I try not to follow the news too closely. Too depressing, frankly. Politics, especially in an election year like this, are the worst. You can't ignore it, but it's worse than watching a train wreck ... on all sides. Lately, though, I've become aware of a trend that probably should have been obvious years ago. Donald Trump is a child in big-boy pants.
No, that's not it. But close. One of the things that should distinguish an adult from a child is vision. Children cannot see beyond the here and now. Children can't think that eating the whole cake will give them a tummy ache. All they can see is the whole cake and they want it; they want it now. That kind of short-term thinking. Teenagers aren't much better. Premarital sex and drugs and alcohol are all symptoms of immediate gratification rather than delayed gratification. Childishness. Adults are supposed to see beyond that. Adults are supposed to be able to save for a rainy day or take steps now to make the future better or to make sacrifices for a greater good. It looks like Trump lacks that ability.
It's been there all along, I guess, but the story that finally clicked that over in my head was the one where Trump wanted to make new showerhead rules. Why? "Because my hair — I don't know about you, but it has to be perfect. Perfect." Seriously? Areas of this nation are in water crisis that will only get worse and your primary concern is your hair? Seriously?? Look back, though, and it was always there. Just look at his Twitter feed, strewn with childish tweets and remarks, embarrassing to adults that supported him. Look at the rule changes he's made giving business new liberties for making money at the cost of the public and the environment. Look at the tariffs he's imposed that alter the here and now of business without a care for the long-term effects. Everyone knows he's brash and volatile and lots of people like him for that, but it looks to me like he's more of an angry kid -- "I want my way!" -- than an adult president. "I will allow the post office to fail so I can block mail-in voting" was his recent ploy followed by, "Oh, can I get a mail-in ballot so I can vote?" It's a running-but-sad joke about how the Clintons (especially the wife) had opponents rubbed out; Trump's legacy is a battlefield of civil servants whom he fired when they disagreed with him, supporters and opponents alike. And on and on it goes.
This is it. This is the only choice for Republicans. This is the only option we have to ensure that Biden and his socialist-denying socialist running mate don't get into office. (She denies that she's a socialist -- even a Democratic Socialist -- but if it quacks like a duck ... well, you know.) So I have to decide. Will I vote for a big baby for the next four years in the White House who, perhaps, is helping big business and, therefore, by trickle down, the rest of our pocketbooks, while shredding future resources for the rest of us or vote for a pair that enjoy killing babies, running our lives, and taking our money for "equality"? Someone will call for "the lesser evil." As in 2016, I don't know what that means in this case. Because a child in power can run this country into the ground just as easily as a leftist in power; just not as clearly and as obviously, perhaps. As in 2016, at some point some of us will need to stand on principle rather than stark pragmatism and believe, against all belief (Christian or otherwise), that all authority is from God and God is actually in control. Silly, I know, but that's just me, right? That Christians find this approach offensive makes me deeply sad.
28 comments:
At this point I know with certainty that I can't vote for Biden. But am still undecided as to whether I can vote for Trump. I'm not sure that spiting Dan is enough reason.
I'll say this, in 2016 how he would govern was an unknown and I couldn't vote for him them. Now, we have a sense of how he governs and at least a vote for Trump is a vote for some policies I agree with.
One can only hope we have better options in '24.
Dan, I guess you have a short memory. Well, that's not fair. It was four years ago. But in 2016 (March, I believe) you actually praised a post of mine that took a dim view of Trump. I wrote several posts in 2016 warning about Trump. I didn't vote for Trump in November. I've never thought he was a good candidate let alone a good president. Nor will I vote for him this year. You've clearly forgotten your own blog and simply lumped me together with "the rest." Which, I suppose, is one of the reasons we've never been able to maintain a friendly dialog, isn't it. (There's no question mark at the end of that sentence because it's not a question.)
It's really Trump's underlying operating principles that unnerve me, Craig. He is, essentially, extremely shallow rather than deeply principled. His approach for his entire presidency has been "What's best for me and mine?" (Like that story that came out recently where he asked the governor of South Dakota what it would take to get his face on Mount Rushmore.) It is my suspicion that in those places where he's made calls I agree with it has not been on the basis of principles he and I share, but on the basis of more immediate gain for him and his "peeps."
Stan,
I completely agree he lacks the level of underlying principles, although I've tended to use the term character, that I'd prefer in a president. I completely agree that he's shallow and mostly amoral. However, I believed the same thing about Clinton in '16 and Biden now. I agree that the decisions he's made that I agree with aren't necessarily coming from the same principles I would hope they are.
