At the risk of repeating myself, Donald Trump is a person of low character and because of his character failings I chose not to support him in the 2016 election, and won't in 2020 either.
He is clearly someone for whom honesty and transparency are foreign concepts. He ethics are dependent solely on his perception of what's best for him at any given moment. His repeated unfaithfulness to his wives, as well as his multiple divorces, are reason enough not to support him.
I could go on and list in great detail, and with great vitriol each and every failure of character Trump has. I could ascribe those character failings to him being "evil" or "depraved" or debauched" or any number of things.
But, for me, the fact that he holds his marriage vows in such low esteem tells me enough about his lack of character and morals that I have no real need to expound further.
Has he told more lies that anyone, ever in the history of American politics? I have no idea, nor do the people who make those sorts of claims. Has Trump done things that I have agreed with, sure he has. But I almost always find things that presidents I didn't support have done that I have agreed with.
Were his comments about forcing himself on women crude, vile, and inexcusable? Of course, yet we still have statues and venerate Harvey Milk who did much worse things that Trump talked about.
Unfortunately the problem ins't so much that Trump is a person severely lacking in character, that's a given. It's the fact that those who hate him, don't hold those on their own side to a remotely similar standard.
Of course, as people who profess a belief in Christ, shouldn't our posture toward Trump (and others) be one of working, praying, and hoping for him to repent? For him to acknowledge his failures and to respond to the saving grace of Jesus?
Finally, do I need, want, or hope to impose my views on others? No, I'm not responsible for others. Do I hope that we have better choices in 2020 than in 2016? Yes I do. Do I feel a compulsion to be disagreeable, or to lie about those I disagree with? No I don't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Okay, I'm trying for the most part to ignore you and your irrational defense of this man (by way of equivocating on how unfit he is and comparing him to just other politicians), but just for the record...
"Has he told more lies that anyone, ever in the history of American politics? I have no idea, nor do the people who make those sorts of claims. "
What the claim is is that he has PUBLICLY made more false claims than anyone else has been documented saying. And we DO have an idea. We have the words/claims of presidents from the past. We have Trump's idiotic tweets that he endlessly vomits. We can count. We can consider the words and recognize a false claim when we see it. It's demonstrable.
But you pretending like this is some vague and unknowable mystery is just ANOTHER way you DEFEND this lying scumbag. This post is NOT a critique of Trump, it is a defense of him, it gives him and his sycophants support and comfort, NOT a prophetic slap across the face.
Just like Trump's words (even his milquetoast criticisms of racists and Nazis) give comfort and support to racists and Nazis.
While you may even actually THINK you are a critic of Trump, Craig, you're just another half-assed defender of his shameful behavior. You ARE Trump, in your approach to public commentary. Only, he's better at it than you are. You're acting as a poor man's Trump.
Open your eyes.
I’m simply pointing out the reality that you’re doing one of two things. Your making a claim you can’t prove or you’re qualifying the claim to where it’s narrow enough to be pointless.
The the reality is that you’ve decided to live in a fantasy world where anyone who doesn’t rabidly attack every single thing Trump has done or said with a Dan approved level of vitriol somehow “supports” Trump.
You know this is a false claim, distorted by your partisanship and your hatred for Trump, yet you continue to repeat the false claim.
With the level of effort you’ve put into justification of your personal descent Into crudity and crassness, it’s amusing to watch you bash others for what you justify in yourself.
Dan,
When you officially become a prophet, you can do all the prophetic slaps you want, but your not a prophet, nor do you carry the authority of Jesus.
My post is more than clear about my feelings about Trump.
Please stop lying.
Unfortunately, you are not in a place to decide who is and isn't a prophet, one who speaks truth to power.
I may not be a prophet, but my pastor is. My wife is. My church is filled with people speaking prophetically and powerfully about the dangers of this hedonist and those, like you, who either actively or tacitly endorse and encourage him/them.
