From Victor Davis Hanson
Most Americans believe it is unhinged to deliberately destroy the border and allow 10 million illegal aliens to enter the country without background audits, means of support, any claims to legal residency, and definable skills. And worse still, why would federal authorities be ordered to release repeat violent felons who have gone on to commit horrendous crimes against American citizens?
Equally perplexing to most Americans is borrowing $1 trillion every 90 days and paying 5-5.5% interest on the near $36 trillion in ballooning national debt. Serving that debt at current interest exceeds the size of the annual defense budget and may soon top $1 trillion in interest costs, or more than 13% of the budget.
Why would the United States suspend military aid to Israel as it tries to destroy the Hamas architects of the October 7 massacres? Why would it lift sanctions on a terrorist Iran? Why would it suppress Israel’s response to Iran’s missile attack on the Jewish homeland? Why would it prevent Israel from stockpiling key munitions as it prepares to deal with the existential threats posed by Hezbollah?
Why would the Biden administration cancel key pipeline projects and put vast swaths of federal lands rich in oil and gas off limits to production, even as it further drains the strategic petroleum reserve? Why not pump rather than drain our own oil from strategic stockpiles?
Why would the Biden White House’s counsel’s office meet with Nathan Wade, the former paramour chief prosecutor in the Fani Willis Fulton County prosecution of Donald Trump? Why would the third-ranking prosecutor in the Biden Justice Department step down to lead Alvin Bragg’s Manhattan prosecution of Donald Trump? Why would the Biden Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland select Jack Smith as a special prosecutor of Donald Trump—given his past failures as a special counsel and known political biases?
Nihilism only explains so much. A better explanation is that the Biden administration and its handlers knew that there was a good chance that most of their policies would prove unpopular and might even jeopardize Biden’s reelection.
But they also were confident the changes were of such magnitude that the United States would either become—in the infamous phrase of Barack Obama—“fundamentally transformed” or force the next Republican administration to adopt such tough medicine that it would prove untenable politically and the malady would still prove mostly impossible to undo.
After all, how would a Trump administration deal with 10 million illegal aliens who entered the US without audit or legality? Where are they? How would they be found and deported? How many court suits in blue-jurisdictions before blue judges would have to be overcome?
The country has become accultured to a nonexistent border. And so, the left assumes, it would be expensive and difficult to finish the wall, to stop catch and release, to insist refugee status must be obtained before entry, and to deport what is likely now 20-30 million illegal aliens in toto. In other words, the Biden administration may sigh, “Our work is done. Whatever you think about our illegal methods, we forever changed the idea of immigration and the demographics of the country.”
All presidents—Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden—have run deficits and vastly increased the debt since the Bill Clinton-Newt Gingrich compromises that resulted in a temporary period of balanced budgets. But in the case of Biden, there was no need to keep up the multitrillion-dollar deficits, especially as interest rates on the national debt tripled and the service costs now approach $1 trillion per year.
Biden, after all, inherited a recovering economy, flush with post-COVID-19 lockdown stimulatory dollars, pent-up consumer demand, and ossified supply chains. And then he stupidly poured gasoline on the explosive mix by dousing the country with even more federal spending. Now we have the worst of both worlds: high interest rates and nearly $36 trillion to service.
But in the leftist mind, it was worth it, given that left-wing constituencies received vast expansions of entitlements that will be hard to prune back. And unprecedentedly vast debt at levels like our current burden of 123% of annual GDP prove unsustainable. And the historic correctives are brutal: 1) major cuts in entitlements and redistributive spending programs; 2) tax hikes at a time when state, local, federal, and gas, sales, and property taxes—and other “fees”—already take over half the income of most middle-class Americans; 3) hyper-inflation to pay back what is owed with cheap funny money, with the added leftist fillip that those who have dollars lose wealth and those who don’t gain greater access to them; 4) renunciation of debt. We already saw in the Obama era that liberal bureaucrats and courts often reversed the orders of creditors in bankruptcy hearings. When debt becomes unsustainable, historically arise cries of “Why should the poor suffer more when the rich already have enough money and don’t really need to be paid back?”; and 5) efforts to “confiscate” private wealth by giving, in exchange, government “credits.” For example, there have already been floated ideas that 401Ks could be absorbed into the insolvent Social Security system for credit in government benefits.
