A REPLY TO NOVADEMOCRAT

Donald Trump FULL SPEECH – Rally in Ashburn, Virginia – August 2, 2016


Here of late we have had several commenters visiting CITIZENTOM.COM to tell us what an awful person Donald Trump is. Is Trump so awful? Filtered through the news media, I guess he is.  Do you trust the news media? Then listen to him talk. Look at the video above. Go to his web site. Care enough about our country to find out for yourself.

What is below? That’s my reply to Novademocrat (See his comment here).

😉

@Novademocrat

There is not much point in taking you too seriously. You don’t want to be taken too seriously. So I went to http://www.urbandictionary.com to find a definition of multiculturalism for you.

Multiculturalism is a marxist ideology designed to ethnically cleanse European derived peoples by promoting the massive 3rd world invasion of Europe, United States, Canada, and Australia.

Multiculturalism leads to racial tension and may erupt into a racial conflict once the racial spoils system breaks down. For example – multiculturalism is in full swing in California. Blacks and Hispanics are engaged in a violent racial struggle in Los Angeles (from here)

Here is a more serious definition from dictionary.com.

The view that the various cultures in a society merit equal respect and scholarly interest. It became a significant force in American society in the 1970s and 1980s as African-Americans, Latinos, and other ethnic groups explored their own history. (from here)

The notion that all the various cultures in society merit equal respect is nonsense. People merit respect, but some of the things we believe?

Our Constitution is worthy of respect is worthy of respect because of the ideas upon which it is based. Freedom of religion is still not commonplace. Even where it is allowed, freedom of religion is always in peril. Most people don’t believe in freedom of religion. They believe in their religion. That’s why freedom of religion is in peril in this country.

Here is the latest problem in our country. If someone says Christianity is better, Multiculturalists will call them bigoted. That is silly, but Multiculturalism is both silly and dangerously serious. Multiculturalists believe all religious beliefs deserve equal respect. The only way for that to be true is to believe we all worship the same God. That is an absurd religious belief. Unfortunately, because of our education system and our mass media, quite a few people in the United States think everyone worships the same God, somehow, some way.

As a Christian, I believe Jesus is the Son of God, and the Bible is His Word. Why would a Christian have any reason to respect another religion as much as he respects Christianity? That would not be reasonable or logical.

What Christianity teaches us to do is to love our neighbors and give them the Good News. Christians are not suppose to respect other people’s religions. We are suppose to respect other people. If we don’t agree with the beliefs of other people, we don’t make fun of them or hate them. We just hope our devotion to Jesus sets a good example.

Why mention Communism, Nazism, Libertarianism, or even Secularism as religious ideologies? Every form of government is based upon a religious belief. That is why we all make certain assumptions about the religious beliefs of Communists, Nazis, Libertarians, Secularists, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, and so forth. Are those assumptions always correct? Every individual varies from the mean, some more so than others. Nevertheless, people decide how they will live based upon their notions about the purpose of life, that is, their beliefs about God. Any government that exists in conflict with the religious beliefs of the people it rules is inherently unstable. That’s why every government, including our own, seeks to indoctrinate the People via the education system and the mass media. Rather than adapt to the desires of those they rule, the rulers would much rather change the desires of the people.

Trump has challenged those who rule us. So those who rule us are using the mass media to condemn him. Naturally, they are employing the state religion, Multiculturalism, to label him as politically incorrect. To survive the assault and win the election, Trump must  convince us that unlike his opponent, H. Clinton, he is willing adapt his rule to the beliefs of the people. He has to convince us he want to lead us, not manipulate us.

Can Trump convince us? I don’t know. I just think we need to make certain we check out the man for ourselves. He is certainly right about one thing. We cannot trust the news media. We have to check him out for ourselves.

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “A REPLY TO NOVADEMOCRAT

  1. “Christians are not suppose to respect other people’s religions. We are suppose to respect other people.”

