WHAT IF HILLARY CLINTON HAD WON THE ELECTION IN 2016?

Hillary Clinton announces her VP pick (from here)

In Virginia today is the last day to register to vote for the next election. In less than a month, on November 6, 2018, we will vote in the midterm elections. Will our vote change anything? Why or why not? Why should we vote? Who and what should we vote for?

Here is an inspiring thought. Here is an alternate reality. What if our president today were Hillary Clinton? What do you think would be different? Did your vote change anything then?

We can’t change the past, but we can consider the past. We can contemplate what might have been different. We can learn from what happened. We can work to improve our choices.  So I ask for your comments. What have you learned from the last two years? What would have been different if H. Clinton had won? Would her presidency have been better or worse? What has Donald Trump done that convinces you that he was a better or worse choice?

301 thoughts on “WHAT IF HILLARY CLINTON HAD WON THE ELECTION IN 2016?

Add yours

  1. Tom,

    Your dear leader is on a demagogic lying spree that is extraordinary even by Trumpian standards. Here’s a question: What does the Bible say about lying and associating oneself with liars and lying?

    Like

      1. The intent to deceive, Tom. Trump is horrific. A man who has the bully-pulpit to get the world’s attention is preaching hate, racism, divisiveness… Golly.. doesn’t the Bible suggest we are supposed to me watching the horizon for someone just like this?

        Jeez.. Tom.

        Like

      2. John,

        Well, if it is an average person who mistakenly repeats a single falsehood that he has heard, then that’s one thing. However, we are talking about the President of the United States of America here. If you have ever been a leader in the military or as a government official or elsewhere, then you know that leaders have a much greater duty to be truthful. The recent examples of from this President of everything from misleading innuendo to massive exaggeration to outright whoppers are legion. Even if we give Trump the benefit of the doubt, wouldn’t you think that at some point there is little difference between a leader’s continuous careless disregard for the truth and just plain lying?

        My knowledge on the subject basically mirrors yours, but perhaps I’m missing some scriptural exception here that better biblical scholars than me can point out.

        Granted, it’s not my place to judge Trump’s soul. However, as a Christian don’t you think we have some duty not to applaud and follow a perpetually lying leader?

        Like

        1. You didn’t reference any specific lies. Misleading innuendo and massive exaggeration are general criticisms that could be leveled at virtually anyone. I’m not a “Trump supporter”. I’m just reluctant to call anyone a “liar” without proof that lying has taken place.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. @tsalmon

      Don’t know what lies you are talking about. So let’s get back on topic. Would you like about: Benghazi, a certain email server, the purpose of the Clinton Foundation, bimbo eruptions, half million dollar speeches, the origin of that golden showers dossier, Bernie Sanders loss during the presidential primaries,….

      Like

      1. Tom,

        If you have not heard Trump lying then you simply have not ever listened to him or read what he has written. You don’t have to listen long. As to the rest, is it your position as a Christian that the supposed lies
        of a past official obliges you to applaud and accept all the lies of your own leader? Please explain.

        Like

        1. @tsalmon

          Are Trump’s lies anything like: Obama care is constitutional and you can keep your doctor, same-sex “marriage”, global warming, the Tea Party is racist, voter ID is racist, …..

          Like

          1. Everything you mention is debatable, both as to each situation and as to comparison,with the scale of Trump’s mendacity being unprecedented, but more importantly, it’s just irrelevant.

            Even if I claimed allegiance to a party (which I don’t) as you do the Republican Party, how would the wrongful acts of a past Democratic official somehow excuse Trump’s current rampant lying? Why would my ability to defend or not defend some past wrongdoing somehow matter to your Party leader’s current wrongdoing?

            Like

          2. Tom,

            Put another way, regardless of what Clinton or Obama did or did not do, Trump is unequivocally and constantly lying. As Christian,s, what is our duty not to participate in that lying?

            Like

          3. @tsalmon

            ????

            I would say “what lie”, but this getting silly. You voted for Obama and Clinton, and you have the gall to tell me I shouldn’t support Trump because he lies? Compared to Obama and Clinton?
            😆

            Like

          4. Well, Tom.. the current count of Trump’s lies ongoing by the Washington Post is well over 5,000. Seems a tad more than Hillary or Obama could ever conjure up.

            Like

          5. @Doug

            I live near DC. The Washington Post is a propaganda rag for Liberal Democrats. Except for the fact it an effective propaganda rag, I don’t see any reason to take it seriously.

            Like

          6. @Doug

            Generally, when I write a blog post I consult multiple sites on both sides of the issue. Sometimes I even include the Washington Post. Why? When journalists lie they usually do so by leaving out important bits of information. It is amazing how just a few bits of information can change our opinion.

            Like

          7. I’m no biblical scholar like you, but isn’t lying kind of a big deal in the Bible? Isn’t there some kind of Commandment or something?😏

            Like

          8. “You voted for Obama and Clinton, and you have the gall to tell me I shouldn’t support Trump because he lies? Compared to Obama and Clinton?”

            Good! You’re almost there brother. No false choices. No irrelevant comparisons. The simple question I’m asking is, as a Christian, should you support Trump because he lies? And not just once or occasionally, but continuously and maliciously? Do we have a duty as Christians not to applaud, perpetuate or participate in such lying?

            It’s not a hard question. Can you actually simply answer it without evasion and deflection?

            Like

          9. @tsalmon

            Trump made promises to his supporters. He has tried to keep those promises, and he has done a good job. Your question is nonsense.

            Why do I detest the public education system? It is because of the foolishness it insinuated into my brothers and sisters and into me. We were taught in a socialist system. We had an an ideology instilled into us that is neutral neither to the practice of religion nor the practice of government. So it is absurd when you call yourself non-ideological. We were taught to be ideologues.

            You are a lawyer, but you don’t debate all that well. You want to know what a debate looks like? Read or listen to the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Douglas dodged Lincoln’s arguments. It would have been more honest if he had confronted them, but if he wanted to support slavery how could he.

            You dodge too. All you are doing here is calling Trump names and calling me a hypocrite for supporting him. What is the point?

            Trump is not perfect. No one is. When we voted, he was the best choice. You don’t like my choice. Well, I was disgusted with your choice. That’s why we need limited government. When we vote all we are doing is substituting ballots for bullets. Raise the stakes high enough, and we will be using bullets. Yet raising the stakes is what your party is doing — always doing.

            Stop worshipping the government. Please run your own life, and let others do the same.

            Like

          10. Tom,

            When I was practicing law a long time ago, I weren’t no Perry Mason, but I did ok in court and in depositions. I know enough to know when someone is afraid to answer a simple question, so instead is bringing up everything else he can to deflect.

            There must be a biblical answer to the dilemma of how a Christian amoral ruler. How about Daniel? That book I’m reading about Jonah by Timothy Keller has much to say about this very topic.

            Are you a hypocrite? Not for me to say. I do understand the need to compromise, particularly when there is uncertainty.

            Maybe I’m suffering from the blind ideologue affliction, but I’m having a really tough time seeing much uncertainty here. Trump is an incorrigible, probably pathological liar, and his lies are not innocent, but instead malicious.

            The fact that Trump is “doing” what you want does not justify the lies he is constantly saying to get those things done. Isn’t that simply the “ends justify the means” argument that you used to proclaim abhorrent? Are you such a pragmatist now?

            Like

          11. @tsalmon

            You believe Trump is an amoral ruler. I don’t. You are using a flawed premise. You are not God. If you want to stand in judgement of Trump that’s your problem.

            Why waste a bunch of effort attacking people? Shouldn’t we talk about alternatives? Point out the bad choices and suggest better? Well, to some extent we don’t have a choice. We have elections. We have to compare and contrast the candidates. That has been done. Trump won, and he has done a much better job than Clinton would have done. For the time being, I think the deplorables (myself included) have been vindicated.

            You disagree? But you have yet to offer anything except a pathetic attack on Trump’s character. Much of the news media has been doing that for a couple of years. They have hurt their credibility, not Trump’s. Please let that be a clue.

