The other day I saw a post on Facebook that got me thinking about what poor choices we have for president this time around, and people are responding to the state of affairs. Just a few quotes from the post.
"The lesser of two evils is LESS EVIL" (Of course, this means that you are choosing to vote for "EVIL", but whatever)
"I don't give a damn about anything Donald Trump has done. I'm concerned with what Hilary Clinton WILL do."
I don't know what I will do about the presidential race. Fortunately (or not) the peoples republic up here will gleefully ensure that Hilary gets our electoral votes, which allows me to either not vote for president or vote Libertarian/write in. in good conscience.
Personally, I just can't understand this willingness to vote for evil or to ignore what someone has done in the past for purely political reasons.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
For my part, I don't feel like I'm faced with a lesser of two evils choice. I have a choice between a flawed but basically decent Democrat candidate (at least by politician standards decent...) and a buffoon who is almost certainly a con man of some sort who is not at all suited for the office, who does not care to even try to state factual claims, who has stirred up some awful racist support, who has advocated against religious liberty, who is amoral and a moral deviate.
I don't care for most politicians because they are too loose with facts and integrity, but I don't think that rises to the level of evil, just very flawed.
Hi Craig,
People will vote for evil, because in the midst of any particular situation, people have the ability to blind themselves to truths they don't have the courage to face.
Bill Muehlenberg summed up the choices this way:
Why Hillary does not deserve my vote (or the vote of any true conservative):
-She is not a conservative
-She cares nothing about the US Constitution
-She has the character and integrity of a rattlesnake
-She is completely untrustworthy
-Her only concern is herself
-She is not a Christian
-She will destroy America
Why Donald does not deserve my vote (or the vote of any true conservative):
-He is not a conservative
-He cares nothing about the US Constitution
-He has the character and integrity of a rattlesnake
-He is completely untrustworthy
-His only concern is himself
-He is not a Christian
-He will destroy America
So now we have this non-choice – something analogous to being forced to choose between Hitler and Stalin. We had a genuine conservative running, yet the deluded masses rejected him. Reminds me of another occasion: ‘We want Barabbas.’
source
As Americans tear each other apart based on tweet ideologies they don't understand or really believe, those of us who retain the ability to see can do little but watch the foreordained conclusion. If only this were a Stephen King novel and not primetime news...
Dan,
Thanks so much. The fact that you, like many on your side (the other extreme), can't even bring yourself to admit that Hilary is deeply ethically flawed, and the a vote for her removes once and for all the "appearance of impropriety" standard is quite telling. The fact that you support the corruption of your own party's primary process by your support for Hilary. It's fascinating that for someone who advocated against the accumulation of wealth and simple living could support someone who has spent the last 10 years or so amassing 100 million dollars essentially trading on her/their political connections.
FYI, the the second quote originally read "I don't give a damn about anything Hilary Clinton has done, I'm concerned about what Donald Trump will do.". It seems like you're in the same boat. You don't care about actual acts nearly as much as what you imagine Trump might do.
I guess it makes sense, it's essentially the same position the political left has about guns. Not caring much about actual past actions, but wanting restrictions on potential actions you imagine might happen in the future.
BTW, thanks for responding exactly as I suspected you would.
Alec
I think there is some truth in what you say. Especially the fact that we are living in s time where tweets and memes pass for reasoned discourse and if it's in your news feed it must be true. Too many people think that a retweet is actually taking meaningful action.
I sympathize more with the Trump side because I think that there is a real and genuine desire for someone outside the politics as usual crowd and are deluded into thinking that Trump is that person.
The I don't care what Hilary has done crowd has to ignore a long and well documented history of ethical lapses, poor judgement, and naked greed in order to vote for her. As one listened to the director of the FBI describe her actions, did the terms he used sound like qualities you want in a president.
Unfortunately we're stuck with the two worst major party candidates in history, and we all have to choose.
