Like Button

Saturday, January 16, 2016

Presidential Choices

I don't know what concerns me more. Is it that Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton in the Iowa polls, or is it that Donald Trump leads the pack in the GOP race?

I'm stunned by the numbers of people, especially young people, who are enamored with a self-declared socialist running for the office of President of the United States. It's not like the right is labeling him such. It's his own position. He believes in openly "taking from the rich and giving to the poor", redistributing wealth, and in plans that will "help the lower classes" (we can debate whether or not they will) while costing everyone more than they can pay. But in America today there appears to be such class warfare that sanity is irrelevant. If it makes those guys pay and me richer, why not? Down with capitalism! End the American Dream. Well, of course, we may have already done that, but you get the idea. They self-consciously want to terminate what once made America great.

I'm appalled at the numbers of people, including unusually large numbers of older people, who love the Donald. Seriously? This is the guy whose god is money and power. This is the guy who has built and bankrupted multiple times. I suppose if our country was a company he might be worth a shot, but it's not. And the most troubling thing to me is this "no Moslems" concept that he threw out, is sticking by, and for which he is lauded by his fans. Now, let's follow the logic. Islamic extremists have undeniably declared war against us. They hope to sneak into this country (already have, in fact) to cause us pain. We don't know who's who, so in the name of safety and security let's deny access to everyone who goes by the "Moslem" moniker. Do we not see how this works? "Potentially dangerous" = banned. "Whew! Thanks Mr. Donald President. Safety and security!" Except what happens when the military declares Christianity -- no, wait, conservative Christianity -- the biggest threat as the military has done in their briefings to their people? What happens when the "Freedom from Religion" folk convince enough people that evangelicals are a threat? If we're aborting the 1st Amendment to protect us from Moslems, what protects us from the anti-Christians? But this is just an example of the Trump-think that concerns me.

What most concerns me is not Sanders or Clinton or Trump. What most concerns me is the people of this country that hold them in such high regard. I don't actually see a good, electable candidate for president in the coming election. America deserves what she votes in. And it doesn't look good. Some Christians wonder when God will judge the U.S. and how. I'm thinking all He has to do is give us what we ask for. That ought to kill the country.

Update
Making my point for me, Sarah Palin endorses Trump. People are sheep, the best candidate we have is intolerable, and people will endorse anyone.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have gotten the feeling my parents will vote for the Republican candidate in the general election as long as it is not Mr. Trump. If it is in fact Trump, I believe they will cast a protest vote for a third party candidate.

David said...

I seriously hope that most of those people that are pro-Trump are the joking sort. That man is offensive in just about any way he can be. And I have to question any billionaire that is a socialist. If he truly believes in socialism, he should be putting his money where his mouth is before the election, not just empty promises. Show the people what you would do with their money by doing it with yours first. Otherwise he's just talking like any other politician just saying what he thinks we want to hear.

Stan said...

David, you may be confused. Trump is billionaire, but is not a socialist. (That's Bernie Sanders.) He is a staunch capitalist. On the other hand, I've never actually heard or met a socialist who was interested decreasing his or her holdings to the level of everyone else in the name of his or her socialist values.

David said...

Ah, see, the structure of your post led me to believe the "socialist" you were speaking of was Trump, since he was the last subject of the previous paragraph and no other subject was named. I'm not actually following any of the presidential stuff since I have no intention of voting. So yes, I was confused.

Marshall Art said...

"I don't actually see a good, electable candidate for president in the coming election."

Have you ever? If so, when was that and who? Not trying to be combative here, but I hear this a lot. Personally, I don't know if there was ever anyone in my lifetime that stood head and shoulders above some in this current group of Republicans. Even Reagan had his amnesty mistake. None are a perfect fit in this unfortunately off-the-rack world.

Stan said...

I'd never argue for "perfect". There is no "perfect" candidate. I aim for "acceptable". There are "acceptable" candidates running, but none that I think are electable, and there are electable candidates, but not that are acceptable to my views. I've never expected perfect.

Marshall Art said...

Which of the candidates would you put in which category (electable versus acceptable)? Personally, I'm far more concerned with the latter. Whether the latter is also in the former category is really a matter of marketing and word of mouth support. Get enough of either and anyone is electable. Too much is made of things that don't matter. Too many make their choices on these things that don't really matter. Case in point is Trump. While he tends to light fires under people, what matters is what he truly believes and has said and supported over the years.

Stan said...

Several that I liked are already out. Ben Carson is still in, but isn't electable. And I disagree that it's a matter of marketing. America won't stand for someone I find acceptable. The media elects who they want with their soundbites and emotional manipulation. Most Americans are sheep.

Alec said...

Hi Stan,

The link you provided seems to be talking about the Libyan government's attitude toward Christians. Was this the one you meant to include?

Alec

Stan said...

Thanks, Alec. The new link should work better.

Alec said...

Stan,

The newly linked article reminded me of the Army's denials of Michael Aquino's anti-Christian actions in the 1980s and 1990s. As far as I know they are still covering up and denying the things he did under the cover of "psychological operations".

Making provocative statements to Army personnel in the context of training activities and then gauging their level of response is extremely useful in determining potential reactions in the greater population. If this is what was going on with the statements of "evangelicals as potential terrorists", then of course the leadership at Ft Hood would deny it. Of course, they may very well not have known it was going on. Plausible deniability and limited access.

Of course there are other incidents which suggest an anti-Christian attitude in the US military leadership such as this one from military dot com.

Alec

Stan said...

Last year a Navy chaplain was disciplined for sharing a biblical view of marriage. In 2014 an Army chaplain was reprimanded for sharing his faith during a suicide prevention training session. In 2013 an Air Force Technical Sargeant was reprimanded and threatened with termination of his career because he wrote an email to a chaplain complaining about a wedding between same-sex couples. "TSgt Layne Wilson was later told to prepare for retirement because his personal beliefs about homosexuality were not compatible with the military’s policies." Crisis Magazine had an article about how the military was muzzling chaplains. I think it's clear that there is an actual, underlying effort in the military to block Christians who will share their faith. I doubt that it will be long before it spreads to the populace at large.