    Truth. I have found that the more I learn to love my neighbors and coworkers here in a Muslim nation, the more I have the religion that has them bound and blinded.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. novascout

    Tom – your post mistakenly links to a comment I made a day or two ago. You may want to correct that and put up the one filed by “Novademocrat”, another commenter altogether, I think. In the other thread, I kind of guessed at what Novademocrat might have said (the comment doesnt appear there – all the more reason to correct the link) to spark your seemingly irrelevant rant about “multiculturalism”, but having observed you at your worst over time, I gave the poor gentleman or lady the benefit of the doubt that he or she might not even have said anything about “multiculturalism” in his/her comment and that you just leapt to that meme rather than to engage substantively with the commenter. Once you link the comment correctly, we can test that thesis.

    However, If your point in this post is that there are some people who would oppose any Republican candidate, regardless of the candidate’s knowledge, experience, and character, you are no doubt correct, just as there are some who would treat any Democrat the same way. There are indeed some folks who don’t take time to listen directly to a candidate or to get into the details of the candidate’s policy prescriptions and are overly influenced by indirect media accounts.

    However, the problem with Trump is that he directly has said and done things (not just descriptions from others) that are threshold disqualifiers for many voters. These incidents have been legion, although any one of them from any other candidate would have been fatal.

    George Will yesterday put out the theory that the reason that Trump is still on his feet despite these displays of unfitness, is that there are so many of them, that one kind of gets benumbed, and that there is not enough time to discuss and reflect on one outrage before the next comes tumbling in. Will likened it to Chicago Democratic politics in the mid 20th century – things were so bad, it was impossible to focus on any one thing. I think he called it “innocence by profusion” or some similar term.

    Charles Krauthammer today says that he used to gauge Trump to have the psychological maturity of an 11-year old school yard bully, but that he (Krauthammer) now thinks he may have overestimated Trump’s psychological age by 10 years. Krauthammer’s columns frequently appeal to my conservative pre-dispositions, but I pay particular attention to his psychological observations given his previous career as a psychiatrist.

    If we had nothing to go on from Trump’s own words and actions, your initial point would have more force. Even my cite to people like Will and Krauthammer (there are many others one could point to, including conservatives like Gerson, Parker, Kagan, and Brooks) are others in the media (although these people have a long unassailable track record of consistent conservative thinking at high levels) commenting on Trump, rather than watching Trump give a speech in Ashburn. But what is alienating Trump from much of the general electorate are direct words from his own mouth and direct acts or omissions in his own life. Even lifelong Republicans like me find ourselves absolutely bereft of a responsible choice in this election.

    Scout

    Like

    1. @Novademocrat

      Rest assured, we strive for truth in labeling.

      George Will? Charles Krauthammer? And so forth plus vague charges of imperfection? Have you tried forming an opinion on your own?

      When we vote, we don’t vote for perfect people. We just try to select the best we can from those running, and the news media is horribly biased. The feud between Trump and Khan is a case in point. When Trump replied to Khan, that immediately should have drawn comparisons with how H. Clinton lied to Patricia Smith. See the following:

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/3/patricia-smith-mother-of-sean-smith-vilified-after/

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/3/medias-lives-double-standards-accelerate/

      As ridiculous as it sounds, D. Trump is about as close as we get to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Note that in the movie Mr. Smith doesn’t run for office. He is picked to fill a vacant seat. Trump, on the other hand, feels called to run. Why? I don’t know. Is he qualified? Gov. Tim Kaine was right about one thing. Nobody is qualified to be president. The issue is whether he is more qualified than is opponent, and you never seem to address that subject, and I don’t have to wonder why.

      Like

      1. novascout

        Yup, I have very strong opinions of my own and have expressed them, in summary form here and elsewhere. That conservatives whom I respect, people who are far better writers than I (e.g., Will, Krauthammer, Noonan, Parker, Gerson, Brooks et al.) are more or less on the same wave length is, on some level, coincidence, but it also is something that I find reassuring. I consider these people clear thinkers with consistent conservative track records. I find myself in good company.

