No, no. I haven’t gone soft in the #NeverTrump department. Read on.
“Their heart is as fat as grease; But I delight in thy law” (Ps. 119:70).
1. A Trump administration would manifestly be a judgment from God, and judgments from God are good. Not pleasant, but they are always good.
God knows how to make the ears tingle (Jer. 19:3). And when He brings evil upon a nation, He is doing what is good.
2. A Trump administration would mean that as a nation we had abandoned the pretenses of hypocrisy and evasion. Our egotism would be manifest, our pride appalling, and our insolence remarkable.
When politicians are hypocrites, voters have plausible deniability. But when the politicians brag about their infidelity, when they boast in their ignorance, when they luxuriate in their dishonesty, and it doesn’t appear to matter to the electorate, then it is time to acknowledge that the electorate deserves whatever it is going to get, good and hard.
3. A Trump administration would identify a larger number of “conservative” hustlers than have already been revealed.
Eric Hoffer identified the natural progression. First a movement, then a business, and finally a racket. I do not have the time this morning to get into naming names, but the first one that comes to mind, ironically enough, rhymes with sanity.
4. A Trump administration would destroy the Republican Party.
Now would be a good time for it. And the fact that Sanders won Indiana last night means that there are deep fault lines within the Democratic Party as well. It would be nice to see them both blow up at the same time. That way we might have some real options. In other words, consider that it might not be the Republicans coming apart so much as it is the Establishment coming apart. Hope springs eternal.
5. A Trump administration would jar a large number of complacent Christians out of their doctrinal excuses for non-involvement in the political realm.
This has already happened to a certain extent, and we should naturally encourage this process along. Those evangelical leaders who were awakened from their dogmatic slumbers just in time to say #NeverTrump may be prevailed upon in time to put #Never in front of some other abominations as well. I have plenty of suggestions here. There have been lots.
6. A Trump administration would lay to rest forever the idea that “anything is better than the Democrat.”
Obama is an autocratic despot, but he at least has the good grace to pretend not to be one. This goes back to the point made earlier about hypocrisy. As the saying goes, hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, which means that it is possible to sink lower than hypocrisy. You can stop making that tribute, and let your despotic impulses run openly, free and unfettered. That is Trump. The fact that in his erratic despotism he might occasionally do a good thing is beside the point. I would rather be executed by the bad guy than play Russian roulette with the crazy guy.
7. A Trump administration would humiliate American pride.
Humiliation sometimes leads to humility, and humility to repentance. There is no political solution for our sickness. Things can be better or worse politically, but there is no such thing as political salvation. Politics can be saved, but the first step toward such a salvation is admitting that politics is never a savior.
It is Christ or the void, Christ or chaos, Christ or anarchy, Christ or the abyss. A Trump administration would give us many more opportunities to say so. And a preacher who cannot preach a message of repentance to a nation that chose Trump to lead them is a preacher who couldn’t hit the ground with his hat.
I think remembering the “conservatives” who helped Trump get nominated is important. They are the cancers in our party and the good thing is that we now should be able to easily identify them.
Matt Walsh wrote a good list a couple months ago. We can keep adding to it.
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/lets-remember-the-cowardly-conservative-leaders-who-betrayed-us-for-trump/
I think part of the problem is the thought that regenerate Christians have “a party” all to themselves… the letter (R) has lost much, if not all, meaning now.
“I think part of the problem is the thought that regenerate Christians have “a party” all to themselves”
I keep hearing this, but the last time I heard anything like this as the majority report among Reformed Christians was probably the 80s. Yes, a lot of evangelicals have continued to be gullible, but there have been plenty of people with their eyes open for quite a while now. The explanation isn’t that simple.
“Our party” = the only viable national party that has traditionally had a conservative plank. In other words, the party of conservatives.
Christians are allowed to be part of political parties (if you follow the Westminster anyway). Of course, if you are Mennonite or something, it is a different story. But I am a good old Presbyterian.
Spare me. What about the cancers who kept principled candidates like Ron Paul out for decades?
Anyone who thinks that pragmatic (and possibly poor) decisions by republican leadership in the past that gave us less than purest conservative candidates is in any way analogous to those who supported Trump (who is radically anti conservative in many ways and openly scoffs at moral and virtue) is part of the problem.
Because supporting “pro-life” conservatives at the national level has worked out well. And “pro-traditional marriage”. And “anti-Obamacare”. And “anti-federal deficit”. And “small government”…
Good news is that if a Republican ever found himself backed into a corner for his capitulation on social-conservative issues, he could just say “I’m libertarian,” and everybody would talk about his being principled again!
With Scalia’s death, we are all going to see how much the republicans were actually doing. Things could be much worse than they are. And we are all about to see how bad things can get.
I love it that people think republicans have done nothing good. Simply not true. I agree they have not always been perfect but ObamaCare passed when we gave democrats a supermajority and the white house. Imagine Hillary, a democratic congress, AND a liberal court. It is about to get much worse very quickly.
So you’re assuming Cruz would’ve beaten Hillary and stopped all of that?
Polls show he did better.
The same polls showed Kasich doing even better. Do you believe that?
I definitely think Kasich would do better than either Trump of Cruz. But it is worth noting that the reason that hypothetical match ups sometimes are not reliable is that people do not really know the candidates (Kasich was nationally known as the ‘nice’ candidate) and once they are better known, they will drop (or rise) as a result. Trump, however, will not likely get that benefit. He was the front runner throughout and got almost universal coverage on all networks. People know who he is and they know who Hillary is. These general election polls are probably pretty accurate.
Cruz couldn’t even deal with a few hecklers in an Indiana parking lot, how would he be able to stand up against Clinton?
On the contrary, Cruz handled himself exceptionally well and responded to them on every point.
The problem was that they were irrational contrarians. Some people can’t be convinced, but at least Cruz handled them well. Trump would probably insult their mothers for the next 15 years.
Ted Cruz although a child of the most High God, needs to serve in a way where other human beings liking him is not of importance. anybody can abide that and not be nasty about it. We all have to align our will with that of the creators will 4 us. Cruz is not a verbal style messenger to other humans because we initially must like you to listen to you without deciding before you open your trap we know you are full of shit
Dumb comment. Anyone who thought the hecklers in the parking lot got the better of that debate is clearly part of the problem.
When you say ‘deal with’ you mean he didn’t offer to pay someone to rough them up? Instead he chose to engage their ideas and thoroughly destroyed them
The GOP-e did very little that was actually “good”. They made “deals” which they sold as “less bad” for something they also sold as inevitable. Had it not been for the few conservatives we managed to elect and the phone ringing off the hook, emails crashing servers, they would not even have done that much “good”. The GOP-e has not been a true opposition party for a long time. Yes, they occasionally took a stand–yay them. Then they caved more often than not. They are not heroes. They are not even good guys anymore. “Less bad” is as close as… Read more »
You have no idea what you are talking about. The GOP never had absolute power, they could not be purists. But my point is that Scalia and the many 5-4 decisions that protected our nation from complete tyranny in many different cases would not have happened without GOP congressmen and GOP presidents. Our nation would be much much worse off without the GOP.
You are spot on. The wonder is why others do not see this. Why is there no Hillary madness? Only Trump ~ the difference between the two is enormous when looking biblically. Not a good choice for sure. But an easy one.