So, we're left with a decision. Do we vote for Trump because 25% of what he does will be calls that we agree with, even though the motivation might differ? Do we vote for Biden where that percentage will likely be 5% and with similar motivational flaws? Do we vote 3rd party? Or, do we just vote down ballot? I will say that how the economy has performed (except for Covid) seems like a good reason to vote for him.
Big questions. I'm struggling for sure, but I am considering the reality that my vote for Trump would offset someone's vote for Biden. It's also harder because Trump did pretty well here last time, and there's a strong pro Trump presence up north. Last time, my rationale was the my vote didn't matter since Hitler would carry the state of he had DFL behind his name.
FYI, I've seen some things that lead me to suspect that the Mt Rushmore thing was more of a joke by Trump, not a serious suggestion.
In '16, this was a pretty easy decision, this year it's a little but harder. It's also harder because a lot of people I know and respect did and will vote Trump.
I'm guessing that you and I probably see the adding of the two idiots from St Louis to the GOP convention as an indication of these very types of problems we have with Trump.
Craig,
Which two idiots would they be?
Stan,
On what basis can you claim Trump's approach has been "what's best for me and mine" as opposed to what's best for tge nation? Where/how has that manifested?
Guys,
I find it absurd for any conservative...even Christian conservatives who claim to put God above all (don't get defensive...I don't suggest the claim isn't sincere)...to suggest the beneficial actions of this president can represent only 25% worth of actions such a person can find favorable. I would appreciate some elaboration
Really, Marshal? You need examples? Seriously? But, look, Marshal, it is absolutely clear that you and I look at the same information and I conclude he's not the guy I can vote for and you conclude that he's the guy that every Christian needs to vote for. I don't see how arguing with you about it will make a difference. I've always believed people should vote their conscience and I won't ask you to do any different.
"Really, Marshal? You need examples?"
No. I demand them. If you're going to make a claim, should you not be making that claim on something you can easily provide to back it up?
"I don't see how arguing with you about it will make a difference. I've always believed people should vote their conscience and I won't ask you to do any different."
Well then, don't argue. Provide something compelling that is persuasive so as to prevent me (and others) from going astray. I get the impression that your decision has some spiritual aspect to it that transcends our earthly existence, that somehow is compromised by casting a vote for Trump. Help me to understand rather than merely make the assertion. Thus far, you've not made the case for your position nor against mine.
Let me see if I understand you.
Stan: "I won't argue with you, Marshal."
Marshal: "Oh, yes you will. I demand it."
No, I won't. I won't discuss it further with you. I won't boy to your demands. You don't seem to understand. Nothing I tell you will satisfy your requirements because you've already determined "he's our man" and you'll rewrite or discard anything that disagrees with that. Please, vote your conscience. I have no reason to think I could tell you something that would change your mind. Do I have reasons? Sure. My first and foremost reason is I won't vote, at least not now, on a pragmatic basis -- "what works." I can't imagine why it is that Christians believe it is an error for believers to vote the way they believe most honors God and trust Him to do the right thing, but that's what Christians are telling me. I won't go there.
You really latched onto that 25%. I'm pretty sure 25 and 5% were both hyperbole, not an exact number of decisions that they liked.
The two "idiots" in question would be the husband and wife that have been charged with brandishing weapons in a threatening manner to protestors. Seeing as they recently were announced to be speaking at the coming Republican convention. I'm surprised with how involved in politics you are you didn't know who they were. I barely follow the news, I get about 20 minutes a day in my car, and knew immediately who he was talking about.
I don't know of a single act of Trump that has effected my life in the slightest. He might be doing "great things" for the rich, but for those of us not in the rich circle, the status quo remains.
As for examples, Stan put some directly in his original post. But as Stan pointed out, those aren't convincing to you, so what would more examples accomplish? You are set in your belief that only true Christians will vote for Trump, and that his selfishness, destructive nepotism, and habitual lying shouldn't matter to anyone. I don't believe Trump has a chance of winning against Biden. He lost the popular election last time. I doubt his approval rating has increased since then, nor has the country come any more to it's senses, and I doubt that whoever it is that gets put on the electoral college will be willing to have even the appearance of repeating last election. I believe this country is doomed, and there is nothing Christians can do on the political front to stop this demise. We need to be changing peoples hearts with discipleship, not trying to force them to be "better" people with laws that people like you won't care to follow anyway.
