This just in!!
Donald J. Trump talked about engaging in disgusting, vulgar, boorish, nasty, uncouth,behavior 11 years ago!!!!
I would have thought that his multiple affairs, divorces, and remarriages would have been enough evidence of the type of person he was in the past.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
143 comments:
I think it's interesting that the media (social and otherwise) is full of Christians jumping all over Trump for the contents of the video that has just come out.
While I fully agree that if Trump actually did what he talked about (just acknowledging that fact that sometimes people exaggerate or lie about their sex lives), it's deplorable,is more than likely everything people claim it is. The fact that he talked about it in the way he did just makes it that much worse.
Without in any way defending or excusing Trump for his behavior, I just want to make a few points.
1. The most powerful part of the Christian message is that of the possibility of redemption and forgiveness. It seems as if we are intent on ignoring the possibility of DJT repenting, asking for forgiveness, and being a different person now that he was 11 years ago. (based on his current responses to other things I personally have my doubts, but the possibility exists and shouldn't be ignored)
2. FDR, DDE, JFK, WJC were all involved in extramarital affairs before and during their presidency. JFK was more than likely addicted to prescription drugs, and went to great lengths to hide his health problems.
3. Hillary actively participated in attacks against the multiple women Bill was sexually involved with.
4. Jesus said that to look at a woman with lust was to have committed adultery.
5. Jesus said that anyone without sin gets to cast the first stone.
6. The most important message in the entire Bible is that it's Grace that matters, not adhering to some rules based religion.
I've been quite clear that the reason why I don;t want to vote for either of the two major candidates is the fact that both have shown and continue to show a significant lack of character. So, this newest revelation just adds to my conviction that Trump is (or has been) a person of low character.
The fact that none of the folks jumping on Trump have been this vociferous about any of the folks on their side of the aisle who've done unsavory things (Wiener anyone?), just reinforces my hunch that these staunch defenders of morality would be pretty much silent of Trump was a democrat.
Regarding your last paragraph.. As a point of fact, when Bill Clinton had the Lewinsky affair and it came out, I called for him to resign. Not because he was a married man who had an affair but because he was a president having an affair with a 21 year intern. It was not illegal but it was unseemly as hell and I thought he should have stepped down then and there. And of course, I don't know of anyone defending Weiner or anyone he's having an affair.
My point is, that (with you as an exception apparently) the same folks who are calling for Trump's head were either silent or defended Clinton.
I'd argue that given the power wielded by the president that it would be virtually impossible for a president to have a consensual sexual relationship with a subordinate.
Either way, given what we previously knew about Trumps character and a long history of people in power or with celebrity, using their position to engage in inappropriate behavior of all kinds, I fail to see why this 11 year old alleged incident is any worse than any of the multiple other moral failings he's had.
This is not to excuse any of it, just to point out that people with low moral standards do immoral things.
Of course, I'd be interested to see what the response would be if Trump announced that he had confessed to the woman, asked for forgiveness, and had received it. (Obviously this is incredibly hypothetical). But I suspect that these Christians would not be so quick to be supportive of repentance and forgiveness as they are of pouncing on failure.
He is speaking of sexual predation, a philosophy that due to his star status, he is entitled to sexually assault random women. If he asked for and received forgiveness from one victim, it does not make him reformed.
If he repented of all his sexual assaults and received forgiveness from all his victims, I still would not trust alone with women, not for a while. Forgive him? Sure. Trust him to be President? No.
Now, if he repents at, say 40, and proceeds to live an exemplary life for years and years, with evidence of real change, THEN runs for office, might I consider him a viable candidate? Sure.
Forgive, but verify.
What's different, I think, is the clarity of it all. For many of us - especially those of us who work with the behavior patterns of sexual predators, those who commit sexual assaults and rapes - we have watched Trump's behavior for years and it appeared to us that he had an objectifying, predatory sort of nature as it relates to women.
In these latest videos, more clearly than any time in the past, Trump has spoke clearly of his sexual assaults, his "they want it and I can get away with it" attitude. He made explicit what has been implicit.
That's what seems different to me and why dozens (hundreds?) Of GOP operatives are saying,"Nope! I'm done."
Why do you think this has been the straw that's broken so many backs? Why only now is the GOP abandoning ship?
(Which is the question many minority groups are asking, by the way. As if the GOP is willing to let slide all manner of awful behavior towards blacks, Latinos, etc, but draw the line at sexually assaulting white women... In case you've missed that question being asked...)
That's the exact question I'm asking, why this. Why now.
As far as the race thing, in the absence of specifics and give that it's off topic, I see no reason to chase down that rabbit hole.
As I said during the campaign when Clinton first ran and the first of his sexual predatory patterns emerged, "If he can't be trusted keep his marriage vows, why would I trust him to keep his oath of office?". I'd say the same about Trump.
I think there are a few agendas in play for all of the Christian Left to have jumped on this as aggressively as they have, but I want to look at two options.
1. If we as Christians actually follow Chr, if we accept that the Gospels in general and the sermon on the mount specifically are accurate representations of Jesus teachings, then we have to face the fact that virtually every human in existence is just as guilty of adultery as Trump. So as Christians, fellow adulterers, how should we respond? Especially when so many of the loudest voices are pastors. This is not to minimize or excuse Trump's conduct (or Bill's), but to maybe take a pause before we spew all over social media.
2. Why, specifically as Christians are people so outraged? If you're of the "The Bible is fiction" tribe, then what's so horrible about violating some Bronze Age legend? If your of the "No rules, just Grace" tribe then why so much noise about breaking rules and si little grace. (Note, I'm not talking about breaking the civil/criminal code of whatever jurisdiction, but about the condemnation from a Christian perspective. Breaking laws is a whole other pointless conversation due to the statute of limitations.). Interestingly enough the traditional evangelical "We're all sinners in need of Grace.", construct actually provides the most holistic way to app
...approach this from a faith standpoint.
From a political standpoint it's a whole other thing, but I'm pretty sure that IRS regulations limit the ability of pastors from endorsing particular candidates, which should probably stop some of these folks from saying much of what they are, but the chances of a P-BI or Hillary DOJ pursuing a bunch of their supporters is slim.
To be clear...
1. I do not support Trump or excuse or minimize the behavior he described.
2. I am drawing a distinction between the Christian and political faceted of this discussion.
3. Given #1, I have no desire or reason to discuss that aspect here. Not because I want to ignore or minimize it, but because it's pretty pointless as it is too driven by partisanship but because it's predictable.
4. I'm much more interested in how we as Christ followers relate to fellow sinners and their sin, than in more politics as usual.
Sorry, I don't understand why the GOP got on the ship, so why they're abandoning it is beyond my pay grade.
Why, specifically as Christians are people so outraged? If you're of the "The Bible is fiction" tribe, then what's so horrible about violating some Bronze Age legend?
Everyone I know is outraged (and I think this extends to the GOP conservatives, too) because he is talking about assaulting innocent people. We don't need bronze age rules to know that causing harm to innocent people is wrong and something worth getting outraged about.
Do you disagree?
Also, he's treating his wealth and celebrity as if it makes him above the law and basic human decency. That, too, is a dangerous trait... especially if you're trying to become the most powerful person in the world.
Do you not think that these are the main reasons Christians (or anyone) is outraged?
So as Christians, fellow adulterers, how should we respond?
Be prepared to forgive, should he repent, but don't allow him to harm innocents in the meantime (or even if he does repent or says he repents).
Does this seem odd or puzzling to you? This seems like something all decent Christians could easily agree upon, regardless of liberal/conservative.
I can't tell if you actually read my entire comments or not, because I addressed pretty much everything you brought up. I get that people are upset, but I'm pointing out that if you don't believe that the Bible contains truth or rules then why get mad that he's acting contrary to a standard you don't hold.
Yes, I mentioned that this is a type of behavior that people of wealth, power, and celebrity engage in, yet the response is different towards Trump.
As I said earlier, that's my question, "What this, why now?", it's not like this is the first moral failure the guy has had.
I've asked questions about how people are responding because it is odd and puzzling when people respond inconsistently to similar situations. When I see things that I find odd and puzzling, I ask questions. In this case I'm trying to look beyond the simplistic "Trump bad" attitude of many on the religious left, and ask different questions than others.
The religious left are not only upset now. We've been disgusted by Trump all along. It's some on the right that are just now saying, Enough! So, I'm not sure what your point is.
As to the rules stuff, we progressives are not saying "no rules!" We/I just don't accept the Bible as a rule book. We certainly believe in rules against harm. Why? Because we're not asses. Not sure of your point there, either. We DO hold standards. Do you think we don't?
And yes, I read everything you wrote.
"...We're not asses, we don't want to see people get harmed..." in case that wasn't clear. But that's what I had already written, so I can't tell if you read my entire comments or not...?
So, I guess your, "why, specifically as Christians, are we so outraged?" And specifically, just now... I guess that question you're directing to the more conservative Christians who are just now outraged? Let me know if you get an answer. It's a good question.
Since most of the sturm and drang I see if from those on the religious left, I'm being bipartisan in my question.
I've been clear, that those on the religious left (that I'm seeing) are making a religious/biblical case against Trumps latest, so it seems fair to wonder if they apply these biblical rules equally or just to their political opponents. Again, I'm being specific about the kind of thing I'm talking about, so to try to apply something aimed at one specific to another specific is not going to be productive.
Perhaps part of your problem is that you seem to think everything is about you, when that may not be the case.
However, because of those on the left divorce has become much more if a norm, so while I see Trumps previous affairs and divorces as enough to have convinced me of his lack of character, many on the left have a much more cavalier attitude about divorce and don't see that the same way. In the same way the "sexual revolution we saw on the 60's and 70's (led by the liberals) has led to a much greater acceptance of sexual behavior that indicates lack of character.
My biggest problem is that Trump is right about one thing. If you're rich, powerful, and famous our society not only let's you get away with things it celebrates them. So when politicians are connected to all sorts of people doing all sorts of unsavory things, one has to wonder what puts this one (still technically unproven and therefore alleged), act from the past above so many other similar actions from more recently.
Is Trump's action significantly different from that of any number of athletes and musicians?
I guess since, I've never been on the Trump train, and have no partisan interest, it let's me look at things differently from those who do, and ask questions I don't hear being asked elsewhere.
To try to clarify my question a bit more.
There are a number of reasons to be disturbed by this. As a...
Human
Parent
Man/woman
Sibling
Law abiding citizen
Republican
Democrat
Etc
Each and every one of these has reason to be upset about this, but the one I keep hearing from the religious left is that it's a Christian issue and that's why I ask the questions.
Because Jesus and any and all good people are opposed to harming others? I truly don't get what you're asking. My best guess is that you don't think liberals agree with having rules when of course, that's not the case. But honestly, I can't tell what you're getting at.
Do progressive Christians think opposition to Trump is an important thing to do, specifically because of our faith? Yes, because his positions and candidacy are harmful.
Is that answering your question?
As to it being "a Christian issue," I would say it's a humanitarian issue, an issue of standing for justice , morality and reason and Christians should certainly be involved for these reasons. Do you disagree?