I'd much rather be watching Cruz or Rice or Fiorina running against Booker. The fact that both parties passed up much better options to give us this current mess doesn't speak well of our parties or voters. The fact the the best the dems could do after blatantly rigging their process is Hilary really says something.
At this point the next four years don't look great. Especially if Hilary gets to pick the replacement after Ginsberg is impeached.
I am not saying I don't care what Clinton has done. I'm saying that all politicians are flawed and Clinton is among them. I'm saying quite clearly there is no data, zero data... you and no one else have any data to suoport a claim that she is somehow more corrupt or less trustworthy than the average candidate. And certainly not as compared to the wholly unqualified, untrustworthy and immoral Trump. If you want to take a principled stand and say that all of our politicians must be more trustworthy and you won't vite for any candidates as flawed As Trump or Cruz or Clinton or Sanders... Then I can respect that. But if you have no data whatsoever to support a claim that Clinton is less trustworthy than Cruz or others and you're merely saying you do not like it when Democrat candidates are less trustworthy but you're okay with the GOP candidates being less trustworthy, then I am not impressed.
I suspect that you along with many in the GOP and simply fallen under the spell of con man Trump and the repeated slander about Clinton, in spite of her being cleared over and over against any serious charges.
You probably don't accept the source, but PolitiFact rated the final five candidates back in March and the Most Honest rating went to Clinton, Sanders and Kasich.
Trump was far and away the worst liar, with Cruz coming in second.
So, while I know many have an emotional distaste for Clinton on perceived integrity issues, the data just doesn't support it.
Zero data, really zero. Look I get that you're in the bag for Clinton and feel it necessary to demonize Trump as part of that, but seriously you're going to ignore her history of racist comments, verbal abuse of state troopers and secret service.
If a conservative had been associated with half of what Hilary has you'd be all over them. Not to mention that a vote for Hilary is a vote for the corrupt process that nominated her.
I guess that's the difference between us, I'm engaged in a process of searching my conscience to discern how I can vote, and your just falling in line and pulling the lever.
Now my personal experience with Keith Ellison D MN, is that he's not a particularly smart guy, buy are all democrats either that stupid or blinded by political loyalty?
Many of us who are leaning toward a vote for Trump (speaking of those of us who blog here) do so not because we are "lured" by anything Trump is doing, but the many concerns we have with Hillary, both as a person and in what she plans on doing and/or supporting. She would have few advisors from within her party that would not agree with that which she supports or proposes, whereas I believe that there are those on the GOP side that would strongly speak against Trump's leftist bent and seek to guide him toward reason. Hillary in office would have no one from her party that would oppose her generally. I think Trump would find consistent opposition from the conservative faction of the GOP. That alone is sufficient for voting for Trump and working toward preventing a Clinton victory.
The support is for defeating Hillary, not so much because we endorse Trump. He's simply the best option for achieving the goal of "no Hillary". I have no problem with this "anyone but Hillary" goal, except that personally it's as much a desire to prevent Democratic control and influence. This opposition exists even without a focus on Hillary's character, which is tarnished badly enough for being a Democrat.
It's interesting that the entire democrat strategy at this point is "Trumo is evil and must be stopped whatever the cost.", yet those on the left have absolutely no problem criticising those on the right who say Anybody bit Hilary". Apparently it's completely logical and rational to hold the "anybody but..." position when you're a lefty, but the identical position becomes evil and insane when it's reversed.
I like how Dan's standard for morality and lack of corruption is simply to not get indicted. The fact that the FBI investigation revealed clearly and unambiguously that she lied repeatedly and that she violated state dept rules on classified material doesn't matter. Her actions don't count, just the lack of indictment. Personally "extremely careless" and "poor judgement" are exactly the qualities I want in a president.
I realize that being a racist is the worst thing you can be right now, but how about the anti Semititism shown in the DNC anti Bernie strategy. Isn't Jewish technically a race?
