WHAT WILL YOU BE ABLE TO TELL YOUR GRANDCHILDREN?

vote for americaLook around the world. Nations are forming alliances and building arms. Chaos reigns in much of the Middle East. The great democracies are befuddled. Our elites seem far more interested in lining their wallets than in public service.

So we as we approach election day in 2016, we find ourselves in a time of impending crisis. And when we consider the candidates before us we grimace. These two? Yet who do we have to blame? How many of us can rightly say we made any effort to support anyone’s candidacy for public office?

What are our options? Well, let me show you a comment from NovaDemocrat and my response. Note that NovaDemocrat goes by multiple monikers. Note also that I have rendered in bold print the most relevant portions of each comment.

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 (Tom’s note: see here). 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.

(from here)

Citizen Tom
@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.

(from here)

When we come to the end of our lives, there is little left we can do for the future, for our children and grandchildren. If we have been wise, we can take satisfaction in knowing we have done our best, even if we accomplished little. If have been indifferent, we simply have nothing to say except “I did not care.” If we have been unwise and simply chosen wrongly, perhaps our Lord will forgive us.

Revelation 3:14-22 New King James Version (NKJV)

The Lukewarm Church

14 “And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write,

‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: 15 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. 21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

22 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’”

Lukewarm is no excuse for indifference. That’s true of both religion and politics.

Note that I did not call NovaDemocrat a hypocrite. It is his advice I condemned as hypocrisy.

Note also that NovaDemocrat left a reply to my comment here.

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “WHAT WILL YOU BE ABLE TO TELL YOUR GRANDCHILDREN?

  1. novascout

    I will hand it over to Jonah Goldberg at National Review, Tom, and go for a much needed bike ride. The article is from yesterday’s edition, in case my technical ineptitude means that the link does not work. Mr. Goldberg is regarded by many of us in the conservative community as a writer of considerable wit, depth, and insight. To you, I suppose, he is just another “Democrat”, and the National Review a house organ for the DNC. With such distorted perceptions of reality, I’m not even sure how you manage to cross the street without getting hurt. Good luck.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438732/donald-trump-pivot-isn‘t-coming?target=author&tid=897

    The advantage of reading Goldberg, as opposed to you and me going back and forth, is that he is a very skilled writer and makes for excellent reading even if you do not share his principled conservatism.

    Scout

    Like

    1. When National Review launched a full-throated campaign against Donald Trump, it did not have much effect, did it? Their editorial, were just one of the many I linked to.

      I wanted Cruz. He ain’t the candidate. Trump is the candidate. Goldberg is just going to have to get use to it, or not. So what?

      Like

      1. novascout

        Jonah (the Democrat) Goldberg, as I’m sure you regard him, is essentially saying we do not have to “get used to it,” Tom. We can reject it (the Trump candidacy) as aberrational as all decent people must. There’s nothing in the political system of the United States that requires blind loyalty to party nomination choices. Quite the contrary. The parties have obligations to present the electorate with competent candidates. When they don’t, the citizens have a clear obligation to send a message that they won’t have their Republic tinkered with by amateurs and incompetents.

        The National Review (as well as some of the other writers and thinkers I previously cited) are from the thinking, principled wing of conservatism in this country. You may be quite correct that their views do not have much effect. That remains to be seen. This segment of the conservative community has not been the dominant voice, particularly in recent years where any huckster with a bumper sticker can pass himself off as “conservative”. But people like the folks at National Review, American Spectator and columnists like Will, Brooks, Noonan and Gerson, are the substance of American conservative thought and are the keepers of principle in the movement. Without them as an anchor, conservatism becomes hollow and sterile and vulnerable to high-jacking by shallow opportunists, like Mr. Trump.

        Scout

        Like

        1. @NovaDemocrat

          You name dropper you! You must be a Conservative! Not!

          It amazes me how supposedly smart people waste their time formulating different ways to insult someone. That’s your idea of an accomplishment?

          Vote however you want. Nobody is stopping you. Nobody is even calling Donald Trump a Conservative. He is just a far better alternative than H. Clinton. And you have yet to compare and contrast the two.

          Like

  2. Tony

    As much as I am enjoying this Republican food fight, you are banishing principled conservatives to your left and right to the Democratic camp simply because they know what your Ted Cruz and virtually every other Republican candidate from the primaries said, Donald Trump is neither a principled human being nor is he actually a conservative – he is just a brilliant huckster. Because Ted Cruz refused to endorse Mr. Trump, is he a Democrat now too? Well, no thanks, we don’t want him. You can have him back.

    Donald Trump has already amply proven that he lacks basic decency, but you want to somehow blame his character flaws on the press and have us believe the bullcrap that Trump, because he is not a politician, is simply too guileless decent to be politically correct. Nonsense.