No lies on my part. The data is out there, it's no secret. That you CONTINUE to deny reality is yet another way you give support to this lying administration and those perverse and debauched people who support him.
Open your eyes. Soften your heart. Open your brain. Gird your loins.
Yet, I’ve not denied reality, you only need to believe I have.
You’re right, I don’t get to decide who’s a prophet or not. However I can read what you say, observe how you treat those you disagree with, and not that biblical prophets pointed to God. They claimed to speak for God. Clearly this is not you.
If believing the lie that I support Trump helps you feel superior or validated, then you believe what you want.
Dan,
Your vitriolic ramblings would carry more weight if Trump has manifested these "dangers" of which you and your alleged prophets fear. To this point, there is no hint that such danger from his supposed hedonism has rained down upon the nation. There is only hate and fear mongering from the likes of you all. Some "Christians". As Craig says, we should be hearing about praying for his everlasting soul and and epiphany for him. Instead, we get your crap. Some "Christian"!
So once again, no one...that is, absolutely NO ONE, tacitly or directly, supports, encourages, enables or celebrates his moral failings. NO ONE. If you can point to anyone, certainly anyone with whom you engage on these here blogs, who does, feel free. Just have some "hard data" to support the charge. It hasn't happened.
What you don't have the sense or grace to acknowledge is that despite his moral failings, he's been a pretty solid president. Indeed, that's what grates on you most...that someone of his low character can be so good at this job. He really exposes the impotence of Obama and Dems in general, given that they do nothing that helps anyone or anything...except for the lawless, both civil and spiritual.
For the both of you, and anyone else, I add this: Because of Trump's moral failings, I did not support him in the primaries. Because of Hillary's far greater moral failings, I had no choice but to cast my vote for Trump, as I look at my vote as the single deciding vote in every election in which I participate. I believe every eligible voter should regard his/her own vote with the same level of importance. This notion of not voting because Jesus isn't among the candidates is a great danger to the republic. To risk the worst possible candidate winning simply because the opponent isn't vastly better is akin to supporting that worst possible candidate.
Should he run again, however, in 2020, his past indiscretions are of lesser significance than it did in 2016, particularly and especially should he continue to execute his office in a manner that does not reflect that history. If he's proven himself to respect the office and get the job done, he has proven that he is not ruled by his horndog character and can set it aside for the good of the nation. And, should he continue to execute his office as well as he's done so far, I would be disappointed to see anyone from the party run against him. Anyone who cares about the nation should be backing this guy based on his track record as a president thus far. That doesn't mean you can't jump ship should he start to govern poorly. I know I won't have a problem doing that. But to pretend by then that his past matters will be more idiotic than to reject him when the threat of a Hillary Clinton presidency loomed so large.
Art,
Keep in mind that voting for Hillary, (who has more than her share of ethical baggage, issues with telling the truth, and other problems) because she was the “lesser of two evils” is completely appropriate for those who chose that route. But they strangely won’t apply the same standards to those who voted for Trump for the same reason.
Without in any way defending Trump. Those who are going after him about the payoffs to the woman he had a consensual affair with, would have much more credibility if they’d gone after the members of Congress who paid off sexual harassment victims with public money.
if the issue is paying women for silence, then it seems reasonable that any comparisons offered would be “apples to apples” so to speak. If Trump paying off women with what is essentially “private” money is so horrible then paying off sexual assault victims with “public” money would seemingly be worse.
But pointing out a bunch of people who were eventually run out of office (many who were defended by the liberal social media contingent, Dan), by public pressure without using public money for payoffs...
because she was the “lesser of two evils” is completely appropriate for those who chose that route. But they strangely won’t apply the same standards to those who voted for Trump for the same reason.
The difference being that Clinton was a flawed human running for an office, but NOT an "evil" choice by any rational serious measure. She had different views than you or I might hold and she had some ethical problems, as all politicians do.
The difference with Trump is that he was fatally flawed. His problems were many and insurmountable.