FYI, while I think Clinton is guilty as sin of violating national security law as well as federal e mail rules. I think that an indictment at this point in the process would have been a political mistake and thrown the election into more turmoil than it is. Further, I have no doubt that P-BO would have pardoned her or quashed the indictment anyway. I'm just pointing out that it's hypocritical to use lack of infictment as the moral standard when it's your candidate, but to refer to others as murdererers or whatever when they've not been indicted or convicted of murder.
What you have Craig, areaccusations. Innuendo. Rumors. Gossip. Bull. Shit... in other words.
Clinton is not a perfect person and I'm more of a Sanders man myself. But the charges that you all just keep making up are just so much Cheez Whiz. There's no data to support the charges.
Bring some actual data, confirmed crimes, actual missteps, and we can talk. But I got no time or patience for girlish gossip coming from sore losers whose party's candidate is a moral atrocity and a sick joke.
Again I can point to data... I provided a link with confirmed data showing that Clinton does not lie any more than the other candidates in this election and does much better than the top two candidates in your party. Bring me some actual data and we can talk. Beung Christians, we have no business dealing in paltry gossip.
Lest you not understand, I find the Democratic leadership's behavior appalling. I'm not surprised by it because I have no blinders on, but it is appalling.
However, it pales in comparison to the GOP being so desperate for a win that they are running a candidate that's drawing and encouraging so much racist support and a candidate whose behavior is atrocious and who stands for so many un-American values and who is clearly not presidential material.
And so, as long as that we only have options of flawed parties, I will go with one who's making horrible mistakes but not actually being evil vs the party that's actually being evil.
The difference is: I don't think Clinton is a true disaster, a moral reprobate or a sick joke and a con artist. I think she is a flawed but decent person who is a flawed but decent candidate. I don't buy into the kangaroo court anti-American "guilty until proven innocent" approach the GOP is taking.
You all are considering voting for someone who you know to be a moral joke and a reprobate. Someone who probably raped a girl (NOTE: I'm not accusing him of that and that is not what I'm basing not supporting him on, but if we're going to talk innuendo, there's certainly more there and it's more believable of a charge... I wouldn't even bring it up except you all keep bringing up gossip, so IF we want to talk unproven charges, Trump's got Clinton beat hands down). But regardless, someone who is a pig. As you all well know.
"What you have Craig, areaccusations. Innuendo. Rumors. Gossip. Bull. Shit... in other words."
If you want to call the results of the FBI investigation BS, go right ahead. I know it's hard for you to confront the venality and corruption in your beloved democrat party.
Really, zero, none, zip nada, you are honestly trying to convince someone (yourself perhaps), that with 30 years of ethical failings following Clinton that absolutely none of it is true? You're really going to deny Hilary's racist comments? Her abuse of both her protective details as well as her abuse of Bill's victims. It's all 100% made up lies and BS, that's your position, really. Your going to deny that Hilary didn't make racist comments in this very campaign? I get it. Deny, Deny, Deny. If you keep denying long enough maybe you can even convince yourself that Hilary is really 100% innocent of everything she's done. It's just coincidence that various foreign countries were contributing to the $100 million dollar fortune the Clintons have amassed through Bill's speaking fees while Hilary was Sec State. It's just a filthy lie that Hilary has taken hundreds of thousands from the very Wall Street bankers she claims she'll regulate. It's all just 100% made up BS, slander and lies, that's seriously your position.
As long as she's not indicted it's OK, that means it's all made up.
Back in the day, folks used to say that the appearance of impropriety was enough to qualify someone from office. Now, it's all good as long as there are no indictments. What a crock.
"I provided a link with confirmed data showing that Clinton does not lie any more than the other candidates in this election and does much better than the top two candidates in your party."
Oh, OK one whole link from the internet, that's enough to convince me. The fact is that Hilary Clinton is on the record lying. It's not an accusation, it's not made up, it's actually on video tape. The FBI confirmed the fact that she's lied. I'm quite sure that your single internet link is 100% free from bias and that it measured everything perfectly and that the politics of the people who compiled the data had absolutely zero impact on the findings. C'mon, it's a single internet link, no one can argue with that.
