Friday night, I heard John Piper speak on 2 Corinthians 6:10, then heard my wife's ex boss speak on it as well.
"10 sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything."
The most interesting point that Piper made was that most people would think of experiencing these two things as linear. First sorrow, then joy, rinse and repeat. However, he made the point that Paul was talking about experiencing both simultaneously. That our goal is to layer the two. My wife's boss, who knows whereof she speaks, talked about how this verse has guided her life for over 50 years and is her daily reality. It definitely got me thinking about the concept. What's more interesting is if we look at that verse in context.
"3 We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our ministry will not be discredited. 4 Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; 5 in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; 6 in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; 7 in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; 8 through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; 9 known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; 10 sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything."
If Paul can experience joy after all that...
As I thought more abut this, I was struck that the emotion du jour in christian circles, isn't sorrow. No, in 2021 that trendy christian emotion is anger. We see lots of folks embracing anger, some even seem to revel in it. It's "righteous" anger, of course.
What I realized is that I understand the value of experiencing joy and sorrow simultaneously, I don't think it's possible to allow joy and anger to do the same.
39 comments:
When I consider all being done to us, anger comes easily when given how predictable and thus easily avoidable it all was...and how so many who invited it should've known better because of how obvious this outcome was. A comfortable bed was being made, but we now sleep on rocks because the bed maker had a few insignificant quirks. How it's harmed my plans so late in my life, and worse, how it's threatened the future of those I love...and so needlessly...yeah...I'm pissed when I think on it. We pray God doesn't stay His hand, which is like setting ourselves on fire and begging Him to put it out and I still can't see how lighting the match was following His will.
Yet, I still find reasons to be cheerful among which are my family, friends and the life He gave me which still goes on, providing me with opportunities to serve Him. His promise is always a source of joy and mitigates the extent of my response to all the negatives swirling around me.
Speaking only for myself, I do it regularly.
I am angry at the injustice done towards immigrants most days. And I am joyful at the lives and relationships of the immigrants I know.
But anger remains a valid good. I stand with my immigrant neighbors (my LGBTQ neighbors, my women neighbors, my black neighbors, etc) in their anger at the real oppression in their/our history. Nothing at all wrong with righteous anger.
I find this commitment to anger puzzling.
You find it puzzling that people would be angry about about policies that caused harm to immigrants? To women? To people of color full of color?
Why wouldn't we be angry? Don't you think the answer is, of course we should be angry? And in your anger, sin not?
Let me choose a Democrat to pick on. I was very angry at Bill Clinton and his treatment of women, especially his young intern was barely an adult. That was clear sexual predatory behavior. It was wrong, that sort of behavior has caused women as a group great oppression over the years. I was angry as hell at Bill Clinton and remain so.
And of course, I was continually angry at Trump and his predatory behavior towards women.. These are things we SHOULD be righteously angry about.
Do you find it puzzling that I'm angry about that? Really?
For my part, I find a commitment to anger over non existent issues, like stolen elections, ..beyond puzling. That's insane and dangerous. I'm angry about those who spread those sort of dangerous false claims.
And I find a commitment to NOT being angry about things that should cause us anger puzzling.
I still find this commitment with, possibly obsession with, anger puzzling. I personally don't see the value in being so focused on anger, but if you find anger somehow valuable, then you just marinate in your anger if that makes you feel better.
Anger's a human emotion, and there is such a thing as righteous anger. But, yeah...definitely don't want to wallow in it. Especially if we feel moved to action over some legit provocation, making decisions while in a state of heightened emotion rarely works out well.
By the way, for my part, I do not or have not "committed" myself to anger. I'm just in a state where it comes more easily than it used to. I'm generally pretty calm...or used to be. It's a struggle for which I often pray for help.
For example, I'm not particularly angry about Dan using this topic and post to rehash his lies and suggest they're reasons to be angry. Dan being most angry about Clinton's consensual fling with an intern over the credibly charges of physical sexual assault shocking, if not angering...and at the same time, referring to Trump's womanizing as "predatory", like a good feminist. It's all so tiresome at this point, but the thought of young people taking Dan to heart when he lies is indeed angering.