Most Americans poll strong support for Israel. They oppose the Biden effort to triangulate by revisiting the old Obama nihilist agendas of emboldening the Iranian/Hezbollah/Hamas/Houthis axis to play off against our traditional allies of Israel and the more moderate Arab regimes.
By failing to prosecute nine months of domestic violence committed by pro-Hamas lawbreakers, by allowing leftist campuses to normalize anti-Semitism and pro-terrorist advocacy, and by destroying the once close alliance of Israel and the United States, the left feels it will be almost impossible to go back to the pre-Obama/Biden years. Their legacy, they hope, is a mendicant Israel utterly dependent on U.S. largess—a condition itself predicated on essentially destroying the idea of a secure Jewish state within its present borders.
The Biden administration sought to curb oil and gas production—save for brief periods before the midterm and reelection campaigns, when it drained the strategic petroleum reserve. The point was to acculturate the public to high gasoline prices, to make inefficient solar/wind/EVs projects competitive against artificially costly fossil fuels, and to institutionalize policies that will make it difficult to reopen closed fields, to reboot federal oilfield leasing, and to dismantle costly subsidies for inefficient green fuels.
That Americans paid hundreds of billions of dollars more for their fuels under Biden, that the auto industry is stuck with vast inventories of money-losing electric vehicles that the public does not want, and that the entire economy has been shackled by counterproductive green mandates were considered worth the cost of alienating the public.
The left knows that neither Alvin Bragg, E. Jean Carroll, Letitia James, Jack Smith, nor Fani Willis would have gone to court against Donald Trump if he was either a leftist or had bowed out of the 2024 presidential race. They know no one has been tried on such pseudo-charges, and no one will again be so charged after Trump. And they accept that no republic can long survive if the opposition party seeks to remove the names of its political opponents from the ballot.
But they also know that the left has now established a valuable precedent: oppose woke progressivism, and one will either become bankrupted by indictments or land before a blue-city jury eager to nullify evidence to ensure the accused is jailed and broke.
So the left believes that its new lawfare was well worth the destruction of the entire tradition of equality under the law: 1) Donald Trump has lost a half-billion dollars in fines and legal fees; 2) a court-bound Donald Trump was robbed of weeks of valuable campaign time; 3) Donald Trump can be forever now libeled as a “convicted felon”; and 4) the left has played chicken with the American Constitution and believes it has won, given conservatives would never enter into a destructive cycle of tit-for-tat.
The Biden years did the country great damage and rendered Biden himself one of the most unpopular incumbent presidents in American history. But his agendas may have fundamentally changed the country for decades, if not longer—and will require tough remedies that may be almost as unpopular as the wreckage they wrought
19 comments:
First, this wasn't all Biden--he's just a puppet of Obama and his cronies. They hate the USA so much that they want it destroyed, and they are just like the Nazis with their hatred of Israel and the Jews, and just like the Nazis they favor Islam!.
They have to destroy the family for all their sexual debauchery and sexual anarchy to be accepted. The perverts that Biden has put in office make Washington DC resemble Sodom.
If they bankrupt the country then they can turn it socialist. And crime will be allowed to run rampant without punishment because Demokrats hate the rule of law.
Nothing is ever all Biden, there's a whole infrastructure behind him. But I think that Hanson's use of Biden is because he's the public facing element of the DFL at this point.
Once again we see the obvious folly of having rejected Trump in 2020. I will continue to harp on this because we're not necessarily going to have another election without sanctimonious idiocy pretending they're acting on conscience, giving glory to God or whatever happy talk while the nation and its people suffer. While it would have been difficult to say it would have, or even could have, gotten this bad, no one who pays attention...particularly to the almost fifty years of impotence of Joe Biden's political career, as well as to Trump's single term which improved the state of the nation over the eight years of Obama...could have in good conscience, or with a desire to please God...if pleasing God includes preventing the harm suffered by so many since Jan 20, 2021...not seen life would deteriorate under Biden and the Democrats.