I'm not suggesting any limits on who should be involved I'm suggesting that to portray this incident as "less Christian" than any of the other things I've mentioned seems to just be opportunistic.
I am also concerned by the lack of consistency in condemning this kind of talk. Trump saying it is heinous, but put it to a funky hip hop beat and it's a #1 download. XYZ NBA player fathers multiple kids by multiple one night stands, and it gets ignored.
I saw a post about this today which basically quoted proverbs talking about what happens when the culture moves away from God. So given the increase in vulgarity and baseless of the culture, is it really a shock that these are the candidates we got? Trump and Clinton simply reflect the culture around them.
Why should we be surprised that when "christians" deny the existence of God that secular culture is filled with this kind of thing.
It doesn't surprise me, I just wonder why the Christian Left is so late to decide that character is important.
We could also look at what Hollywood tells us about politics, in one generation we've gone from a West Wing overly idealized vision of what a bunch of good hearted, sincere, earnest liberals could do if they got control of the White House, to the cynical, venal, immoral, almost nihilistic picture painted by House of Cards.
Ultimately God is in control and if we look at some of the folks He used throughout history to bring about His will, I'm pretty sure He can use either Clinton or Trump if He wants.
But that's only a comfort to folks who think that God exists and acts in history. For those who don't maybe that explains this almost pathological need to do something to exert some sort of control over the election.
I'm doubtful that I have said that Trump's latest is "less Christian," but I also certainly think that this sort of predatory, oppressive behavior is awful and thus, not Christian. So maybe you're addressing this to others.
For my part, I find oppressive, abusive language horrible, wherever it comes from. If there is a hip hop or country singer who runs for president, you can be sure I would equally criticize any pattern of sexually abusive language.
From where I sit, the Christian left has promoted character all along, the only ones that I see late to it are the conservatives who've been promoting Trump until this weekend.
Not sure of your point.
Perhaps if you could provide a quote of liberals promoting/defending sexual assault. I rather doubt you can, but who knows...
As far as consistency and your counter examples, when Trump was just a slimy smarmy rich dude living his Playboy life you never heard me or most liberals talking about Trump... and you also didn't see us talking about NBA players or country singers with horrible, sexist songs. The difference is that Trump is running for the most powerful office in our government. So there is no inconsistency. In case that wasn't clear.
Once again, you should probably learn that when I talk about what I am hearing it's not necessarily about your or what you have said. In fact, unlike you, I don't expect you to defend or explain what other people say. If you'd like I'll include some sort of "not Dan" disclaimer in the future to minimize any further confusion.
So the only time explicit (blah, blah, blah) language motives you to rouse yourself is when it's someone running for POTUS, good to know.
If the religious left was really about character why support both Clinton's? Why Ted Kennedy? I could go on, but it's pretty clear that the religious left has supported some folks of dubious character. This doesn't count the folks who are raising money for your candidates and who they associate with. Maybe you've forgotten but Bill Clinton had plenty of support from the religious left long after his propensity for sexual shenanigans was revealed. I'm not saying that character isn't on the radar, just that the vitriol is much more in evidence when it's a political enemy.
Finally, why would I provide support for a point I haven't made? To do so would be irrational, to ask someone to do so would be more irrational.
Again, thanks for reiterating your point that the only time character rouses your interest is when it someone running for POTUS, that explains why Ted Kennedy got all the love from the left. Had he only run for president...
Still not sure of any of your points. I guess you think some vague and unidentified group of liberals "supported" some Democrats who, you allege, have done "something" unidentified that is vaguely comparable to Trump's assault, but you can't say what..? But not me. OK. Well, I can only speak for myself and my tribe, who consistently denounce abusive behavior. Too bad we can't say the same for many conservative evangelicals.
Ok, if you're this unaware of the actions Bill Clinton engaged in, and the fact the he was not only not excoriated by the left, but in fact supported. Maybe your unaware of various liberal Christian leaders who publicly supported and met with him. Maybe your just not tuned in to a wide enough circle outside of your little tribe off to itself down there. None of that is really my problem, nor is your inability to understand distinctions. It's clear that you are prepared to vote against Trump despite virtually anything Hillary had said, done or might do, yet vilify anyone who might vote for Hillary for the same reason.
If you don't understand, how about you stop spewing whatever and ask direct specific questions. I've tried to explain multiple times, but that hasn't seemed enough.
So, you and your tribe can do your insular little thing down there if that's your deal.
But pardon me if I ask questions and wonder about things beyond my little tribe.
If you look Craig, I've asked several specific questions and you haven't answered them. Again, any time you want to offer some actual examples, then we can talk. But I can't really guess what people might be saying just out of thin air, can I? Usually, the person making the argument will provide sources to support their argument.
if you're this unaware of the actions Bill Clinton engaged in
He engaged in some affairs, making HC the victim. How is that her fault?
He engaged in affairs, which he was pummeled for and for which he apologized. How is that her fault? How is that a sign of liberal Christian support?
He engaged in an affair with a 21 year old intern, got caught, lied about it and apologized for it... for which I and everyone I know condemned him and I and my immediate friends/family called for him to step down. If other Christians on the Left praised or supported his affairs, I'm not aware of it. How is that a sign of liberal Christian support?
How is any of that comparable to the Religious Right supporting Trump, who is unrepentant and sexist, racist and anti-Muslim, among other things?
I'm very short on time. I even need to go back and peruse all the back and forth in greater depth, but I insist on posting a comment nonetheless. If it's not completely on topic, or if it doesn't seem to mesh with the flow of the conversation...oh well.
This whole "outrage" thing is a load of crap. As Craig seems to imply (if not insists outright), this guy was a scumbag from the word "Go". To paraphrase the other leading scumbag in the race for president, what possible difference does this 11 year old tape make at this point? Does it make Trump any more of a scumbag than objectively observant people already know he is? I don't think so. However, what was said is not uncommon type of talk (aside from the specifics) amongst men of all sorts. The degree of objectivity may vary from one guy to the next, with one being more crass than the next, or another merely alluding to similar things in a less crass manner. Still another might simply fantasize and keep it to himself. All the freakin' same thing. Oh. My. Gosh. The. Horror! Give me a freakin' break.
Trump's character was and is a given. To the extent that this sophomoric behavior would continue while president is not. Some simply want to believe it will continue for reasons having nothing to do with truth, but personal benefit. That is, it serves people to insist that the worst will happen, and celebrations will occur when those same can say "I told you so".
But still, despite his flaws, he still represents the best hope of preventing a far worse human being from sitting in the big chair. THAT'S the only "principle" that matters at this point, and no amount of sanctimonious crapola can change that.
While one might feel good about one's self for having too much "principle" to cast their vote for Trump, they allow a far worse consequence should enough such "principled" people sit out or elect to elect Hillary.
I will be voting for Trump. Between him and the other scumbag, he's far and away a truer patriot who cares about what America once was and could be again. While my schedule in the coming week or two will be hectic, I hope to post numerous articles and opinion pieces that together form an argument that keeps it all in perspective, in a way totally ignored by those who think voting for Trump is some kind of vote for evil and wickedness. Far too much is riding on this election to be riding the high horse of piety and sanctimony, neither of which will save our asses if Hillary becomes president. I'm sickened by the entire controversy and have been well before this latest release of this tape, which says nothing more than the guy's a freakin' high school grade braggart about sexual matters. What it comes down to is a choice between a womanizer who talks in crude terms about doing crude things, versus a woman who supported, defended and enabled a serial abuser and rapist, while demonizing the victims of that abuser. One who talks in a manner that suggests disrespect of women, versus one who engaged in the worst kind of disrespect of women...both a enabling wife of a sick bastard, and a supporter of the murder of innocent pre-born women and other sundry assaults on what is best for women everywhere. I go with the talker. Everyone else pretends he's far worse than he is.
One last thing...during Bubba's time abusing women while president, there was all sorts of talk about how those in Europe never bother with tales of politicians who cheat on their wives. We were supposed to be like them. While Bubba went way beyond that, there isn't the lines of women insisting that Trump went further. Indeed, I've seen reports of women saying he does not act in a way that matches his bragging and macho talk.
OK. I gotta go. As you were.
One thing to realize, Marshall, is that Trump has already lost this election. He never really had a chance and this weekend sealed his tomb. So the question for conservatives and the GOP is, what will you do now?
By supporting and voting for Trump - even as a lesser of two evils - you are saying to the world that conservatism and the GOP are morally bankrupt and a force to be opposed. You are collectively saying you are the party that supports sexual assault, racism, sexism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories and vulgar whack jobs. You'll increase your losses amongst black folk, Mexicans, women, gay folk and their allies, young people, Muslims, the college - educated, Latinos... My God! Who will you have left?
For the sake of the good in conservatism, you all need to repudiate this guy and his revolution-advocating followers!
You've lost this year... will you try to redeem yourselves? That is the question.
Unless you think polls are a perfect predictor of future voting, it is inane to say that Trump never really had a chance. Of course he had and still does have a chance. Turnout will be even harder to predict and and fear of the reality of a Hillary presidency can easily compel even the most ardent anti-Trumpers punch his number.
"By supporting and voting for Trump - even as a lesser of two evils - you are saying to the world that conservatism and the GOP are morally bankrupt and a force to be opposed."
The above statement cannot be described in any softer terms than abject stupidity. Conservatism already stands as a force in opposition to a morally bankrupt party and its ideology. To pretend that somehow, simply because Trump is a scumbag, that you can now take the moral high ground is the epitome of ludicrous bullshit. What it does say to the world, that is, those in the world who are honest and paying attention, is that conservatism in the here and now is that desperate to prevent greater damage to the nation than has already been inflicted by the buffoon Obama, that they will even pull the lever for a creep like Trump.
"You are collectively saying you are the party that supports sexual assault, racism, sexism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories and vulgar whack jobs."
Again, you dismiss the fact that the party you support is well known for all of the above, and that your party's nominee is a poster child for much of it, simply by virtue of her well known character flaws, including the enabling of a serial abuser of women.
"You'll increase your losses amongst black folk, Mexicans, women, gay folk and their allies, young people, Muslims, the college - educated, Latinos... My God! Who will you have left?"
You are far more cynical and disparaging of your fellow man than I could ever be. You suppose that all those people do not have those among them who are not superficial and look beyond the BS.
You have no idea what even bad conservatism is all about, much less good conservatism. You never did, and have never demonstrated any understanding of conservatism whatsoever. So please, for your own sake, stop trying to pretend otherwise.
And when will the left even pretend to redeem themselves. You are among those who proudly support sexual immorality and its consequence deflecting murder of the unborn. You support the pillaging of those who are productive and the enabling of those who have no desire to transcend their carnal selves to become good and decent people. In short, your hypocrisy is evil personified. While to feign piety and outrage, you fail to consider the bigger picture for what a Hillary win will mean for our nation. That's unforgivable and reprehensible.
Lots to cover, but I'll start with this. The major argument at the time was the it was ok for Bill to lie because he just lied about his personal sex life, not about anything important like his job.
1. Trump's comments are about his personal sex life, not about anything important like the presidency or something.
2. Hillary did lie about something important like her job as SECSTATE, but gets a pass from you all for some reason.
There is an inherent contradiction in the standards being applied to those situations.