You misunderstand. I'm focused on Justice. On ending oppression. On siding with the poor and marginalized. You know, like Jesus told us to do. And in that process, when the poor are oppressed, you get angry and maybe resort to making a whip and driving the oppressors out of the temple.
Seriously, you don't find anger at oppression reasonable, desirable, righteous?
If not (and the longer you refuse to answer this reasonable question, the more it seems you flippantly don't give a damn about Justice or heeding the teachings of Jesus... which I don't believe to be true... but why not answer??), why not? That his wholly irrational and immoral, so far as I can see.
We SHOULD be angry at oppression. All of reasonable humanity recognizes this, as do the Biblical authors and, I believe, God.
DO YOU DISAGREE?
Anger IS valuable WHEN you direct that anger towards effecting positive change. You recognize this, right?
Jesus Christ in Heaven, have mercy!
Craig... "possibly obsession with, anger puzzling."
Of course, there is no obsession. I'm an incredibly happy, contented, satisfied person. Ask anyone who knows me and you'd see that. And I get angry about oppression.
I could not be contented and happy if I didn't care about/get angry about oppression. It would be a "cheap joy," one built on lending support to oppressors and turning a blind eye to the poor and marginalized that Jesus made his Beloved Community.
Do you think that someone could be truly joyful/happy if they didn't care about the oppressed?
A Chosen Ignorance is not bliss, no matter how much someone might pretend it could be.
I still find the notion that both of you had the initial reaction of trying to justify your anger. Pardon me, if I find the reaction unusual.
Dan,
I have to admit that your attempt to twist my "silence" into something else entirely is amusing in a desperate sort of way. I guess the notion that allowing others to respond, listening to their responses, and waiting to throw in my two cents is foreign to you. The fact that you choose to impute sinister motives to my patience and litening says much more about you than it does about me.
No imputation. Just waiting for you just ONE TIME to take a stand and say clearly what you believe.
You know, be a rational adult who can communicate his values and thoughts.
Beyond that, WHAT "twisting" of your "silence" have I done? I'm continually asking questions because I BELIEVE YOU AGREE WITH ME, but your silence is a weird response.
Beyond that, I'm not justifying "our anger..." as if had anything to do with me. I am, instead, stating clearly that there are things to be angry about and milquetoasts who choose to be quiet instead of taking a stand and being righteously angry only serve to aid the oppressors.
Do you recognize that reality?
Do you disagree?
Will you just say what you believe? Is it the case that you hate to agree with me so much that you'd rather look like someone on the side of the oppressors?
Marshal... "Dan using this topic and post to rehash his lies and suggest they're reasons to be angry. Dan being most angry about Clinton's consensual fling with an intern over the credibly charges of physical sexual assault shocking, if not angering"
It's simple. IF Clinton has been sexually predatory and engaged in harassment and assault, I am outraged. The difference between Trump and Clinton is that there are fewer charges against Clinton and that they come down to he said/she said situations and as I've consistently said, in the case of one or two instances of charges... we should be careful in assuming guilt. BUT, in the case of handfuls or dozens of charges, AND in the context of the pervert's own words that endorse what his victims have alleged, well, you'd have go be a complete deviant or moron to accept that Trump is likely innocent.
In short, I'm very dubious of Clinton based on what we know about him. I wanted him removed from office when the Lewinsky thing emerged. But Clinton is no Trump. There can be no serious doubt that Trump is a predator and, again, only a moron or a predator-enabler would give that to him.
So, you can see, I'm consistent, regardless of politics. Whereas Marshal and even milquetoasts like Craig are giving benefits of doubt to conservative "heroes..."
"No imputation. Just waiting for you just ONE TIME to take a stand and say clearly what you believe."