"But I got no time or patience for girlish gossip coming from sore losers whose party's candidate is a moral atrocity and a sick joke."
Is this an example of the grace you're so known for or of not engaging in gossip and/or slander. The problem you have with your holier than thou morally self righteous proclamation is that fact that you have no objective standard by which to measure morality. You've been adamant that morality is subjective and society driven, but now you want to make an objective moral case. Sorry, you can't have this both ways.
"Lest you not understand, I find the Democratic leadership's behavior appalling. I'm not surprised by it because I have no blinders on, but it is appalling."
It's appalling, and corrupt, and morally bankrupt, and racist (religionist), but somehow it's just not quite to the level of evil. Even though you're appalled, you're not going to do or say anything really negative about it and your going to support the results of a corrupt process. Again, that's the difference between us. I have no desire to go along with corruption, just because it's "my team", you on the other hand will.
"However, it pales in comparison to the GOP being so desperate for a win that they are running a candidate that's drawing and encouraging so much racist support and a candidate whose behavior is atrocious and who stands for so many un-American values and who is clearly not presidential material."
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But in the absence of proof (remember that whole double standard thing I mentioned? This is a great example, you deny the clear evidence that's literally a few mouse clicks away, demand that others produce "data", while you simply name call and make accusations with no 'data"), I'll have to categorize your remarks as your own personal (graceless, possibly slanderous) opinion unsupported by proof.
Clearly, I'm not a Trump fan. I can 9and have) come up with a list of behaviors and things he's said that lead me to believe that he's not presidential material. The problem I have is that I can do the same for Hilary. Clearly these are the two worst presidential candidates in recent memory, and the saddest part is that all three of the VP candidates would be better POTUS candidates than VPOTUS candidates. Look, if you want to delude yourself that a sustained, planned, racist, corrupt strategy to deny Sanders the nomination (of which we now have proof), is simply a "mistake" and that Hilary had absolutely ZERO knowledge or approval of this corrupt strategy, go right ahead. Personally, the fact the Hilary immediately hired Schulz, certainly suggests that Hilary's tolerance for either corruption or "mistakes' is pretty high.
What do you expect from someone who is "extremely careless" and shows "poor judgement"?
So let me get this straight, the party who engaged in systematic corruption and racist tacticts in order to rig the outcome of the primary, thwarting the will of thousands/millions of voters is simply "flawed", while the party who set up a fair system, let people vote in elections that were free and fair, and abided by the will of the voters is "evil". Really.
I guess in a world where morality is subjective and fluid, it's prefect logical to excuse corruption and call free and fair elections "evil". Perhaps had the Republicans used corrupt tactics to rig elections and thwart the will of the people, you think much more highly of them, strange.
"The difference is: I don't think Clinton is a true disaster, a moral reprobate or a sick joke and a con artist."
Of course your subjective morality doesn't really give you the standing to make this objective claim.
I'm confused, are you suggesting that racist comments do not automatically make one a "moral reprobate"?
"I don't buy into the kangaroo court anti-American "guilty until proven innocent" approach the GOP is taking."
So, are you really suggesting that despite unambiguous (confirmed by the FBI) evidence that Hilary has consistently and repeatedly lied about the entire e mail server issue, you are going with the "right wing conspiracy" thing over the evidence. Got it.
"You all are considering voting for someone who you know to be a moral joke and a reprobate."
Again, no basis to make this objective claim.
"Someone who probably raped a girl..."
OK, how many women did Bill Clinton "supposedly' rape? How many of those women did Hilary viciously attack. Seriously?
Is this more of the "grace" you prate about so proudly? Is trotting out gossip (you even admit it's "innuendo") an example of your "incredible" morality? Get real. If you want to play the rape card, at least have the spine to play it consistently. Hell, Ted Kennedy killed a woman. Abandoned her to drown. You want to brush that off too? JFK truly was a "moral reprobate not to mention most likely abusing prescription drugs. Seriously, if all you have is "innuendo", then either quit right now, or be intellectually consistent.
