Tone Deaf
Canada's Prime Minister Trudeau is calling for national healing in the wake of the enacting of emergency powers and draconian measures to shut down an actually "mostly peaceful" protest (as opposed to the "mostly peaceful" BLM protests that included burning and looting). "Now that we've crushed the opposition with national power (like the elderly woman in a mobility scooter trampled by police on horseback), can't we all just get along?" seems a bit tone deaf to me.
The Cost of Keeping Us Safe
Thanks to the efforts of the government to keep us safe during the pandemic, the CDC is reporting that pediatric ER visits for injuries and eating disorders have skyrocketed. Drug poisoning or overdose went up 70%. Thanks for keeping us safe.
Violent TV Makes Violent People?
A father in Utah brandished a gun at a McDonald's drive through because his order wasn't right. When police arrived, they were shot at by the 4-year-old in the back seat because his father told him to. It doesn't take violent video games or shows. It takes bad parents. Another fine example of the decline of responsible parenting in America.
Wait ... What??
Former NBA first-round pick Royce White will be running for congress against incumbent Ilhan Omar. He announced his entrance into the race with a "God Bless America!" He is a Republican. Wait ... a black man and a Republican? Can he do that? Yes, dear readers, he can.
Weaponizing "Hate"
The report says that Facebook "did not add labels to half of posts pushing content from top climate change deniers." Why Facebook is supposed to label "climate change deniers" isn't clear, but what was really interesting is that it came from an analysis by "the Center for Countering Digital Hate." Apparently a failure to believe the current climate change positions is "hate" and posting that you don't believe it is "digital hate." In 2009 Business Insider wrote about "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics." Haters. In 2019 Inquisitr offered the story of a NASA scientist that claimed blobal warming was nonsense. Hater. NASA's Global Climate Change page includes the claim that "97%" of climate scientists agree, leaving 3% hateful scientists. Strange idea of "hate." Like so many other times, it appears that the plan is to simply label something as "hate" in order to prevent anyone from examining the question.
No Wonder
Donald Trump is praising Putin for being shrewd, savvy, and "a peacekeeper" by invading Ukraine. "We could use that on our southern border." And people wonder why I've never been a fan of Mr. Trump. Wonder no more.
Bad Putin
Well, he did it. Putin invaded Ukraine. We all saw it coming. We all expected it. And he did it. And in a massive display of force to hurl the invader back ... we did nothing. Well, Biden vowed to "hold Russia accountable" and there will be sanctions because, after all, Russia really cares about that. We will freeze their assets as they roll over Ukraine and pick up a country in return. Should we intervene with arms? I won't say. But no one needs to fear the U.S. doing so with Biden at the helm. And I no longer wonder why apocalyptic passages in the Bible never include the U.S. in the end times.
On a Serious Note
TGC has a story from a missionary in Ukraine about why they're staying. I personally know a missionary there myself. He's married to a Ukrainian and they have a son in the Ukranian military. Similar to the botched evacuation of Afghanistan, some of the people who aren't leaving the Ukraine aren't leaving there by choice because they love the people and they love the Lord more than they love themselves. We all ought to be praying for these people and their families.
Hard to Beelieve
Prime Minister Trudeau imposed extreme measures to shut down the Freedom Convoy, explaining that he just needed "two weeks to flatten the curve of freedom" in Canada. In the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, President Biden announced he would unfollow Putin on Twitter. Obviously in the Ukraine Biden's approval rating dropped to 0%. And, from the Genesius Times, Ukraine's president is demanding a full refund of the millions in bribes paid to the Bidens.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
19 comments:
Tone Deaf
He was tone deaf with his Covid restrictions, ignoring all the many and sundry harms inflicted upon those people he pretends to represent.
The Cost of Keeping Us Safe
It's almost as if they don't understand what "keeping the people safe" even means.
Violent TV Makes Violent People?
One's sin nature unrestricted by devotion to Christ makes people sinfully violent.
Wait ... What??
More and more minorities are shifting toward the right. It's a beautiful thing. Now all we need are solid conservatives doing solidly conservative things boldly in government. Then even more will leave the marxist Dem Party.