The problem is that Trump has shown he is not trust worthy on judges or abortion and he is going to be the nominee of the supposed constitutionalist ‘pro life’ party. If we help elect a pro abortion statist to the GOP, the GOP becomes another version of the democratic party and we are in a Europe situation (where both parties are liberal and no one speaks for conservative principles). I would prefer Trump lose badly and try again in 4 years (if there is still a nation). Surely SCOTUS judges will be dying in 4 years and maybe we… Read more »
You assume the left lives within your moral compass which is very scary. believe it when they say she will name 3 or 4 justices she will. they will make sure they die. dont ever ever think Hillary or the left has a shred of the values you have. no no no
I think the problem you are not understanding is that Trump is as liberal as Hillary. Before he started to flirt with running for GOP in the run up to 2012, he donated almost exclusively to democrats. He gave to Harry Reid, he gave to Hillary, he gave to Weiner, and he gave to Kennedy. He was openly pro gay marriage, he was openly pro abortion, he was openly for single payer health care. He was buddies with Hillary. In 2008 he praised Hillary as a great Secretary of State. Very recently, he said his liberal sister (pro abortion and… Read more »
You are 100 and forever infinity correct. it never is absolute though. to say NO Hillary madness is not true, the left is comfy lying to themselves, blaming and staying in denial. it is just easier. Trump is not a bad guy he is doing what he thinks is the best way , and we have no clue what actually is unless you get reports direct from our heavenly father . I do not. I didnt do better until i knew better and did better. people like you are in the mix just by exchanging dialogue in a way that… Read more »
Here are some cases that will go the other way because we failed to elect republicans to the White House.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/6-cases-now-decided-justice-scalias-death
John McCain was much worse than a “less than purest.” And their leadership hasn’t been “possibly poor”…it’s been downright dismal in most ways for a long, long time. For example, Nixon proudly proclaimed himself to be a Keynesian back in 1971.
McCain looks like Reagan next to Trump. I was no fan but at least he did not donate millions to democrats while praising planned parenthood and partial birth abortion.
Like McCain calling Christians “agents of intolerance”? Or opposing gay marriage bans back in 2005, even before it was cool? McCain was also pro-choice before he switched positions for pragmatic purposes. And unlike Trump, he has been an extreme “open borders” type on immigration for many years. And for the record, Reagan wasn’t the paragon for traditional conservative values or abiding by the Constitution. Read David Stockman on why Reaganism failed. The fact that “regulars” on here believe and upvote that kind of comment is pretty sad. The bottom line is McCain flip flopped and changed stances to appease conservatives… Read more »
You seem to be well versed and experienced I am not so much. Explain a little how the left doesnt even exist morally in our universe and how they are working always working to occupy, protest, steal a moment for a decade. Please?
Add me to it.
Another takeaway from this is that Americans would rather have anyone in office than an evangelical Christian.
The anti-evangelical tone to the Trump campaign has been pretty stunning.
Yes, and it’s effective. Trump is channeling what’s already there. We have no balance in our account, but we keep wanting to write checks. Indiana was not the latest overdraft notice, Indiana was the account suspended notice.
Not sure what you are talking about. People hate evangelicals and it is the fault of the evangelicals. Usually bigotry is the fault of the bigot.
In general, evangelical Christians look to be hated because it’s supposed to serve as proof of Gospel truth bringing up such bile in God’s enemies.
Unfortunately the spewing out of evangelicals these days is more akin to what you do with lukewarm water.
The evangelical does not want a preacher to run the country. They want you to have some truth in your soul
I just don’t think we are facing the reality of our situation, nor have we been. It is Evangelicals who wrapped themselves in the Republican mantle, solidly identifying themselves with the Republican Party and it’s establishment over the last 30 years. Now all of the sudden people are supposed to believe that our guy Cruz is not like those other guys?
I don’t really see that. George W. Bush won two terms as an evangelical Christian quite recently. I think Rubio would have had a very good chance to win the Republican nomination, and a far better chance than Trump/Cruz to win the presidency, if he had been even moderately competent at campaigning and debating.
Cruz had a lot of issues as a candidate that had nothing to do with him being an evangelical.
Wait! What?
You mean the Obama administration was not enough of a judgement from God for you? ????
We’re slow learners :)
…many are apparently beyond that and all the way to brain dead. ;-)
I’d think your first name would rhyme with “Bimbaugh.”
I don’t think you have much to worry about. Say hello to president Clinton.
Of course, Cruz would have lost to Clinton too.
Trump is not a Republican except in the letter after his name. He’s THE only viable anti-Establishment candidate, and he’s hoping to steal the mad-as-hell, the-system’s-rigged-against-us Bernie supporters. If he’s successful, he’ll win the general.
It’s just so weird that the “anti-Establishment candidate” personifies the establishment. It’s like Napoleon running on anti-imperialism.
If Trump is a part of the “establishment”, why do the media, the political pundits, and party power brokers look upon him with such disdain?
Boehner.
Weeper loves dTrump, plays golf with him and is a texting buddy. Weeper is a well known GOP-e. The leftist media may disparage the GOP-e but behind closed doors, the Es of both Parties are thick as thieves.
Because he’s a fool, whose particular brand of folly isn’t appealing to them, so they notice it.
How is someone who has bought himself into every corner of American politics and fantastically benefited from crony capitalism NOT part of the establishment?
If he’s such a fool, you’d think that the establishment would be happy to have him in office so as to control him.
Notice my edit above — they don’t like his kind of folly because it’s obvious.
I suppose you “might think” that, but “he must not be establishment because the establishment doesn’t like him” is not all that compelling in the face of the fact that he’s never been “outside” anything, and has consistently partaken of and benefited from the structures of the establishment itself.
Again, how is it not establishment to donate vast sums of money to the establishment and profit from establishment rules?
My impression of Trump is that he had to transact with a corrupt system set up by the establishment in order to successfully be a developer in New York City. While happily taking his money, the powers-that-be would never accept him into their fold – he’s too gaudy and brash in temperament – a rich man with no class. I suspect Trump has built up a resentment towards those who never embraced him while simultaneously developing an affinity to the construction crews and foreman who are temperamentally similar to him, a group of Americans whom he has witnessed decline in… Read more »
Regardless of whether your scenario of such gritted-teeth reluctance to join the establishment is accurate, it still comes down to….
joining the establishment. Whether they “accepted him” or not, it’s clear that he has tried to buy his way in, and now wants to be them.
That’s what the Trumpkins really don’t get — he’s all about busting the establishment, and it’s not about putting YOU in charge, it’s about how HE’S going to be the new establishment.
Following a leader with that appeal has never worked out well for any country.
It’s kind of like believing that Jay Gatsby wanted to bust into elite New York society for the sole purpose of helping the struggling middle class.
Fantastic analogy. Jilly shoots, Jilly scoooooores!!!!!
Ha!
I agree with you that he wants to stick it to the establishment. But I just can’t bring myself to believe that he cares one iota for the white construction worker–or any other paeon.
The “selfish elite” being dTrump and his partners, some of whom now reside in prison. He screwed more than his share of those workers when he strategically declared his bankruptcies to protect HIS money while stiffing his contractors–and those workers.
Because he’s crazy as a squirrel on crack? plus they would prefer the KNOWN establishmentarian–their “precious” though they’ll work with/make ‘deals” with dTrump happily enough if they must.
It’s 2016. Welcome to Weird.
Trump’s appeal is largely based on being a traitor to his class.
Which is a complete con.
Well, on one hand you have a man whose wealth is based on actually owning land in America, and on the other hand you have bankers and their associates whose wealth is based on moving money around internationally. Incentives matter.
I’m not sure that makes him any less of a crony to the people who move the money around, lend it to him, and grant him bankruptcy protection so he can keep his land after screwing up.
If he’s a traitor to his class, he’s certainly not selling them out to, say, widows who want to live in their own homes.
He’s an American. This is how America works. When was the last time someone made it to the White House without lying or cheating somebody?
Any good (R) knows the answer to that question: “Lincoln and Reagan.”
Nice goalpost move. I thought we were talking about him being a traitor to his class. Was he or wasn’t he?
Yes, because most real estate billionaires involved in politics (Sheldon Adelson, etc.) are part of the donor class funding the candidates he’s been opposing.
Trump himself has funded many of the candidates he “opposes.”
Nice goalpost move. So what if he did?
It means that whatever else may or may not be true, he’s not against the donor class, because he is the donor class, and he donates to all the same people as the donor class.
Not sure how demonstrating that someone who enthusiastically participates in and props up the worst aspects of his class isn’t a traitor to his class, moves the goalposts on the question of whether he’s a traitor to his class.
Is that what he’s doing now, though?
I don’t see any reason to see his populist posing as a shift in principle rather than a tactic.
I would say Trump has been the Most American candidate available.
Hillary and ¡Jeb! (despite his best efforts) were both quite American.
But only Trump is American enough to make America American.
Depends on how you measure. By volume, Chris Christie had him beat.
Sadly true.
He’s a traitor. You’re off to a good start, run with it. Need any help? ;)
Sure. Go for it.