    Donald Trump is a populist in the style of Huey P. Long. He’s a master showman who knows exactly how to play off the genuine sense of victimization, the misplaced hatreds and the deep seated bigotries of many of the shrinking middle class who have been lost their historic status in a corporate driven, globalized economy, an appeal that particularly resonates with low education white men. You, like both his Republican primary rivals and many Democrats, vastly underestimate Trump’s coldly calculated genius in this sort of populist pandering. Trump masterfully manipulates and thrives on the press, appearing to spout out one outrageous thing after another that he knows will incite the angry mob that is his base.

    The one area where Trump actually demonstrates that he actually is hopelessly guileless is the moral realm of common decency, honor and virtue. Why? Well, it’s because he is indecent to the core of his being. He doesn’t even know how to pretend to be decent if he tries. He seems to be incapable of, as you say, even “posturing” decency. To use humorous fictional analogy, it’s like a vampire pretending to enjoy sunlight. This is because in Trump’s self absorbed little heart of hearts, Trump honestly regards (like too many other Christians these days, I’m afraid) that fame, wealth and material success are the highest of virtues. Trump genuinely believes that honorable suffering and sacrifice of others is for losers. Trump honestly thinks that what you and I would consider are the real virtues are concepts that only suckers believe in. Trump is the real life manifestation in politics of Gordon Gekko from the movie “Wall Street”, and he preaches from his small little heart of hearts that “greed is good”, that sacrifice for principle is bad – he is befuddled when everyone else doesn’t realize this.

    Tom, the fact that you don’t recognize the Donald Trump you keep seeing is not caricature invented by our sensation-driven press, but that this is the real Donald Trump, just both brilliantly and haplessly being Donald Trump, is mesmerizing to me. However, the fact that you actually think (against everything you singlemindedly rant about here) that the populist Donald Trump will not also “bribe the mob” with their own money into supporting him to the point of corrupting and bankrupting the government (as he has corrupted and bankrupted his own businesses) for personal fame, power and wealth, is just beyond me.

    If I did not know you better as a more principled person, I would think that you are promoting Donald Trump here in the apocryphal scheme that he will get elected and bring down our government so that your utopian mirage of a government can somehow rise from the ashes. Some right wing, supposedly “Christian” lunatics have actually publicly proposed this. I pray that that is not the case with you.

    Like

    1. @Tony

      I finally know what a diatribe is. Unreadable.

      All you did is illustrate the whole point of my post. You have no idea how to vote.

      We are choosing between human beings. Both are flawed.

      All you are doing is trying to bury another human being in muck.

      Hillary Clinton has a record. What has she done that you can praise?

      Donald Trump has a record. Is it all good? No, but he has built a business and employed quite a few people.

      Like

  3. Tony

    Brother, so you now want to pivot from Donald Trump’s unconscionable maligning of Gold Star parents and American war heroes to the more positive discussion that I proposed earlier, that is of discussing just the virtuous merits of both the candidates? Well, I don’t blame you for that.

    Fine, start a new thread. As I said, it’s what I wanted to do to begin with, but you had to go to an area of Donald Trump’s behavior where principled Americans from both parties and all ends of the political spectrum are honor bound to respond – that is in anyone attacking Gold Star parents and our war heroes.

    In complete candor I should warn you though with what Marco Rubio so aptly pointed out during the Republican debates, “If this election is a resume contest, then Hillary Clinton will be the next president.”

    That fact seems particularly apropos if you really want to compare side by side even the most positive aspects of Mr. Trump’s life of unbridled and unabashed ambition in pursuit of amassing fame and wealth with Clinton’s quite amazing record of public service. But sure, let’s go for it. Knowing how tough a sell Trump is in this regard, I wonder how long you can actually keep it positive, and not go off on some old odd tangent.

    I’m guessing not even one comment, but I’d love to be proven wrong.

    Like

    1. Could you spare us both the fluff? Once you have said something three times, do you still have to keep repeating it? If what you say is just pretentious, do you really need to bother?

      What are H. Clinton’s accomplishments? We both know she has held certain prestigious positions, but what did she do when she held those positions? Is she running on her record or the fact she is a woman and her opponent is a bad, awful, terrible, …. Well, you can up with your own adjectives and nouns for The Donald.

      Like

      1. Tony

        Ha! If the fact that a ready thesaurus of adjectives to truly descibe Donald Trump’s contemptible lack of common virtues gives you some solace in you defense of an obvious scoundrel, then I’m glad for you. 😊

        Like

        1. @Tony

          I must admit my recollection was a bit shaky. John M. Deutch loss his clearance. He had been the Secretary of Defense. At the time he lost his clearance, he was serving as the Director of the CIA.

          He was a Clinton appointee who had lost favor. Petraeus, who mentioned, had similar problems with Obama.

          The point is that the security rules get enforced, when certain people find it expedient.