IF Trump were running as a Dem, I wouldn't have been able to vote for him.
IF Clinton had 1/10 the baggage that Trump had, I wouldn't have been able to vote for her.
IF Clinton had laughingly boasted about grabbing an oppressed person by the crotch, or laughed about viewing naked teen-aged boys, or lied multiple times literally on a daily basis... ALL those things would make her a fatally flawed candidate. Too close to actual evil.
But she was merely flawed.
Any attempts to compare the mere flaws in Clinton's campaign and character to the serious fatal flaws in Trumps only serves to reveal the fatal flaws in someone attempting to defend evil.
The distinction you make is sound. There is absolutely no crime related to using private or corporate funds in exchange for the silence of a person who seeks to tarnish one's reputation. Some choose to assume the allegations are true, but that isn't required for one to feel it wise to spend some cash to shut up a troublemaker. That is, the allegations could be absolutely false and provably so given the time and effort to show it, but not worth that effort within the time frame of trying to win an election. This sort of thing is done all the time, and I made mention somewhere of out of court settlements being cheaper than going to court to prove innocence.
But there is no crime of any kind, even if the point was to hush it up prior to an electoral campaign in order to preserve or enhance a desired image. If campaign funds were used, that's another story, but it wasn't the case with Trump. They're just fishing again and trying to make it seem like Trump did something illegal, unethical or nefarious by paying these tramps to stay quiet. The real crime is their public statements after having entered into the contract to stay quiet. Trump-haters aren't the least bit concerned about that.
1. Flawed and “fatally flawed” are subject and arbitrary. Those reflect your opinion, not any objective reality. That’s fine, you and I chose to vote for people other than Trump because of his flaws. Also, many of the flaws you point out now, weren’t necessarily as big or as known during the campaign, so applying things retroactively isn’t really a great plan.
2. In so far as “evil” is appropriate for either of the two, there are plenty of things Hillary has done, supported, condoned, or covered up that could be described as “evil”. However, realistically, calling either of them “evil” simply demeans real evil.
3. Trump ran as a Republican and I didn’t vote for him.
4. Clinton had plenty of baggage. Her history of racist and anti Semitic remarks, her persecution of the women Bill sexually assualted, and the role she played in manipulating the elections in Haiti and the vast sums of money the Clinton foundation diverted away from disaster relief are just a few.
The point is, that if you put aside your Trump hatred, you should be able to admit that “the lesser of two evils” is a rational decision on both sides or it’s not ever. Further, that perception is (on both sides) driven by a number of things both rational and irrational.
If you really consider fixing elections and diverting disaster relief funds from the poorest people in this hemisphere to your rich cronies as “minor flaws”, then your judgement might be compromised.
He’ll it took you decades to admit that Bill Clinton did anything really wrong. Perjury is just a minor flaw, right?
To be really clear, my pointing out the problems of others is NOT intended to give Trump a pass, just to point out the double standard.
FYI, the Clinton campaign manipulated the Democratic primary system to deny Sanders a fair shot, and paid Fusion GPS for the dossier of false information on Trump. But those are just “minor flaws” also.
I’d have a ton more respect for your Trump hatred if you weren’t trying so hard to minimize Clinton’s flaws and were being realistic about both of them. But, your bias makes that difficult.
Also, many of the flaws you point out now, weren’t necessarily as big or as known during the campaign
Oh, please. There were MANY conservatives (good ones) pointing out ahead of time all these fatal flaws. It was no secret that he was a lying scumbag, probably guilty of many crimes, certainly guilty of great immorality. No one entered into this with any illusions about how bad a man Trump truly was.
But, some conservatives, largely old white evangelicals, decided that these fatal flaws (fatal to a majority of the country and a good number of conservatives) were lines they could cross. THAT is where conservatism failed. THAT is where people like you failed to reach out to your fellow conservatives and say THIS SHOULD NOT BE!