Bullshit, you are clearly imputing that my patience is cover for "flippantly don't give a damn about Justice or heeding the teachings of Jesus.". The fact that you slather that slander with bullshit doesn't really help that much.
Of course, the "Just waiting for you just ONE TIME to take a stand and say clearly what you believe." Is just more bullshit. If you're going to make these bullshit claims, then prove them.
Your attempt to bully me into acceding to your demands, is not likely to be effective.
Art,
I just love how he thinks he's being harshly critical of Clinton, while simultaneously throwing out reasons why he doesn't really think Clinton did anything really wrong. Or some such bullshit.
Craig falsely and stupidly stated... "while simultaneously throwing out reasons why he doesn't really think Clinton did anything really wrong."
I did not do that at all. Look at my words instead of reading into them actual bullshit.
What we KNOW:
Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky, who was an intern and barely an adult. There was an imbalance of power and it was, while technically consensual, a great moral crime and abuse of power.
Beyond that, we also know that Clinton had affairs.
We know that one woman made an allegation of sexual harassment and one made an allegation of sexual assault and one made a rape allegation.
1. "Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, sued Clinton during his presidency for allegedly exposing himself to her when he was governor in 1991.
2. Kathleen Willey claims that Clinton fondled her breast and forced her hand on his crotch in the Oval Office in 1993, when she was a White House volunteer.
3. Most seriously of all, Juanita Broaddrick claims that Clinton raped her during his 1978 campaign for Arkansas governor."
We can't prove any of these instances. There's no supporting evidence beyond he said/she said.
NONETHELESS, I said loudly and clearly when these allegations came out that, while we can't arrest a man for allegations, the Democrats should NOT consider nominating him for public office (much less, the President).
The only one we know FOR SURE, is his abuse/harassment/affair with Lewinsky. That, too, was deplorable and I called for him to be removed from office, or at least, that the Democrats should stop supporting him and that he should step down from office. (I'm not sure that lying about a consensual affair - even one as abusive as this from a power position - is impeachable material).
So, difference number one between the GOP/Marshal types and progressive/my types are that they were not willing to take even that level of accountability for Trump. They STILL treat him as a credible candidate when he's a monster. Period.
More...
Craig falsely and stupidly stated... "while simultaneously throwing out reasons why he doesn't really think Clinton did anything really wrong."
So, CLEARLY, I think Clinton did something wrong AND he had behavior that makes these three unproven allegations at least a believable possibility. And yet, at the same time, they're not provable and there are at least some discrepancies between some of these women's stories and the known facts. Not saying that I don't believe them, just that it's a hard case because we have no proof.
NONETHELESS, I never voted for Clinton and wrote letters to the editor and talked to my progressive friends saying he should not be our nominee.
I was consistent in that regard.
But these three unproven allegations against Clinton literally pale in comparison to the dozens of allegations against Trump. That, PLUS, the testimony of that sexual predator's OWN words. Only a moron would accept his stupidly false claims that he's innocent and only a rapist/sexual predator's enabler would remain quiet about this degree of actual perversion/rapey behavior.
You don't have that with progressives like me with Clinton and you sure don't have it with us with Trump.
But you and Marshal represent the worst of modern Trump "conservatives..." one actively supporting him in spite of his rapey behavior and the other being mostly quiet with an occasional milquetoast, "but, but,.... I don't think I can vote for him..."
With an active sexual predator.
That ALONE should have been a game stopper for all of you. Then add to that his other insane and conspiratorial and racist and oppressor behaviors...
And you dare to suggest that I am suggesting Clinton didn't do anything wrong?
The perversion of Trump has stained nearly all of modern conservatism with a shit-stain on your collective souls and history will remember you all as the villains of this part of our history. Your children and grandchildren will be embarrassed to learn of the degree of your support for this most indecent of our presidents.
Craig... "Your attempt to bully me into acceding to your demands, is not likely to be effective."