        By the way, I think I’m finally picking up on this – you think it a lovely idea to refer to Republicans as Democrats. I was slow to understand what was going on because most grown-ups I know would be embarrassed to be so silly in a quasi-public place. I guess it fits with your backing a long-time Democrat who is now renting out the Republican Party for his promotional activities. A bit childish, don’t you think, Tom?

        Scout

        Like

        1. @Novademocrat

          Truth in labeling. Democrats are folks who call it love when they attack the other candidate instead of advocating and defending their own candidate.

          Let’s at least try to focus on the main issue. Which candidate is most qualified?

          I know it is hard, particularly for a Democrat. Unfortunately, it is whole lot easier to find fault than it is to say anything good about anyone. I suppose that is why there are so many Democrats.

          Anyway, I think I know why you guys will lose.

          Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws. The Hingefreel people of Arkintoofle Minor did try to build spaceships that were powered by bad news but they didn’t work particularly well and were so extremely unwelcome whenever they arrived anywhere that there wasn’t really any point in being there. ― Douglas Adams

          And everyone thought Trump’s campaign strategy was inscrutable. Well, I have got nailed.

          Like

  3. plainandsimplecatholicism

    Challenged those who rule us? That is a rather fallacious argument when we understand that we have a representative government. Indeed, the Constitution is a government truly of the people, by the people, and for the the people. This political messianism that places so much faith in the strong man (or woman) of your choice is frankly ridiculous an tyrannical.

    Speaking as a veteran and someone who lost a family member in the last war, Trump’s comments are offensive and unacceptable. You can’t hide his conduct behind the misconduct of others; each person needs to answer for their own misdeeds. So the criticism of Trump over his comments is immensely justified. Trump never should have replied except to say that he was sorry for the loss of the man’s son. That is, from what I understand of manners and common decency–fervent Trumpkins will read “evil liberal PC culture”–in American society, really the only acceptable response.

    Anyone meeting the Constitutional requirements is qualified to be president. The issue is not about qualifications; it is about moral standing. But since we Americans eschew from trying to tack down any sort of common moral standard either through unwillingness or excessive zeal, we continue to charge each other with the crime of being unqualified or ill-equipped.

    When you all have ceased arguing about 1960’s dichotomies, you can come join a party that stands for something.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Nobody said Trump is perfect or above criticism. The point is to look at him, not what others have said. The point is to compare him with the alternative, and you did not do that.

      Like

      1. plainandsimplecatholicism

        I have looked at him and he is despicable. I have looked at the alternatives (note the plural) and found still found him lacking. What he said was unacceptable, period. There is no argument, no dilly dallying, “but this person said” defenses. He said something immensely inappropriate and he has to answer for it himself.

        Also, comparing him to your ideological enemy is probably the only reason you can justify voting for him. Seeing as both parties’ candidates are my ‘ideological” enemies, I can’t justify either of them. As I recall, you were an ardent Cruz supporter. Now you are an ardent Hillary detractor. In reality, you don’t really stand for anything, just against someone. That is a rather tenuous position to be in.

        Like

        1. We have more than one name on the ballot. Realistically, either Trump or Clinton will be elected. Given her abysmal failure in public office (including stuff which should put her in jail), I cannot think of any reason to vote for her.

          Frankly, I prefer advocating for my candidate. Trump’s pluses are not what I had hoped for, but when I consider H. Clinton’s minuses…

          Do you enjoy tearing people down or is there some reason you want H. Clinton to win? Is it our stagnant economy? Do you like foreign policy chaos? Do you like a leader who ignores the pleas of her subordinates for help in a war zone? Is graft your thing? Come on! There must be something positive you can say about some who is always focused like a laser beam on racial, religious, cultural and sexual differences.

          Like

        2. plainandsimplecatholicism

          We do have more than one name and neither of the names that are said to be the likely winners are going to have my vote. I am sorry. I believe too strongly in my principles.

