20 Hungry Mongrels

Sharing Options

I do understand the “lesser of two evils” argument that I reject. I also feel the force of it. And I remember that I live in Idaho, which is as likely to go for Hillary as for the sun to turn green next St. Patrick’s Day. So I know that compared to my brethren in swing states, I am getting off fairly easy.trump

There is also some sympathy around here for an Electoral College “Hail Mary” pass—urging every sensible person in Utah to vote for Evan McMullin, and every sensible person in New Mexico to vote for Gary Johnson, and every sensible person in Vermont to vote for Bernie Sanders, etc. They would not be voting for these people, but rather trying to deny enough states to both Hillary and Trump such that they both fall short of the 270 electoral votes they need in the Electoral College. If that happened, the election would get thrown to the House of Representatives, which would be like throwing a pound of fresh hamburger into a kennel with 20 hungry mongrels in it. But at least that would be better than what we have going on now.

So with all of this acknowledged, here are my three basic reasons, crisply stated, for not ordering this meal off the official menu.

  1. This election cycle has been a race to the bottom. But please note, we are nowhere near the bottom yet. All of us are going to learn a lot more yet, about both candidates. The sort of things that will continue to float to the surface of Sewage Lagoon 2016 may well affect your willingness to continue with the present strategy.
  1. To vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils is as much to say as there are circumstances under which you would vote for Hillary. She is an utterly corrupt politician, true enough, but anyone who thinks we couldn’t get a worse set of choices hasn’t read very much history. How about Hillary vs. Vlad the Impaler?
  1. We have gotten down to this atrocious choice because we have been following the “lesser of two evils” strategy for more than a generation. But when we see how the road we are on is taking us very bad places, our response ought to be to turn around. If we are under judgment, then the need of the hour is repentance. That means doing something different. Repentance is inconsistent with doing the same thing over again, only this time at the lowest levels ever.

Now all that said, I would actually prefer it if Trump won. But I would prefer this only because I would rather fight Trump than to fight Hillary. If Hillary wins, we need to be ready for a royal fight. And if Trump wins, we also need to be geared up, ready for a different kind of fight. Preparation for that fight would be hindered, I believe, if it began with me taking down my Trump yard sign.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
232 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lemienior
Lemienior
6 years ago

You have Trump yard sign?

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

David Anderson
6 years ago
Reply to  Lemienior

He’s saying that he’s not supporting Trump now (i.e. has no Trump yard sign), because that would be a bad start to fighting him a few weeks later.

Lemienior
Lemienior
6 years ago
Reply to  David Anderson

Ah, thank you. I read it with that in mind and the whole paragraph made much more sense.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  Lemienior

No, he means he doesn’t have one. If he had one, he’d be in a bad position to engage in the fight that is coming.

Jacob Schroeder
Jacob Schroeder
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Right. I puzzled over this for a few minutes myself, but I agree. He’s not arguing for leaving a yard sign up. He’s arguing for never putting it there in the first place. It’s hard to speak the truth with your foot in your mouth.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago

??? How hard can it be?
Compared to HRC?

Speaking lies with her foot in her mouth!
????????

John
John
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

The part I’m not seeing is how voting for Trump on election day is in any way equivalent to having a Trump sign in your front yard.

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
6 years ago

H vs. Vlad: Vlad, I think. But yes, there must be someone worse than H so you’re right that in principle I would vote for her. So what?

I just ordered a yard sign that says “Annoy the Press / Vote Republican”.

Edit: The sign came in. Now taking bets on how long before it gets vandalized or stolen.

ArwenB
ArwenB
6 years ago
Reply to  Rob Steele

Vlad, hands down.
Someone who would defend Christendom that vigorously can’t be all bad.

ray
ray
6 years ago
Reply to  ArwenB

I’ll take Vlad. Defended Christianity, instead of promoting the woman-obedience and goddess-worship that now rules the ‘churches’ and their false pastors. Give me one actual Christian, and you can keep your millions of weak, spoiled, cowardly un-men serving their wives and daughters.

ArwenB
ArwenB
6 years ago
Reply to  ray

I suspect that even Vlad was kind to his wife.

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  ArwenB

Being kind to your wife and being ruled by her are two very different things: opposites, really.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

I agree with you that a man who feels secure in his authority is more likely to be kind to his wife than a man who doesn’t. I was a submissive wife to my non-Christian husband even though submission is not preached by the Catholic church. It was my experience that a man who feels respected and relied upon is a happier man, which makes for a happier household. But I am troubled by specific requirements and by language of rulership. Submission, in my understanding, meant that I ultimately supported my husband’s decisions and that I asked for his input… Read more »

ray
ray
6 years ago
Reply to  ArwenB

I suspect that Vlad’s wife didn’t rule over him in a Feminist Nation, nor did Vlad’s wife take ‘her’ children away from him (and then sue him for money in a ‘court’), nor did Vlad’s wife replace him with a ‘democratic’ individual selected by the females of his country, a la Barack Hussein, whose purpose was to dethrone Vlad, and to place Vlad’s power in the hands of females. If Vlad had been an American ‘leader’, his wife already would have used her collective power to ‘legally’ import hordes of muslims into his nation, where they could destroy him (and… Read more »

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  ray

What you’re selling isn’t Christianity, either — it’s your personal hurt made into a theology.

ray
ray
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

I’m not ‘selling’ anything. It’s YOUR ‘pastors’ and ‘preachers’ who have sold out Christianity for the past half-century, while they were busy doing the will of their wives, daughters, and other females.