Weaponizing "Hate"
It's a favored strategy because it doesn't require the heavy lifting attached to defending stupid positions they find appealing.
No Wonder
OK, fine. But now I wonder why you'd think that he was praising Putin at all. Does acknowledging a foe's superior abilities rank as praising the foe to you? Really? Seems like an essential honesty necessary to defeating the foe or keeping the foe in check. My Chicago Bulls just broke a 6 game win streak in their loss last night to the Memphis Grizzlies. I saw the Grizz as a real problem for not only extending the win streak, but also for Demar DeRozan extending his remarkable streak of scoring 35 or more points per game. (That streak also ended, but he did continue his streak of 30+ points per game. MVP!!! MVP!!!) I acknowledge their abilities as basketball players. Calling that "praise" might be grammatically correct. But the implication that it means I hope they beat my team, or that Trump sees Putin as a good guy is a willful and unjust attack on us both. The comments of Trump do not in any way justify the word "praise" as it is purposely distorted to mean for the purpose of disparaging Trump. Bad form.
Bad Putin
Not unsurprisingly, Trump had far more foresight on this issue than the previous "News Weakly" offering implies.
I recall an interview he gave about 30 years ago wherein he spoke the truth about the character of the Chinese Commie Party and their willingness to exploit whatever they could for their own ends.
The deal we made with Russia, the UK and Ukraine during the Clinton years obliged us to step up and protect Ukraine should Russia seek to invade, their promise not to do so being a major part of the deal in exchange for taking away the nukes with which Ukraine found themselves after the breakup of the USSR. I simply can't believe Putin would not keep his word!!! Astonishing!!
On a Serious Note
Amen.
It certainly sounded like praise. There doesn't seem to be any condemnation. You try to compare it to your sports teams, but even in your analogy you make clear you don't like them. You can admire a maneuver and still condemn it. He didn't. He had nothing but good words for the actions of a dictator that used underhanded rhetoric as an excuse for combat. You know who else does that? Liberals all day. Using a false excuse to promote their agenda. If Trump had praised the tactic but condemned the deviousness, maybe you'd have something to say, but he did nothing but praise a dictator. I have never heard him condemn any dictators and only has glowing reviews for all of them. It is a pattern of behavior for him. He probably would have praised Stalin for how well he controlled his population. If you can look at underhanded tactics as "very savvy", that is worrisome. It is possible to be impressed with a tactic without praising that tactic. That is not what Trump did.
I'm with David on this one. It's appropriate to acknowledge that those we disagree with do have certain abilities and qualities that might be admirable, to do so without condemning the actions is ridiculous. Once again, Trump snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
My kids went to HS with Royce, he's an interesting guy. Obviously I'd prefer to see him beat Omar, and I'll likely be involved inn his campaign. It'll be interesting to hear what his motivation, and views are. His name recognition will probably help him.
Guys...your TDS is showing. What you're doing is no different than what Dan's been doing trying to force us to acknowledge the evil of slavery, as if it isn't obvious. Putin's evil in invading is obvious. It's a given. You're simply using this as another excuse to rationalize your rejection of Trump. I get it. You don't like the guy. But while you whine about him "praising" Putin simply by acknowledging his traits, Trump acts with those traits in mind like a good leader ought.
By the way, I would say that Trump's description as "savvy" had more to do with seeing the opportunity because of what an empty suit now inhabits the White House, than anything to do with the manner in which he executed his plan. From Putin's perspective, he's acting in a manner most likely to bring about success by acting "when the time is right". That's "savvy" to recognize such things, even if what he's doing is evil.
TDS ... you keep using that acronym. I do not think that acronym means what you think it means ... since I have no overbearing hatred toward the man. If you are suggesting otherwise, you are being ... less than charitable toward your fellow believers.
Are all deranged people hateful? I was unaware of that.
TDS is a pejorative term usually for criticism or negative reactions to Donald Trump that are perceived to be excessive and irrational, and have little regard towards Trump's actual policy positions, or actions undertaken by his administration. Since all of the content of this entry was based on what he actually said, it could not be construed as excessive or irrational.