          Your only advocacy so far has been saying that he isn’t the other one. That isn’t really advocating some much as it is resisting with the means you have. It is not as noble as you make it out. The man who stands for nothing will stand with anybody.

          “Do you enjoy tearing people down or is there some reason you want H. Clinton to win?” Where do you get that from? Honestly, you’d think you believed that I support her or something.

          Like

        3. 1. I have written more than one post.
          2. This post points includes a campaign speech, links to a web site, and a recommendation that people see for themselves.

          I am not trying to elect Trump by burying H. Clinton under a pile of manufactured muck.

          Like

        4. And I can only guess what it is you don’t understand.

          When I asked you why don’t you support Clinton instead of tearing down Trump, you asked, “Why should I?”

          Then you said you are not going to vote for either of the candidates and accused me of not doing what I said you should do, advocate for a candidate instead of tearing one down. So I pointed out that observation was not true to the facts of the matter.

          There is an old bit of wisdom I try but don’t always succeed at remembering and obeying.

          If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.

          Here is the variant for gossips.

          If you haven’t anything nice to say about anyone, come sit by me.

          If you don’t have anything nice to say, come sit next to me.

          If you can’t say something good about someone, sit here by me.

          => http://quoteinvestigator.com/category/alice-roosevelt-longworth/

          Like

    2. Tony

      plainandsimplecatholicism makes a valid point about a fitness litmus test. Blanket recriminations of illegitimacy have, unfortunately, increasing become so common in the coarse polarized political rhetoric of the past few decades that they are essentially meaningless.

      Because we can’t actually know anyone’s soul (and yes, Tom, my “soul dead narcissist” characterization of Mr. Trump was perhaps over the top, but it was meant obviously to be figurative rather than literal), moral character evaluations of candidates’ virtues can only come from what they have actually said and done, and even then, as a balance measured on a scale of universal moral standards relevant to a given situation.

      However, at some point when a candidate, by his display of a lack common moral decency, tips the scale so far out of the bounds of the basic universal values, then I think the polemic of “unfitness” is more than justified. Mr. Trump, by his own actions and words has, on many more occasions than one, exceeded that tipping point. Just because Trump demonstrates indecency so often are we supposed to become numb (as Scout points out) to that moral line being crossed again and again? Just because illegitimacy is flung about so often, should we be able to still recognize when the minimal necessary character traits are lacking?

      At the last command that I held in the Navy Reserves, one of our main missions was to teach at our base a Navy wide course on leadership. It was an excellent course. To boil the course down to its most important point, leadership everywhere and at all times, but especially if one is to lead in combat, derives from personal integrity in living universal moral values such as honesty, loyalty, mission directedness, compassion, and yes, love – love of your brother and sister comrades in arms, love of the American people and love of country. These universal foundations that sum up the word “integrity” are more important than the ideological battle of the day (or, of the ’60s as plainandsimplecatholicism points out) and more important than our petty partisan political gamesmanship. If a serviceperson feels that a leader has integrity and honors integrity, he or she will sacrifice, even unto death, in the loyal service of those values. If not, he or she will just pretend to.

      Donald Trump, by his known actions and words, ridicules such sacrifices. He constantly mocks and demeans each of the basic values that are the sum total of the word integrity. He equates his heft ambition in the pursuit of fame and greed to actual virtuous sacrifice. How can Donald Trump therefore lead? Although I agree that the idea of “unfitness” is thrown about all too easily these days, let’s not fail to recognize it when it is obvious. I think in this case, as many others have remarked, the judgement that Trump is “unfit to be president” is uniquely justified.

      Like

      1. Tony – Charity. Aw yes, that subject so mysterious to Democrats. It is not charity anymore. It is an entitlement. Come to America. Democrats will put you on the dole in no time at all. Just make certain you vote for that ass on the ballot.

        Like

        1. Government CHARITY is not a religious expression; it is stealing.

          However, you are proving my point. That subject is mysterious to Democrats.