            Like

          12. Tom,

            If a man tells continuous, quite obvious lies, I’m not playing God judging his character by simply pointing out that fact. That’s like your pointing out that someone just stole your car, and the cop saying “But who are you to judge and play God?” You are to smart not to know that that is nonsensical argument.

            Like

          13. “Why waste a bunch of effort attacking people?”

            You know brother, given your continuous attacks here on Clinton and Obama, that statement is just too amazing not to stop and note the humor in it. Come on? Don’t you at least find it somewhat “hillarious”? 🤣

            Like

          14. “When we vote all we are doing is substituting ballots for bullets. Raise the stakes high enough, and we will be using bullets.”

            Just caught this. Is this another one of those not so veiled threats to shoot me if you don’t get your way brother? Well, before you try, you should know that I’m back in training for another long race through the woods (a 50 miler this time) so catch me if you can. Also, when I was young and improvin I qualified twice in the military as an expert marksman and have been an avid duck hunter (well, actually the way my late friend Don and I used to hunt the swamps, it was more like “duck frightening” than “duck hunting”).

            But seriously brother, at our age, aren’t we more likely to just talk ourselves to death than use bullets?

            Like

          15. @tsalmon

            Your ego is too big, and that is the problem. It is the problem we all have.

            Pointing to the choice between ballots and bullets is not a threat. It just is.

            Explaining why I don’t want Obama or Clinton to lead us — actually saying what they did wrong — is not the politics of personal destruction. We know Obama lied about Obama care to sell it. We know the law is blatantly unconstitutional. We know both Obama and Clinton lied about Benghazi. We have them on video.

            Does Trump lie? If he doesn’t tell whoppers like Obama and Clinton, then how can you justify yourself? So you keep saying he lies, but you never examine the claim. That’s the sort of thing the slave masters did. They justified themselves, not their choices. The pointed to the ignorance of blacks, not the fact they prevented blacks from educating themselves.

            Like

          16. Examine the claim the Trump lies? Well, you might want to start a whole new post for that one. Trump’s entire life is pretty much a fraud. Start with the fact that Trump used to call reporters and pretend to be someone else just to promote himself in the third person. It’s on tape. How about his often spouted claim that he made his whole fortune off a one million dollar loan from his father that he paid back, and yet the NYT has shown that Trump (most likely through tax fraud) managed to transfer close to a half a billion dollars from his father before and after he died. At one point, Trump and his siblings used a shell company to jack up their father’s building maintenance costs and may have used those costs to get past NY rent controls, thus defrauding renters. How about the settlement Trump paid for defrauding students at Trump University? Trump started hus political run with a racist lie about Obama being born in Kenya. During the Primaries he lied about your fav candidate, Ted Cruz. I could go on for hours before we even get to Trump’s most recent lies.

            The problem here is not like trying to find a lying needle in a haystack of truth (as you have for Hillary and Obama). Nope, the problem with Trump is actually trying to find a needle if truth in his haystack of lies, scams and frauds. Trump’s lies are well documented and continuous, unless you want to bury your head in the sands of blissful ignorance.

            Like

          17. BYW,

            My post above about your bullet predictions was meant as a little grave yard humor to counter your over-the-top morbidity. Have you really become such a drama queen brother? We have been at war for decades and only a small percentage of the country has made all the sacrifices for them. Most of the chicken hawks in both political parties would be more likely to accidentally shoot themselves than each other. The leader of your party is, after all, Cadet Bone Spur. Just another one of those lies he told to benefit himself and to get out of actually sacrificing anything for his country.

            Like

          1. Let’s just accuse Doug and Tsalmon of lying. When they ask us to explain why, we’ll simply say, “Are you kidding me??!!! Everything you said is either a misleading innuendo or a massive exaggeration!!”

            How do you suppose they’d reply?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. John,

            Very judiridal challenge. Well, at least it makes more sense than my brother Tom’s constant “I know you are, but what am I” school yard chant.

            When you wrote that Trump is “horrific” I just assumed that your own experience of Trump’s lying was part of what you find horrifying.

            I can point you to any number of fact checking articles if you like, or if you don’t trust the mainstream press, just listen to a few of Trump’s recent rally speeches and do your own fact checking. After that, if you seriously believe that I am bearing false witness against Trump’s false witness bearing, then I’ll happily defend myself from that accusation of slander.

            Like

      2. If you consider hiding under our beds until it’s over a form of participation….

        “Seriously! All you have is a bunch of empty-headed insults.”

        You insult me with your libelous claim of insultary sir. I challenge you to a duel – bottle rockets at twenty paces. Name your second. I name Doug as mine. Let the civil war begin.😁

        Like

        1. Hehe.. why do I get the feeling the Second will be the First in this duel. 🙂
          (I actually liked bottle rockets as a kid… and utilized those Estes model rockets as armed projectiles. I would have been great as a munitions manufacturer. Although I’d not brag too much about that part of my young life given today’s events.)

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I think I’ll take you up on that Doug. When I made that challenge, I forgot that Tom was once literally a rocket scientist. Good luck buddy! I got your back…way back.😉

            Like

  2. Tom, Doug,

    After reading comments with Doug and reading his reply to me about my post about an article of Trump being the most honest President,

    I believe this ancient advice is probably the best advice Doug and all the Trump Haters should consider about the wish that Clinton won the last election instead of Trump.

    What does the phrase “be careful what you wish for, it might just come true” mean?
    Answer
    Follow · 7

    8 Answers
    Justin Schwartz
    Justin Schwartz, Lawyer, ex-law professor and -philosophy professor, a refugee from BigLaw, independent scholar, idiosyncratic…
    Answered Jul 22, 2016
    It’s a variation on the old Yiddish curse, May you get what you wish for. The idea is graphically illustrated in WW Jacob’s famous short horror story, The Monkey’s Paw, in which a family whose son has been killed in a work accident wishes for him to come home, and deeply regrets it when he does, because they have failed to specify what condition, alive or dead.

    It’s also a theme in various stories about compacts with the devil, who grant your wish, but not exactly the way you want it, because you failed to specify all the conditions. Thus, in the remake of Bedazzled, the main character wishes to be rich and have a beautiful wife. And he wakes up as a powerful narco-traffic ante in Latin America whose rivals are trying to kill him and married to a beautiful woman who hates him.

    The idea is that you may not have thought through the consequences of having your wish come true, which may be not so good as you thought.

    Regards and good will blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. As long as are imagining what might have been
    so that we don’t have to focus on the current insanity, have you considered that each president, to some extent was an opposite reaction to the presumed shortcomings of the one who came before?

    Trump is a hyperinflated, white hot reality TV emotional reaction to “no drama Obama”. Peace and hope intellectual Obama was a reaction to the “fire, ready, aim” swagger of W. And so on as far back as you want to go.

    I read a story recently that claimed that the torpedoing of Gary Hart’s presidential bid with the whole “Monkey Business” fiasco was a fully fabricated political hit job by H.W. Bush’s Republican campaign chairman, Lee Atwater. Up until that point, Hart was leading Bush and expected to win both the Democratic nomination and the presidency – Hart being the obvious national reaction to the Reagan presidency.

    Supposedly, Atwater made a deathbed confession of this to his opposite number on the Hart side. One could argue that the Hart attack was the beginning of what is now termed “the politics of personal destruction” in the modern era.

    Imagining what might have been is a maddeningly waste of time, but it does distract from whatever outrageously inappropriate the Trump has done or said lately, now doesn’t it, like the POTUS getting into a twitter war with a Porn Queen about his legendary small penus and her supposedly equestrian looks?

    Like

          1. Actually, under Obama, we had a record breaking era of sustained economic growth that has only continued during Trump’s short tenure. That growth began by climbing out of the economic disaster that took place and was exacerbated By Bush, but the seeds of which were planted by banking deregulation during the Clinton presidency.

            Which president actually did what to improve or hurt our economy? What was Congress’ role? What other nongovernmental factors played into this complex, three dimensional global equation that is the morsern economy?

            I’m not smart enough to have a half informed opinion. The smartest people are also smart enough to know what is unknowable, much less assign absolute credit or absolute blame.