Dan makes it sound like a sin to vote for Trump.
I'm glad you were able to figure out one of the points that seemed to confuse Dan, I thought I had explained it reasonably well and I guess I did.
I can't (in my situation) agree to vote for Trump. What I can do is work to salvage conservatism at the house level to provide some sort of check on whichever evil wins.
I'm starting to realize that they both are simply a product of our society and this faux moralism is in contrast to how the left responds to virtually every other moral issue.
The above statement cannot be described in any softer terms than abject stupidity.
You'll have to take that up with Al Mohler, Christianity Today, Russell Moore and the many others who think that Trump is a danger to conservatism and the GOP. I'm not saying anything these others aren't.
You suppose that all those people do not have those among them who are not superficial and look beyond the BS.
I'm telling you the fact that the GOP gets practically no black support, not much Latino support, almost no gay support, decreasing numbers of women and young adults, educated people and on and on. That's just data. Argue with data all you want. This is just what conservatives are saying, beginning in earnest back with the Autopsy Report by conservatives several years ago.
Take it up with them.
To pretend that somehow, simply because Trump is a scumbag, that you can now take the moral high ground is the epitome of ludicrous bullshit. What it does say to the world, that is, those in the world who are honest and paying attention, is that conservatism in the here and now is that desperate to prevent greater damage to the nation than has already been inflicted by the buffoon Obama
It is conservatives talking idiotic trash like this that has made you all a pariah to black people, to women, to educated people, to young people, to Latino people, etc. We believe we are taking the high moral ground by standing united against racism, against sexism, against conspiracy theories, against the anti-science/anti-education crowd, against sexual assault, etc. Don't believe me? Ask an African American, ask a Mexican American, ask a woman. You all are losing demographically because you don't recognize that you all are collectively becoming known as the party of Evil.
People have no problem with - and want! - people to talk about lowering the Deficit, about fiscal responsibility, about traditional values like love and respect, but if that same party appears to repeatedly defend and prop up sexual assault, racist attacks against people of color, mocking women and people with disabilities... you're going to come across as defending immorality and irrationality. Ask Paul Ryan and other conservatives... you have lost this election. The question is will you ever be able to compete nationally? It won't happen until you back away from this defense of immorality and irrationality.
Just letting you know and I'm not saying anything that Paul Ryan and many (most?) rational conservatives are saying.
Art, don't you understand? It's so much easier to stereotype an entire party, to ascribe sinister motives to those who choose to vote for Trump, to ignore the reality of democrat rule in the large urban cities, to whitewash the past, than it is to ask the hard questions we talked about in the other post. It's always easier to broad brush, and generalize than to look at specifics. It's easier to assume that those in your small homogeneous circle of friends are representative of the world at large.
Once you get that things fall into place.
It's deeply ironic that anyone defending the pro abortion political party would label anyone else "anti-science". Again, it's easier to just throw out pejorative labels.
You're probably right, Craig. All those women, black and Latino and gay folk, all those young people and more educated ones are all just too lazy, immoral and stupid to recognize the Dems are tricking them. Or maybe they're all part of a vast left wing conspiracy.
For someone who gets so defensive when you think people put words in your mouth, you certainly feel free to put words in other people's mouths.
But let's look at someone who's ideas Hillary admires, Margret Sanger. Certainly it's admirable to want to exterminate an entire race of people who one considers inferior, right? Or Bill's mentor (Fullbright), an open racist. I guess they just get a pass.
Look, I understand that assumptions based on prejudice tend to come from you pretty regularly, and that it's easier to respond to your made up version of someone else. But it's this lack of consistency that brings about so much skepticism from people who interact with you.
At least you haven't accused Trump of raping puppies yet.
It's really impressive when your response to a comment, not only doesn't represent anyone's actual views, but also bears no relation to the comment it is responding to.
Well done.
"You're probably right, Craig. All those women, black and Latino and gay folk, all those young people and more educated ones are all just too lazy, immoral and stupid to recognize the Dems are tricking them."
Quite possibly the most honest and accurate statement ever made by Dan in any of these blog discussions. Too bad it wasn't meant sincerely.
But the problem is only one of category, with some of those Dem supporters falling into one or more those listed: lazy, immoral and stupid.
Clearly, and without reservation, the Democratic Party supports a host of immoral positions, such as abortion, the LGBT agenda, the confiscation of the wealth of others, the reduction of liberty, to name just a few.
And speaking of stupid, to presume that someone like Paul Ryan or Al Moehler have the last word on what's best for the nation when they speak out against Trump...this only indicates that Dan's intelligence is still in question. I haven't read in detail all these people have said. I have read quite enough of Dan's words to know that it is unwise to assume he has a clue about what these people say and what they mean when they say it. Dan's comprehension skills are questionable at best.
In the meantime, I've read a few other conservatives, both those who dislike Trump and those who...dislike him. That is to say, most people aren't enamored with the guy but understand the bigger picture and, unlike some others, and all those on the left, are honest enough, and intelligent enough, to keep their eyes on that bigger picture. They also put all Trump's foibles in honest perspective, rather than pretending any of it makes him Satan, while ignoring the far worse qualities of his political opponent. For those on the left, like Dan, this type of deflection is absolutely a necessity, for there is no reason, when character issues are set aside, to make the sow's ear of Clinton's proposals a silk purse.
But if character now counts for the left, the plain fact and honest truth of it is that for every pejorative hurled at Trump---racist, misogynist, anti-science, whatever---can be more accurately and honestly attached to Clinton and the Democratic Party in general, as has been true for quite some time.
As to what members of the class divisions the left, and apparently Dan, likes to keep at the fore, we bear only partial responsibility for their idiotic false perceptions about both parties:
1. It is our fault because we haven't engaged properly with these various factions to explain how our superior ideology benefits everyone without regard to the categorical divisions the Dems use to pit one against the other and all against the right-wing.
2. It is the fault of the leftists, like Dan, who perpetuate the myths and lies about the right due to their stark inability to truly engage on the issues and provide evidence and proof that the leftist ideology isn't the crap sandwich it is. This focus on an 11 year old tape of Trump speaking childishly is evidence of this profound and unfortunate fact. The left is aroused by opportunities to put the attention on the relatively insignificant, made more so when required to defend the worse flaws of their own.
If the GOP/conservative movement is seen by all these people as the party of evil, it is due to the evil of their own leaders guiding them toward falsehood and deception. Far easier than defending one's policies is making people believe those with opposing policies are the devil.
If the GOP is seen as evil, it's because their "leaders.." Why? Are these people not able to read and morally reason these things out for themselves? And what "leaders" are you speaking of? You do recognize that we don't hold meetings?
As far as leaders locally Nakima Levy Pounds has quite a bit of influence, but isn't always that concerned about accuracy.
"If the GOP is seen as evil, it's because their "leaders.." Why? Are these people not able to read and morally reason these things out for themselves?"
Apparently not. Or worse, they choose to rationalize, which is very much as likely. Either way, we have leftist leaders and followers with a blatantly false understanding of what the GOP is all about...more specifically, what conservatism is all about. It's clear YOU have no understanding.
"And what "leaders" are you speaking of? You do recognize that we don't hold meetings?"
Now you're just being dishonest. Leftist politicians and pundits, activists and the like. All those are your leaders. What you refer to as "reasoning" results in the very same nonsense spewed by such people. Do you all think the same way, or are you parroting the party line or are you taking your cues from them? No matter. You're all lying about the GOP being evil.
All black folk (except the very few who agree with you) are lying?
Unlike you, Dan, I haven't spoken to "all black folk", so I wouldn't dare suggest I could ever speak for all of them. But if you're trying to suggest something about what the majority of them seem to be saying, who they're supporting or why, I would need to hear some factual stuff. That's the point here...that there isn't too much in the way of factual perspectives about either the GOP or conservatism in general. And again, YOU have consistently failed to demonstrate anything akin to an accurate portrayal of conservative positions, attitudes or philosophies. You do spend a lot of time pretending there is confusion about "how we sound" when we attempt to clarify our positions. And therein lies the problem. "How we sound", as suggested by you, could easily be corrected by honest listeners, of whom I cannot count you among their number. "Do you know how you sound?" should at least be followed by some lamentation regarding all the work you've done to correct misinterpretations by "all black folk" that you believe takes us the wrong way. There is no such correction as far as I can tell, and it is for that reason that I count those like yourself as bearing responsibility for whatever misconceptions non-conservatives have. Worse, it demonstrates your willingness to assume the worst about conservatives and what we believe.
Dan has repeatedly claimed that he is expressing the views of the vast majority of the black community. Yet if he is so insistent on putting words in your/our mouths why should we not conclude that he's doing the same when he speaks for the "black community"? It's apparently fine for him to extrapolate based on his anecdotal experience, but improper for anyone else to draw any larger conclusions from their own experience.
For example, if the leaders of the black community, specifically of BLM are willing to lie and put forth false narratives, then isn't it rational to draw certain conclusions from their actions?
I've often encouraged Dan to desist in speaking for anyone other than himself, even his fellow congregants. Frankly, I've never sought his opinion of what anyone other THAN himself thinks.
I will say this: I do not speak of black people who agree with me. I'm more typically speaking of others with whom I agree. The distinction is slight, but significant. For example, when I refer to a Walter Williams, it is because what he says appeals to me. It's logical and references actual statistics and evidences. It doesn't rely on "what sounds" to be one thing or another, but on what actually is.
And to clarify a point in answer to his last question, I don't know if "all black folk" are lying or simply buying into lies...another distinction of significance. It's easier to simply follow the rantings of a BLM leader, than to do the heavy lifting of research to determine if the claims are true. But by believing the claims of such leaders, proposals are supported that are better opposed due to the falsehood upon which the claims are based. And believing the claims make life easier in the sense that one is no longer required to take responsibility for what happens. It's always the fault of others.
It's that way with the left in general. It's easier to believe that the GOP is racist when they oppose things like affirmative action, because AA relieves blacks of having to be the best to achieve. Some blacks are insulted by this, but too many believe they're entitled for that which happened to those who've been dead for over a generation or two.
It's easier to believe the GOP is "anti-woman" when defending the right of the unborn to live out their lives naturally, rather than being put to death before the literally see the light of day. Far easier to abort than to live a moral and virtuous life.
I could go on with other similar examples but the point is that whether or not one is doing the lying or merely accepting the lie, the result is the same...the lie is supported by the left.
MA,
Excellent point. It's interesting that when people like Williams. Sowell, Elder etc. do things like citing statistics and evidence to back up their opinions or actual evidence to support their claims they get marginalized as "Uncle Tom's" or traitors to their race. Instead of having their evidence refuted with counter evidence.
Obviously it's easier to call names rather than to prove your claims.
Hell, even Calypso Louie agrees that P-BO and the Democrat party have failed the black community.
http://www.mywalkwithfarrakhan.info/2016/09/the-hon-louis-farrakhan-response-to.html
It makes me wonder why Louie's comments don't get more play in the mainstream media?
Because it doesn't serve the leftist/progressive narrative. But all his anti-white racism talk gets lots of attention.