Actual Christianity is so foreign to modern Americans, they wouldn’t know it if they encountered it. Nor would they know Christ, if they encountered Him. Why, they would probably tell him he just had a personal problem! . . . and that if he didn’t fix ‘his’ problem, well, the Almighty People damn sure would fix it for Him! Which they did, as they always know better.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  ray

Hi Ray, I am not understanding you. How did American women use their collective power to import Muslims into our nation over the last four decades? Why was this a female, as opposed to a male, policy on immigration? Or did I misunderstand you? Are you arguing that a nation ruled by a Vlad the Impaler is more Christian than a nation in which women vote and have equal access to the divorce courts? As a Catholic, I don’t think I have heard a priest preach a sermon on the duty of men to be submissive to their wives–but I… Read more »

ray
ray
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

“As a Catholic, I don’t think I have heard a priest preach a sermon on the duty of men to be submissive to their wives–but I have heard a lot on the necessity for mutual respect and patient, forebearing love.” Yeah I’ll just bet you have, Jilly. That’s the same sermon that the false ‘pastors’ of Protestantism have been feeding ‘their’ flocks the past forty years. Instead of preaching to them what they hate hate HATE to hear, which is Scriputural wisdom and truth, that WIVES are to be submissive to their HUSBANDS, and helpmeets thereto. That’s an unpopular sermon… Read more »

ynreee
ynreee
6 years ago

Not surprised you are hoping a racist, misogynist will win.

lloyd
6 years ago
Reply to  ynreee

This is hilarious. So despite Pastor Wilson’s incessant voice against an incorrigible Trump, you are saying he is actually cheering for Trump because he is a racist and misogynist. This is hilarious. I don’t usually bait the trolls, but the absolute comedy of this comment begs for laughter. Consider this a hearty belly laugh.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  lloyd

What’s the funny part? Nothing you can say or do will ever get these people to say you’re not racist. This is standard operating procedure.

lloyd
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

I guess you’re right?

Whats the definition of a racist? Someone winning an argument with a liberal.

I think I heard that first from Wilson.

LittleRedMachine
LittleRedMachine
6 years ago
Reply to  ynreee

Hillary =’s more taxes, no borders and more war. Sounds great.

katie
katie
6 years ago
Reply to  ynreee

For real! I heard he wants a president who will carpet bomb animal shelters too.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  katie

“…a president who will carpet bomb animal shelters too.”

Carpet bomb animal shelters?
That seems unlikely, by a president who alledgedly likes to grab cats. ; – )

(Sorry, the double entendre’ was too much!)

katie
katie
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Noooooo!

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  ynreee

REEEEEEEEEEEE

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  ynreee

We’re not surprised you’re not surprised.

popp
popp
6 years ago

I hear you. . . but I think it would be profoundly interesting how many House Reps. would stick with Trump, if given the Constitutional opportunity to not stick with him. Heck, they might even broker a deal to elect Kaine. I just don’t think Trump has the stranglehold on Reps. that we think he does. They’ve had to broker the deal every step of the way.

Eagle_Eyed
Eagle_Eyed
6 years ago
Reply to  popp

Can you imagine the backlash they’d face from voters? If no one gets 270 votes, I can’t see how the R-controlled House doesn’t overwhelmingly vote for Trump.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

It’s far from certain at this point that the House will still be Republican in January.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

It wouldn’t be decided by the next House, but by the current one, I believe.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Why do you think that? The new Congress takes office January 4, and then has a joint meeting a few days later to count the ballots from the electoral college. So it wouldn’t even be official that no candidate has a majority in the electoral college until after the new House has taken office. The other wrinkle is that each state only has one vote, whether it’s California or Wyoming, which means that even though a particular party has a majority in the House, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it would have a majority of state delegations. Texas’ majority of… Read more »

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago

HRC:

“Wronger together”

????

LittleRedMachine
LittleRedMachine
6 years ago

if you are holding out hope that your Republican favorites like Mitt and Ryan are going to fight Hillary Clinton, I have some ocean front property in Memphis to sell you.

Matt
Matt
6 years ago

Wilson never much liked Romney.

LittleRedMachine
LittleRedMachine
6 years ago
Reply to  Matt

Wilson never joined a ‘neverromney’ campaign either

invisiblegardener
invisiblegardener
6 years ago

Memphis is a great place to be a Christian! And riverfront property can be pretty nice! DW should take you up on that.

Nicholas Visel
Nicholas Visel
6 years ago

I presume that the reference to taking down the Trump sign in your yard is rhetorical, right?

In any case, while we can prefer a Trump presidency to a Clinton presidency, isn’t asking somebody to repent of their Trumpery still a better choice than to merely discourage them from any other candidate? Otherwise, you are still in practice exemplifying the “lesser of two evils” fallacy, unless I am misunderstanding this statement entirely.

lloyd
6 years ago
Reply to  Nicholas Visel

He’s saying he wants to fight against the Trump way, if Trump is elected. It would be hard to fight Trump if he currently supported Trump and had a Trump yard sign up. It would be hard if, after Trump wins, he decides to fight Trump but would first have to take down that Trump yard sign. There is no Trump yard sign. It would be hard to fight Trump if there was and taking it down would be a funny way to start that fight. And he doesnt mean literally roll up his sleeves and challenge Trump to a… Read more »

Nicholas Visel
Nicholas Visel
6 years ago
Reply to  lloyd

Thanks for the clarification (if that counts). I assume most of Doug’s sidewits comments such as what I referenced above to be rhetorical — I read the mablog all the time, and have read a few of his books. Usually I can pick up on what he is saying — but it was too difficult this time, necessitating my first comment on any of his articles to date.

lloyd
6 years ago
Reply to  Nicholas Visel

:)

Eagle_Eyed
Eagle_Eyed
6 years ago

1. The reverse is likely true as well. Say something truly terrifying comes out about Hillary that voting for Trump is no longer seen as bad is it was before. If it were discovered that Hillary planned on severely limiting first amendment protections for churches and other religious organizations through the passing and enforcement of federal non-discrimination laws regarding sexuality, Trump’s caddish behavior would seem much more benign by comparison. 2. Relatedly, I can think of a scenario where the secularist liberalism of Hillary would be a preferable choice–notably to a government run under atheist communist principles or shariah law.… Read more »

Eagle_Eyed
Eagle_Eyed
6 years ago

“Now all that said, I would actually prefer it if Trump won. But I would prefer this only because I would rather fight Trump than to fight Hillary. If Hillary wins, we need to be ready for a royal fight. And if Trump wins, we also need to be geared up, ready for a different kind of fight.” This last paragraph got me thinking about what kind of fight we’d have with Trump. It’s tough to say since he is campaigning on a very conservative platform, but with all politicians there is the fear that once in office he might… Read more »

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

This is generally true but I expect his platform is based more on convenience than principle. If I’m right he’s even more cynical than H, who at least believes in power. Don’t care. Still voting for him.