The concern I expressed was being less than charitable toward your fellow believers. Does accusing someone of TDS qualify as charitable or respectful in your usage?
What is the opposite of TDS? TLS -- Trump Love Syndrome -- where nothing Trump says or does can be construed as negative?
"Since all of the content of this entry was based on what he actually said, it could not be construed as excessive or irrational."
Absolutely it can, because it immediately makes assumptions his words alone only provoke in those suffering from TDS. The three of you are insisting that he MUST say something bad about Putin in order to comment on specific qualities, traits or capabilities connected to his actions toward Ukraine. Where is it written he must do so? No sir. It is as I said. The response of you three toward his comments are being unjustly exploited by you to rationalize your refusal to support him. Good gosh, there are far more obvious reasons if you need them relieving you of the need to make this stretch.
"The concern I expressed was being less than charitable toward your fellow believers."
If by that you mean those who believe as I do, it's the belief that despite all we knew about the guy prior to the 2016 election, his presidency was such that he deserved both his first term (a gamble to prevent Hillary which turned out far better than those who believe as I do thought possible) and even more so a second term due to the great work (even if imperfect) of his first. That's the alpha and omega of my belief about Donald Trump. However, I'm not bothered by less than charitable concerns even when poorly supported.
"Does accusing someone of TDS qualify as charitable or respectful in your usage?"
Doe accusing drunkard of being an alcoholic qualify as uncharitable or disrespectful in your usage? The first step toward recovery is accepting one has a problem. I refer you now to your recent posts of February 24 & 27.
"What is the opposite of TDS?"
HOS--Honest Objectivity Syndrome. I don't give Trump positive or negative criticism he doesn't deserve. There's a huge difference between "construing" something as negative and wanting it to be. This clearly was a case where you guys want it to be. Read again the links I've provided.
Art,
Speaking of acting like Dan, this TDS straw man is exactly the kind of thing that Dan engages in all the time. This notion that people who don't react to Trump in the exact same way (or the way you approve of) are somehow deficient or irrational is simply absurd. Much like Dan complaining that anyone who doesn't blast Trump with both expletive filled barrels, is a Trump lover. How about allowing for the reality that there is a range of reaction to Trump and that it's OK to disagree about Trump.
How is an indictment of a man's character a "syndrome"? He's not pro-life, he's a misogynist, he's crass, he's manipulative, he's respectful of dictators that diminish the value of human life, and he claims a religion he clearly rejects. Whether or not he did good things for this country during his term is irrelevant to me based simply on his character. This is not some irrational hate, it is fact a quite rational dislike of someone who does not represent me. Do we not want someone in office that we can be proud of to be there, rather than simply as someone that can keep the "other guy" out? Is that too much to ask? You accuse me of an irrational hate that I don't have. That's like saying I'm must be irrational because I'm religious and only rational people reject religion. I don't have some blind faith in Christ, and I don't have a blind dislike of Trump. You can point to all the good things he did for the nation in office, but none of that negates (dare I say trumps) how disreputable and dislikable the man is. I can acknowledge his work and still not want him for my president. Both he and Biden have made a laughing stock of our nation. And neither has effected the moral decline of the people (nor could they). I would not call you irrational for your undying love of Trump because you have your own reasons to like him that outweigh your reasons to dislike him. Neither of us are being irrational, we are simply approaching it from a different rationale.
Craig,
" How about allowing for the reality that there is a range of reaction to Trump and that it's OK to disagree about Trump."
I'd be happy to if that's all that is happening. But the reaction to his "praise" of Putin is unjust. There's no legitimacy in putting his words on a list of reasons for rationalizing the withholding of one's vote, most particularly in light of the information I presented. He's not siding with Putin by expressing his critique of Putin's ability.
David,
First, I was surprised to see you at Dan's blog. Still am.
"How is an indictment of a man's character a "syndrome"?"
It's not. It's the "deranged" response to everything the guy does, as if he's done no good. This is especially true of those who do little to pay attention to the things he's done (I'm referring to his presidency).