            However, even an idiot knows that Trump can’t take much credit for things that obviously began before he got here. The best one can say is that Trump hasn’t destroyed the economy, yet, but he may be on his way.

            How about a Republican Congress and President presiding over a multi-trillion dollar transfer of wealth from our grand children to the richest people in the world today? How is that not an evil redistribution of wealth that your Republican president and your Republican Congress are actually, unequivocally responsible for?

            Like

          2. @tsalmon

            We had record breaking growth under Obama? Really?

            You don’t want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer? That’s not going to happen by making the government bigger, regulations, more numerous, and the tax code so complicated nobody understands it.

            Like

          3. “We had record breaking growth under Obama? Really?”

            It’s just a fact, that’s all. As I wrote, the causes and correlations leading to that simple fact are multifarious and complex, but the fact that it happened under Obama’s watch is just simple truth.

            “You don’t want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer? That’s not going to happen by making the government bigger, regulations, more numerous, and the tax code so complicated nobody understands it.”

            So with their taxcut-and-spend tax reform bill your Republican Congress and Republican President fixed all that, right? Nope. They just blew up the deficit and transferred wealth from our grandkids to the richest Americans in the country. I don’t have a PHD in economics, but that just sounds like someone decides to decrease his income by working part time and then just keeps spending more than ever and charging up the credit cards. Only in this case, he expects his kids and grandkids someday to work overtime to pay off the debt.

            We don’t even pay the trillions of dollars in wars we keep fighting. Yep, these wars are so important that we have to start them and never finish them at the cost of military lives and long term injuries, but not so important that we would actually pay for them.

            Tom you are so lost in some fanatical, incomprehensible and esoteric morality about the evils of public goods and services while the real immorality that yours is by far the Party of corruption and crony capitalism just keeps hitting you over the head.

            Like

          4. @tsalmon

            Record breaking growth under Obama was the “new normal”? I wonder why everyone was so disappointed by the new normal. Anyway, since you said it is a “fact”, and “truth” is now just a matter of personal experience….

            Anyway, here we go with your usual explosion of complaints, and supposedly it is all Trump’s fault. H. Clinton would have been perfect. Obama was the prince of peace.

            You do realize we should not have any delusions about either Republicans or Democrats. We should just vote for the lesser of evils. Because all men are sinners, we can’t give our leaders any more power than absolutely necessary.

            Did Republicans blow the budget? Yes. Did Democrats try to stop them? No. That’s what establishment politicians call a compromise, spending as much as they can.

            Conventional politicians are empowered by spending money. The more spending — the more government power they control — the more influence they have. That’s why it has become so difficult to balance the budget. These guys don’t want to give up any power. They don’t want government smaller. They want bigger government.

            You are really concerned about the transfer of wealth? Bullshit! The biggest transfer of wealth comes from Social Security and Medicare. What are you doing to keep your children from being taxed to pay your bills?

            You want unskilled workers to earn decent wages? Then fight against illegal immigration and for school choice. Just because their donors want cheap labor doesn’t mean we should vote for conniving politicians who won’t enforce our borders. Just because they promise anything and everything doesn’t mean we should trust politicians to educate our children.

            Listen to your own words about Trump and Republicans. In a democracy how do we stop politicians we don’t like and don’t trust from getting elected? We can’t. So all we can do is compromise. You mind your business. I mind my business. Only when we cannot resolve our differences any other way should we ask for government intervention.

            Like

    1. @tsalmon

      The way you compared the presidents was kind of funny. Let me take it another step. Trump is competent. Obama was not. Bush defended the country. Obama did not.

      I am sort of puzzle by the reference to Lee Atwater. Are you conceding that the Russian collusion nonsense is false. What about the fact the operation to frame Trump involved the FBI?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Well, it’s not that complicated brother. I’m saying that Trump is constantly bringing up his base’s apparent irrational loathing of Clinton is just a distraction so as not to face the daily events of vice promotion and corruption that is a President Trump.

        I don’t blame you. All you have is wild conspiracy theories and hypothetical Hillary hating to keep you from facing Trump’s petulant greed and selfishness that stares you in the face several times a day.

        Seriously Tom. Are you really going to be surprised to find evidence that a Trump knew about and encouraged Putin’s help in the election? Trump is already preparing you for the news by giving his “everybody does it” excuse. How many lies, how much greed and corruption are you going to swallow with the justification that you hate Hillary more?

        Like

        1. As President of the United States of America, the leader of the free world, Trump engages in an adolescent ad hominem argument with a porn star that during the election he (illegally) paid to keep quiet about their short affair while his wife was recovering from childbirth, and that is not even the most outrageous thing he said or did that day. And you want to talk about a hypothetical President Hillary? Of course you do.

          Like

          1. @tsalmon

            It is funny. You keep saying the same stupid things.

            Think this through. Trump tweets stupid things. No drama Obama did stupid things that got people killed. No drama Obama abused his authority repeatedly. It is obvious that the CIA and FBI went after Trump without cause. The scandal about the IRS’ abuses against the Tea Party were so blatant it is obvious people should have went to jail. Instead we have a president claiming a scandal free administration. No drama.

            🙄

            Like

          2. So you rather rehash diabolical Obama conspiracy theories and fantasize a campaign against President Hillary, then talk about affairs with playboy bunnies and “horse face” porn stars, illegal coverups, and tiny Presidential penises? I understand, really I do. But unfortunately that what we actually have to deal with in, you know, the real world.

            Like

          3. @tsalmon

            Look at what you wrote. That is how you focus on the issues? You get mad because I didn’t vote for the head of the Bimbo Eruptions Unit? And why didn’t I vote for her? She is not competent. She is crooked. You would have believe everything you watch on CNN and read in the New York Times vote for Obama or Clinton. I don’t.

            So I voted for someone who at least proposed to do some of things I want done, and he has actually tried to deliver. Done a good job too. Perfect? No.

            If Obama had record breaking growth, then how do we describe the growth under Trump? Well, Trump is certainly out-doing Obama, but that nothing to brag about.

            Like

          4. She isn’t the president. But she, of course, is all you want to talk about. Why are you so obsessed with her? Is it so you don’t have to focus on the national embarrassment that is narcissistic, corrupt, lying con artist President?🙄

            Because Trump is the leader of your party, a vote for a Republican in November is basically a vote for the party of serial adultery, pathological lying, extreme selfishness, rampant corruption, open misogyny and rapacious greed. That’s what you don’t seem to want to face.

            Like

          5. Let’s put it a different way. You’re all about promoting Christian values here, particularly promoting such values in government. We fundamentally disagree on the working systemics of that, but we agree on the need to encourage basic universal Christian virtues in general and in our government. None of us are perfectly virtuous. We are all sinners, but that doesn’t mean we applaud sin.

            How many sins does Trump, not only repeatedly engage in, but also actively promote right now and throughout his entire adult life? Adultery, greed, lying, stealing, self aggrandizement, waste, fraud, etc., etc., etc.? What has Trump’s actual service to the country been? He dodged the draft. He has never served anyone but himself. Even his supposed charity is a scam.

            That’s your leader. That’s what your party stands for now: unabashed greed, vice and corruption promotion.

            Like

          6. I might add, that in Tom’s personal and political dislike of Hillary becoming president he compromised his Christian values to vote for one of the most morally flawed and un-Christian persons to ever grace the Oval Office in recent history.. and then.. continues to support this person’s misbegotten and ill-conceived political agenda as a defense of this person’s continued abomination of Christian ideals with the idea that the ends justifies the means.

            I am shocked and appalled! (Well.. not really… but that was for dramatic effect.)

            Like

          7. Well, ya. 🙂

            Here’s the thing.. if you score high on some Mensa test or in school tested out at some genius level and you tell the world, you know darn well your intellect will be challenged on everything you do.. if either jokingly or seriously. “You’re the genius and you should know better!” kinda thing. The same falls to those who proclaim to the world their affinity for Christian, or any other religious beliefs. People will make every effort to point out to you when you do even the slightest violation of Christiandom… especially….. when Christians mix their religion with their politics. That’s your vulnerability.. and cross to bear. 🙂

            Like

          8. @Doug

            Well, you are right, and you are wrong. I am not hiding my Christian beliefs. However, we base our laws upon our moral beliefs. All of us want our laws to reflect our beliefs. You too. Since I believe in the freedom and free exercise of religion, I am trying to avoid imposing my beliefs on others as much as possible. Don’t believe you can honestly say the same thing.