Do you mean to tell me that the media doesn't just do unbiased reporting of the facts?
The thing is, even if you all are operating out of good intent, you come across as condescending, anti-woman, racist, anti-Muslim. And I realize it's easier to just blame the 90% of the blacks who dare to disagree with your opinions or the vast number of women, gay folk, Hispanics and Muslims than it is to shut your mouths, listen to what they have to say and give it reasonable consideration, but the thing is, many conservatives are agreeing and saying, "Dudes, we HAVE to shut our mouths and isten. We're driving people away from us in droves. IF we believe in our ideals, we have to learn some way of expressing them and encouraging them while at the same time at least appearing to listen to the what we MUST consider to be legitimate concerns of all these people we are driving away."
That is what people like AL MOHLER and Russell Moore are saying, about how "conservatives" are driving away people from evangelicalism. That's what the GOP Autopsy report had to say about driving people away from the GOP. Now, you can listen to these conservatives or you can keep blaming all the stupid black, gay, women, Muslim and young folk who are repulsed by your words. That's on you.
~Dan
Quite frankly, with your collective refusal to utterly denounce Trump and his ugly supporters, it's too late for you all at least at the national level of politics. That damage is done. You all won't win a White House run for decades, as things stand now. The demographics are against you. Whether you've fatally damaged white conservative evangelicalism remains to be seen. As it is, unless you all give up your crusade against gay folk, you will not have young people coming to your churches and you will all but die out in a generation or two.
But again, that's on you all.
Wow, I guess ignoring reality and moving totally into a fantasy world is just easier. I'm so glad that those 90% of black folks have Dan as their self appointed spokesperson. I'm so glad that Dan is incapable of dealing with anyone who disagrees with him on an individual basis, but just lazily lumps every one together.
It's actually pretty amusing to see that all of the attacks, name calling, and insults all come from Dan in these circumstances, yet somehow that's our fault.
It's becoming more and more clear that the concept of Grace and what that might mean in discourse completely eludes Dan. It's simply one more rhetorical cudgel he picks up when logic and facts abandon him.
Dan, I'd suggest that you embrace grace, but I'm not sure you'd recognize grace if it bit you on your proud, rich, white, liberal ass.
Take it up with Mohler, Moore and the other conservatives who are expressing the same concerns I'm raising. But I guess they are part of a vast left wing conspiracy.
And I'm not speaking for black folk, I'm pointing to the reality that about 90% don't vote GOP. Just data. Take it up with reality if you want to disagree.
About 70% of Hispanics don't vote GOP.
An increasing majority of women are not voting GOP.
Probably 90% of gay folk and their allies don't vote GOP.
And on it goes. Reality sucks when you want to live in a fantasy world.
"Take it up with Mohler, Moore and the other conservatives who are expressing the same concerns I'm raising. But I guess they are part of a vast left wing conspiracy."
Once again your inability to deal with people as individuals instead of members of groups gets in your way.
If course, it doesn't stop you from ignoring what people like Sowell, Williams, Elder, Farrakhan, and numerous other African Americans who disagree with you.
Your problem is that you somehow think (despite my repeated claims otherwise) that I am somehow supporting everything that Trump says. Further, you are assuming that I am somehow bound to support everything that anyone in the GOP says. Individuals, not groups, it's not that hard. You just stop making assumptions about what I believe based on what other people say.
The problem with your "data" is that 90% of blacks (who vote) vote Democrat, The problem is that with voter turnout as a whole hovering around 50% than the more accurate claim would be that 90% of blacks who vote vote Democrat. I trust that you do understand the difference. Of course, the same problem exists for the rest of your "facts".
But even with that, you are not making claims about how various groups vote, you are making claims about what "90% of the blacks who dare to disagree with your opinions or the vast number of women, gay folk, Hispanics and Muslims", people think as opposed to how they vote.
Once again you are basing your conclusions on assumptions, not facts.
"...to shut your mouths, listen to what they have to say and give it reasonable consideration,..."
Because it's easier for you to assume that I haven't and make false judgements based on your assumptions.
You appear to have trouble distinguishing between me asking a question "Why do blacks vote overwhelmingly vote for the party which controls the institutions that they claim are racist"? and me expressing opinions or conclusions based on my preconceptions. If you can't understand the difference between asking questions and making statements, then how can you hope to have a rational conversation?
Further, as I pointed out elsewhere, even black folks are asking the questions that I'm asking. Yet, you don't seem bothered by that, perhaps because it's easier to try to demonize me for asking the questions instead of going after a black man who agrees with me.
The problem you seem to be having is in comprehending that I am asking a question based on the "data" you cling to. Unlike you, I am not drawing conclusions from the "data", I'm asking why?
Do you really live in a world where asking why, is such a horrible thing?
I'm going to try to use a real world example.
Currently there are a significant number of local black leaders who are insisting that the local government (specifically the police dept) is filled with institutional racism. My questions (unanswered to this point) is "If the system is institutionally racist, then aren't those who control the system racist?".
If the answer is "Yes, those who control the institutionally racist system are racist", then it seems reasonable to ask why those oppressed by the system, continue to vote for those who run and perpetuate the system. The corollary is how long can those who control the racist institutions continue to act as if they are not responsible for the system that control.
If the answer is "No, those who control and perpetuate that racist system are not themselves racist.", then the next logical question is why haven't they fixed the racist institutions they control.
Just to clarify, I'm asking questions about a phenomenon that seems contradictory to me, trying to understand before I draw any conclusions. Yet somehow the very act of asking questions makes me a racist in your eyes.
I guess your definition of Grace means demonizing people for asking questions.
“Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech. We may not like the vessel that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said, because it is a fact that for 54 years, we have been voting for the Democratic party like no other race in America.
And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given them. We as black people have to reexamine the relationship — where we are being pimped like prostitutes, and they’re the big pimps pimping us politically, promising us everything and we get nothing in return.”
I guess, you're just not up to dealing with those in the black community that don;t agree with you.
You nail it, Craig. It isn't about facts, but about what some perceive is factual. Too many in the black community continue to believe the lie that the right-wing is somehow racist. They will continue to pretend that blacks are shot dead by cops in large numbers or percentages, when the truth has determined that is not the case. They will continue to believe their economic situation is the result of systemic racism, but never consider their own roles in their economic status. And of course, while they insist the system is racist and stacked against them, they continue to support the very people how are in charge of that system.
Yet it is the right who needs to shut up and listen? We HAVE been listening. What we hear is the same nonsense that has been proven false time and time again. If the truth is to be ignored, how can the right be held responsible for the consequences?
I do not reject the notion that the right-wing must find a way to get their message across. But I do reject the notion that the rejection of the right-wing message is the result of serious and thoughtful consideration. It is clearly not the case. I'm still waiting to hear why anyone who supported Obama for president did so. I've heard nothing that isn't worthless and devoid of merit...and certainly nothing that is backed by evidence and fact.
The right-wing loses because people prefer fantasy to fact, and easy to hard work. Worse, the myths and lies spewed by so many on the right, like Dan, get in the way of the real message being put forth, even if put forth in a less compelling way than the emotion-heavy, but fact-free leftist drivel.
I completely agree that conservatives need to do a better job of communicating the actual messages of conservatism, rather than allowing the false narrative to stand. But that just makes my point, Dan is prepared to label me a racist for trying to do what he demands. I'd love to listen to the real honest answers to the questions I'm asking. I'd love to have real dialogue about real stuff, even hard stuff. But as long as too many people believe the lies and won't ask questions, then it just devolves into name calling. Unfortunately the American political left is better at that than the political right.
Speaking of fact free drivel. Dan offers a bit of "data", that 90% of blacks vote democrat. That's an interesting bit of trivia, but by itself tells us very little. Despite that Dan feels like he is qualified to impart meaning to that data and speak authoritatively to the reasons why.
Here are a few things that would make that isolated data point more relevant.
1. What % of blacks vote?
2. Does this breakdown carry across all the races on the ballot?
3. Did the presence of P-BO distort the %.
4. How long has this been happening?
5. Does the % change on issues v. candidates?
I'm sure I could come up with more, but those bits of data might give us a more accurate glimpse into reality than Dan has. But that doesn't even touch the why questions. For example, if a large % of any demographic group voted in a certain way solely because their parents voted that way, it would be reasonable to ask if family traditions is a rational basis for voting. Or if a group voted for a party because they believed that that party had done concrete things that benefited the group, wouldn't it be rational to actually look at the reality of how well the promises were kept? Would it really be rational to continue to vote for people who don't deliver on their promises?
If people are voting in demographic blocs for reasons that don't correspond to reality, wouldn't the healthiest option be to reexamine the facts and reconsider how you vote?
No, what we get is "It's all your fault because you're a bunch of evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, meanies who should immediately adopt the democrat party platform to stay relevant.
Talk about divorced from reality.
...relevant ".
Y'all are killing the messenger for pointing out something it appears you agree with. It's a fact that a majority of black folk, women, Hispanics gay folk and young people are not voting Republican. I don't know the numbers of exactly how many in those groups think you're saying or promoting openly racist, sexist, and otherwise hateful language and ideas, but the numbers are not insignificant. Do you truly think otherwise?
Look at the kerfuffle about Trump's claims about preying upon and targeting women... Trump's conservative defenders are saying, yes, it's awful he used vulgar language and "locker room" talk and women everywhere are shaking their heads in vile disgust! Those defenders are missing the point entirely, women will tell you. It's not about the schoolboy language and attitude. It's about promoting a culture of rape and sexual predation.
To the degree that the GOP simply doesn't get it, you are losing women, young folk and defenders of women. It's on the GOP to learn from this and change their attitudes and language if they don't want to lose the support of women. Do you understand that?
Do you understand that blaming me for repeating what many women are saying is part of the GOP problem.
Or consider the gay thing... The GOP has largely publicly dropped that line of attack, precisely because they recognize it's a non-starter and that it drives away the young vote... But evangelicals still need to learn that lesson if they want young people in their churches. It does no good to yell at progressives or denigrate/talk down to gay folk for pointing that out. Your positions on this topic are increasingly seen as the immoral ones. That's just pointing out reality. Don't throw stones at the messenger, listen and learn.
I can't imagine that you've actually read a word I've written here given your last two comments.
If you can't see that you making the leap from the %ages, to the reasons without any evidence is problematic.
If you can't see the difference between 90% of blacks and 90% of blacks who vote, that's problematic.
If you keep accusing people of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc based on what others do, that's problematic.
If you keep criticizing people and making moral judgements about them for asking questions, that's problematic.
How about you stop patting yourself on the back and actually address the comments that have been made.
As far as your off topic attempt to change the subject to homosexuality.
1. Popular acceptance of something doesn't make it true, right, or factual.
2. I live in a metropolitan area with a large number of large churches, these are churches you would consider anti-gay (based on no actual evidence), yet they are growing, planting and vibrant. So your blanket statement may not be as true as you'd like.