          ANNOUNCEMENT FOR OUR FOREIGN READERS!

          In the USA charity is an entitlement! Charity is a right! We consider any disagreement with politicians who redistribute the wealth — and spread the love — selfishness.

          So come to America! The fine, upstanding ladies and gentlemen leading the Democratic Party will put you on the dole in no time at all (Please arrive in time to register before the election in November 2016). If you are a Muslim, you will be especially appreciated. We have arranged to have rich donors living in small, oil-rich nations pay us by the head for each Muslim we receive within the borders of the late, great US of A.

          If you can’t read English, don’t worry. Just make certain you vote for that ass on the ballot.

          Like

        2. plainandsimplecatholicism

          Since I am not a democrat, how would I be proving your point?

          The rest of your comment seems to be vitriolic rhetoric against your ideological enemies and not really applicable to anything I said.

          Like

        3. @plainandsimplecatholicism

          It is harder work to state and defend a position. Try it. Find out for yourself.

          If you are not effectively a Democrat on the immigration issue, then what is your position?

          Like

        4. plainandsimplecatholicism

          I really don’t think it is appropriate to recreate my entire blog on this one post. It is a public blog and you are encouraged to read it.

          The immigration issue is not one being properly addressed by either party. One side wishes to violate national sovereignty and the other wises to violate natural rights.

          The key is to balance both interests without immense prejudice on one or the other. The boarder needs security. But even a militarized boarder–as East Germany and North Korea prove–are not a deterrent to the desperate. It requires a look at the root causes for the migrations. The root causes are a lack of authentic human development in impoverished nations south of us. The solutions thus far presented are to throw money at the problem and hope it goes away. (Or you support “fair and free elections” in El Salvador which gives legitimacy to the military dictator oppressing everyone. http://www.latinorebels.com/2016/02/11/why-hillary-clinton-doesnt-deserve-the-latino-vote2/)

          You may ask why should we care about the banana republics and their problems. The answer is simple: Solidarity. Like it or not, we are all connected by our humanity. It was never the design of the creator that we be divided. Though we may not be united now in common worship of the Almighty due to our various misconceptions of the same, we can perceive our common humanity and the inherent dignity therein. It was Jefferson who immortalized in American philosophy the founding principle that ALL men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. When any human is denied these rights, we as humans have a duty to them inherent in the rights we share as humans.

          Like

        5. @plainandsimplecatholicism

          You sort of explained what you think is wrong with both of the political party’s positions on immigration, but I wonder if you clearly explain your own. I believe you think that immigration is some sort of natural right, that it is unstoppable. I believe neither of those assertions is true. Moreover, The Declaration of Independence does not support a natural right to immigrate. If we are willing to do so, we have the capacity to control our borders. We just have to elect people who will do it.

          Should we defer to the opinions of our Creator? Yes. Should we recognize each others natural rights? Yes. Should we recognize the natural rights of other Peoples? Yes.

          Nevertheless, borders have significance. Without borders OUR GOVERNMENT cannot protect OUR natural rights. Why? Every country tends to have a distinct culture and its own ways. Our belief that we have God-given rights is part of OUR culture. It is not part of the culture of other Peoples.

          The United States the home of the People of the United States. We, The People of the United States, have a distinct identity. For the sake of our children, we have a duty, an obligation, to protect that identity. We have a duty keep our country, our home, safe for OUR distinct culture, to preserve the blessings of our beliefs as a gift to our children. To maintain our own culture and to protect the security of our home, we have an obligation to properly control who enters our home.

          So what about our solidarity with the Peoples of other nations? What about our common humanity? We love as individuals, not as nations. Individuals care, not governments. As individuals we can work to assist the poor in other nations through private charities.

          Does our government have a role? Yes, but government rarely works well. Government is designed to exert force, not to persuade. Therefore, when we resort to government, we should do so in desperation. Otherwise, we are more likely to create bigger problems.