It's an exceedingly easy question I'm asking. It's a point on which you almost certainly agree with me. What sort of power trip or commitment to obfuscation or other explanation do you have for not simply agreeing, "Yes, of course there are things we should be angry about and being angry about oppression is, of course, not some weird, hard-to-understand 'obsession with being angry...' It's just reasonable, biblical and moral..."?
You delay and make things weird with these irrational and whimsical repeated instances of being vague and non-committal WHILE at the same time criticizing that which is reasonable. And you HAVE to know that this is a common practice of yours, right?
Dan,
If you could simply ask the question, let me respond when choose to, and deal with my response, that would be one thing. Instead you have to add all this bullshit in order to pressure me into doing what you demand. Just like calling people "racist" isn't going to persuade them to consider your position, adding all the bullshit to your questions isn't going to help either.
As for your Clinton claims, if you could simply say that Clinton engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment and was credibly accused of rape multiple times, and stop there, you'd have some credibility. The problem is that you are compelled to add "But Trump has done worse..." (or words to that effect).
No.
Was Bubba ever running against the likes of his wife, who should have been regarded as equally culpable in his sordid behaviors given her defense and enabling of him? She was, after all, fully aware of it all. On top of that we're her own Obama-like promises. Perhaps had there not been such a known quantity put up and defended by the Dem Party and their voters who would further harm the nation as did Obama, I may have sat out that election. After all, look what's happening to our nation now after so many sat out 2020. The Clintons' abuse of power and women was known since his governor days.
Dan needs to think we overlook Trump's womanizing and because of his perverse hatred, demands we regard Trump with the same degree of hatred and share his fantasies of Trump's sex life.
Craig... "If you could simply ask the question, let me respond when choose to..."
That's strange. I consider asking a reasonable question and expecting a direct and reasonable answer to be rational and adult. You call it bullshit. Who do you think is mistaken here?
Get serious.
Craig... "if you could simply say that Clinton engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment and was credibly accused of rape multiple times..."
??
I don't KNOW that he engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment. YOU don't know that
Let's do a full stop right there.
Do you recognize that reality?
Further, I do not know and I don't think that YOU know That he was credibly accused of rape several times. I know of ONE accusation of rape that was questionable.
Do you recognize that reality? Or do you have other data that I'm not aware of?
On the other hand, we do know that Trump has engaged in openly sexually harassing sorts of behavior towards women AND girls just based upon his own words and his own testimony. Do you recognize that reality? And that it is a known, established pattern with Trump?
And thus, there is no serious comparison between Trump and Clinton?
And it has absolutely zero to do with "but Trump has done worse." Do you recognize that reality? If I knew that Clinton had raped someone or treated women the way that I know Trump has treated women, he would have no support for me. As it is, he has no support from me.
So this claim, itself it, is a vulgar false attack of the sort that Trump engages in and the sort that the GOP and modern "conservatism" has become known for now.
BS.
Trump HAS Objectively, measurably, demonstrably done significantly worse. Do you recognize that reality?
Let me ask another series of reasonable questions for you to probably ignore
We have a real problem in our world of men sexually harassing, assaulting, abusing, molesting, raping women and girls. I assume you recognize that this is a great and troubling problem in the world... Yes? That it is widespread and way too commonplace?
Given that current reality and that real world history of this ongoing serious is going serious, evil problem, I'm very inclined to believe women when they say something has happened. A sexual assault or harassment.
And yet, an extremely rare, but nonetheless real, problem in the world is that women sometimes make up these sorts of allegations. All the data shows that it is extremely rare for this to happen, but it does happen. I assume you agree with this, as well.
Given these realities... The all too common sexual abuse of women and girls by men and the very rare incidence of incidents of false allegations by women, I tend to believe women when they make these sort of allegations, and yet, I don't think it's completely fair to condemn any one man for any one allegation. Do you agree?
For you, personally then, where do you tend to draw the line? Let's assume some degree of credibility in the charges And setting aside the completely crazy outliers, I tend to think that after 2 and certainly 3 separate such allegations, that man has lost my confidence.. At least be an elected representative take and maybe for other cases. What about you?