The Democrat Party offers nothing for the nation but more of the same. They are indeed, and beyond all doubt or contrary argument, the most dangerous threat to the republic. It's not white nationalism, Christian nationalism or MAGA Republicans. It's Dems, the left, the progressives, the marxists and socialists who have bribed their way to prominence.
If there's any silver lining from a Trump loss in November, it's only that we're likely seeing a rush to End Times and His Second Coming.
Obviously you're going to continue to harp on something that is beyond anyone's control. Because heaven forbid anyone could honestly reach a different opinion on a political candidate than you have. The problem is that YHWH has a long and well documented history of allowing His people to suffer, in many cases much worse than our "suffering" in 2024. I know that the concept of a Sovereign God acting Sovereign to work out His Sovereign will doesn't sit well with you unless His Sovereign will happens to coincide with your opinion. I'm pretty confident that "pleasing God" doesn't hinge on American politics.
To be fair, the GOP is mostly offering more of the same, only in a smaller dose. We'll still have unconscionable deficits, but they'll be smaller. We'll still have illegal immigration, but it'll be less. We'll still have inflation, but it won't be quite as high. Und so weiter. The current difference between the parties of one of degree, not of significant substance.
The End Times and Second Coming have been fixed for millennia, I seriously doubt that the 2024 election will factor in at all.
Don't misunderstand me, I fully agree that a GOP win in November will be better than a Biden win. I just don't buy the fantasy that there will be some massive difference in anything.
"Obviously you're going to continue to harp on something that is beyond anyone's control."
My choices are only under my control. In all things. The same goes for everyone else. We all have the choice to pay attention or not, to act on what we learn and come to know by paying attention. THAT is what is worthy of continued harping, because THAT is how we've come this sorry state...by bad choices everyone made of their own free will.
"Because heaven forbid anyone could honestly reach a different opinion on a political candidate than you have."
I would love to hear what "honesty" led to rejecting the clearly better choice in any election for which Trump was a candidate. (Not talking primaries here, but general election) I say again, the point of voting is to benefit the nation. Find me someone who can make the argument that Trump wasn't the choice for getting that done and we'll talk about honest opinions.
"The problem is that YHWH has a long and well documented history of allowing His people to suffer, in many cases much worse than our "suffering" in 2024."
For doing the "right" thing? I don't think so. And again, to choose the lesser of two evils is still an act of doing the right thing...the right thing in terms of pleasing God because how in His Name could not doing all possible to prevent the worse of two evils please Him in any way? God turned from His people because of their bad choices. Voting for a flawed man is not a bad choice if his ability to benefit the nation doesn't come with the promotion of his flaws.
" I know that the concept of a Sovereign God acting Sovereign to work out His Sovereign will doesn't sit well with you unless His Sovereign will happens to coincide with your opinion."
You see, this is a bullshit response that I've also gotten from Stan and David. It's got nothing at all to do with my acceptance of God's sovereignty. To pretend one having been complicit in human suffering is somehow exempted from responsibility by defaulting to this line is absurd and abhorrent. "I'm going to let an arsonist run freely throughout our community and if anyone's killed or put out on the streets because of it, well, it's God's Sovereign Will." Yeah. You do you.
" I'm pretty confident that "pleasing God" doesn't hinge on American politics. "
Are we or are we not taught to all for the glory of God. Is God glorified by allowing a Joe Biden to sit in the White House? Is He glorified by doing so as if the guaranteed negative consequences aren't connected to that allowance? How so?
"To be fair, the GOP is mostly offering more of the same, only in a smaller dose....The current difference between the parties of one of degree, not of significant substance."
We get the GOP in the majority and then we purge it of its RINOs. It's a process and we as citizens are obligated to remain engaged in doing all each of us can to push that process in the right direction and toward an end to all bad behaviors. Is this news to you?
"The End Times and Second Coming have been fixed for millennia, I seriously doubt that the 2024 election will factor in at all."
As a sign of it? I wouldn't doubt that at all. I hope it's not the case, but how must it get before it's evident?
"Don't misunderstand me, I fully agree that a GOP win in November will be better than a Biden win. I just don't buy the fantasy that there will be some massive difference in anything."