Eagle_Eyed
Eagle_Eyed
6 years ago
Reply to  Rob Steele

He has shown populist and nationalist sentiments in the past (he was against NAFTA in ’93). Where conservatives close to him will have to apply the pressure is on social issues and the Supreme Court. As a “doer”, he will want to nominate a justice who will get confirmed by the Senate, which may motivate him to nominate a less-than-conservative judge. We cannot allow another Kennedy or Roberts. We need another Scalia or Thomas.

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

T wouldn’t know a Scalia or Thomas from a Souter (SU-Tar, the Barbarian) or Miers. You think he’ll listen to conservatives?

Eagle_Eyed
Eagle_Eyed
6 years ago
Reply to  Rob Steele

He already has listened to conservatives. It’s quite clear Ann Coulter’s “Adios America” influenced him regarding immigration. Sessions’ early support has further influenced the Trump platform on immigration and trade policy. Among his advisers are people like Kris Kobach. For Pete’s sake Stephen Miller is his main speech writer. He also goes on Hannity’s TV show and Savage’s radio show quite often.

LittleRedMachine
LittleRedMachine
6 years ago
Reply to  Rob Steele

he has, unprecedented, released a list of individuals he would use to choose SCJ’s. Not a David Souter on the list.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

The issue isn’t so much that Trump will deliberately backpedal from his populist agenda. I don’t doubt his complete and utter self-interest. He may simply discover the limits of Presidential authority. For example, his promise to get Mexico to pay to build a wall. Furthermore, God’s blessing on a nation (or escape from God’s judgment on a nation) is not based on whether we have a proper wall in place, or whether we have trade deals that benefit our working class, or whether we can get NATO to pay their fair share. The issue is that God gives grace to… Read more »

Eagle_Eyed
Eagle_Eyed
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

So what? Try picturing George Washington doing so. Israel stoned the prophets and crucified the Messiah. Those condemning a nation for its sins tend not to be too popular. It’s hardly surprising presidential candidates aren’t taking this approach.

I frankly cannot fathom why we must spiritualize voting or the office of president. It is a secular office. It’s concerns are necessarily temporal and political.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

Given what we know about Washington’s church attendance and attitudes about prayer, it’s extremely hard to picture him doing so.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Let me help ashv with his imagination: Thanksgiving Proclamation October 3, 1789 By the President of the United States of America, a proclamation. Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and—Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God,… Read more »

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Yes yes I’m aware. Washington believed God existed. This doesn’t negate the fact that Washington didn’t come to the Lord’s Table and didn’t kneel to pray.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Since Washington specifically mentions prayer, multiple times, in his proclamation, the problem is not with Washington, but with ashv’s limited imagination.

I can’t speak to all of Washington’s alleged hangups, but he definitely lead the nation in prayer and supplication to God, as Ruler of the Nations, and he led the nation in humility and gratitude to God. In doing so, Washington is an explicit example of someone fulfilling their civic duty toward God. Washington was a poor example for Eagle_Eyed to attempt.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

Someone needs to read Psalm 2 and Psalm 33. Jesus is not status quo about history. Secular offices be damned. Jesus is in the business of discipling the nations to Himself, and that looks like blessing and cursing along particular lines, toward an end result.

This is not about pragmatics. This is about a King of kings who has a rod of iron, which He uses on the nations, which is why we are in the very condition of ruin that we are in now.

Eagle_Eyed
Eagle_Eyed
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

This is what you meant by national repentance? A broad proclamation acknowledging God’s providence and blessing? This is putting the cart before the horse I’m afraid. You will start to see politicians making such statements once there is a true revival among the populace. Jefferson Davis gave a similar proclamation in 1861 for the CSA for what it’s worth. So clearly this cannot be the entire basis around which you order your politics. Still I would have to say that Trump is much more likely to make one of these proclamations than Clinton. The rest of your response doesn’t follow.… Read more »

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

Eagle_Eyed wrote: Still I would have to say that Trump is much more likely to make one of these proclamations than Clinton. Eagle_Eyed is like a man with a history of bad eating habits, who has developed advanced heart disease as a result, and is at immanent risk of heart attack. His doctor asks him about the quarter-pounder with cheese he ate last night. The man responds, “well the quarter-pounder was much more likely to cure my heart condition than the double-burger deluxe that was also on the menu.” It’s self-delusional. Eagle_Eyed wrote: This is what you meant by national… Read more »

Capndweeb
Capndweeb
6 years ago

As a mongrel, I am deeply offended by the title of this piece.
But I also thank you for the thought of no one winning the election and the ensuing melee.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Capndweeb

“Ensuing Melee”

Hmmmm, sounds like a live action Itchy and Scratchy show! ????????????

Capndweeb
Capndweeb
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Or the band that opens for Piso Mojado.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Capndweeb

I think that band is called:
“Ass over teakettle”

????☕️

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

I just read on the LA Times website that the bookies have called it for Clinton. Is this usual?

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Betting markets are usually more objective than polls but they can be manipulated. They were very wrong about Brexit.