Not only a traitor to his class, but a man who sinks below his class, the way some men are able to rise above theirs. Actually he sinks below class, period. A crude demagogue. Not even a polished one. The crudest, but that’s understandable given his level of ability and his target audience’s level of comprehension. The embodiment of the worst features of American culture. A populist ashv, a populist! Well a pretend one, but that’s almost as bad, right? How much worse can it get than that in your book? Your turn.
The USA is a liberal democracy. The way elections are won is by appealing to more voters than the other guy. To reject populism is to reject the idea of choosing governmental leaders by voting. Is that where you’re going with this?
“To reject populism is to reject the idea of choosing governmental leaders by voting.”
No, it isn’t. To reject populism is to reject populism. I reject the idea of direct popular election to all offices and I reject (as if it matters) universal franchise. That is not the same as rejecting voting.
This is about as practical a position as Bill Clinton trying marijuana but not inhaling. Once voting is a basis for legitimacy, savvy politicians will be sure to take advantage of expanding the franchise to gain more power.
“Once voting is a basis for legitimacy, savvy politicians will be sure to take advantage of expanding the franchise to gain more power.” I can at least understand how you’d think so seeing as that is what happened. However, it isn’t where we started, I don’t believe it is inevitable, and I don’t know that it is irreversible. Though I’ll admit I’m not holding my breath for the reversal. Thing is, with most other systems rulers having more power is not where you risk ending up, it’s where you’re guaranteed to start out. If you are good with more when… Read more »
“Amount of power” is not the interesting measure to me, but rather “quality of governance” — and democracy has a pretty poor track record overall. Why don’t you believe it’s inevitable? The natural tendency of power is for the elites and those on the bottom of the heap to join forces against those in the middle, and a system where legitimacy comes from “The People” just accelerates that process. The American experiment in governmental design was an interesting one, but the arrangement intended by the authors of the Constitution was irretrievably gone within their lifetimes, and it should serve as… Read more »
I don’t have time right now, but I’m not impressed with the quality of governance of European monarchies over most of their history. I’m certainly not impressed with the totalitarian dictatorships that followed. Ultimately there is nothing imperative about democracy, it’s just people like me have been better off under that arrangement than under any other. It’s self-interest, but not self-ish interest.
I could see that “the arrangement intended by the authors of the Constitution was irretrievably gone” by the time secession was met with war, but what happened in the lifetime of the authors? Judicial supremacy?
Political parties, judicial supremacy and the Jefferson Purchase all come to mind. The actual structure of power inevitably changes faster than any process for writing it down.
I’m curious, there must have been some major objections to the assertion of judicial supremacy. Do you happen to be familiar with the most prominent objections to judicial supremacy early on? I’d be interested in reading what its opponents had to say at the time.
While I’m all for pointing out the problems of Obama, Sanders, et. al., can we stay on topic here?
I think what jigawatt may be experiencing is “cognitive dissonance” and trying not to go all the way to psychotic break.
How else might one use “anti-establishment” as a descriptor of one who says he’s been involved in politics (purchasing political influence for personal benefit) his whole life except never held office?
He/she really WANTS to believe, to see a good outcome. So do I but reality and sanity just keep getting in the way.
8. It will remind us #NeverTrump’s that getting to say “I told you so” never feels as good as you think it will.
Why have you never addressed Cruz’s obvious problems?
It’s not about looking for perfection. I’m not waiting for Moses to come back and lead us.
Especially if my candidate is far from it, eh?
The antidote to Christians not being involved in the process is, now, for Christians to sit this one out?
Bro. Doug, once again, how about an article on what we do now?
Well said Dougie. Excellent masochistic apocalyptic claptrap. Why those who believe in judgements from a god and ‘end-times’ ideology should continue to be politically marginalized. And aren’t you going to get raptured soon? Why do you care.
“Excellent masochistic apocalyptic claptrap”
Hmm, well Rand, it seems as if becoming a masochist just might be the only sane and rational way to survive this election. Do you have a better idea? Is there something else I could be doing before I actually get my sackcloth and ashes going on?
Anyone who thinks that Trump is a better choice that Hillary (who is an unpleasant one) for becoming president has simply taken themselves out of the rational conversation. The only rung below is the the one Wilson is perched upon. The snide cynicism of a religious leader who is suggesting a scuttling of the ship, a kind of self-spanking or hairshirt. Dismissible and certainly worthy of derision.
He’s not suggesting Trump is a better choice. He’s not talking about “choices” at all. He’s saying that good things could come out of the fact that the voters have already made the terrible choice of sticking us with one of those two.
I must have misread the title of this blog post.
Clearly, because you thought it had something to do with “choice,” rather than outcome.
You donsworth have become an excellent defender of dougie-speak. A kind of backwards wriggling away from any unpleasant implication of what it is you are actually saying. I read seven reasons why a Trump presidency would be great for christians… and americans. You can too if you scroll back up.
So the first line of the post directly refuting your take that Wilson is encouraging the “choice” of Trump is irrelevant?
There is no “implication” in a post that clearly states that his position is NeverTrump, that his position is “vote for Trump.”
Irrelevant? No. Relevant in classic #dougspeak which is to say always giving yourself a back door to wriggle out of. (or a tool for your apologist.)
I would say an empty hashtag followed by a seven paragraph post on why Trump winning the election is a positive… might even be titled: 7 reasons why a Trump administration might be a good thing.
Specifically, Wilson’s apocalyptic god bringing “evil upon a nation, doing what is good”.
Was that delivered with wink and a jolly Wilson chuckle? If so, I missed it.
I think the large majority of Wilsons writing is accompanied by jolly chuckleing. Maybe not the wink though.
Rand, you could force a lot of people into being “apologists for Wilson.” Your implications of what Wilson is suggesting are absurd.
Such as.
Such as implying anything contrary to Dunsworth’s first comment in this thread. But don’t ask me what you’re implying; try to tell us clearly yourself.
I pretty much said it. And you find it absurd. Okay with me.
I bet if you tried to do more than “pretty much say it,” you’d realize what Dunsworth and I have already realized.
Whatever feels good for you friend. Read my post.
So you are suggesting that Wilson is saying in this post that Trump is a better choice than Hillary?
“The only rung below is the the one Wilson is perched upon.”
Can you point me to a higher rung? I can’t even seem to find the ladder.
Hillary is the best choice we have. And one that I personally am not going to like making either.
Only if your criterion is “Which candidate has had the most scandals since the 1970s and has proven themselves utterly corrupt?” Then Hillary is for you.
“And aren’t you going to get raptured soon? Why do you care.”
See postmalinialism.
Oh, I do love this cheerful fortitude! That’s the spirit. God is good always, so let us rejoice as He separates the wheat from the tares and refines us all in the fire. That’s not sarcasm, I really mean it, although my heart is not quite there yet. On the bright side, God has promised me post apocalyptic fashion among all the canned spam and ammo. One thing I know about our Father, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose,” but often… Read more »
The GOP has misled evangelicals to vote Republican for decades now. The fact that we are considering running an adulterous buffoon is no surprised. I haven’t been a Republican in almost a decade and will continue to despise this party (and the Democrats) if the current establishment continues. That being said, “evangelicals” like Falwell Jr. need to have their Kingdom Passport revoked, those guys are not Christians.
You mean, they don’t act llke Christians, to which I agree, but I don’t think you or I are really in a position to say defiinitively that they aren’t Christians.
Fair enough.
And that attitude is exactly why we have a problem in the Republican party today, the christians mostly decided that the fight was too tough and stopped being salt.
I’m a Libertarian. The Republicans keep selling the same moderate non-sense that have been effective since W. If what you’re saying is true then why is the Republican establishment so keen on not repealing Roe v. Wade? We had a Congressional Super Majority with Bush in 2000 and the establishment did *NOTHING*. That’s not stopping to fight and stopped being salt, that’s the cold reminder that the GOP isn’t interested in anything but power so I refused to give up them my vote.
Fallacy. Stop equating some of the bad leadership and legislators with the party and its platform. If the conservatives had continued the fight instead of quitting and whining, we would have beat back those evil men. Of course, you’re in a party now that supports abortion and drugs. Your presidential candidate is pro-abortion and operates drug businesses, killing people for profit, so you have no room to talk. Libertarian is not Christian, and they don’t even pretend to be so.