Define "massive". I think an easy argument can be made that Trump made significant improvements that were somewhat unprecedented, and a far easier argument that Biden has presided over a total shit show. Each were blatant and significant even if not "massive" differences. For me, I'm looking to see the start of a trend which will result in massive differences. But it requires more than just millions pissed off. It requires millions continually being fully engaged as citizens of a nation governed by the consent of its people.
The GOP needs to start going on the offensive and fighting for this country, including reducing spending and eliminating government waste. Get rid of Carter's gift to the teachers' unions (Dept of Education), rebuild our military and get rid of all the woke/DEI nonsense from it, stop the climate change crap, get rid of perverts from the administration, CLOSE the Border and deport every single illegal, etc, etc, etc. They are always just letting the Dems get away with everything.
Get us out of Ukraine and stop Iran's nuclear progam as we help Israel, who is our only real ally in that area.
Glenn,
Obviously you are correct. The GOP (or whatever party ends up being conservative) needs to articulate a coherent, simple, direct, achievable platform then they need to actually perform. Much like Gingrich's Contract With America, we need to see 5-6 things that the entire GOP can campaign on across all federal races. I have no problem with your list, I think that there are multiple ways to approach it. The key though, is to be able to do what they campaign on.
"The same goes for everyone else."
Yep. Therefore the notion that you can shame, bully, or ridicule others for making different choices than you seems kind of foolish.
"I would love to hear what "honesty" led to rejecting the clearly better choice in any election for which Trump was a candidate."
I know that Stan and I have both done this, and you simply ridiculed what was said. Just because you can't conceive of anyone who doesn't reach the same conclusions you do on politics, doesn't mean that your political opinions are objectively correct.
"For doing the "right" thing? I don't think so."
I'm not sure what your point is, but the reality is that YHWH regularly allowed Israel to feel the consequences of their decisions, and those often included some really bad things. FYI, the 1st century Church was doing the "right thing" and suffered horribly.
"And again, to choose the lesser of two evils is still an act of doing the right thing...the right thing"
Choosing evil is never "the right thing". It might be the better thing, or the less bad thing, but never the "right" thing.
"in terms of pleasing God because how in His Name could not doing all possible to prevent the worse of two evils please Him in any way?"
If one looks at scripture, this literally makes no sense. Scripture seems clear that YHWH is a sovereign God and as such the He controls everything. If YHWH wanted Trump to win, then why didn't He intervene to accomplish His purpose? How is it that a few million humans are able to thwart the will of YHWH?
"God turned from His people because of their bad choices. Voting for a flawed man is not a bad choice if his ability to benefit the nation doesn't come with the promotion of his flaws."
Strange that you seem to think that the NT Church made "bad choices". The very notion that benefiting the US is somehow YHWH's primary goal is bizarre. Scripture tells us that YHWH ordains world leaders, yet somehow in 2020 His power was thwarted.
"You see, this is a bullshit response that I've also gotten from Stan and David."
Gotcha. Art knows for a fact that YHWH's Sovereign Will is for not really all that Sovereign.
"Are we or are we not taught to all for the glory of God."
Yes.
"Is God glorified by allowing a Joe Biden to sit in the White House?"
I don't know. I don't speak for or know the mind of YHWH. Is YHWH somehow more glorified when someone Trump (An immoral human who denies the need for repentance and forgiveness) is in the White House? Neither of the two intends on glorifying YHWH. YHWH isn't defined by who sits in the WH for 4 years. What an absurd statement.
"Is He glorified by doing so as if the guaranteed negative consequences aren't connected to that allowance? How so?"
So, YHWH IS glorified when Trump does things that incur negative consequences, but not Biden?
Are you really making the argument that the only way YHWH can be glorified is by Trump winning an election? Are you really saying that YHWH is so limited that His glory is diminished by the results of one election in one country?
"We get the GOP in the majority and then we purge it of its RINOs. It's a process and we as citizens are obligated to remain engaged in doing all each of us can to push that process in the right direction and toward an end to all bad behaviors. Is this news to you?"
SO, if we somehow manage to elect the "right" (defined by you) people then we will see some incremental improvements and that's somehow a big victory? It's strange that you are incredibly firm in your disdain for incrementalism in the Pro-Life conversation, yet celebrate incrementalism here.