LittleRedMachine
LittleRedMachine
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

helps them sell the cover story for vote fraud

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Well, by “the bookies”, they mean a single bookmaker in Ireland. It’s called elections early before, though not this early. It’s called other things early before and been wrong. I think it’s a bad move. On one hand, Clinton has a big lead (about 7 points), a big lead in all the swing states she needs and then some, and everything about the end game in the election is in her favor – she has way more money in the bank, a far better get-out-the-vote structure in place, Trump has alienated the party support that is supposed to help him… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Thank you, Jonathan. I didn’t know any of that. I did hear that Clinton may have chance in Arizona, which surprised me.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Well, if any normal candidate who was already struggling had been caught on tape bragging about the ability to sexually assault women, I think 90% of the country would be in play. Trump has ran a particular sort of campaign that, to a significant but insufficient degree, has allowed him to take blows that would have destroyed a normal candidate. I never would have expected Arizona to be in play before the election started, but it shouldn’t be shocked at all considering how the campaign has transpired. Imagine for a second that that tape comes out about Obama in 2008,… Read more »

JL
JL
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

I just saw the latest poll out of Arizona which shows Hillary up by 4 points. If you look at the internals of the poll you will see that the sampling leaves something to be desired: people polled: dems 57% reps 24% inds 19% That means that in a state that typically has more republicans than democrats come out to vote, they had to give the democrats a +33% increase over republicans in the polling sample in order to make it look like she’s in the lead. The polls are inherently biased towards Clinton, and you can see that if… Read more »

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago

It’s hard far me to think of any situation other than Trump winning that allow any Republican/Conservative to win presidential election after 2016.

Suppose your scenario of refusing 270 to any of the candidates happens — do anyone think that any kind of compromise could be reached that wouldn’t result in the permanent political division of the US?

JohnM
JohnM
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

Uh, yeah. Why would that be so hard to foresee?

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

Even if that doesn’t happen, how long do you think the USA will last in its current form?

JohnM
JohnM
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

I don’t know. Not forever. There has never been a time when I thought that.

I do think if neither Clinton nor Trump reach 270 there is a very good chance the H.R. would elect someone who is no one’s real choice, but is agreed upon to be at least minimally tolerable to all sides. However, I expect the question is moot because I expect Clinton will have no trouble reaching 270 electoral votes. Mind you it’s not a rock solid expectation, but it is what I think most likely.

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

I’m not talking civil war necessarily. I’m saying that there’s no person out there — other than Trump, but that’s only a maybe — that be become president and not result in the destruction of at least the R’s, but the D’s are probably pretty vulnerable to collapse too. That’s not saying that Trump’s a unifying force. I’m saying that electing Trump would be an act of appeasement, perhaps keeping a lot of his supporters willing to not completely bury the R party, though of course they’ll never be loyal to it ever again. Trump could unify the D’s by… Read more »

Sori Rusu
Sori Rusu
6 years ago

As a Romanian, me feelings have been hurt by your comparison, sir.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Sori Rusu

I’ve got Corneliu Codreanu’s biography on my reading list. Seems like there’s a lot we could learn from him today.

JL
JL
6 years ago

Thank you.

When I was trying to figure out how Christians should vote, I was canvasing different folks to hear as many positions as possible. The strongest reason to not vote came from a JW friend who told me that JW’s don’t vote because they want to approach people from a position of neutrality with regard to politics. It’s a powerful argument.

doug sayers
doug sayers
6 years ago

Don’t usually chime in on this stuff but I must disagree with this: “We have gotten down to this atrocious choice because we have been following the “lesser of two evils” strategy for more than a generation.” Not so much. We have gotten down to this atrocious choice because we are significantly outnumbered. We live in a nation where the majority of people do not love God, Jesus, or the Bible. We are worse than “unreached” nations. We have been reached and have gradually decided to do what is right in our own eyes instead of walk in the light.… Read more »

ashv
ashv
6 years ago

Why do you think it’s possible to turn around? Can’t unscramble an egg. It’s certainly been an entertaining election season — excellent drama and twists, charismatic hero, villain you love to hate, etc — but the real enemy of Christian civilisation in America is the American system, not any personality or group within it. I want to fight Trump if he seeks to perpetuate it, and help him if he works to tear it down.

And if you’re looking for somebody worse than Hillary you picked a really bad example. Vlad Tepes was a Christian hero.

invisiblegardener
invisiblegardener
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

What makes you think he was a Christian?

ashv
ashv
6 years ago

As opposed to what? Muslim?

Ben
Ben
6 years ago

“We have gotten down to this atrocious choice because we have been following the ‘lesser of two evils’ strategy for more than a generation.” This is merely an assertion for which you provided no argument or evidence. “How about Hillary vs. Vlad the Impaler?” Granting for the sake of argument that Vlad the Impaler would be worse than Hillary, doesn’t this just strengthen the lesser of two evils argument? If you believed that Vlad could actually impale you or someone you love, of course you’d vote for Hillary. In fact, if Vlad got elected and your wife and children got… Read more »

FeatherBlade
FeatherBlade
6 years ago
Reply to  Ben

“Trump is worse than Vlad the Impaler!”

Doesn’t quite have the ring that “Trump is literally Hitler!” But it has the advantage of being fresh and new – not overused – and has really interesting ( or vile) meme potential.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  FeatherBlade

It’s true. Trump hasn’t killed nearly enough Muslims yet.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago

At this point I’m convinced that Trump is actually a good choice — if not for our own sake, then sake of our Russian and Middle Eastern brothers.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago

Doug, your post here is pretty weak: 1.”This election cycle has been a race to the bottom. But please note, we are nowhere near the bottom yet. ……..2016 may well affect your willingness to continue with the present strategy.” Sorry Doug, there is no “present strategy” , there is a system of government: Ecclesiastes 9:11 I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them… Read more »

TF B
TF B
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Agreed. The #nevertrump crowd doesn’t live in reality. If Doug would prefer Trump winning-a 50 yard wide fireball as opposed to a 100 yard one and all that-then it stands to reason that he should vote for him rather than Clinton. Trump is atrocious! I totally get that. But I live in Ohio, and don’t have the status as a perennial red-state citizen to protect me. When the choice is between two craptastic candidates-and this election is because third party candidates have no chance-a choice must be made. We don’t get to sit out and sling mud at those who… Read more »

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  TF B

TF B, the correct, Simpson’s inspired term is:

“Craptacular”. (not “craptastic”)

; – )

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

That is the more cromulent of the two.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago

Had to look up “cromulent”:

Cromulent
Used in an ironical sense to mean legitimate, and therefore, in reality, spurious and not at all legitimate. Assumes common knowledge of the inherent Simpsons reference.