            Like

          9. You see, I know I’m a sinner… and I accept that in a practical sense and I personally strive to avoid those situations as I try to live by the Golden Rule. You acknowledge being a sinner simply because God/Christ teachings force you to feel guilty constantly. I prefer to think that little voice on my shoulder is in fact God sending the “you should reconsider doing that” guilt trigger… rather than him figuratively slapping the Bible upside my head.

            Like

          10. @Doug

            Christians don’t feel guilty. God has forgiven us. We know we are works in progress. An unhappy Christian is one who has a poor understanding o f the Bible.

            Most people try to live by the Golden Rule. Since none of us do, all of us are sinners. Those who don’t know the love of God are often guilt ridden.

            Like

          11. @tsalmon

            If we elect someone, we have to choose from among the candidates. Trump was not my first choice, but he was a better choice than H. Clinton. Just reminding folks of that.

            Like

          12. Yep. That about sums it up Doug.

            I keep thinking that there is a tipping point where decent Republicans will say “enough is enough”, but then Trump just finds a new bottom and that becomes the new normal for the Republican Party.

            Like

          13. You have no idea, T. It boggles the mind how Graham, et al, hated candidate Trump and now it’s hugs & kisses between them. Ugh! Even as an old school Republican I “swung” toward liberal conservatism. But this stuff from the oranged-hair guy is just beyond comprehension.

            Like

          14. I meant to add.. you are correct when you say “decent republicans”.. we both know Tom to be a smart guy and Christian and all those good things in life… but what makes a guy like him.. and as you said… also so many other presumably smart and decent people, even consider the likes of Trump leading a nation such as ours. Is it fear? I think that’s a lot of it. The world is changing quickly.. too quickly for many to emotionally adapt to.. and human nature is such that not all folks can adapt quickly.. because “old ways” tend to feed our comfort zones; make us feel safe.. knowing life is “reliable and predictable” when we get up in the morning. I prefer a measure of that myself. But I gotta tell ya… the last 2 years of Trump has been anything but “reliable & predictable”, or even “safe”. In their effort to stymie change all the conservatives did was accelerate it.

            Like

          15. “If we elect someone, we have to choose from among the candidates. Trump was not my first choice, but he was a better choice than H. Clinton. Just reminding folks of that.”

            That’s a false choice fallacy for any number of reasons besides just the fact it is no longer relevant. It’s also strangely sad. One would expect the Dems to endlessly grieve over an election where they actually won the popular vote and where quite probably the winner cheated. However, stuck with a moral catastrophe as their leader, it is anguished Republicans that must constantly rehash their awful Faustian bargain over and over again.

            Like

          16. Methinks your concept of what people want is a bit askew. It’s not one bit about the size of government.. it’s about what is necessary to satisfy the will of the people. It’s like this total nonsense that some people just want “open borders”. I know of NO one who wants “open borders”. This idea of some people needing to exaggerate counter-context with ridiculous claims simply to support their context is just smokescreen to muddy the waters.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. Calm down? Ha! Angry expletive laced responses are your forte big brother.

            We are all bound to suffer in some ways at some times, but all-in-all I’m one of the most naturally contented people I have ever known. Most of the time, I just feel intensely grateful.

            My experience of a loving and sacrificial Jesus fills me with awe and unworthiness, but mostly it inspires in me joy, not hatred, anger or self righteousness. I admit that Trump disgusts me sometimes, but no, I don’t hate him. That’s Trump’s game and he wins as soon as we start to play it with him. I’m flabbergasted that people who claim to believe in virtue will accept as their leader a person who unabashedly promotes vice. But you’d be incorrect to confuse my reflections over this apparent hypocrisy as anger.

            It seems that the older I get, the more epiphanies that I have about my own ignorance. Maybe it’s because I have more time on my hands to study and reflect these days, but I think maybe that giving oneself over to God doesn’t suddenly make one have all the answers. It’s saving grace is not some formula or a set of rules to follow that can be divined by rabbinical study. Instead, just as our fall comes from pride, our redemption comes from humility.

            Even if we try our hardest, will do wrong. We will make mistakes. We will be lost for answers. Some problems defy anything but imperfect solutions.

            Anyone on either side claiming some formula for a Christian life (much less a Christian government) may be making an idol of himself and of his theories and rules.

            Perhaps the best we can do has nothing to do with following a set of religious dogmas, but rather that we just adopt an imperfect attitude of awe, gratitude and love.

            Doug in his way adopts that attitude with the Golden Rule. That seems fair to me. It doesn’t provide perfect answers and some peoples’ sincere interpretation of that Rule will differ from others when it is put into practice, especially when it comes to the complexity and ambiguity of the modern democratic state.

            As you know, Tom, we don’t save ourselves by being good Republicans or Democrats, good conservatives or liberals, by having big government or anarchy. God saves us when accept His love and when we imperfectly try to reflect that love back to God and on to our brothers and sisters through our compassion.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. You know, I wouldn’t mind ever meeting both you guys someday. especially you, Tom.. if for nothing else but to look you in the face and ask, “Are you serious?” knowing full well I’d be read chapter and verse (very literally) as to why I should be serious also. 🙂

            Liked by 1 person

          19. @tsalmon

            As you know, Tom, we don’t save ourselves by being good Republicans or Democrats, good conservatives or liberals, by having big government or anarchy. God saves us when accept His love and when we imperfectly try to reflect that love back to God and on to our brothers and sisters through our compassion.

            Compassion. What is compassionate?
            There is a simple rule for humility. It comes with the understanding that God is God, and “I” am not. The understanding is relatively easy. That acceptance part is what caused Adam and Eve to sin. That part is very difficult.

            We each belong to God. We each owe our existence to Him. We each are His servants, and He has given each of us the right and the command to glorify Him as best we know how.

            While some may see government health, education, welfare programs as compassionate, others like myself see them as dishonest vote buying schemes that violate the Constitution. How is bankrupting our country and our children for the sake of programs like social “security” and Medi”care” compassionate? How are expensive intercity schools that do an awful job compassionate? How are are welfare programs that break up families compassionate? Is it even realistic to expect politicians, when they are spending other people’s money on other people to be appropriately compassionate? What does stealing money from some people and giving that money to other people got to with compassion? Nothing. It is about playing at God.

            government’s job to be compassionate?

            Like

          20. A democratic government, like a church, like a charity, like a corporation, like the military or like any other organization is only a reflection of the values of the people who make it up and, very importantly, those who lead it. As such, any organization will be as compassionate or as compassionless as those people chose to make it. No matter what the organization, like the people that make it up, it will be imperfect at all goals of goodness from God, even compassion. Perfection should never be the enemy of better, however. The reality is that we are social animals that we solve problems and survive organizationally.

            I’m pretty certain that I know a good deal more than you do about this subject, if for no other reason than that your angry and platitudinous fanaticism betrays your simple ignorance, but I don’t claim to have all the answers to everything. The way that you call such sweeping cynical proclamations about such complex matters “humility” just boggles the mind.

            Like

          21. @tsalmon

            A democratic government, like a church, like a charity, like a corporation, like the military or like any other organization is only a reflection of the values of the people who make it up and, very importantly, those who lead it.

            So Trump is a great guy after all. Obviously, having politicians running our schools, especially Donald J. Trump, is for the compassionate best. Trump will do a great job bringing New York and Hollywood values into Mississippi’s schools.
            😆

            The framers of the Constitution designed a republic, not a democracy. They understood the difference between compassionate mob rule and justice. When government is not just, it is not compassionate, and government’s job is justice, not social justice.

            Like

          22. I am VERY certain the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing back in the day. I am NOT as certain that anyone today knows what the Founding Fathers thought they were doing back in the day.