How is reality a fallacy? Unless you’re some neo-con shrill. I got out of the Republican party because it is a tongue-and-cheek party: say one thing, do another. But I don’t even know why I’m debating a neo-con shrill like you. #byefelicia
Now you’re a liar, slandering me because I stand for truth, while you support a party that celebrates the death of babies. Good luck with that.
Actually YOU are a liar assuming that I support the killing of babies. That’s slanderous. I just called you a neo-con shrill which is exceedingly true.
But you *just* wrote “I’m a Libertarian”, so no assumption is involved.
Libertarians believe that the state can’t legislate morality. The legality (or illegality) of abortion is not decided on a state level but at the Bible level. While I am against abortion, as a libertarian, using Government to stop abortions will have no effect. Those who wish to continue to sacrifice to Molech will continue to do so. Being a libertarian doesn’t mean I support abortion. In fact, I’ve already proven that the Republican party has misled Christians into thinking that they can get rid of abortion and when the time came to do so (W administration from 2000 to 2006),… Read more »
Libertarians also supposedly believe that one person’s rights end where another’s begin. This would preclude indifference on the question of murder, so a libertarian is free to, and should, support criminalization of abortion.
This is a dialog that not all libertarians are on board. I don’t believe criminalizing abortion would do any real good. If we’re only chasing stats, sure, but there will be an entire underground scene of people performing abortions. A libertarian answer is to let states decide but I also believe that if we’re going to encourage mothers to not terminate their pregnancies we should be at the forefront of serving these mothers and their children. My point is that even though libertarians aren’t unified in this, we have dialog and we’re discussing this. The Republicans on the other hand… Read more »
What about determining these things at the state/local level? CA can have abortions, trans bathrooms and a $35 minimum wage. Georgia can do the opposite. It would be really interesting to see how things turned out if we really followed the 10th Amendment.
Libertarians have had different stances on this. Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian candidate and has always been pro-life. And the GOP has plenty of flip-floppers on this issue, like John McCain, who only became pro-life when he figured it was necessary to get the nomination. I can guarantee he’d do nothing about Roe v. Wade if won the election, nor would most neo-cons that people here like to cheer for.
I agree, but just like the Dems, the Libertarian party officially supports abortion, so Christians can’t be part of it. I supported and worked for Ron Paul in 2012 at the Republican Convention in Alaska, and worked with the Rand Paul campaign when he came to speak here.
“A Trump administration would lay to rest forever the idea that ‘anything is better than the Democrat.'”
Those whose brains and moral compasses are even semi-functioning have known this for decades. I refused to vote for the Bushes, Bob Dole, John McCain or Romney. Supposedly I’ve had nothing but “throw away” votes for the Constitution Party or Libertarians since college. This time around, I’m actually voting for Trump. At least he’s an outsider. Finally, the Establishment couldn’t force their neo-con, milquetoast candidate on us.
And no, that doesn’t mean I consider Trump anywhere close to an ideal candidate.
Where have you gone, Jim W. Gettys?
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Very good, yet painful. Like hearing “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Thank you, Pastor Wilson.
I think Doug was going for more of a “Racists in the Hands of An Angry Judeojesus” vibe.
Calvinists don’t like to talk about Edwards near as much as they did up until quite recently.
He was a racist who thought blacks inferior to whites, and owned slaves.
So it’s best not to mention him.
Great.
Two days ago I switched my endorsement from DJT to Ted Cruz.
https://dougwils.com/s8-expository/garments-and-salvation.html#comment-2654847316
And the thanks I get?
A day later, Ted drops out of the race.
Just terrific.
Way to make a fool of me, Ted.
Say – wait a minute!
I’ve got an idea!!!
I SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT!
Cruz thought naming a radical feminist harridan was going to help him win Indiana?
LMAO
Ted couldn’t even convince Fiorina to let him be the man in their relationship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iisPVoA66U
More evidence that the Cruz marriage is a sham – watch Ted elbow his wife in the face after his concession speech. A man who really loves his wife is careful around her and goes out of his way to not hurt her. This embarrassing awkwardness is not the behavior of a couple who has spent years together in a close marriage. It’s what happens when a couple in a sham marriage try to pretend that they’re not in a sham marriage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ444y_b0Vg
My husband and I love each other dearly. Over the years that we’ve been married, I’ve accidentally knocked his glasses askew, he’s accidentally bumped me – Just because someone is awkward or ungraceful doesn’t mean their marriage is a sham. Stick to the issues instead of looking at this kind of stuff to tear people apart. The clip cuts short, so we don’t know what happened immediately after. It looks like he probably turned toward her to apologize, but who knows? I hate these kind of cheap shots, no matter who they are directed at.
My husband and I love each other dearly.
Which sets your marriage in stark contrast to the Cruz marriage.
Or did you and your husband also spend the first seven years of your marriage refusing to live together, not just living in separate homes, but in separate cities, hundreds of miles apart?
If Cruz lived with a Goldman Sachs “insider”, it would have compromised his “political outsider” status.
The “issues” are well known these days and just ignored. For example — Cruz loves Israeli Jews more than fellow Christians. http://time.com/3328063/ted-cruz-booed-israel-christian-middle-east/
Some 30 years ago, my saintly grandmother, after hearing a song on the TV entitled ‘Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll” wondered aloud why God delayed in sending a fiery Sodom and Gomorrah-like judgment upon this nation. Of course, we know the Lord is slow to anger and rich in mercy–and there is no need of anything so dramatic when we will willingly not only ask for but vote our own judgment upon ourselves.
Ian Dury and the Blockheads! Great pub-rock punk song. Really hooky (almost glam) guitar riff- if loving Ian Dury is wrong… I don’t wanna be right. god may have been too busy rocking-out to do any smiting!
LOL he mad
I would love to get some more information on point #6. I’m a young, evangelical voter trying to gain wisdom on how to vote in this election. I want to better understand #NeverTrump. For example, why wouldn’t I vote for someone who states his opposition of abortion (Trump), though he may be lying, over someone who is openly in favor of abortion (Democrats)?
Because he IS lying. Nothing in his record indicates any kind of effective pro-life position.
But how can you be certain that his handling of abortion would be equal to or worse than the Democrats, who are openly in favor? I have to be missing something. Why wouldn’t you be willing to roll the dice on someone who at least says he opposes abortion? What’s wrong with the “lesser of two evils” approach?
The lesser of two evils approach is not inherently wrong, up to a point. But at some point, the evil is just more than a Christian should justify supporting. If by “lesser of two evils” we mean “better of two imperfects,” that’s not a problem. If we’re talking about two real evils, why should we have any part in supporting any of it? Abortion is already legal everywhere in this country, with no restrictions on the federal level. There is nowhere worse it could go on the federal level, except for federal funding. While I don’t know that Trump would… Read more »
Thanks, Dunsworth. That is a very helpful way of explaining this issue. Going to chew on this for a while.
“Of two evils, choose neither … Christians must turn from the endless cycle of voting for the lesser of evils and expecting an unrighteous act to produce a righteous result. From a communist to a cultist, choosing the lesser of evils is still evil, and never should we do evil that good may come.” – Charles Spurgeon
Amen. That’s what I decided on quite some years ago.
Thanks for sharing, David. Do you know where Spurgeon said that? I’d love to get some context and understand the biblical basis of this argument.
Who was the most recent person in American politics to have an “effective pro-life position”?
Hard to say. Which is hardly an argument in favor of Trump having one.
It is not that he “may” be lying. He “is” lying. He is in favor of abortion (including partial birth). He took time out of his Super Tuesday win to praise Planned Parenthood. He gave tons of money to pro abortion democrats. When asked about how to deal with abortion (punish women?) he had clearly not thought about it (an obvious sign that he had not thoughtfully converted on the issue). And worst of all, he said his liberal and pro abortion sister would make a good SCOTUS judge.
Would his having “thought about it” led to him saying “no, women who get an abortion at a time when abortion is illegal should not be punished”?
Well, to answer my own question, Cruz said that he had thought about it and concluded that women who illegal obtain an abortion should not be punished.
