolutely disgusting when you consider that it's all due to Trumps's lies and conspiracy fantasies which the craven Republican Senate let him get away with. I guess crime does pay!
I have think seriously about whom I need to support. Right now it looks like Bloomberg. But I will enthusiastically support to the hilt whomever is nominated by the Democrats, no matter whether they're my 3rd, 4th, or even 5th choice. Trump needs to go!
Buttigieg will be the candidate unless Hillary's gang outflanks the other DNC riggers at the convention.
The only Dem candidate that has been able to win is one who no one ever heard of before and gets to general before anyone can investigate his past before election day. Like Barack and Bill before him and Jimmy before him.
People are noticing that DNC chose to declare Mayor Pete winner in Iowa right before his CNN Town Hall:
HERE
But not me. I didn't notice anything.
bmiller said...
People are noticing that DNC chose to declare Mayor Pete winner in Iowa right before his CNN Town Hall:
Understandably, the DNC are not fond of Sanders. However, if he is doing that well in Iowa, he may wind up being the nominee.
bmiller said...
Buttigieg will be the candidate unless Hillary's gang outflanks the other DNC riggers at the convention.
Clinton's gang has little problem with Buttigieg. It's Sanders (and to a lesser degree, Warren) they want out.
The only Dem candidate that has been able to win is one who no one ever heard of before and gets to general before anyone can investigate his past before election day. Like Barack and Bill before him and Jimmy before him
Unlike Republicans, because they don't care how morally dubious their candidates are.
Unlike Republicans, because they don't care how morally dubious their candidates are.
I'm not sure that would make Democrats better. Would just mean the Republicans weren't hypocrites and the Democrats were.
I don't think being called a hypocrite has the slightest affect on a leftist.
"I don't think being called a hypocrite has the slightest affect on a leftist."
That's because the accusation isn't true. I, for instance, don't get upset if someone berates me for being a Frenchman, 'cause I ain't!
According to this poll you lefties may have a way to avoid Trump's re-election.
I'm just waiting for Starhopper to show us how non-partisan he is by voting for the Giant Meteor. 😂
A giant meteor would be a distinct improvement over what we've got now.
Now that I think about it, the Giant Meteor Party is the perfect home for Starhopper
I'd vote for the meteor if it hit California or the Northeast! I'd also take a direct hit to D.C.
Ooo. You are very persuasive Legion.
Also, a very good reason to not make any plans to move to New Hampshire anytime soon.
Nowadays they seem to be less focused on the "Live Free" part than on the "Or Die" part.
bmiller said...
I don't think being called a hypocrite has the slightest affect on a leftist.
Depends on the caller.
Post a Comment