Do you think there's any chance at all that it's likely that trump has not sexually preyed upon women, abuse them, assaulted them?
I would add that those Clinton victims Dan concedes exist are far more likely than not representative of a larger group of victims the fawning press have no desire to include. In the meantime, any hint of impropriety regarding Trump is held as gospel truth without a trial and scrupulously added to the list for greatest effect. It includes two who were consenting partners, his ex-wife who recanted, a few whose stories are absurdly trivial in nature (he kissed me against my will!!!!---he touched my butt!!!!). Further, there is no more, if not far less, to support the allegations than from those Clinton victims Dan listed alone.
And once again...and this is far more important than Dan has neither the honesty to admit nor the intelligence to understand...Clinton was never facing someone as morally reprehensible (just in the political sense alone) as Hillary and Gassy Joe. And unlike Clinton, Trump built a stellar record of accomplishment to warrant a second term. What's more, unlike Trump, Clinton's opponents were moral men, at least to the extent that a moral Dem voter (I don't mean Dan. I mean an actual moral Dem voter) could feel he wasn't trading one scumbag for another. This by far was not the case with Trump. Not at all.
"That's strange. I consider asking a reasonable question and expecting a direct and reasonable answer to be rational and adult. You call it bullshit. Who do you think is mistaken here?"
You. You're inability to ask questions without adding all sorts of crap to them is impressive. The "If you don't answer, then you're a...?" is simply you trying to bully people with bullshit.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
The reality that there have been multiple accusations against Clinton going back to his time as governor. Further, virtually all of the accusations against Clinton involve his actions while he was in or running for office. In other words, Clinton engaged is actions using his elective office and the power it represented to further his sexual misconduct.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/full-timeline-sexual-assault-allegations-053000490.html
"Do you recognize that reality? Or do you have other data that I'm not aware of?"
If you mean the "reality" where the accusations against Clinton aren't credible and detailed, then no I don't recognize your warped partisan reality. I'm sure there's plenty of data that you aren't aware of.
"On the other hand, we do know that Trump has engaged in openly sexually harassing sorts of behavior towards women AND girls just based upon his own words and his own testimony."
Really, what specific "testimony" are you speaking of ?
"Do you recognize that reality? And that it is a known, established pattern with Trump?"
stop with the "recognize reality" bullshit. Of course, one of the reasons why I've opposed both Trump and Clinton was their history of sexual impropriety.
"And thus, there is no serious comparison between Trump and Clinton?"
Thus sayeth Dan. Therefor it's all settled. Certainly the reality that Clinton used his elective office to further his sexual improprieties is of no significance at all.
"Trump HAS Objectively, measurably, demonstrably done significantly worse. Do you recognize that reality?"
Given your tenuous grip on the reality of Clinton's actions, I'm going to need proof of this claim.
Three comments of "Well Trump was worse" to try to excuse Clinton, or at least minimize his actions. Nice job of hiding your silence behind revisionist history.
"We have a real problem in our world of men sexually harassing, assaulting, abusing, molesting, raping women and girls. I assume you recognize that this is a great and troubling problem in the world... Yes? That it is widespread and way too commonplace?"
I'd argue that even one instance of any of these things is too many, but unfortunately we live in a fallen and sinful world. I fail to see either your point. For example, I've yet to see your concern for these issues go beyond Trump bashing and to the reality that many societies still allow and protect this type of behavior. We just saw news from Afghanistan that a 12 year old girl was "given in marriage" to a 55 year old man. Where's your outrage about that, and the fact that Biden's actions facilitated it? Where's your outrage about the civilians Biden is responsible for killing with drones?
"Given that current reality and that real world history of this ongoing serious is going serious, evil problem, I'm very inclined to believe women when they say something has happened. A sexual assault or harassment."