Obviously, (you can know it's obvious because I've said it so often) any move to more conservative policies is better than moves away from such policies. But, when the "conservative" movement is simply parroting the Clinton agenda from the 90's as if that's some big win, I'm not impressed.
From a Biblical perspective, "bad behaviors" (or sin as many would call it) is something that is with us until Jesus returns. To think that it's possible to "end all bad behaviors" if only we elect the "right" (per you) people is laughable.
"As a sign of it?"
According to what metric? Scripture?
"I wouldn't doubt that at all."
I'm sure you wouldn't. When one's faith is in a political philosophy and one is convinced that the only way to glorify YHWH is to elect some one who's not interested in glorifying YHWH at all, that makes perfect sense.
"I hope it's not the case, but how must it get before it's evident?"
If Scripture is any guide (That whole "thief in the night" and we won't "know the hour or the day" stuff) it won't be evident until we see the returning Christ.
No, I'm not going to get into an eschatological argument here, it's pointless and foolish. I have enough trouble living daily as if Christ was coming back tomorrow, I've wasted to much time studying and arguing about something that's going to happen exactly how and when YHWH commands it.
"Yep. Therefore the notion that you can shame, bully, or ridicule others for making different choices than you seems kind of foolish."
Boo-hoo. When one does wrong or foolish things, shame is appropriate. That doesn't equate to bullying, but thanks for trying to shame me with that accusation as if I'm actually bullying anyone. Too often, one feels no shame until one is ridiculed for their transgression, so I'll continue to do that where I feel it's appropriate and no one is more worthy than those who should know better. What's "better" in this case has been obvious since the 2016 election and has only become more so since then.
"I know that Stan and I have both done this, and you simply ridiculed what was said."
I know that neither of you absolutely haven't done this. All you've done is to have expressed your disgust with having Trump as a choice, which is fine in and of itself. But the question is about casting one's vote. After months of insisting you don't support Trump, you finally confirmed you did by voting for him, which isn't totally a support of Trump, but of what he intends to do. Those are two different things and not joined at the hip. You don't think much of Trump as a person, but as a president it's a different decision. Which of the two informs one's vote is what matters and those who've rejected Trump for any reason must accept that all which has befallen the nation as a result of him not being president is hard to reconcile with one who claims to vote according to a notion of pleasing God. Given the total absence of doubt as to the decline in the state of the nation should Trump again be denied, all those who continue to reject Trump with the excuse they believe they're glorifying God by inviting disaster need to explain just how that shit works. I'll remind such people that Trump did not send the husband of a woman he was stalking to the front lines of battle where his death was guaranteed.
"Just because you can't conceive of anyone who doesn't reach the same conclusions you do on politics, doesn't mean that your political opinions are objectively correct."
Really? Wow! Good thing I never suggested my positions being objectively correct are based on conclusions reached by others. My position in this case is correct based on all available information, facts and data. A vote for Trump was a single person's desire for better and defense against worse. No one else was available to satisfy that desire, and to pretend taking a chance where the lives of others are concerned is OK because one is leaving it in God's hands is absurd and false.
" I'm not sure what your point is, but the reality is that YHWH regularly allowed Israel to feel the consequences of their decisions, and those often included some really bad things."
My point was crystal clear. When God's people lived according to His Will, they flourished. When they rejected Him, He turned from them. You are using this "in God's Hands" excuse again to absolve those who reject the clearly better candidate with a proven positive record running against those with proven destructive records. It's as if each such voter opened the border gates themselves, lowered the punishments or criteria for arrest of criminals, raised taxes and other costs...in those and other ways were complicit in harming their fellow Americans.
"FYI, the 1st century Church was doing the "right thing" and suffered horribly."
More irrelevance, as the 1st Century church was not part of a representative republic with full voting rights. Nor were they part of a God-centered theocracy as were those God punished in the OTI'd say "nice try", but...
"Choosing evil is never "the right thing". It might be the better thing, or the less bad thing, but never the "right" thing."
Try actually citing my actual words. I know you don't like arguing over that which you didn't say. I've been crystal clear that I'm referring to a binary choice between a greater evil and a lesser evil. And when the latter results in far fewer negative consequences and significantly more beneficial consequences, it is therefore the right thing without question. Worse, however, is the suggestion that the choice involves a desire for evil at all. Shame on you for that, because the choice assumes evil regardless. I prefer less of it when the absence of it is not on the ballot. How about you?