Indeed, a few conservatives did. But the anti-Trumpers failed to do so with sufficient force of argument to win over those willing to cross that line.
I am NOT minimizing Clinton's flaws. I'm just not buying into the imaginary flaws you think she has. The primary system flaws she DID actually do were damning, indeed. Not at all in the league of Trump's much worse flaws, but damning.
But an older person failing to do her email correctly? Please.
How much did the Clintons pay to make Bill’s women go away, and does anyone seriously think Hillary wasn’t involved in that decision?
So, it’s ok for the Clintons to pay of Bill’s conquests, but it’s bad for Trump.
Sure you are minimizing Clinton’s flaws. The fact that you refer to things that have been documented by media that skew left as “imaginary flaws you think she has” proves the falseness of your claim. The fact that you breezily minimize the fact that confidential emails somehow managed to go from Hillary’s server to Weiner’s laptop. Of course, you ignore the stuff I mentioned, to make email jokes.
Seriously, if she’s too old to manage something as simple as her email according to federal law (especially given the fact that she had a staff to help her) why would anyone think she’d be capable of dealing with complex issues of policy.
FYI, if my 23 year old son had to sign the email policy and be subject to prosecution when he worked at an entry level job at the USDA, why shouldn’t high level government employees and appointees be subject to the same rules as the entry level?
Further, are you trying to deny that the Clintons did the very act that Trump is being pilloried for? (Paying off women)
It’s interesting to note that your making such a big deal about things that Trump has done since being elected as being things people knew about during the campaign.
I have to wonder how much the demonization if ALL of the GOP candidates had to do with Trump being elected.
The thing to keep in mind, is that I’m not bringing up Clinton’s issues to excuse Trump’s issues, but to point out the inconsistencies of the Trump haters. You’re doing a great job of helping me out
Dan,
"The difference being that Clinton was a flawed human running for an office, but NOT an "evil" choice by any rational serious measure."
You possess neither the competence, nor the authority, to define what counts as "evil", especially given your support for sexual immorality and the murder of the unborn. If you want to continue pretending you're a Christian, it would at least be gracious to inform us when you're defining "evil" by Christian standards or by humanist standards. It wouldn't lead to a "rational" judgement of Hillary Clinton either way, but it would at least clarify for us what the hell you mean.
For my part, I regard as "evil" any level of sin or sinful behavior. The terms are actually quite synonymous. Even when considering people rather than actions, Scripture clearly teaches we are all fallen, craven creatures of a sin nature...basically evil at heart. But for the purposes of this comparison, it absurd to pretend that she is any less "evil" than Trump, especially given her record as a "public servant" and her blatant disregard for others, as testified to by more than one subordinate of hers.
In any case, I'm totally not surprised that you would pretend Trump is the greater of the two evils, but simply running as a Democrat (indeed, she's never been anything better) puts her at a distinct disadvantage for the title of "lesser of two evils" given the vile planks of the Democratic Party.
"The difference with Trump is that he was fatally flawed. His problems were many and insurmountable."
Nonsense I find completely unsurprising coming from you. Were any of those problems like these?