3. One of the churches I attend regularly isa 5000+ and growing filled with young people. This is a church that you would label "anti-gay". We left a dying, dysfunctional "militantly pro-gay" denomination for one not defined by its position on homosexuality. Shockingly enough, both our church and denomination are defying your hope. The other church I attend/work at is one that you would consider "pro-gay" (I have no idea what their official position is and don't care that much), yet its membership is declining and it's bereft of young people.
Now that I've allowed your excursion to far off topic, and responded to it, I'll ask that you stay (at least) on the topics already in play without adding more.
So when P-BO invites rappers to the White House who rap about "bitches" and "ho's", that's promoting a healthy sexual climate?
When Hillary attacks the women Bill has had affairs with and sexually harassed, that's promoting a healthy sexual climate?
The problem you have is that you are choosing to ignore that myriad number of reasons why people might vote for Trump, with actual support of Trump. It's the same thing as your continued lie that 90% of blacks vote democrat. It's not true, and even if it were I've pointed out numerous problems with assigning meaning to that one bit of data. Yet you pretend that if you just repeat yourself then something becomes true.
Tell me true, Craig, do you think that there are vast swaths of black folk, gay folk, women, young people, immigrants, educated people, etc, who are secretly Republicans, and it just doesn't show up in voting records? For instance, there are large numbers of black men who can't vote because they were imprisoned due to the failed GOP "war on crime..." Do you think they're secretly fans of the GOP?
Absent any evidence, I'd call that wishful thinking.
Dan,
Are you just not able to comprehend and respond to what's actually already been written? Do you feel like it helps to ignore what I've said, and make up some crap that I haven't said?
It's clear if you actually read, that I've simply pointed out the serious flaw that falsifies your claim that 90% of blacks vote democrat. If you want to substitute your fantasy for reality, don't expect me to enable your delusion.
You're right in this much: someone in this conversation is not understanding what's actually being said... Someone's not answering questions or addressing points made. The problem is, you think it's me.
Don't know how to help you, there. Good luck.
I only think so because it is you.
Just to focus on one claim. You have claimed that 90% of blacks vote democrat. This claim is 100% false, yet you continue to act as if it is true. I've pointed out why the claim is false, yet you pretend otherwise. I've asked questions about this claim, yet you've ignored them.
And somehow you've convinced yourself that you're blameless in this.
I'm going to ask one simple direct question, whether or not you answer it will carry great weight.
Do you understand that your claim that 90% of blacks vote democrat is false? (Obviously this applies to all of your other % claims, but apparently we need to keep this simple)
One question, can you answer it correctly.
Craig, of course, when I say that 90% of black folk vote Dem, I'm speaking of those who vote. That is obvious and I didn't want to insult your intelligence to agree with what is obvious. I assume when you state a blindingly obvious point in a question, the question is rhetorical. But yes, to affirm the obvious, only black folk who are voting, vote for Dems at around 90%.
I'll go further and state that 100% of black folk who don't vote are not voting Dem (or GOP, but that, too, is obvious).
Thus, my claim is not false. Your understanding of what I said is mistaken. Which gets back to my point that one of us is not understanding the other, and it ain't me.
Understand?
Beyond that point, I think it is pretty clear from polls (not just voters, but how minorities self-identify) that black folk don't tend to identify with the GOP. For instance, consider this from Gallup...
Almost two-thirds of blacks identify as Democrats, with most of the rest identifying as independents.
Only 5% of blacks nationwide identify as Republicans.
...Half of Hispanics identify as independents, although the majority of the rest identify as Democrats. This is despite their high level of approval and strong majority voting support for Democratic President Barack Obama.
Relatively few Hispanics (13%) identify as Republicans.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx
This is speaking of self-identification of ethnic/race groups, not of voters, at least, if I'm understanding it correctly. I've seen such research elsewhere.
The point (and my question) remains: do you really think those black folk who don't vote because of the war on drugs or other reasons are secretly GOP, they just won't vote that way?
If so, do you have any data to support such a rose colored view?
So, you finally admit that your claim was at best poorly worded, thanks. Had you acknowledged that the first few times I brought it up think how much time we could have saved.
Maybe now that you've undermined your entire premise (90% of blacks...), we can move on to the inferences you draw from that random piece of data. Again, we'll start with one question and move from there.
1. What data do you have that documents the reasons why 90% of blacks who vote vote democrat?
This would have been so much easier had you chosen to deal with this the first time I brought it up instead of choosing to ignore and be obstinate.
Again, had you decided to provide these stats earlier we could have avoided so much difficulty.
Of course your stats disprove your premise (90% of blacks are democrats), and they re raise some of the questions I asked earlier about how those who identify as independent actually vote (without the P-BI effect). But those questions were ignored then, and will likely be ignored now.
But, please continue making unsupported generalizations and having the problems with them pointed out.
Speaking of falsehoods, I have denounced Trump, have been clear that I do not support him and why, yet you keep trying to lump me in with others who have reached a different conclusion. This irrational hatred of Trump and those who might choose to vote for him, seems to be one more instance where your behavior contradicts your claims of following the "Way of Grace". I've never thought that being demanding and belittling was a characteristic of grace.
And just to reiterate my own position, I support conservative principles and the defeat of those who are anathema to them, such as Hillary Clinton and Democrats in general. Trump, not one I would consider a hard core conservative by any means, represents the best chance to achieve both goals I see as imperative for the benefit or our nation and the advancement of our culture...the implementation of conservative principles and the defeat of those who are polar opposites from them, such as Hillary Clinton and Democrats in general. Other people running for president might come closer to representing that goal. None of them have a chance of succeeding in winning the presidency. Thus, to vote for anyone other than Trump at this point, or to not vote for anyone, is to allow the worse case scenario...indeed, to welcome it and offer it the comfy chair.
Regardless of how sincerely one might believe rejecting Trump is the moral option, it is a false belief and represents the opposite reality...failing to defeat Hillary's quest for the White House is the far worse moral choice.
Some say that they will let God handle things. I don't see any teaching in Scripture that encourages us to sit back and do nothing when times like these arise. We are responsible for this, and we will be responsible for what happens when the results are in in November. It doesn't matter how red or blue one's state is. All that matters is whether or not each of us acted to prevent or forestall the worst possible outcome.
Again, had you decided to provide these stats earlier we could have avoided so much difficulty.
Again, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that when I was speaking of African Americans who VOTE for Dems, that I was speaking of African American VOTERS. Those who do not vote are not voters. See how that works?
Again, I was assuming you weren't ignorant and able to understand basic communication.
have denounced Trump, have been clear that I do not support him and why, yet you keep trying to lump me in with others who have reached a different conclusion.
And yet, I have not done this. Again, I give you the benefit of the doubt that you can understand words and communication. Given that I have never lumped you in with my WORDS, I wouldn't have guessed that you'd infer that I lumped you in.
This irrational hatred of Trump and those who might choose to vote for him, seems to be one more instance where your behavior contradicts your claims of following the "Way of Grace".
Trump is dangerously ignorant and dangerously is fanning flames of racism, sexism and anti-immigrant ideas. This, according to many, many conservatives. I agree with those conservatives. There is nothing in the Way of Grace that would preclude one from working against a dangerous candidate.
Here again, you fail to understand my words.
From the conservative magazine, The American Conservative...
Today up to 95 percent of African-American voters are aligned with the Democratic Party, and the GOP has largely abandoned its legacy of civil rights activism.
It’s tough to assert being the party of Lincoln while some Republican legislators court Neo-Confederates and other ethnic nationalist movements. They further distance themselves by advocating for voter ID laws, which disenfranchise primarily low-income and legal minority voters. (There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud by illegal or ineligible voters, let alone a single example of when such voting has actually turned an election).
It is similarly difficult for Republicans to trumpet their role in passing Civil Rights Acts while the Republican National Committee is spearheading efforts to dismantle affirmative action (Former GOP chairman Michael Steele struck a good balance on this). And perhaps most importantly, the conservative emphasis on personal responsibility sounds disingenuous to many blacks when Republicans refuse to acknowledge the profound and continuing effects of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation—let alone the persistence of overt racism, institutional and systemic discrimination, and unconscious racial bias.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-arent-there-more-black-republicans/
Again, I would ask you: Do you truly think that there exists a silent majority of black folk who support the GOP? Do you truly think that most black folk (whatever that percentage) do not view the GOP with distrust and even hostility?
I do not think you could provide any data to support this claim. I think it is clear from the data that we have that our black friends tend far and away to be suspicious or even hostile towards the GOP (for one thing, they are informed enough about history to remember the devious "southern strategy...") And this, in spite of the more conservative nature of at least many black Christians.
The people at American Conservative appear to think that this is reality.
I get it, you're just going to repeat yourself and fail to deal with the problems with your claims.
I'd provide the quote where you lumped me in with those who don't denounce Trump, but you'd just come up with some other BS excuse to dodge responsibility for what you've said.
One might wonder why you would expect me to provide support for a claim I haven't made, because demanding that someone support something they haven't said would be stupid, wouldn't it?
One also might wonder what could possibly motivate to to positively respond to your demands that I answer questions based on crap you just made up, when you dodged the one question I just asked.
It gets tiring repeating myself, but part of the process of finding out what motivates different communities to vote the ways they do is to ask questions and listen to the answers. But when you and folks like you start throwing out labels and calling names for asking questions, it's hard to take you seriously.
I'd ask you to take a crack at some of the questions I've asked, but your commitment to a political narrative means the answers would be worthless.
But, if you'd actually like to answer anything go for it.
If all you have is vitriol, name calling, assumptions, and ignoring then find something better to do with your time.
"...with your collective refusal to utterly denounce Trump..."
I'm sure you'll come up with some BS to try to deny that "your collective " doesn't include the person you were directly responding to.
I fully expect you to try the weasel route, rather than to simply admit you've once again poorly worded something. Your unwillingness to stand by what you write is becoming more and more absurd.
"Your collective" is speaking to the conservative/GOP collective effort. YOU are part of the collective GOP/conservative group.
"Your collective" means ALL of you (or, by and large, all of you), not merely one of you or a hundred of you.
Again, your failure to understand my words is not an indication that I am mistaken.
If all you have is vitriol, name calling, assumptions, and ignoring then find something better to do with your time.
There has been zero vitriol, name calling, assumptions or ignoring in my words. Absolutely none. I've done no name calling, and you can't cite any. I've said nothing vitriolic and you can't cite any. And on and on.
That you fail to understand my words does not mean that my words mean something other than what I've said.
Craig: "...yet you keep trying to lump me in with others..."
Dan: "...And yet, I have not done this..."
Craig: "... (provides actual quote of Dan's actual words)"...with your collective refusal to utterly denounce Trump..."...".
Dan: ""Your collective" is speaking to the conservative/GOP collective effort. YOU are part of the collective GOP/conservative group."
So first you explicitly deny "lumping me in with others", when you said "I have not done this.", then you explicitly admit that you've done exactly what you explicitly denied.
Darn, that whole scrolling up to see what you actually said is kind of a drag, isn't it?
I guess I was right when I said you'd come up with some kind of BS to deny that you'd said what you'd clearly said, I was wrong you admitted you'd done what you denied.
"There has been zero vitriol, name calling, assumptions or ignoring in my words. Absolutely none. I've done no name calling, and you can't cite any."
Well, there's this.