          Because it exists to either make people do things they do not want to do or to keep people from doing things they want to do, government is powerful. However, government is organized as a committee of committees. So government is terribly awkward. Imagine trying to drive home a thumbtack with a huge sledge hammer. Doable but usually far more abusive than helpful.

          Like

        6. plainandsimplecatholicism

          ” I believe you think that immigration is some sort of natural right, that it is unstoppable.” Each human being has the right to seek a better life for himself. You have it. I have it. The El Salvadorian trying to escape the effects of US foreign policy in 2012 has it. It is part of the inalienable right to life. Now, that does not mean that a nation must dissolve its boarders and let anyone in. It means creating a fair immigration system that protects the rights of migrants AND citizens.

          Furthermore, a reformation of the system is not sufficient. Migration should be a choice, not a necessity due to the US State department ruining your country in 2012 like in El Salvador. Therefore we, as a more prosperous nation, need to lend support to authentic human development in accordance with the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. That means that we act according to our common humanity and our actions take place on the levels appropriate for such actions. No throwing money at national governments we know are corrupt.

          If government is truly what the founders said it was i.e. the expression of the collective will of individuals, why is that collective will NOT love? Wouldn’t that be not only the goal of government but in fact the end and purpose of government? To have the general will to be that of love? Unless you do not believe that government is the expression of the general will. In which case I don’t find many American ideals in your position.

          As to your other comments, I believe I have answered those here.
          https://plainandsimplecatholicism.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/seeking-solidarity-finding-solidarity-in-the-founders/

          Liked by 1 person

        7. There is nothing about government charity or welfare in the Constitution. The founders knew we do not have the moral integrity to make any such thing work.

          The writer of the Declaration of Independence spoke of wolves, and we do behave like ravenous dogs sometimes.

          Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves. — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787

          The Father of the Constitution spoke of angels. Rarely do we behave like such.

          But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. — James Madison from The Federalist No. 51

          Consider what you want to do, redistribute the wealth. You wish to take from those who have money and decide how to spend it. That is stealing.

          Is all taxation stealing? No. If we set up a government just to protect our rights, then we protect the rights of people to keep their property and use it as they see fit. Without such a government, no one can do that. That is because we are more like wolves than angels.

          Like

        8. plainandsimplecatholicism

          “There is nothing about government charity or welfare in the Constitution. The founders knew we do not have the moral integrity to make any such thing work.” Which ones specifically? Not Thomas Paine. The man was a proto-socialist.

          “Consider what you want to do, redistribute the wealth. You wish to take from those who have money and decide how to spend it. That is stealing.” Straw man.

          “Is all taxation stealing? No. If we set up a government just to protect our rights, then we protect the rights of people to keep their property and use it as they see fit. Without such a government, no one can do that. That is because we are more like wolves than angels.” If this is the ONLY function of government, then the libertarians are right and we shouldn’t be arguing over immigration but rather what age children can start shooting heroin. Or we can recognize the fact that government is the exertion of the public will towards the common good as God intended.

          Like

  4. Tony

    Because you have essentially continued this discussion here, it seems only appropriate to repost this comment and the link to General McCaffrey’s Op Ed peice on this thread. I hope that you don’t mind the repost as I feel that the General makes this case better and with more authority than I ever could.

    Here is an editorial piece from retired General Barry McCaffrey, who retired as a four star and was the most highly decorated serving general, including three Purple Hearts and the Distinguished Service Cross. The nonpartisan General McCaffrey presents the case for why Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president of the United States. Tom, I encourage you and your followers to read this article and take it to heart:

    http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/donald-trump-is-an-abusive-braggart-unfit-to-lead-our-armed-forces/

    Like

    1. A nonpartisan 4-star general?
      😆

      Only in an ideal world that needs no generals would a 4 star be politically nonpartisan.

      Trump is not going to please the elites. I not perfectly happy with him. I just look at the alternative.