"18USC§201 Bribery18USC§208 Acts Effecting A Personal Financial Interest (Includes Recommendations)18USC§371 Conspiracy18USC§1001 False Statements18USC§1341 Frauds And Swindles (Mail Fraud)18USC§1343 Fraud By Wire18USC§1349 Attempt And Conspiracy (To Commit Fraud)18USC§1505 Obstruction Of Justice18USC§1519 Destruction (Alteration Or Falsification) Of Records In Federal Investigation18USC§1621 Perjury (Including Documents Signed Under Penalties Of Perjury)18USC§1905 Disclosure Of Confidential Information18USC§1924 Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material18USC§2071 Concealment (Removal Or Mutilation) Of Government Records18USC§7201 Attempt To Evade Or Defeat A Tax (Use Of Clinton Foundation Funds For Personal Or Political Purposes)18USC§7212 Attempts To Interfere With Administration Of Internal Revenue Laws (Call To IRS On Behalf Of UBS Not Turning Over Accounts To IRS)"
How 'bout these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxpJvrclIfM
or these:
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/10-scandals-involving-hillary-clinton-you-may-have-forgotten
Again, I'm not surprised that you choose not to categorize any of the above as "many and insurmountable" problems. And I'm not sure I can't find more stuff to add to the list. There are a plethora of sites that have such lists on Hillary alone. But you'd rather believe his boasts about his "conquests" and encounters with women, despite calling him a pathological liar (something many have accused Hillary of being). You want to carry on with this favorite lie of yours:
"IF Clinton had laughingly boasted about grabbing an oppressed person by the crotch"
When he never made such a boast at all. If you had just a shred of honesty in your corrupt and hateful heart, you would drop this crap like the crap it is. He said, and pay attention as I explain this to you once again, that because of his stature as a rich celebrity, there are women that would let you grab them. He never said he grabbed anyone by the crotch. You just love the imagery so much despite your claims that you're not a male who engages in locker room behavior. As Craig points out and is so accurate in doing so, your double standards are stupidly obvious.
"Mere flaws" of Clinton? You lie like Trump. Scratch that...you lie like Clinton.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/09/the_truth_about_the_clintons_and_haiti.html
A pretty unbiased look at the Clinton's corrupt handling of the Haiti situation.
Remember when the defense folks like Dan offered for Bill Clinton? That his private actions shouldn't affect his public reputation. What's interesting is that virtually all of Hillary's "minor failings" directly involved her public positions. None of it was "private". Whereas most of Trump's failings are in his "private" life.
Double standard much?
I guess talking about grabbing women by the crotch (but with no evidence of actual grabbing) is much worse than grabbing a woman's hand and forcing her to grab Bill's crotch.
I realize that some of these things are not actions by Hillary, but three things to consider. 1. They were branded and promoted as a team. 2. Hillary was actively involved in organizing attacks on the women Bill was involved with, and as such assumes some responsibility. 3. The topic of this post is the double standard between the treatment of Trump and the treatment of the Clintons and others.
Dan just put up a post about what conservatives “should” be doing to live up to his subjective, flexible, inconsistently applied standards.
I’d suggest the following.
1. That Dan has no earthly idea what people are actually doing or not doing and is operating based entirely on his prejudices, commitment to group identity politics, and hatred of people who don’t parrot what he says they should.
2. As long as folks like Dan ignore, justify, excuse, and cover up the equivalent elements on the left, there is absolutely zero reason to take his irrational demands seriously.
It’s clear that those of us who have opposed Trump since the primaries somehow aren’t vitriolic or crude or violent enough for him.
So, I issue the challenge. You repudiate the equivalent leftist groups and movements in the type of terms you expect from others. Stop making excuses for the Clinton morass and admit the realities of their corruption and misdeeds. Call for the Harvey Milk statues to be removed, and hold your folk to the same standards you hold your enemies to.
Then we can talk.
“You are a mutta fukker feckless kunt!!! TERRORIST!!”
The above is a tweet from a leftist directed at Dana Loesch.
As a first step, let’s see you unequivocally denounce the sentiment in simple, direct, strong terms and call out the writer for inappropriateness.
“Listen, you fucking waste product. I pray you never give birth. You're a stain on humanity. My guess is you'll take your dying breath in prison. I can't wait. That's all.”
Here’s another for you to use to show us how it’s done.
“@DLoesch I hear sometimes those guns have a chance to backfire and fire the bullet through your face, CUNT!“
In case the others are too challenging, maybe you can start with this and show us how it’s done.
“You feckless cunt. May you one day realize the monster that you are.”
Here’s a short one. I’ve always been told that the “C”word was that one word that was 100% out of bounds to use when referring to a woman, I guess these liberals didn’t get that memo.
Post a Comment