            Like

          23. Tom,

            If you’re really interested in a humble search for truth and answers, it might be worth taking something Doug wrote earlier to heart. No serious person, Democrat or Republican, calls himself the part of the party of big government just as no serious person, Democrat or Republican, calls himself part of the party of anarchy. Doug put it quite wisely (despite the mixed metaphors):

            “This idea of some people needing to exaggerate counter-context with ridiculous claims simply to support their context is just smokescreen to muddy the waters.“

            Like

          24. Life is a metaphor. Death is… well, guess we won’t know till we get there and by that time we will be so confused that all we will be able to manage is a blank stare.

            Like

          25. Yea Doug, but a “smoke screen” to “muddy waters”? 🤨

            It doesn’t ruin you point, but only because it is a great point.

            Like

          26. sigh.. some metaphors are mixed as a matter of informal literary license. Apparently my license expired. :/ But thank you nonetheless for the kind affirmation. 🙂

            Like

          27. @Doug

            Since you brought up death, here is a quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein that has always fascinated me:

            “Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.”

            Like

          28. The most famous words on death are these.

            1 Corinthians 15:54-55 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

            54 But when this [a]perishable will have put on [b]the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”

            These words are part of 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. 1 Corinthians 15 describes what the Apostle Paul could tell us about what follows death. Paul could also tell us that that the God of the Old and New Testaments are one and the same. That quote from Paul refers to Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14.

            Liked by 1 person

          29. “So Trump is a great guy after all. Obviously, having politicians running our schools, especially Donald J. Trump, is for the compassionate best. Trump will do a great job bringing New York and Hollywood values into Mississippi’s schools.
            😆“

            Talk about making no sense.

            Everything always comes back to schools with you doesn’t it good brother? When did you get that advanced degree in school administration? When did you actually run a school. When did you actually run any large organization? What advanced studies have you done in pedagogy? In the economics of private verses public goods? In business administration? In government? Socialigy? The Law?

            I don’t have a clue what is the best way in every case to educate children, but my uneducated opinion is that we all benefit if all of us have access to the best educational opportunities possible. The conservative in me says that we should be careful about taking down a more than a century old public education system that served us (you and I in particular) quite well. But the adventurist in me says that we should always be open to new ideas and knowledge guided experimentation, especially at the community and state level.

            What concerns me, however, is the idea of demagogues, who are long on ideology and short on actual expertise, just deciding that they have opinions about things they actually know little about but are coming in with a wrecking ball. Other than that, I have no informed opinion on the subject.

            I don’t actually think you are a conservative Tom in the classic sense. Conservatives are slow and pragmatic. You are an extremist ideologue. Because you are an extremist ideologue, you have the need to put everyone in ideological camps.

            I have ideals Tom, but I’m not an ideologue. I’m more of the “every day pragmatist” that Posner wrote about in that book we both read.

            Ideologues deal with the fear and uncertainty that Doug talked about earlier by sheltering ideologues in the closed circle of their deterministic ideology. I just don’t think that works. As I said before, in this finite and fallen world, life is too vast, complex and ambiguous to fit nicely into such a human invented circle. The real world that we have fallen into is messy. We ultimately will suffer and die no matter what choices we make. This world provides endless unintended consequences and dilemmas that have no right answers.

            As we’ve both said, in our pride, we cannot save ourselves from this finite and fallen world. An ideology that presumes it can is another form of idol. All we can do is give ourselves over to God by humbly acting with the most virtue (which means the most love and compassion) we imperfect sinners in this imperfect world can muster in each situation.

            Like

          30. So to get at the crux of all of this, let’s take an example that we are both familiar with.

            We have a lovely niece. She is married with three children. She is a devout church going catholic. She has advanced degrees in education and has dedicated most of her life to teaching children in the public school system, including teaching poor children of color in inner city schools. She’s far from being idealistic about the self serving bureaucracy and unionization of the public school system, but she basically believes in its merits and works each day to make an individual child’s life better.

            In the big, ambiguous scheme of things, I don’t have any clue as to whether she is somehow morally complicit in an evil scheme of government enforced charity and irreligious child indoctrination. However, because she knows a whole lot more than I do about the subject, I think I’d value her opinion over the ideologues and demagogues who have no experience or expertise. However, even if she is somehow wrong in God’s eyes in the infinite grand scheme of things, I think she is trying to be virtuous. And honestly, since only a pride filled demagogue can really claim perfect knowledge of God’s infinite plan, I think that is all we can expect of ourselves.

            We certainly can debate about the best grand plan, but don’t you think that such a debate should be done with humility about, not only our own expertise, but also the limits of human knowledge and finite capability and tendency toward sinful selfishness, no matter what our expertise? Don’t you think the fact that we share the humble goodwill of a situational common regard for certain Christian virtues and values is far more important than that we find the some impossible, perfect grand scheme solution to every seemingly intractable, complex and ambiguous dilemma?

            I am being as sincere as I can here. I honestly don’t know if I’m right. In my ignorance, it just seems wiser to me to value the sincere attempt at virtue over the the grand scheme of every pontificating ideologue. As I said, the older I get, the dumber I realize that I am, but perhaps that is an epiphany we could all use a little more of.

            Like

          31. So how does this all relate to the topic at hand? If you look all the Presidents in our lifetime up until Trump, and I’ll even include Nixon in this, although they were flawed in many respects, and made both good and poor decisions, they basically valued service in the quest for virtue, even if on occasion, it was just to pay political lip service to such virtue. For example, although I obviously vehemently disagreed on policy with George W. Bush, I really think he is and was a basically decent man who valued his honor and tried to make virtuous decisions.

            Obviously, no one makes it to even to the top of their Party’s ticket without an almost unhealthy dose of ego and self confidence. No one makes it in politics without being manipulative and Machiavellian to some extent, and Hillary Clinton is no exception, but I honestly believe that, like all the actual Presidents in our lifetime, she wanted to act and present herself as virtuous, and one has to believe a good many trumped up politically motivated conspiracy theories to paint her as the evil villain that Republicans wish us to see her as.

            On the other hand, Trump makes not even the pretense at virtue, but actually openly disdains it. Instead, Trump actually glorifies most vices: lying, cheating, greed, selfishness. I can’t help but believe that, in the long run, we are better off with a leader who makes bad decisions, but means well, than one that even gives us everything we want, but is a promoter of vice. The latter seems far more corrosive to civil society in the long run than the former, but that’s just my opinion.

            Like

          32. @tsalmon

            You don’t know anything about education, but you think it is a great benefit when politicians who don’t know anything about education take money from people and spend it for them? You have only the best intentions so that makes sense? And I don’t make any sense?

            If I didn’t make any sense, then what was the basis for a series of long comments explaining what is wrong with letting other people run their own lives? Does it take an abundance of pride or a bit of humility to let other people run their own lives?

            What others do with their own lives is not about you or me. We are not God. Government cannot replace God. We can help each other, but we have no business, no matter how good our intentions, of using the government to force our solutions and beliefs on others. Yet that is what people do with public education. There is no way around it. It is naive to think otherwise.

            Like

          33. Tom,

            You must know that that is a lot of straw men and platitudinous demagoguery you’ve presented there. Communities work together to solve all sorts of problems. In most of these cases, there is no black and white separation of morality between when you are being forced to fulfill your responsibility toward common goals that any government requires of its citizenry, and when your absolute right to be left alone is being infringed upon. It is only pride and willful ignorance that makes us pretend such bright lines when people of goodwill, like you and I obviously, disagree. Even people of goodwill who, unlike you and I, have some expertise on these topics, disagree.

            Like

          34. “This is where the arrogance comes in. We didn’t have to personalize this issue. It is not about your ego. It is about an insistence upon being in control.”

            Not sure that I understand that last part, but I’ll give it some thought while I run today. Neither one of us is all that good at introspection, so you may have a point for me to meditate on. 😊

            As for the my personalizing the issue, don’t you think that that ship sailed the moment you began to demonize the opposition, not for their actual malevolence, but for simply not agreeing with your, by most standards, extremist ideology? Making your straw man a distant public figure or some generic liberal “busybody” makes it far too easy to hype the hostility beyond what you would thoughtfully do if you wanted to have a reasoned intellectual discourse and actually solve problems. If we constantly stoop to that level of demonizing the opposition, even if we don’t mention people we know and love by name, aren’t we misrepresenting decent people like them whether we actually mention them by name or not? As fellow Christians, before we throw out judgements of malicious intent, shouldn’t we imagine that it is our brothers and sisters (and also nieces) that are the actual faces of our abuse? You tell me.