"If one looks at scripture, this literally makes no sense. Scripture seems clear that YHWH is a sovereign God and as such the He controls everything."
Try staying on point here. The issue is about rejecting Trump out of a sense of pleasing God when the consequences which result are far more displeasing that casting a vote for an adulterer who tweets meanly.
"If YHWH wanted Trump to win, then why didn't He intervene to accomplish His purpose? How is it that a few million humans are able to thwart the will of YHWH?"
Now you're just desperate. It's not about what God wanting Trump to win, but that He wants us to govern our affairs in a manner most pleasing to Him. To pretend that nothing matters but that Trump isn't of the highest character (after insisting it's not about a candidate being perfect), while his opponent will without any doubt cause suffering to the vast majority of Americans and foreigners. Is that God's Will in your mind? That He desires all must perish or suffer needlessly?
"Strange that you seem to think that the NT Church made "bad choices"."
Strange that you seem to think this is something anything in my comments suggest, imply or so much as hint. Strange that you think the suffering of the NT Church is in any way a parallel to the punishment of OT Israel.
"The very notion that benefiting the US is somehow YHWH's primary goal is bizarre."
The very notion that you're really trying to pretend I said anything like this is more so.
" Scripture tells us that YHWH ordains world leaders, yet somehow in 2020 His power was thwarted."
Does that include Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the like? If so, it can only be because the people of those nations displeased God, or their enemies did. It's only in that way one can say God "ordained" an incompetent elevated to the highest authority through fraud and deceit and the imbecilic notions of the sanctimonious. The latter is the issue here, no matter how much you choose to deflect to Scripture and God's Will and the like. It's about how we vote and why we vote as we do...as well as the consequences which were not unforeseen and welcomed by virtue of rejecting the proven commodity over the proven incompetent.
"Gotcha. Art knows for a fact that YHWH's Sovereign Will is for not really all that Sovereign. "
Oh, that's perfect, Craig. Responding to a snippet of what I said when the point is clearly obvious by what follows. In short, now you're just bullshitting intentionally.
"Is God glorified by allowing a Joe Biden to sit in the White House?"
"I don't know. I don't speak for or know the mind of YHWH."
That's funny. I never heard any response to Stan's excuse that it doesn't glorify God to cast a vote for a man like Trump.
" Is YHWH somehow more glorified when someone Trump (An immoral human who denies the need for repentance and forgiveness) is in the White House? Neither of the two intends on glorifying YHWH. YHWH isn't defined by who sits in the WH for 4 years. What an absurd statement."
Here's what is truly absurd: We aren't voting for a candidate because that candidate will glorify God. We're voting in a manner which constitutes US glorifying God. Trump, for all his many faults, governs in a manner which lessens the suffering of Americans and to a very real extent, furthers the principles of Christianity. Again, we have two choices and one ...if we're talking two horrible choices...is clearly better than the other as regards the consequences for all of us. Choosing that guy glorifies God because the state of the nation is better served. The people are safer, more prosperous, with more liberty, etc. Again, try to stay on point. I don't think I'm being at all convoluted or unclear in my responses.
"So, YHWH IS glorified when Trump does things that incur negative consequences, but not Biden?"
I've gotten this crap from Stan, too, and it also belies the claim perfection isn't a criteria. So digest that for your response while you pretend there's vast disparity between potential harm from one as oppose to from the other.
"Are you really making the argument that the only way YHWH can be glorified is by Trump winning an election? Are you really saying that YHWH is so limited that His glory is diminished by the results of one election in one country?"
No to each of these goofy questions. Please copy/paste and give date and time of whatever the hell you think I said which so much as hints at either. I'll wait here. But I'm quite certain I've not spoken about glorifying God at all, but rather I've been arguing against that notion as an excuse for not selecting the guy least likely to cause the nation harm simply because he's not an Apostle of Christ.
"SO, if we somehow manage to elect the "right" (defined by you) people then we will see some incremental improvements and that's somehow a big victory?"