Strangely enough, now I am actually confused!
I maintain that “craptacular” is transcendent, and not Simpson’s dependent! ; – )

BooneCtyBeek
BooneCtyBeek
6 years ago

Yes. Trump is a boorish, immoral swine. He does not deserve the presidency.

Yes. Hillary is a devilish despot who actively subverts the law and Constitution. She does not deserve the presidency.

Ian Perry
Ian Perry
6 years ago

I don’t completely agree with this author’s take, but you might also enjoy: http://www.the-banterer.com/blog/2016/10/18/crouchbacks-voter-guide-for-distraught-conservatives-and-crazy-lefties

Luke Pride
6 years ago

Er, but Trump actually has policies in line with Biblical government. “Lesser of two evil” arguments flowing into voting for Hillary would only work if this wasn’t the case. His character is bad, but would you really fight him on most issues? I’m plugging my nose and voting because of who he is, but for his policies I have no qualms. Your slippery slope argument assumes the “lesser of two evils” is because they are both a louse and evil plans. But Trumps plans are as in line with what is RIght as almost any “christian’ candidate. We are talking… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Farinata degli Uberti
6 years ago
Reply to  Luke Pride

I liked this, but there is an argument to be made. Hypocrisy is the tribute virtue pays to vice: in a virtuous society, norms about marriage, violence, and property bind even the marginal bad guy through the mechanism of shame – Thomas Jefferson sleeps around, but not nearly so much as he might have done, and he feels compelled to hide it. It’s embarrassing to him be seen behaving like that. Trump feels no such embarrassment, far as I can see, which is objectively worse – I say, if you’re going to be wicked, at least have the decency to… Read more »

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago

I believe you meant:

Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. Correct?

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Francois de la Rochefoucauld, right?

Farinata degli Uberti
Farinata degli Uberti
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

If you insist.

Wendell Dávila Helms
Wendell Dávila Helms
6 years ago

If we’re talking about politicians, then being able to hide their wickedness from voters isn’t a trait I’d be looking for. That inability/unwillingness seems to me one of Trump’s chief advantages.

Farinata degli Uberti
Farinata degli Uberti
6 years ago

True, as an alternative to the present culture, wherein those far more wicked than he slide under the radar by telling lies. But it’s still making the best of a bad situation – civility is a real virtue, and it’s unfortunate that Trump is deficient therein.

St. Lee
6 years ago

20 hungry mongrels? Unfortunately as the recent past has shown, the hungry mongrels are all Democrats and the Republicans are all not so cute little kitty cats. Does anyone really think that a House vote would end up with anyone but Hillary as President? The Rhinos would be lining up to “cave in” and put her in office. Otherwise they might be painted as mean and anti-woman. Can’t have that. From the beginning I have seen Trump and Kasich as the two worst choices on the Republican side, but consider this; if Trump loses will it not spell out in… Read more »

Matt
Matt
6 years ago
Reply to  St. Lee

I don’t know, it would be news to Obama that the Republicans are a spineless and weak opposition. They’ve successfully blocked everything he’s wanted to do for about six years.

LittleRedMachine
LittleRedMachine
6 years ago
Reply to  Matt

nothing has been blocked. you are factually incorrect

LittleRedMachine
LittleRedMachine
6 years ago
Reply to  St. Lee

“Wouldn’t it be something if a sinful man upheld the principles of the Republican platform better than all those politicians presently giving it lip service?”

this is 100% spot on. Furthermore I would assert that Mitt Romney is a far far more demonic and sinful man than Donald Trump, for just one example of a phony ‘conservative’ Republican. And, I note that the ‘nevertrumpers’ were found either cheering for Mitt or at the least promoting him as someone we had to support….. blah blah blah

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago

I would assert that Mitt Romney is a far far more demonic and sinful man than Donald Trump

That is an amazing statement. Not only the “far far”, but the idea you’ve established any ceiling for Trump at all which you are somehow certain the other Republicans have passed.

Matt
Matt
6 years ago

What makes Trump a lesser evil? What reasons are there to believe that Hillary will govern significantly differently than Bill did? I can think of a few, but they are mostly differences in the political environment rather than specific to Hillary. The rise of social justice on the left, the fading of White Christian America, the poor image of the opposition party, etc. These could all combine to make Hillary much less amenable to compromise than Bill. But all together, does it make Hillary significantly worse than Trump? Trump himself is such a poor candidate that this is hard to… Read more »

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Matt

Which one is more eager to bomb Christians?

LittleRedMachine
LittleRedMachine
6 years ago
Reply to  Matt

the republican party machine is much more evil than Donald Trump.

Matt
Matt
6 years ago

You’re saying this as a Trump supporter, not a Trump-as-lesser-evil believer, correct?

Wendell Dávila Helms
Wendell Dávila Helms
6 years ago
Reply to  Matt

I don’t know about albrevin, but I would say it as neither a Trump supporter, nor someone that would vote for Trump as a “lesser evil.”

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  Matt

Vince Foster
Pay To Play
Benghazi
Sandy Berger with secrets stuffed in his drawers
Lied about classified e-mail
That is not my recollection
I don’t remember that
Huge returns on commodity trades
Bill: That depends on what your defination of is is

Neither Bill nor Hillary are able to tell the truth. Unfortunately Christians have allowed politicians to lie for decades without calling them on their lies. Proverbs tells us when the righteous rule people rejoice but when the wicked rule people groan. No Hillary please.

LittleRedMachine
LittleRedMachine
6 years ago

Marco Rubio – ignore all the corruption because tomorrow it might be us. (comment – this gutless wonder was preferred by the nevertrumpers)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/rubio-will-not-discuss-wikileaks-emails/index.html?sr=twCNN101916rubio-will-not-discuss-wikileaks-emails0345PMVODtopLink&linkId=30120289

ashv
ashv
6 years ago

God willing, tomorrow it will be them.

John
John
6 years ago

Voting for Trump is not, in any way, equivalent to voicing positive support for Trump.