            I don’t know, but it seems to me that the degrading civil society and our increasing polarization may have a lot to do with our increasing presumption of the infallibility of what are actually just opinions and our increasing inability to start with the presumption of simple decency and good will on the other side.

            Like

          35. @tsalmon

            Demonize the opposition? Have you read what you wrote? What does most of my “extremist ideology” (You don’t have one because you are just right.) come down to? “Live and let live.” Don’t you have enough to do without sticking your nose where it is not needed, much less wanted?

            The average voter does not have either the interest or the time to become properly informed. I try, but I know I don’t know as much as I should, and news media bias means we have to triple check everything. Hence, I consider putting politicians in charge of tasks the private sector can manage pure lunacy. How does it make sense to take responsibility for additional tasks when it is not needed, and you don’t have the capacity to properly do what you already have to do?

            Think about it. What idiot would put politicians in charge of the character education of our children? Yet we have done so.

            Like

          36. “Demonize the opposition? Have you read what you wrote?”

            No intent to demonize. Just pointing out what you seem to readily admit – your ideas on public schools, as well as many other public goods and services, just aren’t very mainstream, even amongst Republicans. Now if you can just use government to force that (uninformed?) majority not to have what they feel that they want and need for the general betterment of their community, then we can all live and let live?

            Like

          37. “Think about it. What idiot would put politicians in charge of the character education of our children? Yet we have done so.”

            Good point. And what idiot would put politicians in charge of sending our children into battle? Yet we have done so.

            Like

          38. And dare I suggest.. what idiot would compromise their moral Christian beliefs and vote for a guy who lives at a building marked “666” as our president?

            (I know.. cheap shot.. sorry.)

            Like

          39. @Doug

            I have been listening to Liberal Democrats tell Conservatives and Christians how to be Conservatives and Christians respectively ever since high school. Shrug! I have decided it is a compliment. Consider. I would never tell a Liberal Democrat how to be a Liberal Democrat. Why would I tell some how they should be wrong?

            Like

          40. @Tsalmon

            Even as you try to refute my argument, you yourself make it.

            What does the Bible say about man? We are sinners. It is rare that those we give power do not abuse that power. The wise, in fact, most admire those leaders who, when given great power, voluntarily give it up for the sake of those they lead.

            So what good man leads his countrymen into war? One who realizes that that is the only way he can protect them from the ravages of conquest. Since good men like Jesus are so rare, we debate going to war quite fiercely. Still, there is no denying that there are nations out there who would either destroy or enslave us if they could. Therefore, we have a difficult choice.

            So what good man puts politicians in charge of the character education of his people’s children? One who foolishly believes that politicians can be trusted to care for those children more than those children’s parents. This is not a difficult choice.

            Like

  4. @John Branyan
    Allow me to come back to the Tragedy to the Commons. What would be your free market solutions to the following two fictional cases, if any.
    A) 20 fulltime fishers at a lake take out fish at an unsustainable rate (the rate would be sustainable for 15, if there were only 10 fishers they could actually make a living), fish population collapse is imminent.
    B) A company dumps toxic waste on its property, part of the toxines seep into the general water table of the nearby town.

    Like

    1. I know you didn’t ask me.. but here’s my contribution anyway.

      To your problem A)…. a number of possible solutions… but here is one…
      First.. one would need to clarify the problem a bit more. You state a consistent catch for 15 full time fishermen would be sustainable to meet an ongoing demand… then you go on to say that 10 fisherman could make a good living. That seems to imply 15 full time fishermen are making a sub-standard income? an adequate income?

      Anyway………. The fishermen secure investment financing on their own to purchase the lake.. or purchase the sole rights to fish on said lake as a business entity or co-operative. This would include financing to construct a hatchery which would maintain fish levels in the lake to support all 20 “employees”, some of whom fish for the product to sell and some to maintain the breeding facility. Debt service would come from profits.. from income originating at a market rate to the consumer adequate to meet earning requirements… and supply & demand.

      Now.. the government could object to that idea if that were the only fishing lake.. calling it a monopoly given there would be no competition to stabilize cost to the consumer. So the government stipulates no fish monopoly.. thus forcing all 20 fishermen, representing the fishing industry, to have to revert back to being independent businessmen. But the original problem is yet to be solved. So the fisherman petition to the government to finance the hatchery through the selling of bonds, and the operational expense of said hatchery is supported by a charge levied to each fisherman based on individual total poundage of their catch in a year.. thus leaving it up to the fishermen individually to pass such charges through pricing to the end consumer. This concept retains competition necessary to stabilize consumer pricing on a supply & demand basis… the expectation being that some seasons the catch would increase and other seasons the catch might be lower, all presumably due to environmental reasons. Now… the government would not necessarily mess with hatchery output in order to control supply & demand artificially unless some increased output to satisfy consumer demands threatens the environmental stability of the lake itself to support high fish populations. To curtail some of that increase in demand the government could limit the size of the fishing industry by regulating a permit structure to limit total fishermen to 20 given their expected total catch size each year.

      Regardless, price to the consumer would be stabilized until a point in time where demand exceeds supply, then consumer pricing will increase. Possibly other price controls could be levied by the government could stabilize demand given supply is not infinite. But quite honestly I see this as being totally a free market fish industry… as long as government regulates lake environmental conditions by not over-breeding to a point of threatening the entire industry.

      Phew.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. @Doug

        From his perspective, I suspect marmoewp now realizes he picked a bad example. When we are looking at a small lake, private market solutions look more feasible. However, fishing out in broad ocean areas, because selling the fishing rights would be difficult, does not seem to present a private market solution. Does your proposal scale up?

        Like

        1. I’m not aware there’s any “fish hatchery” need or even any possibility for bolstering consumable creatures in the ocean. I believe the example was a bit of a metaphor illustrating industry in general.

          Like

          1. The fisheries in the ocean are something of a mess. Since the oceans are generally considered common property, no one owns them, and no one receives any direct reward for maintaining the value of the fisheries. marmoewp has a differing view of that, of course.

            Like

    2. @Doug
      Kudos on taking the Kirk route out of a Kobayashi Maru test. 🙂 You introduce a hatchery, assert this will solve the supply side shortfall and turn to treating this as a problem in economics.

      Lets look at your solution on the economic side first. Your solution is to turn the Commons into property, hence excluding anybody outside the current fishery from free access to the fish in the lake. Furthermore, you acknowledge, that government would need to step in, in case demand threatens the environmental stability of the lake itself; hence your free market solution is to not have a free market.

      Apart from the economic side, you can not trick Nature into higher levels of sustainablity. The fish population is limited by the supply of food. If you overfish, you will further drop the number of fish for a longer period of time. As Tom pointed out, a lake may have been a poor example in the first place, but have a look fish in the oceans for example. We already had a collapse of the Atlantic northwest cod fishery. Or look at trophy fish in the Keys, then and now. And it looks like the oceans lost 90% of the large predatory fish population size since the 1950s.

      Like

      1. Uhhh.. not sure now what you are trying to compare is actually apples to apples. My VERY simplistic possible resolution to the problem is one of many possible that are equally or better possibilities likely available. Also… my meager “solution” was an attempt to retain a free market within a given industry that (presumably) employed a large number of people within the overall economy. For example, the couple bailouts of the auto industry. Let’s go back to the Arab oil Embargo of the 70’s. The result was a change in the purchasing habits of Americans away from the big cars to smaller more gas efficient cars… a shift the auto industry was not prepared for, much less prepared to re-tool overnight to address. Lee Iaccoca got federal money to bailout Chrysler amid huge complaints. He also paid every dollar back within ten years. By comparison, my retail business was located in an area strongly tied to the auto industry.. Chrysler specifically. So when production suffered.. people stopped buying all down the ripple effect. But the government offered ME no money to help ME through the tough times because I didn’t have thousands of employees on the verge of being displaced and tossed into sucking out unemployment compensation. I went out of business.. Chrysler continued. Surely not pure free market.. but then again, free market is not truly free because to have it means we will pay in some form.