If “thinking about [x]” means “ran it by the popular evangelical thought-leaders and sanitized his position on [x] so as to not offend or make it appear as anything other than a fundraiser issue,” then I hope Trump, and everybody else, just fires from the hip at all times.
My point is that Trump was pro abortion just a couple years ago. He CLAIMS that he thought about the issue and changed his mind. I think it is obvious that he is lying and has had no such thoughtful conversion on the issue. I think his obvious lack of thoughtfulness on the issue (regardless of the validity of that new stated position) is evidence that the claimed thoughtful conversion is a lie. As far as my position, I agree with Doug Wilson that having a policy of punishing women for abortions is a bad idea. Punish the doctors. The… Read more »
And there we go. In a hypothetical nation where abortion is against the law and classified as murder, a woman who undoubtedly knows this and understands that abortion is classified as murder because she has an actual human life within her (according to the state that prohibits abortion) and has to go out of her way to find someone who is willing to take the chance to perform the abortion for her and she presumably has to pay some price for that “service” (if abortion is charged as murder, that price is probably nothing to scoff at), that woman is… Read more »
Trump corrected his statement and agreed that he does not want women punished for abortion either. His final statement (for now) is exactly the same as every other pro lifer.
As long as “corrected” has nothing to do with what’s actually correct, I completely agree, but that doesn’t make your comment in any way relevant to anything Wesley said. If you think it is in any way relevant, I’d challenge you to spell out how.
My main point behind this whole question is to show that Trump is a liar who cares nothing for the unborn. His complete confusion when asked about abortion shows that his claims to have thoughtfully changed his mind (in his 60s) is a lie. I don’t think Trump wants women punished or doctors punished or anyone else punished. He is pro abortion. Wesley began by defending Trump’s “punish women” statement as though that were the only pro life position (which it idiotic) but the fact that Trump himself renounced that position proves he is not pro life even by Wesley’s… Read more »
I wouldn’t object to anything you just said in your first paragraph, and I can’t see any reason to construe anything Wesley said as disagreement with anything in your first paragraph either. As I read it — and if you think there’s any other fair reading, I’d like you to spell out how — Wesley’s point wasn’t to deny anything in your first paragraph but rather to point out that Trump’s position makes obvious sense (which is why Trump said what he said, shooting from the hip), and that Cruz’s position, in contrast, seems to come from politically motivated distortions… Read more »
Wesley, watch the video of him answering the question. It was not that he had thought about it and decided women should be punished. He was obviously thinking on his feet when he answered it. The question had never crossed his mind before.
Okay, let me be clearer. If someone “thinks” about abortion to your standard, should they reach the conclusion that an illegal abortion is only the crime of the abortion provider and not the mother?
I could grant you that he may not have thought about it before, but at least he (initially) assumed the logical answer.
The goal of the pro-life movement is to end abortion. The goal is not to lock up would be mothers. I want laws in place that will end abortion. Who goes to jail is quite secondary to me.
Do you want to end abortion via laws and regulations? If you can answer that question, you are pro life. You do not need to hold to a certain rule for punishment to be pro life.
Christian, if abortion is opposed on the basis of it being murder and not merely like murder, then it most certainly does matter who’s going to jail for it.
Unless you’re lying about it being murder. In such case, why do you hate Trump?
He that is not lying about abortion being murder among you, let him first cast a stone.
I am opposed to it because it is the taking of a human life. “Murder” is a legal term implying a certain level of intent. If a mother is tricked or deceived into killing her baby (being told it is a mass of cells or whatever), then the mother would be more like the mother whose child is kidnapped by a charming con artist. The key to being pro life is wanting to protect those lives. Trump is clearly not pro life. Right up to the moment he was running for president he said it should be legal to pull… Read more »
Does anyone actually expect Trump to do anything on abortion either way?
You seem to be saying, “Why wouldn’t I reduce this election to a single issue on which my party not only has done nothing of substance for the last few decades, but which has just nominated the very man who is least likely to do anything of substance and may well do the opposite?”
Pundits are saying that a movement to draft a Third Party/Independent candidate probably won’t work, mainly because the neocons won’t be able to find any Republicans who are willing to take on what is sure to be a political suicide mission.
But I can think of several highly principled conservatives who would probably be willing to take that risk, and who also embody the best of the #NeverTrump movement.
In fact, here’s a list of them.
http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activists-caught-being-gay/joanne?format=SLIDESHOW&page=16
Very disappointing to see such an incoherent rambling justification for eternal condescension toward those who voted for Donald Trump. The hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy throughout Pastor Wilson’s diatribe is not even worth addressing. Don’t have enough time or inclination. Your screed reads a lot like John Robert’s opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act.
Remember – Ted Cruz chose as his running mate a person who, when asked about tranny rights, said that what sex a person is has nothing to do with their private parts: “I think people fulfill their potential when they are able to be who they are and to be open about who they are. I made very sure as the chief executive at HP that we had a work environment that was open to transgenders,” she told reporters. “Being a woman is about lot more than our bodies and what we look like and that in fact is the… Read more »
I didn’t give much credence to the theory when it was first proposed, but it’s become clear from the recent primaries (and this blog) that the inhabitants of the West have a very different outlook and belief system than people east of the Mississippi — even among evangelical Christians. Can anyone explain to me how Trump is any more “manifestly a judgement from God” than any president of the past 50 years? Do you realize how much you sound like Glenn Beck right now? Even though I hate American principles, and am opposed to every last scrap of American ideology… Read more »
He is a pro abortion liberal. He is a judgment because he is a republican. This will be the first time since Ford we ran a pro abortion liberal.
If “pro-life conservative” means avoiding the logical conclusion that a woman who illegally obtains an abortion is a criminal who should be punished according to the law so as to not offend women (murderous mothers are only victims), then who needs “pro abortion liberal”?
Did I say that? He could have thoughtfully disagreed with me (saying that women should be punished). That is not my point. My point is that he CLEARLY HAD NOT THOUGHT OF IT BEFORE. That means he LIED when he said that he had thought of it before.
And my point is that the so-called “pro-life” conservatives that you think we should have chosen instead AREN’T ANY BETTER. Abortion is a fundraising issue for conservative politicians. If one of them is a little bit clumsy in disguising that, that’s rather inconsequential.
I want abortion to end in the USA. I want the laws to promote the end of abortion.
That is “no better” than people who want unrestricted access? What the hell are you talking about?
Christian, would you make similar allowances for mothers that pay “doctors” to euthanize babies with down syndrome after they’re born? Can you think of any case where a mother could pay someone to kill her baby after the baby is born where you wouldn’t want to punish the mother in any way? If no punishment is only thinkable with hiring the killing of unborn babies, how do you then characterize the qualitative difference in the right to life of anyone postpartum and whatever rights you would claim for unborn babies? Whatever that nebulous difference is, if there’s a categorical difference… Read more »
If you think that God doesn’t challenge us to fight to save lives, you are foolish and unbiblical. If you see a man hanging from a cliff ledge and you say “not a hair from my head can fall apart from God’s will” and fail to help the guy, you are a miserable sinner who God will judge profoundly. We have 1 million babies dying a year in this country and it is absolutely our job to work to save their lives. Of course, God is sovereign. He was sovereign during the Holocaust as well but that doesn’t mean he… Read more »
Do you think God challenges us to fight to save souls? God does command us to preach the gospel. (If it’s not obvious, I’m drawing a parallel here.)
If most mother that have abortions have no idea what they are doing, what about what they are doing do you suppose that abortion “doctors” know that the mothers don’t?
Young mothers (often kids in their late teens and early twenties) are told that it is a mass of cells that can be removed surgically. They do not see arms, legs, fingers and head until it is too late (and probably not at all). In most cases, it is a one time thing and being fooled into thinking it is something other than murder is very possible. Doctors, on the other hand, see the arms, legs, fingers and head every single day. They know exactly what they are doing. Some mothers may be guilty of murder but every doctor is.… Read more »
So are you arguing that until a person has arms, legs, fingers, and a head, that there’s no legally defensible right to life?