          Like

  4. novascout

    Tom – I hate to say this, but I don’t think of you as “supposedly smart.” (your 06 Aug comment @1738 hours) You do try to be insulting, but I don’t think it has anything to do with intelligence.

    Scout

    Like

  5. Your post focused on her Benghazi fiasco which resulted in loss of Diplomat lives

    Nothing worse than lives lost because of her folly and lies.

    What galls me next about her chicanery is the deal she approved for the salee of an American uranium mine to Russia in return for a donation to her so called ‘charitable foundation.:

    I doubt the New York Times every even wrote a two line column on this.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-23/how-putin-s-russia-gained-control-of-a-u-s-uranium-mine

    Sad how the media owners manipulate Americans.

    Regards and good will blogging.

    i.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Manipulated? Yep! If we are not even willing to listen to Trump ourselves, we will be manipulated.

      When someone runs for public office, we owe them a hearing. When the news media makes charges, we have an obligation to look into those charges. Because people lie when wealth, fame, and power are at stake, that’s just the way it is.

      Thanks for that link.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. novascout

    Virtually every disqualifying event for me in the Trump campaign, Tom, has come right out of this candidate’s mouth, and I’ve heard him say it, in haec verba. I suspect I’m not the only one in the country who has had that reaction. That there are now layers of these things (lots of times a candidate will say something colossally stupid along the way, but with Mr. Trump we’ve now got geologic strata of these things). Not a one of them was something that someone in the media said about him. It all started with the linkage between his brain and his mouth. After he lets these revelatory things loose, sure, people comment on them and they form the basis for rational commentary such as I’ve linked or referenced for your readers. But they are initially his creations and it’s fairly delusional for people to try to blame others for things that the man himself has said and done.

    Scout

    Like

        1. @plainandsimplecatholicism

          I watched that on video. I think The Donald now understands why churches have crying rooms.

          When the baby started crying, the woman started to leave, and Trump joked about it and told her she could stay. Unfortunately, the baby continued to cry. Chagrined, Trump realized he should have let the woman leave, but he tried to cover up by implying she should not taken his joking seriously.

          In a way, I was sort of relieved to see this. I wonder if the man is too transparent to lie well.

          Like

        2. plainandsimplecatholicism

          So that churches can be depressing places devoid of life? Yeah, I know. But that is another issue.

          The fact he joked in such a way as to let the woman believe she could stay is rather rediculous. I also saw the video and, were I to have experienced his tone, then I would take it as a magnanimous gesture. Having a baby cry at an event is embarrassing for the parent but it actually would have showed tremendous grace and humanity for Trump to let them stay. The fact that he joked about it just makes him seem more like an inhuman t.v. personality. Then again, from what is reported, he is hardly a model of fatherhood so I don’t blame him.

          Like

        3. plainandsimplecatholicism

          Yet Trump makes a habit of it. Aristotle said that we are what we repeatedly do. Trump repeatedly says vulgar and unwise things. It is logical to draw the conclusion that he is vulgar and unwise.

          It is interesting that, in all the defenses of Trump I have read, no pattern of virtue can be found, just anecdotes of random kindness. Were he an excellent man, we would find ample evidence of his virtues. As such, all that can be mustered are the same anecdotes and the threat of his opponent. Where is his prudence? His temperance? His fortitude? His Justice?

          Like

  7. novascout

    I assumed you had been following the race, Tom, and were aware of these things. Where have you been?

    I can give you an example a day for at least two weeks (assuming handlers get control of him and stop him from loading up the magazine from the other end), each of which conclusively establishes that he shouldn’t be president of the United States. I am going on vacation tomorrow and will be out of posting range for a while (don’t assume that I won’t be paying some attention from the wilds of Alaska, so you don’t have entirely free range to go crazily counter-factual), but I’ll start you off with Trump calling a distinguished federal judge a “Mexican”, when minimal inquiry to his attorneys would have informed him that the man is from Indiana. With this particular display of disrespect for the judiciary and judicial process, for the State of Indiana, for the Constitution, for what it takes to achieve the distinction of being a federal judge, for common sense when one is in litigation, for US citizenship, Donald Trump should not be president. Even if his record of word and deed were pristine otherwise, he is totally disqualified for this. And you know what, there is an abundant supply of additional examples, all of which came right out of Trump’s mouth. The media isn’t making this stuff up.

    Scout.

    Like

  8. plainandsimplecatholicism

    That we held to principle over personality. That we believed in something rather than someone. That, even when faced with utter defeat, they could not shake us of our beliefs. That our hope and trust was in something greater than one election.

    Like

    1. We should not condemn anyone for trying to be principled. We should condemn apathy. We should just encourage those who have principles to constantly examine the principles the uphold.

      We should remember that Paul was once named Saul

      Like

      1. plainandsimplecatholicism

        Novascout seems to be one such principled person. I am one such principle person. Our principles are more important to us than the person of Trump or Hillary.

        Like

Comments are closed.