The way I look at it, I’m not voting for Trump as the less of two evils. I’m voting for not having liberalism increase it’s grasp on society even further.

I have to note one third point: I’m not sure if #2 was supposed to be sarcasm, but yes, I would vote for Hillary if she were running, say, against Mao Zedong. I’m not sure I understand the force of the argument.

Matt
Matt
6 years ago

Now Trump has said he won’t necessarily respect the outcome of the election. The guy seems incapable of the slightest political calculation, or of avoiding even obvious traps laid for him.

LittleRedMachine
LittleRedMachine
6 years ago
Reply to  Matt

I think it was an honest answer to what is, obviously, a messed up voting process. No one should sit back and concede anything if there is fraud.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Matt

Why should he respect a fraudulent voting process? (If only Americans were allowed to vote, Clinton couldn’t win.)

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Do you mean White Americans, or what?

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

No. I mean people from America.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Only American citizens can vote, and there isn’t the slightest indication of meaningful fraud allowing otherwise.

As far as foreign interference in the election goes, you’re obviously pointing to the wrong candidate.

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

You haven’t visited California where illegals are authorized to get drivers licenses and can if they desire sign up to vote via motor voter. No is checking the voter registration closely in that state, so, yes illegals will be voting for the DNC.

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Thats no one is checking.
I am working in a small device and offer apologies to the readers.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

No one is checking? No one at all? Really? If there really is a massive DNC campaign to get illegal immigrants to risk deportation by presenting fraudulent citizenship documents, you realize it would take just one smart immigrant to say “hey, I bet Trump would pay me a lot more for this info than the Dems paid for a lousy vote.” If they really are running this scheme with the millions of immigrants it would take to shift a national race, there’d be more than a few thousand smart ones. Then again, one of the hallmarks of a good conspiracy… Read more »

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Jonathan, my wife worked as an election judge in our county. I went in one night while numerous University of Idaho students were voting. Two students in the throng of voters ahead of me were telling others about how they voted in their home county via absentee mail in ballots and then how they registered in Latah County to vote again. I told the election commissioner and pointed out the individuals, but nothing was done even though they committed voter fraud. Years ago, in both Federal and Ohio State courts, it was proven that the Diebold voting machines could be… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

If you can’t tell the difference between an individual committing voter fraud and a massive conspiracy, I’m not sure what use it is going further. Voter fraud happens, on occasion. Pointing out that it was once done by a stupid individual on their own initiative without penalty is completely irrelevant to the obvious arguments I already gave you for why it wouldn’t even make sense as a conspiracy on a massive scale in a national election. If you really have an issue with Diebold, then I’m sure you must have really had an issue with Walden O’Dell. That’s another one… Read more »

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Dear readers, apparently Jonathan has missed the massive voter fraud in America. In other threads, when presented with truth discrediting his incorrect position, he discounts it as a small matter or as conspiracy. He is not interested in truth. Proverbs instructs us to get wisdom and with wisdom get understanding. The Diebold issue was taken up in both state and federal courts and is not conspiracy at all but fact. The individuals proving the Deibold hacks stood in front of the entire court and changed the voting percentages so the tally was vastly different from the individual votes placed on… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

This isn’t even a discussion anymore, it’s just silliness. Please tell me – what is the largest example of voter fraud in a national election in living history, and who/what is your best source to “prove” it happened? You keep giving examples of individual fraud, along with a hypothetical example of large scale fraud without the slightest evidence it happened. I explained why it would be logically stupid to run a fraud of the first type described, and the lack of evidence for first or second type. There are numerous other reasons why such a fraud on a national scale… Read more »

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

“This isn’t even a discussion anymore, it’s just silliness.” Johnathan
You are correct. You are a foolish man who loves to type massive amounts of rhetoric and to hear his words reverberate in his mind while ignoring the truth.
I told you to look at the Ohio Federal case and you didn’t. Now, you demand that I do your homework on a blog.
Logic doesn’t matter to criminals. That is why they are CRIMINALS. They don’t care about laws. Only law abiding individuals care about laws.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

I checked that out, and it isn’t so. At the time, you are asked if you wish to have the DMV transfer your information to the Secretary of State’s voter registration list. If you say yes, you have to provide ID with proof of citizenship.

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Jilly, I must disappoint you. Unfortunately it is common in California. One large company had over 100 employees with The Same Social Security Number working for them. When the CEO was questioned, his attorney answered that the law only required them to record a social security number and not to question if it seemed to be incorrect.
There are numerous problems in our country caused by decades of stupidity in government and decades of cowardly preaching and lack of positive action by Christians.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

So you believe that illegal immigrants would commit a felony, send the proof of that felony to the authorities in the hope that they “won’t check carefully”, and therefore risk deportation? All to do something for no personal benefit, and not even Clinton’s benefit since she’ll win the state easily anyway? I imagine it takes quite a hefty sum to convince someone to risk a felony charge and deportation to win a single vote. The per-vote cost of a simple get-out-the-vote operation would almost certainly be far more cost-effective… not to mention that it keeps you the organizer out of… Read more »

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Jonathan, you need to grow up and get out more. Yes, illegals commit felonies without any concern for what will happen. In Idaho, illegals had to be arrested for at least 3 felonies before they would be shown to a grand jury starting the legal process. Typically, those illegals who were deported showed up again in the states within 18 months. This is common in our US of A right now. Illegals are booked into the local jail and then when the system shows they are illegal, the appropriate federal agency steps in, takes them out of the slammer and… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

I’m afraid you are right about undocumented, uninsured drivers and hit and runs in California. I have seen it myself several times–following an accident, the driver literally jumps out of the car and runs away. Someone I know was recently excused from jury duty on such a case because he had personally been victimized by a similar hit and run the week before. I think that was one of the reasons California decided to issue drivers licenses to the undocumented.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Tossing insults at me does not change the fact that you lose the argument on both logic and facts. Time and time again it has been shown that immigrants commit less crime than the population at large, especially illegal immigrants, for the same reason that smugglers obey traffic laws when they have contraband in the car. And trying to distort the argument into “but some are criminals!” is ridiculous. How much would you have to pay a person for them to risk that jail time, 18+ months out of the country and out of work, “hoping” to make it back… Read more »

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Jonathan, you are reading neither FBI statistics nor local police reports. Illegals commit a large percentage of crime throughout America. That is fact. It is proven fact and no amount of rhetoric will change it. Asking you to grow up is not an insult, it is a plea to face reality instead of falling in lock step with the political and social correctness that stifles America today. Asking American Christians to be strong in their actions at home and in the workplace is not an insult. It is a plea to stand for Christ here at home. Voter fraud and… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Dave, pretty much everything you said is ridiculous. Declaring “This is the truth!” without evidence or even decent logic does not make it true.