Apparently only the ones who accuse those you consider conservatives. Did you believe the woman who credibly accused Kieth Ellison? Do you believe that those accusations should disqualify him from elective office?
"And yet, an extremely rare, but nonetheless real, problem in the world is that women sometimes make up these sorts of allegations. All the data shows that it is extremely rare for this to happen, but it does happen. I assume you agree with this, as well."
So what?
"Given these realities... The all too common sexual abuse of women and girls by men and the very rare incidence of incidents of false allegations by women, I tend to believe women when they make these sort of allegations, and yet, I don't think it's completely fair to condemn any one man for any one allegation. Do you agree?"
What am I agreeing with, are you suggesting that all men get a blanket pass from you one "any one" allegation of sexual impropriety?
"For you, personally then, where do you tend to draw the line?"
I personally draw the line based on the specific details of the specific incident.
"Let's assume some degree of credibility in the charges And setting aside the completely crazy outliers, I tend to think that after 2 and certainly 3 separate such allegations, that man has lost my confidence.. At least be an elected representative take and maybe for other cases. What about you?"
I'm not sure what your point is. It seems like you're suggesting that if Clinton had been credibly (as defined by you) accused of 2 0r 3 (or more than 10) that you'd finally believe that there was a pattern. It also sounds like you don;t understand the reality that it's possible to conclude that BOTH Clinton and Trump have massive character flaws when it comes to their sex lives. That it's not necessary to play this bullshit "Trump is worse than Clinton" game. Let's also acknowledge that it's likely that the fact that folx like you gave Clinton a pass (by electing him twice, and failing to acknowledge the realities of his actions, and by excusing his perjury) that Trump wouldn't have been elected.
"Do you think there's any chance at all that it's likely that trump has not sexually preyed upon women, abuse them, assaulted them?"
I'm quite sure that Trump has used his wealth and celebrity to engage in sexual acts with women. I'm fairly sure that Trump never used his elective office to facilitate such actions. I'm sure that it's possible that Trump has coerced/forced women to engage in sex with him. I find (and have found) such actions to be reprehensible NO MATTER what politician engages in them, and I have NEVER suggested that anyone who engages in these sorts of behaviors is fit for elective office.
The problem you have is that once you decide that you don't have a baseline standard of appropriate expression of sexual behavior, then it's just a matter of drawing arbitrary lines to suit your (in this case) political preferences.
Dan,
It's impressive how effectively you've taken a post about how Joy and suffering can be experienced simultaneously, and turned it into one more instance of your obsession with Trump.
I think that you've done an excellent job of illustrating my point about anger and joy being more incompatible than suffering/sorrow and joy. You've made the transition from focusing on God (sorrow and joy) to focusing on yourself (anger), you've also move the focus completely to your angry obsession with an ex president, and away from anything else.
I appreciate you doing such an admirable job of providing such an excellent example.
I'm done. Good luck in life. Keep away from women and girls. They don't need your kind of help.
Or better yet, open your eyes and repent.
Any way one looks at it, any way he tries to explain it away, Dan clearly treats Trump differently than he does Clinton even if we believe he rejected Clinton back in the day. He minimizes Clinton's reputation and inflates Trump's, doing so in part by relying on what he considers the one subject on which Trump couldn't possibly be lying, exaggerating or embellishing. There's no consistency in Dan's position on these two men. "We can't know" about the veracity of Clinton's accusers...despite their never having recanted in any way...but "I tend to believe" when a woman makes an allegation of sexual abuse---when it comes to Trump. Each of Trump's accusers are more credible because there are more of them. How that means anything about the veracity of each claim is beyond me, but that's how Dan rolls where his Trump hatred is concerned.
Dan loves to question our ability to acknowledge reality, but the reality here is Dan's unChristian hatred for someone about whom he has no personal knowledge nor solid evidence. He has only his hatred. This is a case where Trump was his own worst enemy. By being himself, he had too much to overcome for those like Dan who are too eager and willing to buy into whatever is necessary to remove from consideration a political opponent. He couldn't defend Hillary's sordid character, so he attacks Trump. He lied about Biden's character because he couldn't overcome Trump's great track record as president. Sad and pathetic.