"But regardless, someone who is a pig. As you all well know."
I'm confused, is that "grace" or "incredible" morality?
"However, it pales in comparison to the GOP being so desperate for a win..."
That they openly and publicly tried to influence voters to not vote for Trump.
That many leading members of the GOP either stayed away from the convention or refuse to endorse Trump.
Seriously, if you keep your delusions a little closer to reality they might conceivably be somewhat more believable.
God bless those conservatives who have the moral rectitude to not back their flawed candidate. I'm not speaking of them, obviously. I'm speaking of the GOP leaders who just led their Rally for the Racists.
If you want to call the results of the FBI investigation BS
I recall them quite well: She did not lie to the FBI. There is nothing illegal in what she did. She made stupid mistakes.
I recall them quite well, what of them? They support my contention, not yours.
God bless those liberals who have the moral rectitude not to back their flawed candidate.
Well, as long as Clinton did lie "to the FBI" then it's all good. Let's ignore that both of them have now lied under oath.
"They support my contention, not yours."
Really, you're contending that Clinton blatantly and repeatedly lied to the public and to congress? Congratulations, that's at least a step in the right direction. Obviously chronic lying as part of an official government investigation is just a tiny little flaw, it's not morally reprehensible or anything like that. Just a teensy weensy tiny little flaw, it's so small that if you don;t watch the back to back videos of the lies, you hardly even notice them.
I have to say, this is some of the most amusing stuff you've ever written. Who would have thought that you'd be making excuses for a racist, liar.
Again, the data does not support your partisan claims. It will be easier to take you seriously if you were consistently condemning false claims and the larger problem the GOP has. According to the data.
Ok, I understand that you need to keep denying what's there. Ignoring the racism, lying, and corruption. Keep telling yourself that as long as there's no indictment it's all 100% false. If that's what it takes for you to vote for your candidate, then do what you need to do. If innuendo makes you feel morally superior, I guess you'll but the innuendo. Politics makes people do all sorts of strange things.
The problem you have, is that you've twisted my disgust with your lying, corrupt, racist candidate into support for Trump and the GOP despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Not all of us blindly accept our party and candidates as em critically as you do. Since you just choose to ignore the data and pretend that you can dismiss the evidence, it's now impossible to take you seriously and give you any credibility.
It's interesting that you blast me as being partisan when I've quite clearly and unambiguously been critical of both candidates while you excuse, dismiss, and minimize the corruption, racism, and lies that got your candidate this far. The GOP didn't need to rig the system and predetermine the outcome, they're fine with free and fair elections not some banana republic sham.
It appears you will find what you want to find and what your biases helped confirm. And that's okay.
I will stick to looking at the data and I would say that what I see the data says is that she is flawed,that she's made mistakes, that she's not a racist nor a greater liar than any of the other candidates.
With each and every very public mistake she has made, she has been found guilty of any serious wrongdoing, just of making mistakes. Therefore I can in good conscience vote for her and I most likely will. Especially given the very evil, very un-American, very ridiculous alternative.
You, on the other hand, have said that if your state was a contested state you would probably vote for Trump even knowing how awful he is. That is, you would have to vote against your conscience choosing an Evil.
Now I get that you disagree with my assessment of Clinton but the reality is that I just do not find her to be anything like comparable to Trump in terms of just being bad. That is, per your post, you would give a serious consideration to voting for an evil, which your post decries.
I almost always vote queasily, but never have I voted for what I consider an evil.
What you consider evil is fluid and very subjective. We see this with your support and promotion of sexual immorality and your willingness to let fellow Americans subjectively dictate when the most innocent of human beings should be allowed to either live or be torn apart and killed.
If Hillary was only guilty of negligence, with regards classified materials, that is a federal offense. Comey admitted she was guilty of that, both in his press conference (a remarkably unprecedented event in an of itself) and in his follow up questioning by Gowdy and others. Comey said he didn't recommend actual charges because he didn't think any prosecutor would take the case. Many prosecutors apparently were more than willing to do so.