"Trump is dangerously ignorant and dangerously is fanning flames of racism, sexism and anti-immigrant ideas."
If I wasn't pressed for time I'd go find more, but since you were quite clear about "zero", I guess one example is all I need.
It's not name-calling if one is simply pointing out facts. A three year old WOULD BE dangerously ignorant to be president. So, too, is Trump. Do you disagree with me and the many others who point out that fact?
Then, not name-calling.
Trump IS dangerously fanning flames if racism. Do you seriously disagree with the many conservatives and others who point that out?
Craig, as to the lumping in thing, my apologies. I misspoke. My fault.
My point is that conservatives did not sufficiently stand up to Trump and this racist, sexist, anti-immigrant language to a degree sufficient to make it clear it is not a welcome part of the GOP. Perhaps it's not your fault, you who did oppose him. Perhaps the racist, sexist, idiotic and immoral portion of the GOP is the majority and there was nothing you could do. But, if that were the case, it would be time for the non-"bad" segment of the GOP to withdraw all support and apologize for the mess your collective party has become.
I don't see that happening.
I realize that you and others share your opinion, but to simply assert something as factual....
Nice job dodging you contradicting yourself.
Wow. Dan expects everyone to join in the deflection and spend time making sure everyone knows that each of us is opposed to the various examples of Trump's boorish behavior. At the same time, I see no effort whatsoever to stand up against the many examples of Hillary's bad behavior reported by various sources who have first hand knowledge, and even fewer (meaning, none) standing up against her dangerous policy proposals.
I don't know the author of that American Conservative article. Sounds like a leftist given the bad arguments for why blacks support the party that's done absolutely nothing for them. The problem is perception. The perception by blacks that the Dems are the answer and the GOP is not is based on falsehoods stoked by leftists who support the Dem party. The Dems are class warriors, pitting groups against each other, making victims of them all for whom their only salvation is the Dems. The GOP tends to offer that which is beneficial to all without regard to class distinction. And like my first paragraph, the GOP is conned into defending against false charges when they should be proudly proclaiming their superior platform. Blacks, in the meantime, like other categories of people the Dems prefer stay categorized, are now of a mind that something must be done for them personally, and until the GOP plays that bribery game so well perfected by the corrupt Dem party, they will not easily jump ship. There does seem to be signs it's beginning to happen, but it will take some time.
The difference, Marshall, is that we don't accept your opinions about Clinton as valid or supported by data. On the other hand, Trump is clearly vulgar, abusive, espousing racist and anti-immigrant and sexist ideas. This is agreed upon across the spectrum, conservative people agree with it, liberal people agree with it. Religious and non-religious agree with it.
There is no such agreement about claims about Clinton's allegedly bad behavior.
To the degree that we do agree on Clinton making mistakes - some of the lies, for instance - she has been called on it, apologized for it and moved on. We recognize that she is flawed and imperfect, and she does, too. But her failings are not anything like on the same plane as Trump's horrifying unfitness. And again, this according to many conservatives.
Russell Moore on Trump "snuffing out the religious right..."
These evangelical leaders [who defend Trump] have said that, for the sake of the “lesser of two evils,” one should stand with someone who not only characterizes
sexual decadence and misogyny,
brokers in cruelty and nativism, and
displays a crazed public and private temperament —
but who glories in these things.
Some of the very people who warned us about moral relativism and situational ethics now ask us to become moral relativists for the sake of an election. And when some dissent, they are labeled as liberals or accused of moral preening or sitting comfortably on the sidelines. The cynicism and nihilism is horrifying to behold.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/10/09/if-donald-trump-has-done-anything-he-has-snuffed-out-the-religious-right/
Sorry, it looks like your apology and my comment cross posted, I just saw it.
"racist, sexist, idiotic, immoral, vulgar, abusive"
But no name calling from you, not ever.
Actor Hugh Laurie on what appears to be the irrational hatred against Clinton...
"People who hate Hillary, hate her so much... I don't understand. It's as if I missed the first reel of the film where she burned down the orphanage"
Those are descriptors that conservatives are using to describe the problem with Trump's words and attitude. It's not name-calling if it's a description. If I spoke about Timothy McVeigh and said, "He's a bomber" that's not name calling. It's descriptive.
Do you understand the difference?
Are you suggesting that, while you disagree with Trump, you DON'T think he's being horrifyingly sexist, predatory towards women, encouraging racism and anti-immigrant attitudes?
Because, if not, then I'm back to lumping you in with those who are not doing enough to stop Trump. He IS doing these things, saying these things. I'm not making it up. Ask Al Mohler. Ask John McCain or Paul Ryan.
I sort of get the idea that you may be of the group who find Trump saying "pussy" distasteful... but fail to get that he's using predatory language and by all available data - including his own testimony - he IS a predator. Those in the GOP/on the conservative side of things who fail to understand the problem are part of the problem.
Just ask Russell Moore.
Perhaps you didn't read the actual post before you commented. I've been quite clear about why I can't support Trump. That doesn't mean that you or anyone else can label him whatever you want based on your opinions and expect reasonable people to accept your opinion as fact. I don't care who says it, opinions aren't facts.
And THAT is why you all have lost all credibility and black, gay, women, educated, immigrant and young people, by and large.
Address the problem, stop attacking the messenger.
So I've lost credibility because of what other people have done. That certainly makes sense.
But you somehow retain credibility for trying to pass off opinions as fact and making excuses for Hillary.
But I can see why asserting that opinions aren't facts is harmful to my credibility.
I don't think that you quite grasp the concept that' it's possible to not support Trump, yet still point out the problems people demonstrate in their personal attacks.
You have lost credibility because of what YOU have done, what YOU have said. You appear to want to criticize Trump for being a lout, but not for his actual problems of promoting racism, sexism, sexually predatory attitudes, anti-immigrant attitudes.
But I guess you just don't see it.
Which is why you don't acknowledge it.
Which is why you don't change.
Which is why, as I have said, you all are losing/have lost credibility.
I'd ask, "Understand?" but I just don't think you do.
Read Mohler (never thought I'd say that) on the topic. Russell Moore. Other rational conservatives. (Relatively so, at least on this topic...) Don't blame the messenger, listen to the message from YOUR people.
I've criticized Trump for a number of things, yet in your partisan fueled rants, you suggest that I have no credibility because I don't agree with your opinions.
If your opinions are now the measure of what's credible then I'm not sure credibility in your eyes is desirable.
The interesting thing about your entire rant, is that you see plenty of us conservatives who have abandoned Trump, and somehow you don't seem to realize that the democrats have simply gotten in a herd behind Clinton despite the continued revelations we see day after day.
It's interesting that you talk of credibility when you've hitched your wagon to the candidate who cheated her way to the nomination, colluding with the national party to deprive your original candidate of a fair election process.
One last repeated point. When Bill Clinton had all his problems one of the excuses was that these were things he did in his "private life" and didn't affect his "public life", yet there is a different standard for Trump. While at the same time you all ignore what Hillary has done in her "public life".
The point (one point) you are not getting is that Trump's failings and Clinton's failings are not comparable. Trump is clearly not informed enough to be President. It would be like having a five year old running... He's fundamentally unfit. Likewise, his sexist and sexually predatory attitudes towards women make him fundamentally unfit. Likewise, his promotion and support of racist, anti-immigrant ideas make him unfit. Finally, his casual lies make him unfit.
Clinton is flawed in the manner of Bush, Reagan, Cruz and other candidates.. Flawed but not wholly unfit.
Are you suggesting that you think Trump is somehow fundamentally fit for office?
It's not a partisan attack when people across the spectrum agree with the point.
I'm suggesting that my (or anyone's) opinions on Trump's fitness for office is irrelevant. There is no legal/constitutional requirement, test, mechanism that asses or restricts candidates based on such subjective criteria.
However if the Bill Clinton (private bad acts don't affect fitness for public office) is applied then Trump should be ok.
If your personal Hillary (she hasn't been convicted of a crime) standard is applied then Trump is also ok.
Unfortunately many of what you dismiss as "flaws " in both Clintons involve actions taken in the course of their official duties. Bill, sexual harassment, Hillary, selling access to her office for cash.
The problem you have is that you don't want to differentiate between holding both candidates to a similar standard, and supporting Trump. It's clear that I don't support Trump, yet that doesn't preclude me from looking at things semi objectively (maybe it helps since I don't support either and have no interest in helping either) and comparing how each is treated.
I know it's hard to comprehend, but the division among conservatives on Trump indicates a movement that is willing to stand on principle and oppose the GOP candidate, while those on the left just get herded in to support Hillary because that's what the left does. They vote for the democrat candidate no matter what.
I was re reading the original post and the first few comments and had a couple of thoughts that are more on topic.
I can't help but notice that while Trump's multiple divorces and affairs strike me as being morally reprehensible, and concerning regarding his ability to serve (If he can't keep his marriage vows, why would he treat his oath of office any differently). Those things don't bother (can't bother) most of those on the political left, given that the entire "free love", no fault divorce, removing the stigma from extramarital sex, hook up culture is driven by those on the political left. The fact is that for Trump to do something personal (sexual) that was significant enough to rouse them, it couldn't be any of the things that they have been championing sine the 60's.
In a similar vein, given that the Trump quotes were described as describing "sexual assault", it's strange to see Bill Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky isn't bothersome because Bill cheated on his wife (not for the first time) but because "...but because he was a president having an affair with a 21 year intern...". This blows me away on several levels. 1. Because this is the virtual definition of sexual harassment in the workplace*. Despite claims to the contrary, sexual harassment is illegal under federal employment law. One of the things stressed in the Harassment training we undergo periodically is that any time someone in authority makes a sexual advance to a subordinate, that is sexual harassment. Clearly an intern is subordinate to POTUS. Not only were the acts engaged in criminal in nature, but the perjury that came later is also illegal.
But, we live in a society in which multiple affairs are brushed off as inconsequential and sexual harassment is excused as merely "unseemly", so why would anyone be surprised to see that there is still some level of sexual behavior that the left finds inappropriate.
*"It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature."
...unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature."
Unwelcome. This was consensual and thus, not illegal. Awful, immoral, wrong, but not illegal.
Monica Lewinsky:
“Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship."
If facts matter.
And, of course, it is utter BS to say that "the left" just vote for the democrat, no matter what. Of course, we don't and it is easily demonstrable. For instance, if Clinton were to grab people by their private parts or to embrace the sort of racist or anti-immigrant language in her speeches that Trump has used, we would not vote for her. I and my friends have, as a point of fact, voted for the Green Party candidate several times over much less, as a point of character and principle.
People on the left teach your children, nurse your wounds, preach and pastor your neighbors, house homeless people and otherwise take stands of principle in their daily lives, well, daily. It is a devious slander to suggest that this is not the case and you simply can't prove it. Shame on you.
I guess you missed the part of the definition that states that "request sexual favors" is sexual harassment. It's kind of pathetic and amusing to watch you try to minimize the severity of Clinton's lengthy string of "incidents" culminating with Lewinsky.
If your response is typical I think it's safe to say that the left is pretty much going to vote for whoever gets trotted out by the democrat party.