Dan,
well played. It's always refreshing to see how you bail on a conversation, this bizarre bit of bullshit is uniquely strange.
Art,
It's clear that Dan is holding Trump and Clinton to different standards. He's trying to have it both ways with Clinton, while painting everything Trump ever was accused of in the worst possible light.
My first point is that without the left normalizing sexual misconduct in office as they did with Clinton, I believe that Trump's behavior before he was elected becomes more disqualifying to many. Once the left decided to ignore Clinton's behavior, and to defend his sexual harassment in office, the gates were opened.
Further, Dan doesn't seem to be able to understand that pointing out the double standard from the left is not supporting Trump's sexual conduct while he was a private citizen. Don't forget, the pro Clinton argument was that his acts as a "private citizen" didn't disqualify him from public office. Then we found out that he behaved the same way as POTUS as he did as governor. If "private citizen" acts weren't going to be held against Clinton (by the left), they should have applied the same standard to Trump.
And as if that wasn't enough, Dan seems to act like there is no possibility the allegations against Trump aren't driven by his celebrity and the chance to cash in, or that they aren't the deranged form of partisan hackery in which Dan engages as if a hobby. To date I've not uncovered details of every allegation from every alleged victim of Trump in order to come to an opinion. Dan is content with there merely being an allegation. That's hardly the stuff of "embracing grace" and just as unlike an American who values the notion of "innocent until proven guilty". Tawana Brawley and the Duke Lacrosse team are enough to reject the notion of "believe every woman". Rational, honest people believe in listening to their allegations, but not necessarily believing them because they made them. Dan and other Trump-haters not so much.
And as a voter, there was far more at stake with both the 2016 and 2020 elections to pretend the most important aspect was whether or not Trump "abused" or "assaulted" women simply because a few alleged something to that effect. Personally, I write off any which came after his announced decision to run. As difficult as it may be, women need to man up and go after their attackers immediately, not when it becomes politically convenient.
Dan's idea of "help for women" has always been a joke. More women are at risk from the "help" from leftists since that help typically ignores facts and reality with regard to how women might fall prey to harm. But then, that's true of all leftist policies on any topic.
Art,
I think you are correct. I think that Dan is ignoring the rich and famous aspect of Trump and his sexual issues. (Not to excuse Trump in any way, he's responsible for his choices) In our society we see that men who are rich and famous attract certain type of woman, and I think it can be hard to ignore the reality that these women will do quite a bit to get close to rich and famous men. I'm sure it's difficult to turn away from that sort of temptation. I'm also sure that there are a number of women who, after the hookup, are unhappy when they are moved on from. I'm not trying to excuse Trump, but I'm willing to suggest that he had enough willing and eager partners, that he didn't have to use force or pressure.
I also do not excuse Trump's record with women, but I only deal with what is known to be true, not that which is legend and lie. It's bad enough without the latter, but not so bad that I would allow a Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden to take control of our country. Sleeping around and cheating on one's wife (or wives) is just not that bad by comparison, and we're living that reality right now. All talk about moral choices fail if they don't consider that which is far more than mere potential. Hillary was Obama 2.0, with very little difference between them (except that she has bigger balls), and that's just the political. Her defense and support of her scumbag husband is akin to her abusing women herself. And then there's Joey Farts. His 47 year record of failure, incompetence and being a major non-factor is just the political stuff. Selling influence, a serious sex abuse allegation the media won't even investigate, and lying of a type Dan only wishes Trump perpetrated could only have meant disaster, and that's just what we're suffering because of the moralists who rejected Trump (or both). I'm sick of the "moral choice" crap. And I'm sick of Dan's sick hatred.
Art,
I don't disagree with that, although I've consistently said that if one is unwilling to live up to their marriage vows, I can't see them taking their oath of office seriously either.