Hillary's treatment of Bubba's sexual victims was such that she may as well have been the perpetrator herself. Standing by your man after repeated sexual assaults and harassment over the course of many years is enabling in a very self-serving way. It is every bit an abuse of power as her husband's behavior was. She was far more concerned about losing the cushy situation than she was about justice for all those women.
Clinton straight up lied about the Benghazi affair. This was to distract from her inept handling of the calls for help from our people. The parents of the dead insist that she lied about the stupid video when she well knew that it had nothing to do with the attack on our embassy.
All of the above (and so much more) are far more than the innuendo that satisfies Dan with regard to Trump's character. There is no delusion in either Craig or myself with regard to who and what Trump may very well be. But even one could truly explain away all the scandal and allegations about Hillary, one is still left with a woman whose policies are harmful to the nation.
Dan sees no evil because he craves the evil he denies. He wants him some of that evil.
Again, I completely understand your commitment to support whoever the dems trot out no matter what. I also understand your selective attention to the data. What I don't understand is what basis you have to make these objective moral judgements you keep making. What I also don't understand, is your need to twist my non support of Trump into blind partisanship. I've been much more negative about Trump than you have about Hilary. That even ignores the fact that you feel confident enough to presume that I find Trump evil. I don't support him and I have many specific areas of disagreement with him, but I've never said I find him evil, because I don't.
So stick with corruption, racism, poor judgement, and carelessness as the qualities you want in a president. Just stop criticizing those who look at the evidence and see the reality.
Art,
I assume that when you refer to Bubba the sexual deviant, you mean Clinton and not the Bubba who comments on blogs.
One could argue that Dan's selective view of evil is a result of his inability to ground evil in any objective standard.
I don't think libs like Ellison and Ginsburg are evil, but apparently stupid isn't far off the mark. Although Ginsburg's recent statements endorsing social Darwinism and eugenics are certainly flirting with evil.
Yes, Craig, you are correct about "Bubba" Clinton.
As to evil, it is a word few feel comfortable with applying. To call another "evil" is a very strong thing to do. When does "sinful" become "evil"? When does the support of sinful or evil practices make the supporter "evil"? To know a tree by the fruit it bears should be enough to call a spade a spade. At the very least, we should not be fearful or too "humble" to acknowledge that evil is at work all the time in most of us to one degree or another, and for some far more than others.
With this in mind, the character of either Clinton or Trump can be legitimately characterized with their past histories in mind. More importantly, to forgive the failings of one while highlighting the failings of the other seems clearly to be the modus operandi of one Dan Trabue.
As you say and as it is true of me, I do not ignore the shortcomings of Trump. I am equally disheartened, to say the least, that we are faced with such poor choices. But the fate of the nation compels me to make a choice between them, as no third choice will have any impact whatsoever. The bottom line is one of the two will win in November.
I say again, one of the two will win and no third choice exists to provide any possibility of that not being true. I cannot pretend that not choosing between the two can in any way be justified. There is no moral advantage in such pretense, and I can't talk myself into believing that voting third party, not voting, writing in someone who won't win without massive and obvious support that is a recognized threat by either of these two candidates, is a legitimate and honest act that absolves me of whatever befalls the nation, should the worse of the two succeed.
Trump's a bad choice. Hillary is worse simply for being a Democrat, as well as for all her lack of ability, intelligence and selflessness. She must not succeed.
We are the ones to blame for being faced with this choice. It's that simple. We put ourselves in this position.
I've just realized that to call Trump evil (in an objective sense not comparative sense), simply demeans the concept of evil. Hitler, Stalin, Pot, Mao, Caligula, Manson, these are people who embody evil and fully deserve an eternity in hell for their deeds. But, once you refer to Trump as evil, it just masks and diminished true evil. Of course positing evil in the absence of an objective standard carries its own problems.
Help me understand, Craig. You said...