        Like

  5. If Hilary had won, I’d have 4 years of hearing how white men should be ashamed of themselves just for existing, Bill would have been first lady, and we’d all be on the lookout for Hilary, since her health isn’t that good, and she’d be a puppet leader.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Well, I personally don’t need a Hillary presidency to be a white guy feeling guilty for existing. That’s happening now. In fact, I’m a white American of European descent which makes me guilty of all the world’s ills since the beginning of recorded history. Slavery, persecution of native Americans, racial incarceration of Japanese-Americans, and thanks to #MeToo I’m of the gender that abuses women. Apparently my Viking heritage passed on the “rape & pillaging” gene which I am sure is lying in wait within my crummysomes waiting for the trigger to surge forth and lay waste to the land.

      Liked by 1 person

          1. @Doug

            I suggest you take a good look at Persia, North Africa, and much of the Middle East. All those lands were Christian once. Do you know what the city of Istanbul was once called. Do you know how close the Turks came to conquering Europe. Are you familiar with the Muslim conquest of Spain?

            What caused the Dark Ages? A good argument can be made that Muslim raiders caused it by stifling trade in the Mediterranean Sea. So when people whine “Crusades” I just roll my eyes. Our school system reeks of anti-Christian bias.

            The crusades started when the Byzantine Empire asked for help. Over the centuries it ended up being a bloody disaster, but Islam is a religion spread largely by force of arms.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. @Michele

      Thank you for not discriminating against the latest downtrodden minority.😉

      I have never thought of my father as some kind of saint. Just the same I never saw him wasting time feeling sorry for himself, and he did not want to hear any excuses from his sons or daughters. That lack of meaningless sympathy helped us to be better people.

      When we need to see ourselves as victims, we will also see ourselves as victimized. That is, we will need someone to blame and hate for all our troubles.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. “WHAT IF HILLARY CLINTON HAD WON THE ELECTION IN 2016?”

    Well, my spouse would’ve been fired because his leadership style would not have matched whatever next Ivory Tower loony Hillary would have placed in there to match and likely even outdo the former Ivory tower loony bureaucrats they’d been placing in charge of the military for years.
    Life would be a lot worse for military people, and a lot fewer good people would be in, SJWs would control everything. I suspect our oldest wouldn’t be in ROTC now.
    We’d have a no fly zone over Syria, we’d be a lot more friendly with the foremost world counterfeiter, China.
    That’s off the very tippy top of my head.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Liz

      Interesting. I suspect most us could make it personal, but ladies tend to be less bashful about doing so. Political correctness definitely has a greater bite when Liberal Democrats rule.

      Without the booming economy, a lot more people wouldn’t be doing as well. Prosperity tends to reduce strife. Less reason to fight.

      Like

      1. Hah, Your comment reminds me of another idiom question that can also be applicable to your question, if Clinton had won?]

        “How would you like to hang by your thumbs for a few seconds?

        LoL

        Regards and good will blogging.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Well, Tom.. not sure you’re going to get many opinions supporting Hillary from your followers… but I’ll contribute this much.
    Trump supporters seem to come from different views… you got the guttural far right who hate pretty much anything not white.. and totally love Trump’s off-the-wall harsh rhetoric and underlying racial avoidance, as if he’s aching for kicking someone’s butt. Then you have the red state folks who allegedly suffer from some economic anxiety and think their tales of woe originate because all their rural factories paying them union wages of $25+ an hour went to other countries, that their $50 an hour coal mining jobs were lost because the previous administration believed in global warming. Then you have the religious right who simply see Trump as a vehicle of convenience; who have decided that it’s ok to embrace a president with such obvious moral and spiritual shortcomings and represents in his language an overall demeanor not supporting family values at all… in exchange for Trump being able to appoint one or more conservative justices to the Court so the majority is shifted in order to have Roe overturned. Then you have the “regular” Trump base.. made up of people who are seeing their white middle class identity vanishing in a world of globalism, the usual threat of their guns being taken away, and also relishing Trump’s hard-nosed rhetoric at swamp draining of D.C. elites, and totaling loving the political chaos and national divisiveness of the last nearly two years as some sort of needed upsetting-the-apple-cart.

    So.. you ask, what would have been different if Hillary had won? None of the above would have mattered. Just the idea of non-chaos is pretty much good enough for me.
    On the other hand… as an American I rather recognize of all the representation of Americans illustrated above, and very likely they would have still felt “left out” in a Hillary administration.. and that really solves nothing except continuing a measure of personal suffering in some of those situations.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Doug

      There are several people who comment on this blog who don’t share either my political or religious views. You are one of them. So I was hoping for a discussion both for and against.

      Your response is curious.
      1. What you have to say about Trump’s supporters sounds prejudiced. Instead of confronting what people stand for, you attack the people?
      2. If nothing would have been different, why detest Trump so much?

      When Democrats are creating chaos, not Trump or the so-called deplorables, I can’t say I understand your response.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. 1. Quite the contrary. I actually concluded my remark with the idea that those people voting for Trump for those various reasons were simply not to be dismissed (well, except for the far right and the evangelicals) because their concerns should be heard and as fellow Americans some effort made to address those concerns. Hillary missed those folks and had she won those folks still would have been unheard simply by omission and not by intent. That would not have changed… for them.
        For me this isn’t about “screw the Trump supporters because they are the other side” and yay for my side if Hillary won. As I have said.. some of those Trump supporters had some legitimate concerns. The other supporters.. well, those are just differences in political ideology and political perceptions which tend to alternate with the mood of the country.

        Just because I didn’t preface my remarks with “Hillary would have been better because…” with a laundry list of policy differences, I still would have preferred Hillary because she was a much better alternative for an American president toward retaining the status quo.

        2. Tom, I can’t imagine you are sitting in your recliner sipping a julep and thinking that now that Trump is in charge that all is right with the world and you are totally blind to the political and social divisive chaos his election has presented to this country.. and the world for that matter? I know you don’t watch TV… but jeez Louise. You see him as a vehicle for change and have compromised your moral standing accordingly because you see the change as being more important than presidential integrity. Well.. so far I don’t see ANY of this chaos and behavioral buffoonery as being anywhere worth having him as president for whatever good he’s allegedly accomplished.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. @Doug

            This is laughable. You detest Trump. You somehow (I still don’t understand why.) think your detestation noble. So I must be a hypocrite because I don’t hate Trump too?

            We had a choice between Trump and H. Clinton. They are both imperfect human beings. I chose the candidate I thought would be the better of the two for our country.

            You disagree? So? Why don’t you back up your choice? Why do you believe Clinton would have been the better choice?

            Like

  8. Hard to say what Clinton would have done with the GOP in control of both House and Senate. Certainly, we would have two very different Supreme Court justices.

    It’s likely the squishy Republicans would have continued to “reach across the aisle” in their misguided belief that liberals desire civility.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. I stopped reading after Doug wrote, “you got the guttural far right who hate pretty much anything not white…”

        It takes too much time and energy to defend a politician. None of them are perfect. I streamlined the political research process years ago. It take me seconds to figure out who gets my vote…whichever candidate is pro-life.

        That’s it. When a candidate declares they are pro-life, I have found that I tend to agree with them on most of the other political issues (which are of lesser importance than the sanctity of human life).

        Liked by 2 people

    1. I’m not sure, you’d have new SC justices at all. I suspect the Republican Senate would have gone the Garland route again and again and again, after all a Democratic president can not nominate a SC justice within the last 8 years of his/her term.

      Apart from that, I’d basically expect a continuation of the Obama years. More tension with Russia, as Clinton would not have given them a pass for their meddling, less trade war, a chance to do something about climate change. Oh, and the USA would still be reliable partner to its allies.