Stan,
Clearly you don't understand, and now you make me sound like Dan. You said you won't argue. I said, "then don't". I did NOT say "Oh, yes you will. I demand it." You asked if I need examples. But look at my challenge:
On what basis can you claim Trump's approach has been "what's best for me and mine" as opposed to what's best for the nation? Where/how has that manifested?
Then you asked if I really need examples. My response was that I demand them if you're going to make such assertions. It seems reasonable to expect them when such assertions are made as if it's a fact. Indeed, I hear it all the time from anti-Trumpers that he's only concern as president with what's best for him. And so I ask of everyone who makes such claims to provide something substantive to back it up. Do you not do as much when someone makes a goofy statement about what Scripture teaches? Do you not expect evidence to back it up?
So don't argue. Simply provide the evidence that supports the claim and perhaps I'll actually be persuaded by it...though I doubt you could even if I helped you look for it.
As to what honors God, I still don't see how one honors God by leaving to others to do what as an American citizen who ostensibly buys into the "consent of the governed", should be done by you. By that I once again maintain that refusing to vote for the only person that can stop the encroachment of that which will cause immense suffering is a far, far cry from honoring God.
I had to laugh, Marshal. You said I made you sound like Dan and then you said, "I demand them if you're going to make such assertions" ... which sounds a lot like Dan. But, no matter. Once again I appear to lack the ability to communicate effectively. It's times like this that make me wonder why I blog at all. I will not contend with you. I will not lay out a list of things for you to throw away because "They don't look like self-interest to me." I know you don't agree. Further, I don't care. I've made my case. I gave examples in my post. And I gave my underlying reason -- I believe that all authority comes from God and not "the governed". I will not put my trust in Trump or Bob or anyone else because I'm afraid that if I do evil men will rule and make America grate. (I through that word in there as a pun, not a misspelling.) You believe that suffering is "a far, far cry" from what honors God and Peter says that we suffer by the will of God. Is a nation suffering ever God's will? Ask Israel. I do not have the prophetic foresight to say that it is not God's will that America cease to exist as America in judgment of what America has fashioned herself to be, and no human president will change that. I choose, instead, to trust in God and vote my conscience. And I am so disappointed that Christians tell me "That doesn't honor God."
David,
"You really latched onto that 25%."
Why wouldn't I? Hyperbole or not, it suggests very little done by Trump that is worthy of one's support. I think it's an indication of ignorance as to just how much he's accomplished. That's OK to some extent. It's hard to follow every detail. Yet at the same time, others do and provide those details on line where they can be found so as to get a clearer picture, which it seems each of you three need to do.
"The two "idiots" in question would be the husband and wife that have been charged with brandishing weapons in a threatening manner to protestors. Seeing as they recently were announced to be speaking at the coming Republican convention. I'm surprised with how involved in politics you are you didn't know who they were."
I had guessed but felt it appropriate not to assume. Is that OK with you? I'm rather alarmed that anyone here would regard them as idiots when they felt they were threatened by the presence of people who broke down that gate of their gated community...as gate which means it is not a public thoroughfare...during a period when so many "peaceful" protests so quickly and easily morphed into destructive riots. There's nothing at all idiotic about protecting one's property from such people who feel entitled to do what they want without the slightest regard for those who live there.
"I barely follow the news, I get about 20 minutes a day in my car, and knew immediately who he was talking about."
Well, aren't you clever! You mocking me now?
"I don't know of a single act of Trump that has effected my life in the slightest."
A rather selfish, self-centered view of the task and purpose of the president. Call me silly, but I primarily look to see what a president does for the nation. I can take care of myself. But I'll provide a list later and you can determine if there's nothing that doesn't make things better for everyone.
"He might be doing "great things" for the rich, but for those of us not in the rich circle, the status quo remains."
Nonsense. You need more than twenty minutes in the car. You're clearly uninformed. I'm not rich by any standard measure and prior to covid, my status improved nicely after he was elected. Many who are not rich became employed. So nice of you to dismiss that important change of status.
"As for examples, Stan put some directly in his original post."
Is that what those were? I'll give the tariff example, but it is incomplete and not necessarily as bad as even I feared it would be. We can get into the weeds later. But as Stan, you and Craig seem to ignore is that it is but one or two things on a rather big list...which you ignore. So yeah, it's not enough to convince anyone who understands the stakes.
"You are set in your belief that only true Christians will vote for Trump..."
I didn't say that. Why do you keep insisting I did?
"...and that his selfishness, destructive nepotism, and habitual lying shouldn't matter to anyone."