"He's not pro-life, he's a misogynist, he's crass, he's manipulative, he's respectful of dictators that diminish the value of human life, and he claims a religion he clearly rejects."
He's pro-life.
He's not a misogynist, and his female employees don't think so, either.
He's definitely crass. Some see that as entertaining. Others just see it as crass but of not real concern because of his beneficial work as president. He's not a politician, which is what many looked for back in 2015.
He's manipulative to some, but others would say "persuasive".
As president, treating the bad guys like they're good guys to some extent is good for diplomacy. The TDS sufferer will say he's praising them. Would you rather he insult them and then have to make nice in order to negotiate on our behalf? Have you really thought this through?
Do you know his heart? Can you dare insist he's not sincere about his faith, having come to it late? Who do you think you are?
"Whether or not he did good things for this country during his term is irrelevant to me based simply on his character."
Clearly so and that's about as clear a symptom of derangement as any given the character of his predecessor, his most major opponent for the 2016 election and most certainly his successor. I'm sure all who have suffered since 1/20/2021 are sucking it up knowing your conscience is clear. The ONLY thing which should be relevant come election time is which candidate gives us the best chance at a better life. Now the poop has really hit the fan, but hey...don't you worry about it. At least your conscience is clear.
"This is not some irrational hate, it is fact a quite rational dislike of someone who does not represent me."
I direct your attention again to the current state of the nation. More support for Trump would have prevented what we now experience. To be good with how bad things have gotten...and please, don't your dare suggest it's not bad or that it wouldn't be any different. That would just be a lie or proof you shouldn't be voting at all...is about as hateful as can be.
And perhaps you should review what how you expect to be represented and consider if that is really the job of any political leader. You might not be thinking of what a president should be doing in the first place.
"Do we not want someone in office that we can be proud of to be there, rather than simply as someone that can keep the "other guy" out? "
First it depends on the other guy. The other guy was a horror of a woman, and the other guy in Nov 2020 was far, far worse. So yeah, the other guy matters.
Trump's record of achievement is cause for national pride, even if his manner is not. I'd love that he was more Emily Post. But being "presidential" in manner is worthless if one isn't presidential in getting done what's necessary and best. I'll take the latter over the former any day if I can't have both. How could any sane person who claims to care about his fellow man not?
"You accuse me of an irrational hate that I don't have. That's like saying I'm must be irrational because I'm religious and only rational people reject religion."
You keep using the word "hate". I continue to use the term "derangement". They are not synonymous. My only reference to hate was in my comment about the suffering rejecting Trump has brought about. That would be an indication of hate, but I'll still go with derangement. (Trabue is hateful. He out and out lies about the guy.) But to allow suffering a vote for Trump would have prevented is indeed irrational. To believe that a vote for Trump means you approve of every little thing about him is irrational. That's lefty thinking.
"You can point to all the good things he did for the nation in office, but none of that negates (dare I say trumps) how disreputable and dislikable the man is."
I've never made that argument. But it works in reverse, too. His less than Apostle-like manner doesn't negate the good things he's done for the nation while in office. What's more, the worst aspects of his character never came into play while in office. What we had was Rodney Dangerfield from Caddy Shack in office, not Lucifer.
"I can acknowledge his work and still not want him for my president."
Here's a hint: I didn't and don't want him for my president. But he did a great job and until someone can point to a better choice who's actually running, you're not doing your job as an American to reject the best choice for someone like Clinton or Biden. Indeed, you're doing great harm.
"Both he and Biden have made a laughing stock of our nation."
You really don't pay attention, do you?
"And neither has effected the moral decline of the people (nor could they)."
"Nor could they"? Then why bring it up?
"I would not call you irrational for your undying love of Trump because you have your own reasons to like him that outweigh your reasons to dislike him."
I have a rather undying love of country. More so for my family and friends. I don't know Trump beyond the stories and the work he did as president, that work being all that matters in relation to my love of family and friends. I don't care how crass he is so long as he's doing a good job. I don't care how many wives he had, or how many women he bedded. None of that matters now that he's proven himself as president and what he proved is what the nation needs. Who else is out there?