As to your last, conservatives do all of those things as well.
I have to note that you've been very selective in your response and your outrage.
And I have to note that you appear to have no outrage at all for the GOP and what you all have collectively come to represent. Only mild distaste, and that, for the wrong reasons.
Something to consider.
For instance, in spite of nominating perhaps the least qualified candidate in history, and that, on many grounds, the best you can do is to say that he is boorish and vulgar. You do not appear to even understand, much less be angry about, WHY Trump is so awful.
I have to note.
1. Your assumption that I somehow am associated with the GOP is incorrect.
2. Your assumption regarding my feelings toward the GOP is incorrect.
3. Just because I haven't recently expressed my opinion on the GOP doesn't allow you to make assumptions about what my opinion is.
4. Your perception of what the GOP represents, is not the reality of what the GOP actually represents.
5. Your presumption regarding my "mild distaste" is a figment of your imagination, again just because I haven't written exhaustively about it doesn't mean you get to assign your own biased conclusions.
6. Who made you the arbiter of the "right" and "wrong" reasons for anything? By what objective standard do you make your claims?
1. As there is no definition ( beyond that in the constitution) that talks about what qualifies one to be president, I'm not sure what your subjective notion of "least qualified" actually means.
2. This post is about one specific aspect of what people think about Trump. It is intentionally not an exhaustive list of everything I find problematic about him. It's really not even about him as much as it is about how "christians" are reacting to this most recent event.
3. I've written elsewhere about my opinions on Trump, so why would you make conclusions about the totality of my thoughts based on a limited and specific post.
4. I understand that "awful" is subjective and that you hold the opinion that Trumo is "awful ". That doesn't make your opinion reality.
5. I further understand that it's easier to trash Trump than it is to defend the Clintons. But the fact that one candidate is awful doesn't automatically make the other awesome.
6. It's telling that your last two comments are virtually all based on assumptions and don't actually refute or address any of my comments.
One final thought, it's not enough for you that I don't support Trump. It's not enough that I've made numerous specific comments and statements about what my problems with Trump are. The only thing that seems to matter to you is that I agree with your subjective opinions about Trump and just go along with the vitriol and hate.
I see no reason to stoop to that level. I've been clear and repeated in my criticism of Trump for numerous substantive policy and character issues. If that's not enough for you, that's just too bad. I don't do witch hunts or personal attacks. So how about you stop judging me for not being as rabid in my hatred of Trump as you are.
You clearly have a poor understanding either of my words or the notions vitriol and hate. You want to see actual vitriol and hate? Listen to the fringe Right talking about Clinton.
No, what I am doing is pointing to the 50 GOP operatives who said, "Trump would be the most reckless president in American history... In our judgement, Mr Trump has none (NONE!) of these critical qualities...
He is unable or unwilling to separate Truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has... erratic behaviour. All of these are dangerous..."
These are uber conservatives who have worked with presidents.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is any way in which Trump IS fit?
Pointing to across the board consensus that says Trump is uniquely and entirely unfit for office is not hateful or vitriolic. Calling Clinton hateful names and making crazy claims about her ( she wants to destroy amurrca and take our guns), that is hateful and vitriolic. Learn the difference, Craig.
You are right on at least one point: it is not enough to merely be unsatisfied with Trump. People across the political spectrum have agreed... he is fundamentally unfit for office. We should always join together to work against unfit candidates. Look, Clinton's email is under investigation again. IF it turned up proof, for instance, that she sold secrets or weapons to terrorists for personal profit, then SHE would be unfit for office and Dems would work against her election. Why? Because we have integrity and would not passively sit by while an unfit candidate went up for election.
Trump is not fit for office for a range of reasons. That so many conservatives don't see that is troubling.
No, what I am suggesting is that "fitness" for the job of POTUS, (beyond the specific constitutional requirements) is a subjective and partition proposition. I would argue that Hillary's long history of corrupt behavior while holding various official positions would disqualify her from being president. While my position is based on actual, real, verifiable actions on her part I realize that it is subjective and at least somewhat partisan. So I understand that many people (myself included) have various subjective reading why we would not support Trump for president, none of that is objectively disqualifying. Earlier I pointed out that if I apply the standards applied to judge the Clintons behavior to Trump, that he fared just as well as they did.
Ultimately this recent spate of vitriol at Trump is nothing new when aimed at GOP candidates. Your side is the side that demonized both Bushes, McCain, and Romneney. You had Harry Reid making up lies about Romney's taxes, and justifying it by saying that it kept him from being elected. Unfortunately, when you (you personally) paint reasonably decent people who you disagree with politically as "evil" and "liars", it's hard to take you seriously when you attack Trump. When you (personally) excoriated Bush for lying, yet excuse Hillary because "all politicians lie", it makes it difficult to give anything you say credence.
Of course your problem is that I haven't called Clinton hateful names, yet once again you try to smear me for what others do, while ignoring the long and current history of vile personal attacks from those firmly in the mainstream on your side.
Yes, it US subjective. Nonetheless, this does not stop rational people from recognizing and working against an unfit candidate. If there were a candidate running who was completely unaware of ANY other nations, their policies or leaders, who was not able to read or do his times table, would you not be willing to say that person was not fit to be president??
Not having an objective answer need not freeze a person into brainless inaction.
I've never said anything of the sort, and you've not actually said anything substantial. You're bizarre worst case scenario bears no relationship to the reality we are faced with. The fact is that your subjective and partisan conclusions about Trump, are being reached by applying a different standard than you apply to Clinton. The fact that you so casually dismiss the increasing evidence of corruption as "flaws", is telling.
Re..."bears no relationship... " Yes. Yes, it does. People across the board see it. Google "Trump uniquely unfit..." and you'll see the case made over and over.
This is what I'm getting at... That so many conservative types don't even understand the problem IS the problem.
Once you've read the hundreds of arguments pointing to the myriad ways Trump is wholly unfit, well, probably nothing will change.
Good luck.
Re: not applying same standards to Clinton...
I understand that this might be what you think but the fact is that is not reality.
As I have said, if Clinton did any of a number of the things that Trump has done then I would think she is not fit for office. That is exactly the same standard.
If Clinton talked about banning Muslims even temporarily- as Trump has done - by that standard I would not vote for her and think she is calling for something contrary to our values. It is the same standard.
If Clinton was groping men or women and bragging about how she's above the law, then by that standard I would not vote for her. It is the same exact standards.
If she repeatedly, casually made false claims, again, I would not vote for her.
Just because you can't see it, doesn't make it so.
As to not saying something substantial, I offered an analogy whereby I helped you to see that we can and do recognize the notion if being unfit for office, even though it's not defined. That is, we established a reasonable common ground, which was the point. So, substantial enough.
I've never said that not having an objective answers blah, blah, blah.
It's interesting that when it comes to theology you reject the notion that numbers of people who agree carries any weight, but in this case you tout the fact that a bunch of people have the same subjective opinion makes that opinion somehow inevitable.
Re: your standards comment, I laid out a comparison of the standards applied to the Climtons, the fact that you choose to ignore those actual instances in favor of hypothetical fantasy says volumes.
As to your bizarre "analogy", you've posited some sort if irrational worst case scenario which bears no relevance to the current situation. The problem you have, is the lack (intentional, I believe) of specific qualifications to be POTUS. Instead you attempt to offer subjective opinion as a rational basis to exclude someone from running for office.
The bigger problem is that if Trump was really as bad as you want him to be, then an opponent with even a modicum of credibility would be able to wipe the floor with someone like this.
And that, good man, is precisely the problem with the modern GOP and conservative movement... A good/better candidate SHOULD have wiped the floor with this man, who is not conservative, not moral, not intelligent and not really even Republican. But because y'all collectively don't have the moral and intellectual wherewithal to see through this con man's nonsense, here we are.
You still don't seem to recognize the problem before you. Read Mohler, Moore, et al. Take up this argument with them. Take the plank out and stop blaming the messenger.
It's interesting that you can't seem to comprehend the fact that I did not, nor do I currently support Trump. One problem you have is that all the people you call "better men" now are all people you've accused of being liars and all sorts of things during the primaries. The second problem you have is the fact that if your side had a "good" candidate then this deplorable, evil character would be getting skunked. But instead he seems to be gaining, while Hillary has to avoid the press who might ask questions she doesn't want to answer. The third problem you seem to have is that you have trouble tolerating the fact that people just might be attracted to a candidate who isn't part of the political elite. A candidate who promises something other than the same old same old. A candidate who actually defends himself when attacked.
Look, I don't support him, but I understand the desire a lot of people have for someone different. It's not my problem that the candidate you're stuck with (after a primary contest that was anything but democratic), is the second worst candidate in the history of the country.
You have to wonder what would have happened had NBC put the video out during the primaries, instead of sitting on it and trying to use it to maximum effect (that's an allegedly unbiased news organization), in an attempt to boost Hillary late in the campaign.
Maybe this is the time for a little of that tolerance y'all preach about all the time. Maybe a little Grace, in acknowledging that not everyone agrees with your subjective opinion, and that's not agreeing with you doesn't make them stupid, evil, racist, deplorable, or whatever disparaging adjective you choose. Maybe, just maybe, there are people who genuinely disagree with you for reasons that are just as rational as yours. I know it's a stretch, but perhaps you could just consider the possibility. Show some tolerance, embrace Grace.
It's interesting that you can't seem to comprehend the fact that I did not, nor do I currently support Trump.
It's interesting that you can't seem to comprehend the fact that I never said you did.
Just like you appear unable to comprehend the problem Trump represents to our more conservative friends.
One problem you have is that all the people you call "better men" now are all people you've accused of being liars and all sorts of things during the primaries
I didn't accuse them of lying. I pointed to the data that showed that they told more lies than Clinton did. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with data, not with me. (which, interestingly, is exactly one of the problems the GOP/conservative side of things is having).
The second problem you have is the fact that if your side had a "good" candidate then this deplorable, evil character would be getting skunked.
Indeed, this is true. But the second problem your side is having is that it wouldn't matter how perfect our candidate is when it comes to Truth or Character or Intelligence (see Obama and the brainless and endless attacks on this man who has had the most exemplary White House in decades...) Your side lives on slander and personal attacks, which is exactly one of the reasons you have Trump. You all collectively birthed him.
The third problem you seem to have is that you have trouble tolerating the fact that people just might be attracted to a candidate who isn't part of the political elite.
This of course is nonsense. I give you my voting record where I have often voted for people who are not part of the political elite to demonstrate the falsity of this claim.
You are failing to understand the difference between a candidate who is an outsider but is still qualified for office and Trump, who is across the board recognized as being obviously unfit for office, because of his demeanor, his detachment from Truth, his immorality, his intelligence (or lack thereof) and his words.
Charles Manson is an outsider, but he's not fit for office, either.
Again, your problem is with data and reality, as pointed out by even super conservatives like Mohler and Moore. Take it up with them. Or are they part of a vast left wing conspiracy, needing to take up grace, too?
Your last demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what I mean by grace.
(Hint: it isn't "Be stupid and embrace immorality.")
Of course I understand the problem Trump has with some conservatives, I'm one of the conservatives who has problems with him.