And if there’s a solid basis for a law against murdering unborn babies why does it matter whether mothers understand the basis for the law anyway? If a driver doesn’t understand the reasons for a speed limit on a given stretch of road does that give him a legal excuse for ignoring the clearly posted speed limit? Or if “most drivers” can’t be expected to make sense of a particular speed limit for a given stretch of road does that mean the government would be wrong to post and enforce a speed limit there even if it actually does make… Read more »
“So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” In the same way that we can give up any effort to give growth but go on planting and watering, could we not give up trying to “save babies’ lives” but go one being pro-life in every good and worthwhile way?
I think that our objective, as Christians, should be to work to end the holocaust in our midst. Of course God is sovereign over that effort and just as he ultimately is the savior (which maybe is what you are getting at) but he uses us for that effort.
Sure, in the same (or at least comparable as far as I’m thinking right now) way that God uses us to save others’ souls he can use us to save babies’ lives, but isn’t it also true that in the same way we shouldn’t judge our preaching of the gospel on the basis of church attendance/”church growth”/people that hear our preaching repenting and believing unto life, isn’t it true that “saving lives” isn’t the proper bottom line for the pro-life movement?
Trump by the way, after talking to his handlers, changed his mind and no longer wants women punished. So, not only does he disagree with you, he is an idiot liar too.
And I even acknowledged such. But he did so after the shrieking of all the conservative women who lead all those conservative pro-life organizations about women are the true victims of abortion. My point is that Trump changing his mind to shut up the screeching women (and men who back up that men are usually the real perpetrators of abortion) makes him only a politician and no worse than the screeching women (and men who back up that men are usually the real perpetrators of abortion) who refuse to actually follow through on the “abortion is murder” logic. Shoot… Trump… Read more »
Haha. Trump is fearless and speaks his mind….. except when he changes his mind due to “Shrieking women”.
Being pro life means wanting to end abortion. You do not need to want to throw anyone in particular in jail (mothers or otherwise) to be pro life. You just want to have legal protection for the unborn. Stop being weird.
Do you oppose abortion on the grounds of it being murder? If so, then who is the murderer? Stop being disingenuous.
I am opposed to abortion because it is “killing” of an innocent life. “Murder” is a legal term that requires a lot of things (purpose, intent, knowledge etc) that I think most women getting abortions do not have. I think most women getting abortions are being tricked or deceived into doing it. The doctors, on the other hand, know exactly what they are doing. Doctors are the murderers. Mothers could be (depending on what they think is going on) but often are not.
Christian, Trump was asked if a woman who got an abortion sometime in the hypothetical future where abortion is illegal should be punished for breaking the law. If we’re talking about a point in time where abortion is legal, every woman probably would know that it is illegal and that for her to get an abortion she would be breaking the law. To say that such a woman would often not know what she was doing and is actually the victim is ludicrous. But even not in the hypothetical, “Mothers could be (depending on what they think is going on)… Read more »
Wesley, my objective (and the objective of all pro lifers) is to save baby lives. That is the goal. The goal is not a particular punishment for the mothers. If you think the best way to stop abortion is to threaten to imprison mothers, fine, but do not pretend that is the only pro life position to hold.
Okay, it’s certainly fine to not lead with the legal ramifications of prohibiting abortion by the state–I get that. That’s not what Trump was asked. Trump wasn’t asked about the tactics and strategies of the pro-life movement and if it’s more effective to not advertise the prosecution of abortive mothers–Trump was asked if abortion was illegal, should there be legal action taken against a woman who broke the law and got an abortion anyway. To your point, it’s obvious he didn’t “think” about it or else he would have known that abortion isn’t really murder–it’s actually the victimization of women,… Read more »
I think Doug Wilson rightly views Trump as not conservative, fake, and a wolf in sheeps clothing. Is Cruz perfect? Of course not. But we could say that about anyone. If there was another universe where Reagan and Stalin were contemporaries and running for president, we could say the same about them. They both have good and bad – let’s be fair and point them both out. But that is silly because the downsides to Reagan would in no way compare to the downsides of Stalin. Trump is clearly faking his pro life position. He was pro abortion up until… Read more »
I used to think abortion was a significant political issue, but the shameful behaviour of “pro-life” advocates this year has changed my mind. It’s still a moral outrage but, based on past performance, it’s manifestly stupid to pick a politician based on what they say about abortion. Trying to get abortion banned in the current year is like trying to get your air conditioner fixed while your house is on fire. (And yes, Trump is a liberal. The USA is a liberal democracy. Conservatives are just a subcategory of liberals.)
This is why trump is so damaging. He has successfully made a large group of people who once were conservative liberal on various issues.
You are the shameful one sir. Babies are getting chopped up and that is not a “significant” issue in your mind?
If you think I’m a liberal, then you haven’t paid attention to a word I’ve said over the past year. Your question doesn’t deserve an answer.
Liberal is what liberal does. You are now saying that abortion is not a significant political issue. That is a liberal position that only full blown RINOs would have held before this election cycle. Trump (a life long democrat) has changed your mind (at least on that issue) to the liberal position.
I’m anti-choice, not pro-life. Banning abortion isn’t a significant political issue in the same way that repealing female suffrage or no-fault divorce isn’t a significant political issue — all of these things are desirable, but too much has to change for it to be feasible, and it won’t be changed by voting.
ashv wrote: It’s still a moral outrage but, based on past performance, it’s manifestly stupid to pick a politician based on what they say about abortion. Trying to get abortion banned in the current year is like trying to get your air conditioner fixed while your house is on fire. I can understand ashv taking the defeatist stance that abortion could never be banned in a year, however, I don’t understand the attitude that it is stupid to care what a politician believes about the issue. Even if a politician is not in a position to directly change the legal… Read more »
I don’t believe in voting, so it’s not that. Requiring “principles” from politicians is about like requiring cartwheels from giraffes; they aren’t equipped for it. Abortion is a virtue-signalling issue for evangelical Christians; any talk of it is about showing that one has the correct opinions, rather than a discussion of events that will directly affect them. Evangelical Christians, statistically speaking, don’t get abortions and don’t usually hang out with people who do. This makes it the perfect carrot to perpetually dangle in front of voters, since it’s about principles, not interests. Talk is all that’s required, and it’s all… Read more »
Ashv suggests that politicians are incapable of being held to any standards of principle, but he goes on to outline a requirement of principled(?) pragmatism in his politicians. Above the lives of the unborn, he places safety, cohesive community, and employment opportunities. Apparently his usual cynicism fails to inoculate him against political promises in these other areas. A different carrot provides a pragmatic virtue-signal for him. The new virtue appears to be related to preserving the status quo just a little longer. But I’m curious why he thinks that politicians can be effective with their pragmatic culture promises in one… Read more »
As you know, I’ve already said I’m ready for the whole American project to come apart, it was a bad idea from the start and it’s left us with an extremely low-quality and expensive government. And as I said, the transition from campaign promises to action rarely meet expectations. I won’t be surprised if Trump is either unwilling or incapable of delivering on the issues that gained him so much attention; I didn’t vote for him, and I won’t. I can see benefits to a Trump presidency nevertheless. I could see benefits to a Clinton or Sanders presidency, even (though… Read more »
For the sake of consistency, ashv assures us that he won’t be voting for Trump, and that he doesn’t really expect his preferred candidates to be especially effective in regard to their campaign promises either. So what was his point again? It seems to be that Christians are stupid for preferring candidates with principle over those without. As best I can tell, ashv believes we should prefer the unprincipled ineffective magistrate over the principled ineffective magistrate. Ashv wrote: As you know, I’ve already said I’m ready for the whole American project to come apart, it was a bad idea from… Read more »
Don’t confuse “nation” and “country”. The USA is not a nation, it’s a multinational empire. Most of my ancestors were here before the USA was created and, God willing, my descendants will be here after it’s gone. The people and the land are much more valuable than the ideology.
Yes, you grasp the gist of it. The conservative con game is to oppose their subjects’ interests in the name of supporting their principles. Hence the invocation of the term “cuckold”.