      Get all the opinions you want. What I care about is what the candidates have done, and that is what you REFUSE to talk about.

      Like

      1. Tony

        Tom – instead of dealing with the import of what the general wrote, you resort to impugning his honesty. In the face an onslaught of inconvenient truth, your first ploy is not to deal with that truth, but to discredit the messenger.

        He faithfully served both Republican and Democratic presidents. He says he unaffiliated to either party. He is highly decorated for blood sacrifices for his country. No one is perfect, but he’s obviously earned the right to be taken at his word, and to have his “words” dealt with rather than just ad hoc tarnishing of his character.

        Like

        1. Tony – Instead of dealing with the facts and the choice before us, you engage in character assassination. The fact you are not alone in doing so does not excuse your behavior.

          Like

        1. Tony

          Just saw this one:

          “Tony – Instead of dealing with the facts and the choice before us, you engage in character assassination. The fact you are not alone in doing so does not excuse your behavior.”

          Hah! How laughably ironic. You don’t even try to defend the indefensibly indecent actual words and actions from your own candidate, but instead you aid and abet him in the “character assassination” of a Gold Star parent. You have no principled good thing to say about Trump, you can’t actually explain his public indecencies, so your only response is to engage in the “character assassination” of Clinton based on little less than unproven hearsay, conjecture, slander, innuendo, and outright lies.

          Republicans have been maliciously investigating Clinton for decades, and in recent years, unsuccessfully attempting to try her by no standard that any other Secretary of State, Republican or Democrat, has ever had to meet – a cabinet head is supposed to be personally in charge of security of every mission around the world? The Secretary of State is to be sent to prison because maybe (and it’s a big maybe) a couple of emails that came to her personal account from someone else could “possibly” be classified after the fact, although they were not classified at the time? What if I were to post something classified here, not mark it so and you did not even know it was classified, but it may or may not be considered classified years after the fact, are you supposed to go to prison for that? Look at the sickeningly partisan and endlessly exhaustive Republican lead investigations of both these incidents. You may be ideologically blinded sometimes, but you’re no fool Tom. Don’t you think that if they could have actually hung anything really illegal around Clinton’s neck after all these years and all this maliciously motivated waste of taxpayer money, then they would have gladly done so.

          You indulge here in nothing more than ridiculous and scurrilous “character assassination” based no actual facts and nothing more than enraged magical thinking, and everyone here, including Republicans, are supposed to respond to it before we can point out actual indecent things that come out of Trump’s own big mouth, and you accuse me of “character assassination”? Sometimes dear brother, you are living anachronism.

          Like

        2. We have time. We will talk about H. Clinton’s record, and you can say whatever you wish.

          We will, however, point to specific facts and let those fact speak for themselves.

          Like

  5. novascout

    Tom – re you 05 August comment @ 1812 hours: When you address me by a name I don’t use, and attribute to me things I have not said and political loyalties I do not have, I worry that you have gone completely around the bend. You might want to have that checked by a competent mental health professional. I can see no point in or explanation for such behavior other than some kind of delusional psychopathology, or such a limited political vocabulary that you can’t discuss issues of the day without resorting to grade-school name-calling and crude deflections away from substantive discussions of the issues. It’s a fairly embarrassing thing to watch. I can imagine that it must be very hard for those closer to you than I am.

    Trying to be as fair and charitable to you as possible, however, I do like the Douglas Adams quote. The problem with it is that when you direct it at me saying it explains why “you guys” will lose, you’re way behind the news. “We guys” (i.e., traditional conservative Republicans) have already lost. We lost big-time when Trump took over the GOP for this cycle. A major part of my concern for Trump is his lack of knowledge, experience, or character that would qualify him to hold any public office, let alone the presidency of this Republic. However, beyond that, my further concern is that he has essentially just hollowed out the Republican Party, my chosen political home for decades, of all principle and purpose and left us with a candidate who believes in nothing, knows nothing, and has no particular plans for how to make things better. Trump, to this point, has been nothing but hot air and hostility. Clearly there is a low-information, insecure swathe of the electorate who can be manipulated by this, but Trump is a clear and present danger to the health of the Nation. He has no apparent knowledge of the Constitution, let alone reverence for it. (His plan to protect Article 12 notwithstanding). People like this can be found pontificating at bars and Elks Lodges (although I may be unfair to the Elks in using them as an example), but they don’t run for high office.