"One of the most exemplary White House s in decades", really.
Have you forgotten the nasty things folks on your side said about W, have you forgotten what you said? Have you forgotten that Harry Ried brazenly lied about Romney, and was proud of it. I've been watching TV ads for one of your candidates in which they've intentionally taken quotes out of context and been caught at it, yet the ads still run. Even I'm not out of touch with reality enough to seriously think that the demonization of political opponents is as one sided as you seem to think.
Sure, give me your "voting record".
The difference between us is that I see no need to demonize those I disagree with. I see no need to engage in blanket generalizations about who's a racist or whatever. I can accept that people look at things differently than I do without demeaning or denegrating them because we don't agree. When I speak of your lack of tolerance and Grace, it's not in regard to Trump (it's clear that you have no room for any grace towards Trump), but in how you broad brush and denigrate those who support him. You've clearly made it a moral issue (ignoring the fact that there are no objective morals), and pronounced anyone with the temerity to vote for Trump (even if it's for the exact same reason you're voting for Hillary) immoral.
Look, I've been saying that Trump sucks for months, the fact that more "conservatives" agree with me doesn't affect me one way or another. It's called having convictions and holding to them even if it might mean that a candidate I oppose might win. It's clear to me that anyone who'd trash Ben Carson's character as you have, isn't going to say nice things about a conservative candidate no matter who it is. So, if bashing away at Trump helps you swallow pulling the lever for a corrupt, establishment, politics as usual candidate, bash away.
Re: "Be stupid...".
I never suggested anything of the sort. I'm suggesting that calling people who plan to vote differently than you things like "racist" etc. is neither tolerant nor demonstrating Grace.
One last thing. There is a meme going around that sums things up pretty well I think.
Donald Trump represents what's wrong with society.
Hillary Clinton represents what's wrong with politics.
While I'm not ready to say worst of all time, these two are definitely the worst presidential candidates in recent history. Oh, and unfortunately Gary Johnson appears to be not nearly the sharpest knife in the drawer.
In much the same way as the Trump tax returns should have led to a substantial discussion about tax policy, these three schmucks should lead to a substantial discussion about what wrong with out electoral process if this is the best we can do.
Ignoring the many errors you are making about my positions and going to the last thing you said... Have you heard of Instant Runoff Voting? (IRV) That might be a helpful change.
I've heard of it, but haven't looked in detail. Personally I think the biggest problem is the primary system.
You've ignored plenty so don't stop now.
Interestingly enough, the actual point of the original post was about why it's taken some people this long to distance themselves from Trump on moral grounds. It's not like he has been incredibly moral and all of a sudden fell, he's had moral issues since day one.
Of course, I'm counting things like multiple affairs, divorced, sexual license, as moral failings. On your side that's somewhere between no big deal and a few minor flaws. But that another topic I brought up earlier that was ignored.
I'm so used to you ignoring things that it's surprising when you don't.
Also, I'm not a big fan of early voting. There's obviously room for absentee, but this wholesale early voting this far before the election seems like a bad idea.
OK, Dan. I've read your Russell Moore piece and find it wanting. It does not speak for all who have decided to support Trump, and like you, it ignores the ramifications of choosing not to do so. I do not engage in moral relativism in choosing to vote for Trump, but you do in choosing to allow Hillary Clinton a pass on her own grave moral bankruptcy.
And you do worse, in pretending that "black, gay, women, educated, immigrant and young people" are lost to us by some failing in conservatism, rather than their own dislike for the fact that conservatism, even the watered down version of the GOP, won't pander to them, you demonstrate your deep desire to perpetuate the stereotype, thereby demonstrating a moral bankruptcy that seems to be a requirement of leftism.
Your choice to perpetuate falsehood is established once again by your description of Trump's words in that 11 yr old private conversation. He never said he grabbed any woman by the crotch. I listened to it myself, as you apparently didn't or as you lack the honesty to relate it accurately. (In point of fact, he was merely boasting about how he thinks women will allow him any liberty because of his fame and celebrity, to the extent that he could grab them inappropriately---he didn't say he actually did).
You also engage in the moral relativism inherent in pretending Hillary's dishonest defense of her husband's behavior manifested in her demonizing of his victims, is not itself a vile form of ill treatment of women, every bit as bad (indeed very much worse) than Trump's sophomoric bragging.
Strip away all talk of character flaws for either candidate, and we are still left with immoral policy preferences of Clinton. She is no more qualified to be president than Trump, and a better argument against her can be made simply based on her time in politics, as no one can provide an example of any good she's done.
In every way she's worse than Trump. Pick an issue and try to explain how she has the better plan. Can't be done without more dishonesty.
And BTW, he does have a history of taking advice, even from those who have stood in opposition to him. I've recently read of him hiring people who opposed him in business because of their abilities in doing so.
And that's another area of apparent superiority: I've read of "behind the scenes" behaviors with Trump helping people out, while reading of "behind the scenes" accounts of Clinton crapping on subordinates like a typical despot. Indeed, there are lots of those stories, not the least of which is her lying to the parents of those who died in Benghazi.
Like Craig, I don't support Trump. I no longer support the Republican party. I still support the Republican platform and conservative principles, because they most closely align with the Christian faith as well as provide the best road map to a better and stronger nation. List to port and the ship goes down. Hillary represents a harder turn in that direction than even the current Buffoon-in-Chief.
Finally, for now, Clinton, like Obama, will benefit from a compliant media and marshmellow Republicans in Congress, not to mention a complicit Justice Dept. as she has been already. None of that will happen for Trump, including zombie-like devotion from those who voted for him. Unlike lefties, right-wing voters tend to hold their elected officials accountable (as evidenced by your own soft-peddling of Hillary's character and lack of ability). He will be highly scrutinized, while she'll continue to be given the benefit of the doubt for fear of being accused of misogyny, just as too many on the right have buckled under the threat of being accused of racism for opposing Idiot-boy.
There is no moral position one can take that results in giving Clinton a better shot at success...no "protest vote" for a third party person, no sitting out the election. Because Trump is the only person likely to prevent her ascendancy to what she regards as HER throne, a moral, rational and responsible person MUST vote for him, despite his immoral character. There's no pretending otherwise.
Art, while I agree with much of your reasoning, I personally don't agree with your conclusion. I understand and support your decision and would not try to argue that you should do otherwise, but I also think that it's completely appropriate to make other choices.
It's a little easier to make that stand in a state the a serial killer could win as long as they had the initials DFL beside their name.
In this case I have concluded that the most important vote in this election is to maintain control of congress. My hope is that a republican congress will check Clinton's potential excesses, or that they will support the good items of Trump's agenda while stopping the silly.
Art, I think that is one of the strengths of conservatism right now, that there is enough agreement on principles that disagreement on candidates or specific actions can be accommodated.
Ultimately the reason I can't vote for Trump is the same reading I can't vote for Clinton. I don't trust either one of them to do what they promise based on their past actions. If Trump does what he claims he will, I agree that the results would be better than if Hillary does what she says she will. However, I'm highly confident that Clinton with a democrat congress will go far beyond what she's saying. With Trump I just have no idea what he'll really do. One of my fears with Trump has been that he will go all P-BO on us and start spewing executive orders the second he doesn't get his way.
I still think that the fact that there is apparently much more room for diverse thought and opinions on the conservative side is a healthy thing. I also think that the potential for significant long term change the the GOP and conservatism that the Trump phenomenon could cause might be healthy in the long run.
While the logical part of my mind tells me that we'll see Clinton in the White House and GOP control of at least one house of congress, there's this little voice that says that this "Trump shaming" just might piss off enough independent voters and conservatives to swing things toward Trump.
Hell it would be worth a Trump win to see the Dans of the world speculating on all the evil that would make a bunch of idiots vote for someone so vile, and to see the "I'm moving to Canada" crowd come up with excuses as to why they won't.
I'm still unable to resolve the problem inherent in the "I can't vote for Trump" position. It is based on his character and a fear that he won't act according to how he is campaigning. At the same time, you express confidence in what Clinton will do, yet you won't take the one step that will help prevent her agenda from being implemented. Third party or sitting out won't do anything else BUT make easy her path to the White House. Thus, your choice supports the greater of two evils. You are not absolved of all that would befall the nation due to your choice. You would in fact have been complicit, since the choice is no more than between trying to prevent her ascendancy versus doing nothing to stop it.
Art, my problem is this. I consider character as the primary qualification for public office. Given that I can't in good conscience say that I can't support Hillary based on her lack of character, while supporting Trump despite his. This would be a much harder decision if I didn't live in a state that would vote for Clinton if she was caught red handed committing indecencies with puppies. In my case my vote for president has little or no impact and what I am left with is to vote the down ballot races in such a way as the restrain Clinton from unchecked power, and to hopefully help Trump where his policies are good, and oppose him when they are not.
As far as the consequences, I address that on another post.
Your state is blue due to the lack of red votes, and your decision only helps make that the case. It doesn't lessen it. You ensure it's leanings by not voting for every candidate that is not of the opposition party. You are not required to support Trump. But a vote for him is support for the platform he represents. We can't have a president who supports that platform, even poorly, without voting for Trump. It's the way of things. I don't want to have conflicting ideologies battling it out, and then taking the position that I made things better by acting in a manner that results in that conflict. One must act on the premise that one's lone vote turns the tide, not that it won't matter due to being outnumbered by supporters of the opposition. That only cements the power of the opposition.
I understand your position and that is why I will be voting in the down ballot races. The reason why the state I live in is blue is quite simply because there are a handful of urban counties who will vote DFL no matter what. So it's clear that while my presidential vote is pointless, my votes in other races can have an effect and likely will.
As I've said, if I lived in a swing state I would very possibly be engaging in exactly the same calculus as you have and would probably vote Trump for many of the same reasons you have decided to. Fortunately for me I don't have to make that choice.
I live in Illinois. The possibility of Trump carrying this state is pretty much non-existent. I will still vote for him to add my name to whatever number of GOP voters exists here. I want that number to be as high as possible in the face of Democratic dominance. It's far better than the same percentage of non-Hillary votes being divvied up between multiple non-Democrat candidates. No one who would normally vote Republican should ever NOT vote for the Republican candidate simply because the state leans heavily the other way. It leans that hard due to the lack of Republican voters. The only way to steady the ship, or get it to lean the other way is to vote...not to refrain from voting. I don't see why this isn't understood.
What's more, if you don't think it will matter due to the fact that your state is bluer than not, then why not vote for Trump anyway? If you don't like him personally, you don't have to worry about him winning your state. It's a facetious response, but the idea of trying to rationalize what is actually capitulation compels me to try anything.
Art,
Sorry, I can't vote for Trump in good conscience. I refuse to vote Republican just because. That's what democrats do. They put party loyalty over all. If I wasn't going to vote at all, that might be capitulation but I choose to use my vote where it can have an effect.
I find this "If you don't for Trump..." phenomenon fascinating. All the GOP had to do was to avoid nominating the one person worse than Hillary and they couldn't even manage that.
I'm not criticizing anyone who chooses to vote Trump, I'm just expecting that those who do will give me the same consideration.
Post a Comment