I just can't understand this willingness to vote for evil
And yet you've said over at Stan's that, if you were in a state that mattered, you'd probably vote for Trump, which is a vote for evil, in your estimation.
Am I understanding you correctly? If so, then perhaps you do understand a willingness to vote for evil, when left feeling desperate.
For my part, if Trump were the nominee for Dem ticket, I'd not only not vote for him (opting to vote the green party instead), I'd actively campaign against him. I'd feel obliged as a part of the party running such an evil candidate to take an even stronger stand against him than the GOP folk might feel.
Because integrity.
Just to help you understand where I'm coming from.
Once again, you've made up what you think my position is despite evidence to the contrary. I've never said Trump is evil (I may have used the lesser of two evils metaphors to express my displeasure with the choice we have) I actually addressed this in the previous comment, perhaps reading it would have been helpful.
Yet your integrity allows you to support a racist, liar, elected through a corrupt process, if that's what integrity is to you I'm not impressed.
It's interesting how your prejudices manifest themselves.
1. I never said I'd actively support Trump.
2. There is a significant difference between considering voting for someone and actually voting for someone.
3. I'm not so closed minded that I couldn't be persuaded by either candidate.
4. Apparently in your rush to connect me with Trump, you chose to ignore the fact that I was considering other options as well.
5. The fact that you're surprised that I spend significant time with Muslims, so surprised you had to repeat yourself.
6. I've never said Trump is evil.
Other than virtually everything you've assumed, you're right on target.
I've often thought that liberals had their sense of humor removed at some point. The response to the Trump comment about the Russian hacking situation just proved my point.
Dan continues to pretend that his anecdotal evidence has any real value as compared to the entirety of the evidence regarding the threat to civilized nations that is islam. I personally have problem with those that do not worship the actual God of the Bible, as evidenced by my continued discourse with Dan himself. As much as I'd like to see all people come to Christ on Christ's terms, an ongoing struggle of my own, those what wish to worship as they please are more than free to do so, regardless of what I believe the eternal consequences for doing so might be.
With that said, there remains the FACT that the lion's share of terrorist activity is provoked by the teachings of islam, and that FACT isn't mitigated by those muslims who purport to believe they conflict with the faith, despite a plain reading of their own holy books and the teachings of their own apologists throughout the religion's history.
It is sad that an entire people must live under suspicion due to the actions and behaviors of some (to be generous) of their own. Black Americans have suffered in this way. Italian Americans have suffered in this way. Even white Americans suffer in this way due to the actions of those like David Duke, Robert Byrd and the KKK...especially as so many wish to tar all white people because of them.
But as this one group of people are responsible for so much death, oppression and suffering...because this one group of people are responsible for perpetuating slave trading, women as chattel and the forced conversion of so many...because this one group has as part of their very "religion of peace" teachings that lying to non-muslims in order to advance the cause is a good thing, that "innocent" more often than not means other muslims who live and believe as those who will kill and oppress...because of all this, it is not only reasonable, but essential and mandatory that people from muslim-majority nations be prohibited from further entry until such time as we can as perfectly as possible weed out that small percentage that seeks to kill as many as possible (14 murdered 3000 in '01---1 killed 49 in Orlando).
Any desire to help those muslims fleeing from the savagery and evil of their own must do so by helping them in their own countries or in those Middle Eastern areas where there exists space to hold them. Not here. Not amongst my own people who will suffer from the actions of those the leftist idiocy will put in jeopardy.
As to evil, it is starkly apparent that Dan equivocates on the notion of evil as it suits him. He supports the evil of abortion by voting for the party most likely to secure free access for any reason whatsoever, as if the whim of the mother is a right more solidly enumerated in the US Constitution that is the right to life. Such support is no different than the worshiping of Molech. It is, then, rank hypocrisy for Dan to dare refer to any candidate as evil, to pretend he eschews support for those he regards as evil, when as a leftist and Democrat, he supports evil and wickedness with every vote cast for a Democrat.
Post a Comment