Wow. Spoken like someone who needs to pay attention.
"I believe this country is doomed, and there is nothing Christians can do on the political front to stop this demise"
Wow. Spoken like a true quitter. Let me be the last to thank you for letting the country go in the crapper.
Marshal, David referred to Trump's "selfishness, destructive nepotism, and habitual lying" to which you replied "Spoken like someone who needs to pay attention" without offering any reasons to believe that he has not acted selfishly, has not employed his relatives (with, perhaps, negative consequences) and has not lied on a regular basis. I'm not asking for your reasons. I'm merely pointing out that you're doing the same thing you say I am doing -- making an argument without any defenses.
Peter says nothing about causing suffering. Letting the wolves feast when you could have prevented it...or rather did nothing to prevent it by supporting that which could have...is causing suffering. This is what you seem to miss by your position. It's not about putting trust in anyone, for if that's the case, why do you vote at all? Why are you not putting trust or faith in those for whom you DO cast a vote, while suggesting that you're doing so to vote for Trump? To say you're contradicting yourself is an understatement. Or is it that you don't vote at all? I'm confused now.
"And I am so disappointed that Christians tell me "That doesn't honor God.""
And yet that's exactly what you're telling me while deflecting with the "vote your conscience" line. You say to vote for Trump doesn't honor God so you won't vote for him. So, as a Christian, you're telling at the same time that to vote for him doesn't honor God. In the meantime, I was wondering how a Christian honors God by allowing the greater of two evils prevail.
Trump's not the Second Coming. He's a stopgap against unnecessary suffering that you're refusal invites. That's the reality of the situation.
As to self-interest, is there some law that denies a president from benefiting by that which is meant to benefit the nation? I can't see any other way that the "only cares about himself" angle actually works without some example by which only he benefits. Your examples aren't examples of that.
"Which two idiots would they be?"
The two idiots who were waving guns around with little regard to proper, safe gun handling.
Don't get me wrong, they had the right to defend their property, the "protesters" were trespassing on private property and had caused damage to get there, and I'm glad their prosecution was cancelled. But, they're not conservative or GOP, they are the poster children for poor gun handling, and they're just sleazy people.
Art, my 25% number was simply a random number to indicate that even though I might not agree with the majority of Trumps actions, I'll agree with less of Biden's.
"No. I demand them. If you're going to make a claim, should you not be making that claim on something you can easily provide to back it up?"
Dude, you're turning into Dan, be careful.
" Provide something compelling that is persuasive so as to prevent me (and others) from going astray."
Did you not read Stan's comment about voting ones conscience and that he isn't trying to suggest that you not do so?
"Why wouldn't I? Hyperbole or not, it suggests very little done by Trump that is worthy of one's support."
No it's not. It's an attempt to point out that even IF I only agree with Trump's actions 25% of the time, the likelihood is that I'll agree with Biden's significantly less. The reality is that it's an argument that indicates that if I am choosing pragmatism as my standard for picking POTUS, that I should pick Trump.
I'm not sure that you understand that different people have different reasons for choosing who to vote for, and that those reasons are personal and important. Just like I bash Dan for his vitriol aimed at those who vote Trump, I'll point out that you questioning people character because they won't vote for Trump is a bad look.
If God is sovereign, and He controls things like who governs then He is perfectly capable of doing what's necessary to put the right person in the Oval. If ( and I suspect Stan would agree with this) God needs me to vote for Trump in order for His will to be accomplished then I'm confident that He can make that happen.
Just like God raised up "bad" kings and conquerors over Israel, how do we know that God doesn't want Biden to win to accomplish something specific?
IMO the best reason to vote Trump was and is SCOTUS nominations, yet his nominees haven't been the stalwart conservatives we'd hoped. Having said that Ginsberg isn't long for the bench and I'd rather have Trump appoint her replacement than Biden.
Look, I get that you feel strongly about Trump and no one is suggesting that you shouldn't vote your conscience, but chill out on the rest of us who aren't there.
I want to point out that we're seeing a situation where there is significant disagreement on something reasonably important. Yet, no one has attacked anyone else's character, no vitriol, no ad hom, just strong but mostly respectful disagreement.
It can be done.
Stan,
Yes it can.
Seriously?
""You are set in your belief that only true Christians will vote for Trump..."
I didn't say that. Why do you keep insisting I did?"