No. It's an incremental victory, which is how it works. Of course that depends upon what changes occur. Some victories will be more significant than others. But I was referring to how they come about with the greatest likelihood.
"It's strange that you are incredibly firm in your disdain for incrementalism in the Pro-Life conversation, yet celebrate incrementalism here."
There's no inconsistency as had been explained quite clearly in the last discussion on abortion and the GOP. I won't rehash it here just because you sadly and unfortunately believe you've landed a "gotcha". And by the way, why did you choose to suggest I'm "celebrating" incremental victories at all? I celebrate all victories great and small. Getting a total victory is best. I'll take every positive step toward that goal and celebrate accordingly.
"But, when the "conservative" movement is simply parroting the Clinton agenda from the 90's as if that's some big win, I'm not impressed."
What was conservative within the Clinton "agenda" was mostly, if not always. the result of the Gingrich led House, so the movement of today is actually returning or reestablishing what should have been. Let us know when you ARE impressed, as we'll be so very happy then.
"To think that it's possible to "end all bad behaviors" if only we elect the "right" (per you) people is laughable."
And yet again another thing I've so much as hinted anywhere in any of my comments. DAN! WHY ARE YOU RESPONDING UNDER CRAIG'S NAME????
"According to what metric? Scripture?"
The point was that you can't look at current events and make the claim one way or another. As I said, I hope it isn't the case that we're in the End Times just yet. But we weren't given the specific sign of it's approach, only a general and rather ambiguous sign. Doesn't matter as it's irrelevant to the discussion.
"When one's faith is in a political philosophy and one is convinced that the only way to glorify YHWH is to elect some one who's not interested in glorifying YHWH at all, that makes perfect sense."
STOP IT, DAN! JUST FUCKING STOP IT!
"No, I'm not going to get into an eschatological argument here, it's pointless and foolish."
Well it's about time. I was getting really bored with it, when this was all about excuses for not voting intelligently.
"I know that neither of you absolutely haven't done this."
I've provided multiple legitimate, honest, specific, and tangible reasons why I could choose not to vote for Trump. I see no reason to do so again.
"When God's people lived according to His Will, they flourished. When they rejected Him, He turned from them."
Perhaps you've chosen to ignore 1&2 Peter as well as most of Paul's epistles.
"You are using this "in God's Hands" excuse again to absolve those who reject the clearly better candidate with a proven positive record running against those with proven destructive records."
No, this is just something that you've made up out of a whole cloth and decided to attribute to me. As the little children sing, "He's got the whole world in His hands.". It's not an excuse, it's an acknowledgement that YHWH is sovereign and controls everything.
IF, as you seem to imply, YHWH wants Trump to win, then why doesn't He take a more active role in the process? Why doesn't He speak to Trump and tell Trump to turn to Him? Why not strike Biden voters dead, or ill on election day? Why not strike Biden dead?
"More irrelevance, as the 1st Century church was not part of a representative republic with full voting rights."
I'm sorry, I'm pretty sure you forcefully stated that " When God's people lived according to His Will, they flourished. When they rejected Him, He turned from them.". Are you suggesting that the 1st century church was not composed of "God's people"? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of equivalence between the US as a secular representative republic and the Hebrew theocracy?
"Try actually citing my actual words."
I have, and I can do it again if it would help. "The lesser of two evils is good be because it's not as evil as the greater. That's not to say it isn't evil also, but we're talking about our choice." Your words, not mine.
"I know you don't like arguing over that which you didn't say. I've been crystal clear that I'm referring to a binary choice between a greater evil and a lesser evil>
No, you've been very clear that you are actively choosing "evil", which is to some degree "lesser" as you perceive it than another evil.
"Try staying on point here."
Pardon me, I was unaware that you could comment at my blog and choose to set the rules. Th e"point" is the sovereignty of YHWH.
"The issue is about rejecting Trump out of a sense of pleasing God when the consequences which result are far more displeasing that casting a vote for an adulterer who tweets meanly."
Well, since I've never once argued that Trump should be "rejected out of a sense of pleasing God", I fail to see what this "point" you insist on actually is.
"Is that God's Will in your mind?"
No.
"That He desires all must perish or suffer needlessly?"