Here is some help on your immigration and crimes claim, from the noted liberal mouthpiece the Wall Street Journal. With lots of cited info.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Please look above where I posted the US Federal Government stats. They tell a different story.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Wrong, your numbers were admitted wrong by the very author who produced them:

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/12/04/problems-with-gao-illegal-alien-crime-stats/

fp
fp
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Jonathan said:

Time and time again it has been shown that immigrants commit less crime than the population at large, especially illegal immigrants

Hey genius, has it ever occurred to you to think before you type? Illegal aliens are criminals by definition. There is no possible way that illegal aliens commit crimes at a lower rate than anyone, let alone the population at large, when every single last one of them broke the law to get here.

Your collection of one-ended sticks must be huge.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  fp

That obviously wasn’t what was being discussed, so you seem to want to derail a serious discussion rather than counter the facts in the articles.

But since we’re playing with semantics now, is someone who overstays their visa (1/3 of illegal immigrants) a criminal? So please tell me what crime they committed on the books, and whether it is a felony or misdemeanor.

fp
fp
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Jonathan, we’ll know you’re serious about the discussion when you stop saying idiotic things like “illegals commit less crime than the population at large”.

We’ll know you’re serious about the discussion when you stop conflating legal immigrants with illegal aliens. Dave’s comment to you discussed illegal aliens only and you disingenuously introduced legal immigrants into the mix.

We’ll know you’re serious about the discussion when you conduct your end of the discussion with some modicum of honesty.

Own your blunders, Jonathan.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  fp

You aren’t an alternative identity for Dave, are you? You’re using the same insults with nothing to back them. I didn’t say anything that the Wall Street Journal articles I linked didn’t say, and that author is addressing the exact same question. If you believe that illegal immigrants are willing to commit voter fraud in huge numbers because they supposedly commit all crimes in huge numbers, prove it. Give me the official data and/or published study that show a higher crime rate for illegal immigrants than USA-born citizens. And not some alt-right link making those claims without an actual link,… Read more »

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Johnathan, the GAO reported that between 2008 and 2014, illegals were responsible for: 40% of murders in Florida 34% of murders in New York 38% of murders in California, Texas, along with Florida and New York That’s just over 7,000 Americans murdered by illegals. These stats are just for murder and not for other violent crimes committed by illegals. These stats are not from the New York Times, a source known to twist numbers, nor from other soft resources but right from the Government Accounting Office. Jonathan, you are the one who needs to stop playing games not the others… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

No, the GAO never reported any such thing, absolutely false. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/17/tom-tancredo/tancredo-muffs-illegal-immigrant-murder-stats/ The real numbers in those states, by rough estimate, we’re 3-7% – lower than the % of illegal immigrants in those states at that time period. None of your numbers came from any GAO report. In fact, you took them from the claims of anti-immigration activists who botched reading comprehension. Among many failings, the most important was: They took all the illegal immigrants in prison for the (wrong) time period and compared it to the murders that occurred within that time period. Obviously that’s dumb. People are in prison… Read more »

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Jonathan, you need to actually read FBI, ICE, HLS, GAO and other reports instead of coming back with your trumped up charges from attack sites. If you had any friends in law enforcement, you would see a different view point from the liberal, anti-American view point that you espouse here. You would also see a different set of statistics. PunditFact, Snopes and other fact finding sites are known to change the facts to suit their ends. They do not tell the truth but will use some disinformation to make the truth sound false. I witnessed several of the events that… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Dave, I posted the correction from THE EXACT MAN WHO MADE THE STATISTICS YOU QUOTED. You had insisted that I believe him, so why won’t you believe him? THAT man, who initially made the ridiculous 30-40% claims, came back and corrected the numbers to 3-7%. It’s right here in an easy to read table: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/12/04/problems-with-gao-illegal-alien-crime-stats/ The GAO report didn’t say a single one of the things you claimed it did. The man who thought it did say those things was discredited and ADMITTED IT HIMSELF. All the errors he made are right there in his OWN words on his OWN… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Here are some of the relevant quotes again: On August 8, 2015 Breitbart published an article by Tom Tancredo describing illegal alien homicide statistics. This article borrowed heavily from a PowerPoint presentation I gave in July. The YouTube video of my presentation was embedded in the article. Politifact challenged both Tancredo and my statistics and rated our assertions as “false.” While Politifact’s analysis was fraught with errors of its own, its conclusions were correct. Both Tancredo and I made errors. This article is presented to explain and correct those errors.I assumed from GAO’s explanation that the above conviction figures must… Read more »

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Jonathan, the GAO report acknowledges that it does not include inmates for whom citizenship is unknown. The report does not include information from states that do not report in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) and that it does not have any reliable data for illegal aliens who do not declare citizenship or who self identify as Americans even though they are not. It concentrated on border states because that is where the majority of SCAAP data is located. You have to actually look at other sites to gather all your information. I have been reading GAO reports and… Read more »

Dave
Dave
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Be sure to add the murders committed by cartel gang members in the USofA illegally who are not arrested but still murder American citizens. Also, add the cross border shootings down along the Rio Grande and illegals killed by illegals in the USofA.
The rate is close to 40%.
Goodnight.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

You are willfully disregarding the truth. You claim that you’ve been reading GAO reports for years, but have still not quoted a single GAO report to me, instead quoting an obviously false number from a mistake-ridden powerpoint by an anti-immigration activist, even though that activist himself has admitted that the whole report was wrong. Then, when I corrected you, you claimed that Politifact was biased, even though the very author that Politifact corrected has admitted they were right and he was wrong. When I insisted to you that the author himself acknowledged that the numbers were wrong, for the FOURTH… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

I just realized that even the 3 to 7% corrected numbers are inflated. All 5 states chosen were border/port states with major trafficking operations. There will be a lot of non-resident illegal immigrants arrested in those states, inflating the numbers in comparison to the generally more resident illegal immigrants working fields and factories and construction in non-border states.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

You aren’t an alternative identity for Dave, are you?