Having standards and preferring politicians with small-government Christian principles makes one a “cuckold”? How can cynicism become any more insipid than that? In regard to having principle, I would point out that ashv has not escaped his own rebuke. His principles are simply different than mine. He apparently holds to principles of governance so high that he can no longer stoop to exercise the privilege of voting. He holds the principle that the unprincipled pursuit of pragmatic interests, such as safety and jobs, is of higher value in a candidate than ideology and truth. Of course I don’t agree with… Read more »
If you’re interpreting what I’m saying as retreat to commitment, I’ve obviously failed to communicate. I’m interested in Christians having actual power rather than sham power. As one aphorism put it, “Voting makes you feel powerful the way playing the lottery makes you feel rich.” When political office is chosen by public opinion, power resides with those who control public opinion — Harvard, the New York Times, and all their lesser imitators. Political power resides with those who bend the knee to the cult of progress; Christians of orthodox belief and practice have no power in the American system and… Read more »
And in case it’s still not clear: I’m not trying to convince people to like Trump, his aesthetic obviously isn’t for everyone. My chief concern here is for Christians to be less susceptible to people taking the approach that Cruz did.
I don’t take any issue with ashv’s admonishments to be wary of politicians bearing promises. That’s good advice. With Cruz, in particular, I found most of the arguments against him to be utterly specious, and completely contrary to the standard of the Golden Rule and of the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. The arguments against his natural born status, even if they had been convincing under legal review, did not deal with the substance of his campaign positions. The repeated accusation by 40 ACRES that he was eager to pardon Pollard was contrary to Cruz’s actual reserved statements on… Read more »
I agree that Cruz attracted plenty of substanceless/low-substance criticism, but that just goes with the territory. My chief complaint is that plenty of evangelicals are very credulous towards his style of campaigning. (And bringing up Israel for no good reason when addressing a group of Middle Eastern Christians is pretty ridiculous.)
The repeated accusation by 40 ACRES that he was eager to pardon Pollard was contrary to Cruz’s actual reserved statements on the matter. Kate’s simply lying here. I’ve never said once, let alone “repeatedly”, that Cruz was eager to pardon Pollard, and I don’t believe he would’ve pardoned Pollard had he made it to the White House. Kate can’t produce one quote where I’ve said Cruz wants to actually pardon Pollard, let alone “is eager to.” But I have pointed out repeatedly that Cruz has promised to consider pardoning Pollard in order to pander to Jews, and that he boasts… Read more »
40 ACRES wrote: Kate’s simply lying here. I’ve never said once, let alone “repeatedly”, that Cruz was eager to pardon Pollard… Kate can’t produce one quote where I’ve said Cruz wants to actually pardon Pollard, let alone “is eager to.” Challenge accepted. Here’s 40 ACRES’ alter ego, J. Frank Norris, who said: But you’re cool with Ted Cruz urging Obama to release one of the worst traitors since the Rosenbergs, Jonathan Pollard. And you’re just fine with Cruz telling a Jewish group that he has met with Pollard’s attorney to discuss Cruz giving him a full pardon if he’s elected… Read more »
And you’re just fine with Cruz telling a Jewish group that he has met with Pollard’s attorney to discuss Cruz giving him a full pardon if he’s elected president. Cruz says he might grant that same traitor a full pardon? Hey, no worries. Yeah, that’s what I said – you’re lying. I said Cruz met with Pollard’s attorney to discuss giving him a pardon if he’s elected. I also said that Cruz told Jews he might pardon Pollard. I never said that Cruz meant it. On the contrary, I’ve said all along that Cruz is a slimy liar who will… Read more »
I’m repeating my statements to emphasize that I still stand by them. Although, it does appear that 40 ACRES (aka J. Frank Norris) no longer stands by his earlier statements that Cruz was “urging” Obama to release Pollard. If 40 ACRES is going to now distance himself from his earlier claims, he could at least have the decency to just say so, and not resort to calling me the liar. And one more thing, the attempts to scandalize Cruz for once having a long distance marriage were nothing but a tissue of negative assumptions and aspersions without any actual knowledge… Read more »
Kate, stop lying.
I think that, unfortunately, Catholic politicians have demonstrated a dishonest yet effective way of handling the abortion issue. And, because the church is very reluctant to crack down on them, these Catholic politicians are getting away with it. “I am personally pro-life and the thought of abortion horrifies me, but—stare decisis, the court has ruled, I can’t impose Catholic ethics on the great American people, and so on.” In other words, I’m as good a Catholic as you are, but I’m a true believer in the will of the people and the separation of church and state. It has left… Read more »
Did this article suggest that Trump is any more a judgement from God than other presidents may have been? I don’t recall a comparison being made.
Then why call out Trump specifically?
Because current events.
“..how Trump is any more “manifestly a judgement from God” than any president of the past 50 years?”
Take No. 2 and No. 6 above, for starters. I guess I wouldn’t know why Christians east of the Mississippi wouldn’t see that as well as Christians anywhere else.
“I would rather be executed by the bad guy than play Russian roulette with the crazy guy” now strikes me as an American West attitude, and one I cannot sympathise with in the least.
Well, I was looking more at the “brag about their infidelity” type comments. I’d rather see people treat their own immorality as something shameful and to be done in a dark corner if they’re going to do it, than see them be on the street in daylight in-your-face with it. You don’t get “at least I’m honest about it” points for flaunting it either. I don’t know if that view is owning to a regional difference or not. But yes I would rather be the blameless victim of a bad guy than be complicit in my own untimely demise by… Read more »
Being America’s only divorced president hasn’t tarnished Reagan’s memory much. Character matters, but a façade of piety on a man determined to oppose their interests isn’t endearing to voters either. There wasn’t anyone of good character running for president this year.
There’s deep differences between North and South, to be sure. But the fact that Trump won decisive victories in the original 13 colonies whereas Cruz received most of his support in the West is quite illuminating.
If we found Reagan bragged in writing about adultery on multiple occasions I’ll bet his reputation would be tarnished quick enough. There wasn’t anyone of perfect character running for president this year or any year, the only perfect ruler we ever had we crucified. That doesn’t mean all less than perfect character is equally bad.
I do agree the difference between Trump’s success in the east and lack thereof in the west is illuminating. Sort of. I can see what, just not quite why as yet. Or that all bad thinking is equally crazy.
Here’s the analysis from February that got me thinking about it. http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2016/02/news-for-cruz-culture-war-doesnt-play.html
Thanks. However, the article is more spin than analysis. Take this: “In the Religious Congregations & Membership Study, “adherents” include children, and fertility rates are higher in the Plains states, so it’s possible that their higher level of “adherents” is simply due to larger family sizes there compared to the crowded Southeast.” Or it is possible people in the plains states simply go to church more than do people the southeast. No reason is given for supposing what the writer suggests. Or this: “Evangelicals out West, on the other hand, could not act more holier-than-thou, self-righteous, and vainglorious.” Biased much?… Read more »
Like I said, this guy tends to be more, well, exuberant than studious. But his predictions played out for the remaining primaries.
This one’s a little better, perhaps. http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2016/03/electoral-showdown-between-eastern-vs.html
I don’t regard his answers as definitive but it’s an interesting direction to explore.
I agree, the subject is interesting, and apparently a difference of some kind has been yielding different results between east and west in the election so far. You are correct, his answers are not definitive, and I doubt he’s ever spent much time in the plains states, or talked to very many people from there. I can tell you it’s nothing like he describes. Whatever the difference is, it’s not that.
Perhaps I’m wrong on this, but as I understand it, it was Wyman, not Reagan, who was the adulterer in that marriage. As I understand it, Reagan was willing to forgive her, but she divorced him.
As you may have heard…. “If a woman has been unfaithful to her husband, of course she bears the guilt of her adultery. But at the same time, he is responsible for it.”
Are you being ironic, ashv, as I don’t see how that could possibly be true.
It’s a DW quote from Reforming Marriage
And agree or disagree with Wilson’s take, it doesn’t mean that he’s guilty of her adultery, but of failing to fulfill his husbandly duty perfectly at some point (as all men are) which in some fashion set her up for temptation or vulnerability. So it’s pretty irrelevant because no one’s suggesting that a candidate who isn’t a perfect husband is disqualified.
That’s fair
I was just giving the reference
I don’t think that is necessarily the correct interpretation of Wilson’s statement. It could mean that a husband has “the job or duty of dealing with or taking care of something or someone.” Quotation from Merriam Webster.
That is fair enough, in fact a better rendering than what I said. I was rather struggling to explain.
Still, the upshot is the same, isn’t it? To say that a man has responsibility in such a situation still does not put him on the level of the man who is actual adulterer.