    So we Republicans have already lost and have lost badly, regardless of what happens in November. The only honorable, patriotic course for us is to withhold our votes from Trump cast them for the Libertarians or write-ins, hope that the Republic, given the strength of its Constitutional structure, can endure Mrs. Clinton for four to eight years, and try to build back a respectable, responsible political party true to the traditions of the GOP that will provide the citizens with a choice of competent candidates in 2020 and beyond.

    Like

    1. @Novademocrat <= We strive for truth in labeling.

      I don't give D. Trump much credit, but even if he owes the news media for their devious efforts to foist him on us, he still earned nomination. He beat the other guys, and politics ain't beanbag.

      Sure, politics ain’t bean-bag. ‘Tis a man’s game, an’ women, childer, cripples an’ prohybitionists ‘d do well to keep out iv it. — Finley Peter Dunne (from => http://politicaldictionary.com/words/politics-aint-beanbag/)

      Glad you enjoyed the Douglas Adams quote. Definitely funny.

      You don’t like the monicker Novademocrat? Please note that we are operating with limited data. We know very little data about what you stand for, but we have heard abundantly about what you are against.

      Your latest comment shows yet again what you are against, a Republican, but it doesn’t provide a clue as to what you stand for.

      You know as well as I do that your so-called honorable, patriotic course just amounts to voting for H. Clinton. In fact, in the same paragraph you effectively admit as much.

      What is honorable about such posturing hypocrisy? Nothing, of course. After two victories by Barack Obama, don’t we know that much?

      We have a choice between Trump and Clinton. The honorable thing is to compare and contrast the two, not to slam one candidate and ignore the sins of the other. The honorable thing is to pick the best candidate.

      We must pray for our choice and for God to bless the best we know how to do, even if we have hold our nose when we vote. Otherwise, in a stinking fit of self-righteous hypocrisy we will once again condemn our nation to the worst of the two.

      Like

  6. novascout

    These days, Tom, being against Donald Trump is a prime indicator of a long-time Republican’s continuing fidelity to the Party and conservatism. Public opposition to Trump will be how we gauge devotion to Republican principles in the coming years. Trump is a long-time avowed Democrat with leftist tendencies and inclinations who essentially high-jacked the GOP Party mechanisms to pursue some kind of personal promotion project.

    To be sure, Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate. All that the GOP had to do was nominate a Republican candidate with some observable qualifications and he or she would be leading Clinton in the polls now by double digits. However defective the Clintons are (singly or jointly), they do not begin to approach the void of character, experience, judgement and ability that we are confronting with Trump. We don’t roll dice with the Republic and hope that a 70 year old man with no qualifications or experience and numerous personal shortcomings will suddenly learn a lot, get a lot of experience, find judgement, and instantly be able to be a good steward of the Nation. The unwillingness to put the Republic on the roulette wheel explains why so many of us conservatives are walking away from this madness. When I see that I am in good company with Messrs. Will, Brooks, Gerson, Kagan, Krauthammer, Goldberg, Stephens, and Mesdames Parker and Noonan, to name but a few, I’m not very concerned about your juvenile name-calling.

    Rest assured that if I take the write-in option in November, I will write in a stellar Republican candidate – the best candidate, to use your terminology.

    Scout

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: WHAT WILL YOU BE ABLE TO TELL YOUR GRANDCHILDREN? – Citizen Tom

  8. Pingback: IS IMMIGRATION A NATURAL RIGHT? – Citizen Tom

  9. Pingback: OF A POST TO COME – Citizen Tom

Comments are closed.