Words of a man who can’t imagine more than one person disagreeing with him.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

This is the third time in the last couple weeks that you’ve made a false claim about me. Probably will be the third time you fail to back it up when I press you for proof. You seem to be more interested in trolling me than speaking with honesty. I’ve been posting on here on and off for 10 years, and have never once made that (obviously tongue-in-cheek) accusation before. You know full well that I’ve had no problem dealing with multiple people disagreeing with me. Now you’re acting like it’s some constant trend of mine and I can’t speak… Read more »

fp
fp
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Hey Jonathan, I hurled exactly one insult at you, and it’s because you made a patently absurd statement. Don’t make stupid statements; don’t get insulted. It’s that simple. If you want to squirt the digital equivalent of gallons of squid ink all over the place in order to avoid the simple fact that illegal aliens are criminals by definition, be my guest; all it shows is your lack of seriousness and the cheapness of your time. You also seem to be very confused about who’s talking to you. Here, let me help: My handle is “fp”, Dave’s handle is “Dave”.… Read more »

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

“But since we’re playing with semantics now, is someone who overstays their visa (1/3 of illegal immigrants) a criminal? So please tell me what crime they committed on the books, and whether it is a felony or misdemeanor.”

Offhand, tresspassing is a misdemeanor.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago

Well then, I hope they stay off of marked private property without permission.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Can they have permission? It could be argued that anyone giving them permission to stay is harboring fugitives, which can be a felony.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

“American citizen” sure isn’t the same thing as “people from America”, these days.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

And never has been. And never should be. Not to mention it’d be hilarious to ban the potential first lady from voting.

Besides, I seriously doubt you’re correct. Immigrants are a small % of the electorate, especially in the meaningful swing states, and vote in low %, and don’t vote uniformly. Which states would she lose without immigrants? Give numbers.

Not to mention this is another issue where you’re failing on the Christ-centered aspect. And you certainly won’t be able to hide behind, “shared Christian sense of good and evil” here either.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Well, no doubt we’ll have all the numbers we need in a few weeks. On my phone at the moment so don’t have a bunch of historical data to throw at you.

I’m interested in how you think I’m “failing on the Christ-centred aspect”. Are you saying all Christians should be Americans, or what?

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

I’m saying I don’t see the slightest suggestion in Christ’s Kingdom that we should seek to favor one people over another based on the place of birth, especially to attempt to deny them rights you would like to keep. Since you don’t have a single legal argument for your claim about who “should” be an American, you’re left with nothing. Your frequent race-based divisions have no place in Christ’s Kingdom.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I don’t believe in “rights” in the sense you mean. And I wasn’t talking about church membership. Also, “American” isn’t a race-based division. Furthermore, I don’t believe voting is a good idea for government at all.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

You want to be considered an American while taking away their rights as such. Whatever you believe in, I’m using that – you clearly are trying to reserve things for yourself that you would deny to them.

You have frequently made race-based divisions in the past. Are you going to claim now this is irrelevant to your positions on immigrants?

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Do you agree that “from America” and “not from America” are meaningful ways to categorise people?

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

If it involves dividing Obama, Cruz, Kissinger, Albright, McCain, Romney, Rubio, and Trump into arbitrarily different categories from each other, then no, I don’t think it’s meaningful in any sense to say that any of them are not from America based on which side of a line someone spent their first days on. Our citizenship laws are in a sense morally arbitrary. So are outer presidential eligibility laws. But it strikes me as exceedingly silly to make up new, completely arbitrary rules to (falsely) claim that your candidate would win without those very legitimate votes, especially when you’re really using… Read more »

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

If Trump is “my” candidate, then obviously Clinton is “yours”.

If you can’t perceive the existence of people groups, I have to wonder what you actually can perceive. (Cue the old joke about “what’s the difference between a hippo and a mailbox”.)

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

I’ve been anti-Trump since very early in the primaries. I’ve been anti-Clinton since past elections, through the primary and the general. You certainly lose on that note.

You’re falsely claiming that Trump would win without immigrant votes, and strongly implying that you don’t want immigrants to vote.

Your statement about people groups is nonsensical and has literally nothing to do with anything I’ve ever said.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

If you want a Biblical discussion of eligibility to vote, Deut 23:2-8 would be a good place to start.

LittleRedMachine
LittleRedMachine
6 years ago

Wasn’t Ted Cruz the guy who ran to the microphones and blamed Trump when he had to cancel the rally in Chicago? OKeefe videos show strong evidence that the whole event was orchestrated by various left-wing affiliated groups, like People for the American Way, etc. Of course, anyone who knows the heart of leftism and pays attention beyond CNN self-evidently realizes violence, baiting, and anarchy are SOP for the left-wing satanists.

Wendell Dávila Helms
Wendell Dávila Helms
6 years ago

“We have gotten down to this atrocious choice because we have been following the “lesser of two evils” strategy for more than a generation.” What alternative is there? Presumably you think there’s a political alternative within the current political system. Voting third party? That’s doomed to failure in our system (i.e. with our constitution). In this day of polls, it’s very hard to see a third party even displacing one of the current two parties, let alone maintaining a third competitive option, which has never happened in our system. There is no alternative political strategy (apart, perhaps, from what I’d… Read more »

StuBob
StuBob
6 years ago

Hillary vs Vlad? That’s easy. If Hillary was running against Satan himself, I’d have trouble deciding.