I'm not intimate enough with YHWH to even suggest that I can determine what His will is. I do think that suggesting that a Biden win will result in "all" "perishing" is a bit hysterical even for you. Further, I have no clue about what YHWH considers "needless" suffering.
Hypothetical. What if YHWH is orchestrating this entire election cycle in order to (like Israel) draw people back to Him? What if the demise of the US IS YHWH's plan?
"Strange that you think the suffering of the NT Church is in any way a parallel to the punishment of OT Israel."
Well, I looked at what you said on the topic and drew the logical conclusion.
"Does that include Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the like?"
If scripture is to be taken at face value, then yes.
"If so, it can only be because the people of those nations displeased God, or their enemies did. It's only in that way one can say God "ordained" an incompetent elevated to the highest authority through fraud and deceit and the imbecilic notions of the sanctimonious. The latter is the issue here, no matter how much you choose to deflect to Scripture and God's Will and the like. It's about how we vote and why we vote as we do...as well as the consequences which were not unforeseen and welcomed by virtue of rejecting the proven commodity over the proven incompetent."
This makes no sense theologically, or in any other way. YHWH doesn't operate according to our notions of what He should do.
As a side note, the Church is declining in the US. The "nones", spiritual but not religious, Muslims, Mormons, and Materialists are all eroding the historic place of the Christian faith in the US. While, strangely enough, Christianity is thriving in parts of the world where Christianity is persecuted or where first world problems don't divert our attention from YHWH. Maybe there's a lesson there.
"That's funny. I never heard any response to Stan's excuse that it doesn't glorify God to cast a vote for a man like Trump."
I'm sorry, did you think that you were commenting on Stan's blog? Or did you think that I somehow am responsible for what Stan says? Or that I must answer for things Stan says that you don't like?
"We're voting in a manner which constitutes US glorifying God."
Says who? Seriously how is YHWH glorified when Trump who is an immoral/amoral person, who denies his need for forgiveness because he's done nothing to be forgiven for, "glorify God"?
"Trump, for all his many faults, governs in a manner which lessens the suffering of Americans and to a very real extent, furthers the principles of Christianity."
Holy crap you sound like Dan here. The problem is (for Dan as well) that the US government is a secular representative republic, it's not a theocracy.
"Again, we have two choices and one ...if we're talking two horrible choices...is clearly better than the other as regards the consequences for all of us."
A point with I have never argued. Better, does not mean good. Evil (even the lesser evil) is not good.
"Choosing that guy glorifies God because the state of the nation is better served. The people are safer, more prosperous, with more liberty, etc. Again, try to stay on point. I don't think I'm being at all convoluted or unclear in my responses."
FYI, it's still my blog. You don't get to decide what the "point" is.
"What was conservative within the Clinton "agenda" was mostly, if not always. the result of the Gingrich led House, so the movement of today is actually returning or reestablishing what should have been. Let us know when you ARE impressed, as we'll be so very happy then."
Me being impressed shouldn't be the determining factor of anyone else's happiness. It's strange that the GOP somehow managed to lose almost all of the ground gained in the 90's despite having significant GOP control at various points.
"And yet again another thing I've so much as hinted anywhere in any of my comments."
And yet, I'll provide you with you won words. "We get the GOP in the majority and then we purge it of its RINOs. It's a process and we as citizens are obligated to remain engaged in doing all each of us can to push that process in the right direction and toward an end to all bad behaviors."
"The point was that you can't look at current events and make the claim one way or another."
1. Nice job of avoiding the actual question I asked.
2. Yet you seem to be making all sorts of claims about what YHWH wants.
"As I said, I hope it isn't the case that we're in the End Times just yet. But we weren't given the specific sign of it's approach, only a general and rather ambiguous sign. Doesn't matter as it's irrelevant to the discussion."
It matters because it's my blog and I still get to try to keep things on topic. Eschatology is most definitely off topic. There is nothing is US politics that seems to be kicking off the Tribulation or whatever. But, it does allow you to avoid the question asked.
"Well it's about time. I was getting really bored with it, when this was all about excuses for not voting intelligently."
Well, you are the one who introduced eschatology into the conversation, so it seems strange that you got bored with something you introduced and I tried to shut down relatively quickly.
SDG
Post a Comment