But you did say that. On 7-31-20 at 10:30 pm in Stan's post "An Open Letter to Evangelicals". You said that "Real Christians" acknowledge the truths I've presented here. (About Trump being the better of the 2 candidates.) So, if a Christian says that voting for Trump isn't good, in your words, they aren't a real Christian.
David,
Here's the full context for your reference:
"Real Christians" acknowledge the truths I've presented here. There is a good choice and a bad one just as there was last time around. This is not to say that the good choice is perfect, or even an acceptable reflection of Christianity. But that's not the same as saying it is indeed the vote real Christians should make.
Note the point being that there is a good choice and a bad choice between the two most likely winners...it's the basis of my entire argument, that one of the two will be president, with one being the better choice for a variety of reasons that are clear and irrefutable. Thus, a good choice versus a bad choice and a real Christian acknowledges reality, truths, facts. All those line up in favor of, not only voting for Trump, but for doing that which is most likely to aid in preventing the elevation of the clearly worse choice. Thus, it is indeed the vote real Christians should make. That's not at all the same as saying you aren't a real Christian if you don't. It's more like you're not paying attention to the ramifications that will befall the nation if you don't. I've been trying to highlight those consequences and you three seem not to care.
I don't have much time at present, but I have been wanting to ask you: You mentioned not experiencing any benefit of Trump being president. Personally, I don't need anything from him or any other member of government except to get out of my way and let me live my life. But, given your comment, what harm has befallen you by Trump being your president?
Stan,
What's your problem with showerheads?
Marshal, what's your problem with just letting it go? Why is "You vote your conscience and I'll vote mine" wrong? Why can't you just disagree and move on?
The showerhead thing illustrates perfectly my point. Obviously you live in a region with plenty of water; I don't. The southwest is in a perpetual drought. So things like restrictive showerheads are a lifesaver for us. Now, according to the president, he wants to remove those restrictions because he wants perfect hair. From the perspective of someone living where water is a question, we hear, "I need to be able to dump more water down the drain so that I can have perfect hair and I really don't much care about anyone who has water issues." Same goes for opening public lands to commercial ventures as he has. It appears that the environmental impact report he needs to cease protecting lands is a good business plan. "If you'll open this up, we can make a good profit." "Done!"
But, look, Marshal, it doesn't matter. I cannot violate my conscience and vote the way you want, even if it means I'm not a good Christian in your eyes. I'm not asking you to vote any different. (In the letter to evangelicals, I asked them to vote their conscience but stop making it an "evangelical issue." It's not.) Why do you need to keep up this steady stream of argumentation? By the way, "argue" isn't "knock-down-drag-out." It is to "give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view." I'm done arguing on this.
"Why can't you just disagree and move on?"
Because the stakes are so high. When one considers Trump's overall job performance, along with the further leftist push of the Democratic Party, there is no way one can pretend the stakes aren't higher than they were last time around.
As to shower heads, I'll put in terms you're using. From the perspective of someone concerned about the country in which my kids and grandkids will have to live, I'm hearing, "This is what I choose to hear because Trump's character is so off-putting." The reality is more like, Trump's mocking himself in making his point about having the liberty to choose what kind of shower head one wishes to use. It's absurd to pretend his position on the issue is solely focused on his own hair.
At the same time, by lifting federal restrictions on such tings, it doesn't mean your state or municipality is unable to make its own decisions. My state doesn't use the same source of water as does yours. Why must mine act as if it does by unnecessarily mandating the same restrictions? By the way, a better method for your area would be to raise the cost of water. Weak shower heads won't necessarily result in more limited water use if people take more time in the shower because of the low pressure. Further, the amount of total usage by homes is something like 2% of the total in any area.
Anyway, since you're unable to provide a solid argument for how your conscience can't allow voting for Trump, while allowing the consequences of not doing so, I'll leave it here and make my case at my own blog. You and David are more than welcome.
"Since you're unable to provide a solid argument for how your conscience can't allow voting for Trump ..."
Wow, you do sound a lot like Dan and feo. Both of them have often complained that because I don't argue with them I obviously don't have an argument. Many others do the same sort of thing. "Since you haven't convinced me, you clearly don't have a solid argument." Like, "Since you haven't given me any evidence that I accept for the existence of God, clearly there is no God." When you define "solid argument" as "the one I'll except," it is hard to take you seriously.
First, my concern was that you haven't provided an argument, not that you don't have one, and secondly, you totally left off the punchline of my words you quoted. But again, I hope to express my concerns in greater, and hopefully better, detail at my blog as I believe you're still missing the point, without which an adequate argument is much more difficult.
Post a Comment