So yes, you three are being quite irrational because you're focusing on that which doesn't matter, and the nation suffers as a result.
The nation suffers because of me. Interesting perspective. Much more rational than other possibilities.
Dan, "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?" (Rom 14:4). "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt 7:3-5).
"The nation suffers because of me. Interesting perspective. Much more rational than other possibilities."
You're not really suggesting nothing you do has consequence in the here and now, are you? How is that rational?
Nothing I wrote even hinted at that, but you're suggesting that because I was obligated to vote differently than you by my faith and beliefs, I caused your guy to lose the election and the nation ... the world is suffering for my conscience.
You are one among many. But we vote as if it is our vote which tips the scales. I can't imagine any other way to do it. In any case, as one of many, you're complicit in the consequences we now suffer at the very least. There was no way they could not be negative for your fellow Americans to one extent or another. There is no argument that can justly have been put forward to the contrary considering the track records of both men. You rejected the guy with the good track record, and as such you're a part of why we now suffer as a nation. I'm not saying you intended it. I'm saying you didn't think it through believing you were truly voting your conscience based on an extremely limited set of criteria. You're accountable because you joined with those who in one way or another rejected the better of the only two who had any chance of being president. I would have preferred one of the apostles, but none of them were running for office. I served God by thinking of what's best for the nation given the options on the table.
Marshal, rational argument is not deranged. You may not agree with my position, but there is nothing crazy about my position.
He may have put forth some pro-life actions, and I commend him for that, though I doubt he did it from a pro-life position, but from a political position. If the Republican Party wasn't predominantly pro-life, I seriously doubt he would have pushed for them.
Misogynist was the wrong word then. He certainly doesn't respect women if he thinks it is okay to "grab them by the p***". If he had come out and made any kind of apology for something he used to think, I'd give him props. He didn't. Boys will be boys is not a proper excuse for a Christian.
I don't want an entertaining President. I want one that is better than that. I don't want a President Comacho who's only there because he's "entertaining". Which I did not find entertaining. Being rude for rude's sake is not a good thing, ever.
There is a difference between manipulative and persuasive. One uses proper argumentation to change a position, the other plays on emotions to trick to change position. Nothing he said or did before or in office, or after office, made me believe he even considered Christianity as valid, but to keep his constituents he claimed it for himself. I think I am a rational person that can see the actions of a person that don't reflect Christ.
Why should I not live in a way that keeps my conscience clear? I'm the one that has to live with it.
"But being "presidential" in manner is worthless if one isn't presidential in getting done what's necessary and best." Why can't the President be both? Why is that so difficult? I believe that representing the nation to the world is just as important for the President to do as it is to get things done. You disagree and that's fine.
"His less than Apostle-like manner doesn't negate the good things he's done for the nation while in office. What's more, the worst aspects of his character never came into play while in office. What we had was Rodney Dangerfield from Caddy Shack in office, not Lucifer." The problem you and I have is that you can't simply disagree with my position. To you, I am some how evil for not agreeing with you. A person's character matters to me. It doesn't to you. This would be a safe place to agree to disagree since it is not a Biblically addressed position.
""And neither has effected the moral decline of the people (nor could they)."
"Nor could they"? Then why bring it up?"" Because that has been your position in previous discussions. That somehow the President can be some sort of delaying factor in the moral decline. You've made that argument. That's why I mentioned it.
"I don't care how crass he is so long as he's doing a good job. I don't care how many wives he had, or how many women he bedded. None of that matters now that he's proven himself as president and what he proved is what the nation needs." And I disagree. Why do you want to make this some sort of Christian/non-Christian position if we disagree? I don't believe you to be any less of a Christian because you prefer action over character, but you accuse me of being less of a Christian because I prefer character over action (as an aside, I believe that a President of good character would also do good action. I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive).
In what America does each individual vote matter? I live in a state that even if I had voted like you wanted, wouldn't have changed the outcome one iota. But I can use my vote to say that I'm not happy with either candidate. You used your vote to say you're happy with the status quo. If more people voted their conscience, there'd be more viable options.
Post a Comment