Agreed.
Reforming Marriage, page 32.
Well he was right about one thing, I’m tired of winning.
It’s definitely affliction.
Number 2. That. Good and hard. Problem is, the rest of us get it that way too. As it was, it will be.
The really odd thing here is that Cruz just quit. I really expected him to attempt to steal the nomination with some delegate shenanigans at the convention. And then he just had that thing where he named a running mate. It’s a good thing for Trump that it worked out this way. Had there been some convention tomfoolery, it would have created some seriously bad juju among the Republicans and would likely have carried all the way to the election. Clinton may have won in a landslide then, or at least as close to a landslide as we are likely… Read more »
Cruz was dependent on a small number of large donors. If 2 or 3 of them told him it was time to be done, there’s little he could do about it.
Interesting – do you have the source for that? I was confused too by the sudden quit, and hadn’t considered that angle. With Trump’s words afterwards, I had wondered if Cruz had just picked the last chance to negotiate for the VP slot.
Good in the way that hitting bottom can be good for some people.
I had hoped that eight years of Obama would serve that purpose … but people seem always to want to prove that they can be even more foolish than they have been so far.
Doug, when viewed through the lens of the gospel, all of us (were we to become president) would be a walking manifestation of God’s judgement…apart from his grace. I respectfully submit, that we should not claim to know the mind of God when it is not clearly been made known. Someone please enlighten me and explain how another candidate is more holy than another. Should Cruz be president because he’s more christiany than Trump? As a Christian, I do not see much fruit in Trump. Frankly, I haven’t seen much of it in any of the candidates. Sure I’ve seen… Read more »
For those who didn’t get the memo. ;-)
http://babylonbee.com/news/postmillennialism-drops-out-of-eschatological-race/
Oh, that’s good.
Go, Bee!
1st (pseudo) compliment you’ve ever given Obama, I presume?
And it was redundant (is there any other kind of despot??). Ugh
Sure. Plenty of examples of benevolent despots in history. Frederick the Great comes to mind.
Well, at least we can be confident that the country will be governed more competently than the church.
Yeah! What’s the deal with God and the church?
It’s like that Jesus can’t even run a lemonade stand, never mind govern a church! ????
Thanks. Sarcasm noted. That was a good reminder. I hope it was obvious that I was thinking of lower level management.
Thanks to you as well Mr. President!
I like a guy who can take a joke!????
Feel free to return the favor in the future, if needed!
????
As a premillenial Christian who sees current downward-spiral developments in the US and elsewhere as sad and sobering validation of my eschatology, I have to admire the persistence of postmillenials in theirs. That “all will eventually get better” demands a level of faith at this point that I simply can’t imagine being able to muster. While I don’t believe in a rapture, I do believe that either Trump or Clinton could easily be a precursor of an antichrist. I just selfishly hope it all doesn’t go down in my lifetime.
Plenty of people felt the same way around the fall of Rome. The end of the USA will have major effects but it’s not going to be some unrecoverable cataclysm.
Actually, Prophecy in Scripture often has both a near-term and long-term view simultaneously. The fall of Jerusalem (by Rome) in 70 AD was the near-term, and the end times before Christ’s return and judgment are the long-term. We know from Scripture what the Biblically unaware Romans (and other doomsdayers to follow) mostly didn’t; the end couldn’t happen then, because numerous prophecies had yet to be fulfilled, e.g. the Gospel had not yet been “preached to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14). We are undeniably on the verge of that today, and I’m working in SE Asia… Read more »
“… And a preacher who cannot preach a message of repentance to a nation that chose Trump to lead them is a preacher who couldn’t hit the ground with his hat.”
What about a preacher who knowingly shills for a (slimy, as this election season has demonstrated) politician who not only is not a natural born US citizen, but wasn’t even a naturalized US citizen until he was 16 years old?
Metaphorically speaking, this might be the first time I’ve ever seen a dead horse beat it’s self!????
Truth remains truth, and lies remain lies.
Godly men *always* oppose lies.
How is Wilson, or you, going to oppose-in-a-Godly-manner a Trump administration when he/you will not admit the truth?
So in that spirit, you need to understand that your grip on “the truth” is not as tight as you think it is!????
Which is OK: I am *held* by the truth.
The same way Wilson has been opposing Obama for the last 8 years?
You?
That doesn’t even make sense. But of course it doesn’t; sense is anathema when one is committed to a lie.
What was the title of this post again?
And what was the point of the post?
Grammar cop needed for the arrest of “A” dad.
I blame Steve Jobs, but you are still correct!????
It will take more than one grammar cop to deal with that particular mash-up.
In other words, it’s time to take our bitter medicine.
“[T]he most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.” Still true.
A revival preacher years ago said that if God wanted to punish us, he’d give us what we ask for instead of what we need. Perhaps we’ve reached the place where God is doing the “tough love” approach. Give us what so many have asked for till we sicken from it and to teach us to be grateful when we are given what we really needed all along.
Once again, this cuts so many ways, it’s almost impossible to keep up! BUT, If I adjust my expectations to comport with reality about ol’ Trump, I can tolerate him a whole lot easier!
In the meantime, let’s use the time a Trump presidency MIGHT buy us and get busy in our families, churches, and communities! There’s no hope coming out of Mordor-on-the-Potomac or its corporacratic outliers in your towns, counties, and state houses!
Heck, let’s get busy even if it’s Hillary, and the time to start would be . . . NOW!!!
Regarding the first reason: “A Trump administration would manifestly be a judgment from God, and judgments from God are good. Not pleasant, but they are always good.” I agree that, in a way, a judgment from God is good, but I also think that there is something that is better than one of His judgments: Avoiding judgment through contrition and repentance. Thus, although we cannot criticize a judgment from God, we *can* desire and work for something better. The author of the Book of Lamentations knew that: “For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.” –Lamentations… Read more »
Trump just put out a new campaign ad that details some more reasons his presidency will be a good thing: https://amp.twimg.com/v/994ffffc-d53f-4b41-b58f-f220866bf391
(Re-watching this I think this may have been done by someone other than his campaign, not sure.)
Her campaign is making her look like some old person who sends countless Farmville requests on “the Facebook” and doesn’t understand what people are doing when they’re “twitting,” as she calls it.
This proves what people have been saying all along — Hillary is just a Trump plant.
Russell Moore says that Christians who vote for Trump are the equivalent of the people who bombed that church in Birmingham in the 1960s: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-whites-who-vote-for-trump-will-go-to-hell/ Of course, most reading this are probably thinking “Well, I oppose Trump, so I’m off the hook.” Not so fast. If you’re white, you’ll never be off the hook. For example, do you like the Andy Griffith Show? Do you long for the simpler way of life they had in Mayberry, RFD? Well, then, according to Moore, you’re full of hate, too. You might as well long for the “simpler way of life” Germany had… Read more »
Wilson says that national repentance is what’s needed, and I don’t disagree. Are there any historical examples of this happening (other than the obvious case of Jonah in Nineveh)? What model should we be looking to for this?
I would rather be executed by the bad guy than play Russian roulette with the crazy guy.
Doug, this probably isn’t the dumbest thing you’ve ever written, but it’s definitely on the list.
What on earth does it mean? That certain death is preferable to the chance for survival, however remote that chance might be?
You think the “people” will listen after Trump when they have not listened with Obama and the host of many others preceding him in both parties that have failed our country and God. This is ridiculous and the same list could be made for Hillary and more. Neither one of them will get my vote and for those who have commented and call Republicans “our party” please stop. Republicans are not our party nor are Democrats or any other party, I will vote for the candidate that I believe will seek and follow the voice of Christ and right now… Read more »
“Obama is an autocratic despot, but he at least has the good grace to pretend not to be one.”
I’ve not noticed any pretending in the 2nd term.
The anti-Trump hysteria I’m reading here is a bit over the top. June 7th, I can hardly wait to vote for Trump. He’s building a wall and Mexico will pay for it. That’s all I needed to hear. Cruz was a terrible candidate. I don’t know how he got so far. I tried very hard to like him, no chance. He would have lost in a landslide. Rubio was pretty good but he flopped. Just way over his head. With Trump there will be a fight. No sell outs this time. No establishment hacks who just want to keep the… Read more »