The problem I think we have is that you and Dan (to some degree) are imposing your partisan political views on this conversation. You think that Trump was awesome and are willing to overlook or put aside his sexual misconduct because of that. Dan is so enamored with the idea of a "progressive" POTUS that he's willing to excuse all sorts of behavior to achieve his goals. Dan has a history of not believing anything negative about Clinton, P-BO, Hillary, or Biden despite all of them having a long documented history of unsavory actions. He usually hides behind some version of "that hasn't been proven" as his means of saving face. You tend to tout Trump's accomplishments and the fear of the other guy as the reason to accept Trump's failings.
My problem is that I'm not that invested in Trump, and I'm aware of the history of the progressives mentioned above. I'm in the "a pox on both their houses" space right now. I think that we've had shitty candidates on both sides since Bill Clinton ran. Call me crazy, but I expect better. Obviously, whoever wins is POTUS and I have to acknowledge that, but c'mon. Are you really telling me that the best this country has to offer is a couple of rich, white, geriatrics? Trump is a buffoon, and Biden is a disgrace (with possible incontinence issues). Why are we settling for crappy candidates and pretending like these guys are awesome?
"I don't disagree with that, although I've consistently said that if one is unwilling to live up to their marriage vows, I can't see them taking their oath of office seriously either."
That has always been my starting point as well, particularly when it seems so obvious that Trump is a horndog. But...and this is extremely important...it's ONLY a starting point and by itself it isn't enough if it isn't the only thing separating two candidates. It simply isn't and certainly wasn't in either election. Far from it, in fact.
" You think that Trump was awesome and are willing to overlook or put aside his sexual misconduct because of that."
Dude...I don't know how to be more clear and emphatic in my reasoning. 2016, I had only two things upon which to make a decision, and among those decisions, not voting for Trump to leave Hillary to win was not among them. Her history, her character and her platform were all worth taking the huge chance on a guy who was a one time supporter (or at least an acquaintance) of her and her sick husband, and who promised what was needed in this country at the time. He more than proved my risk was worthy and to say I'm "touting" his accomplishments as if they're more than what they were is absurd. He was more than I would ever have expected him to be and it took a good two years to get over the fear the other shoe would drop.
Thus, by 2020, he was a proven commodity and his past sexual escapades was no longer part of the equation. That it remained so for anyone is beyond my ability to comprehend, and no amount of moralizing justifies it at all...AT ALL. It's fake, it's false moral preening and far more a matter of pridefulness than serving God's will in my opinion. This is especially true given the alternatives which are horrific by comparison, as we're experiencing on so many levels now.
I do NOT "accept" Trump's failings. I put them in their proper perspective and priority. Those who had those failings ranked far higher than I did are responsible for what we suffer now. That's simply the truth of it and I don't ignore how difficult it is to accept it, but true nonetheless.
It's true, we've had shitty candidates for some time. The thing is, Trump is, as I've said, a PROVEN commodity. Where he was shitty in 2016, he's proven he's not so shitty after all by 2020 and still too many couldn't let go of that which became more and more irrelevant...especially in the face of the alternative...as his first term progressed. Trump is NOT a buffoon. He only talks like one. He'd been warning about the China we're not facing 30 years ago. Who else was? Everyone else thought we could make them our friends. He knew they had no desire to be our friends. And he's shown he has an intangible innate ability to understand that which one has no reason to believe he possibly could, and has shown that over and over again as well.
I was originally a Ted Cruz guy. I'd like to think that he would have been noticeably as good or better than Trump without the goofiness. We may find out someday. But in 2020, Trump was head and shoulders above everyone based on his track record you don't seem to think was all that great (where did he go wrong in your opinion?). Thus, not at all a "crappy" candidate...just an imperfect one. I'm not pretending he was awesome. I'm asserting the truth that he was the most positively effective president we've had since Reagan and maybe before. No one can prove that to be false or incorrect. That's my challenge.
Post a Comment