      Like

        1. I’m guessing you’re getting your foreign relations news from MSNC or CNN.
          No. Mostly it’s Tagesschau, FAZ, Die Zeit, Der Spiegel. A bit of Auslandsjournal and Weltspiegel. German mainstream and/or public media.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I would encourage you to be suspicious of any news source that suggests the US is straining relations with our allies.

            Thanks for doing your part to combat climate change!

            Like

          2. I’m afraid any “opting” I am doing these days is being fed by frustration and futility at the country’s nosedive… but then again, one person’s nosedive is another person’s flight upwards into the wild blue yonder… if you flip the picture upside down.

            Like

          3. I guess the challenge would be to determine when the picture is oriented properly. I’m not a relativist so we’re either in a nosedive or ascending to new heights. One or the other.

            Currently, I don’t see evidence of a pending crash.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Well, see, by comparison I might be tempted to put on the parachute if not for the fact that I made a pledge as a serviceman to defend the country and the Constitution.. so if necessary I will ride it all the way down.

            Like

          5. Amazing! As luck would have it, I have an entire blog devoted to just that! But.. let me sum it all up into three words. Trump is president… and while “some” (few actually) of his policies have merit I do NOT subscribe to the end-justifies-the-means. In other words, I will in NO way accept, or support, the man just to gain a few items that “might” help the country.

            But here’s Tom’s frustration because him and I have gone round and round for months and he prefers to discuss policies not character. My opinion is that his policies are secondary to everything the man is personally. He’s no republican by any definition, which I am. Now.. if you want a reason I feel that way.. well.. sorry.. here’s a link….

            https://findingpoliticalsanity.com/why-i-dislike-this-guy-as-my-president-2/

            ..and a little more….

            https://findingpoliticalsanity.com/what-do-i-hope-to-accomplish-with-this-blog/

            Here’s the key, John… we, as a nation, are too damned divided and the entire center to all this is Trump. Division is fine.. if nothing else it is what separates the parties as ideology. It’s this all-or-nothing “I win and you don’t” garbage that is getting nowhere and will deliver nothing in the end. His verbal animus is to fight and kick ass to get what you want… and there’s a bunch in his base that absolutely clamors to the heavens for that rhetoric as their way to flip a finger at politicians specifically, and D.C. in general. Yet in the end he’s betraying them as well.

            Here’s the historical absolute, John… the pendulum of sanity will return and swing back the other way in maybe four years. The next guy will change things his/her way. The only way of any hope that some changes stay in place is to compromise. This ram-it-down-their-throat Trumpian philosophy and nationalistic isolation will just harm the nation.

            Like

          6. I believe it was Obama who said, “Elections have consequences.”

            If character matters more than policy, then I have nothing to say in support of Trump.

            I would suggest that the divided nature of our country is not due to disagreement about politics. It comes from the belief that the “other side” is made up of horrible people with wicked motives.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Hmm.. not sure I agree with the accuracy of your reason that it’s not about politics.. at least in part. But I would agree with your context that each side certainly thinks the other is a horrible abomination of the American dream. So… any thoughts on that?

            Like

          8. Demonizing the other side is effective for controlling people who think individual character matters more than public policy. If people are convinced that it’s noble to resist a President no matter what policies he puts in place, there is no chance we’ll ever find common ground.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. When I in the Air Force I went to pilot training for awhile. It is actually true that at night pilots can be so confused that they can find themselves flying upside down, thinking the clouds are the ground. Frankly, I think Trump righted us, and I am quite happy to see H. Clinton does not have her hands on the controls.

            Like

          10. I would encourage you to be suspicious of any news source that suggests the US is straining relations with our allies.

            Unlike all post-war presidents before him, Trump refuses to steadfastly stand by NATO article 5. He questioned, whether the US should come to the aid of newest NATO member Montenegro [1]. He routinely misrepresents how military spending of NATO members works, claiming time and again that other countries directly owe the US money for military services rendered

            Germany owes vast sums of money to NATO, and the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany

            NATO never worked that way. Trump threatens, that the US would only come to the defense, after Trump has convinced himself that the country in question paid its “fair share” (to be determined by Trump) in the past. NATO is the bastion against Russian aggression, which already has invaded both Georgia and the Ukraine, and Trump is calling the US support for NATO into question. That fact alone puts a lot of strain on transatlantic relations already.

            John Branyon, given your above advise, I do not know which planet you are living on.

            [1] What is despicable about this attitude: Montenegro has more soldiers per capita in Afghanistan than the US.

            Like

          11. “[1] What is despicable about this attitude: Montenegro has more soldiers per capita in Afghanistan than the US.”

            I’m not sure about the choice of words there…”despicable”? Maybe I’m missing something. But I don’t understand why Montenegro is part of NATO. How many soldiers are you talking about there? 20-30 or something like that? Montenegro is tiny. A security alignment that requires us to expend our resources to protect Montenegro does not sound smart. They volunteer 30 soldiers and we are obligated to provide an umbrella of protection. Keep in mind, we have security commitments around the globe. Adding small satellite countries (former Warsaw pact countries) to NATO was bad policy when it began. It’s a recipe for disaster.

            Like

          12. @Liz

            Good question and good points.

            Montenegro is something of a distraction. NATO is an alliance. Allies help each other. Each member of NATO needs to contribute enough to its own defense so it is an asset, not a burden.

            Like

          13. What has concerned me a bit about admitting countries under the NATO umbrella is that it seems that some request entry already under some potential threat. It’s like purchasing insurance. Most if not all insurance policies have a exemption period of time before the policy takes effect ostensibly to diminish the risk to the insurance company of a customer getting coverage on an anticipated, or planned, damage or loss claim. Seems to me these smaller or Third World countries should be applying for membership before they come under some perceived threat. Also, it seems to me NATO should not be playing some political game in accepting membership of certain nations simply to thumb a political nose at a greater country. i.e. former Soviet bloc countries gaining their independence and suddenly they want to sign on to NATO prevent Russia from taking them over again…. or NATO accepting them as a way to taunt Russia with a “you got NATO on your doorstep, buddy-boy.”

            Like

          14. “Montenegro is something of a distraction. NATO is an alliance. Allies help each other. Each member of NATO needs to contribute enough to its own defense so it is an asset, not a burden”

            Let’s keep in mind what NATO membership means.
            From the treaty: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

            People seem to lose touch with this fact as it has expanded eastward, but it’s a dangerous expansion for that very reason. Furthermore, whenever countries are accepted into the alliance the organization has to take steps to collectively ensure that defense capabilities for those members are adequate before they are attacked (as waiting until afterwards could be too late). That means bringing in weapons, training, and sometimes forces into the area.
            It’s not a mere “distraction” this is serious stuff.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. @Liz

            Marmoewp reason for bringing up Montenegro does not have much to do with what you focus on. Your issue is that we need to count the cost before we admit folks into NATO. Whereas marmoewp used Montenegro to distract from the fact that some are unwilling to pay the cost of staying in NATO.

            Like

          16. @Liz
            I find the attitude despicable, that Montenegro is deemed good enough to have its soldiers fight by your side in Afghanistan, even before becoming a member of NATO, but not deemed worth defending.

            In case you missed it, Montenegro is one of the states Yugoslavia broke up into. After the Tito-Stalin split Yugoslavia was one of the founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement and never was a member of the Warsaw Pact.

            Like

          17. “In case you missed it, Montenegro is one of the states Yugoslavia broke up into. After the Tito-Stalin split Yugoslavia was one of the founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement and never was a member of the Warsaw Pact.”

            Lots of my very close friends and closest loved ones fought in the Balkan campaign. Our guys did 90 percent of the sorties over there so I’m pretty familiar.
            About 1 in 300 US citizens are active duty military. They’re a rare bunch, and typically pretty conservative so ivory tower people tend to not know any. Very easy to be cavalier with other people’s bodies they don’t know. These people simply become numbers and (h/t to you “percentages”). Not so to me. And you’re welcome for the Balkans. And you weren’t even attacked.

            -despicable me

            Liked by 1 person

          18. “Marmoewp reason for bringing up Montenegro does not have much to do with what you focus on. Your issue is that we need to count the cost before we admit folks into NATO. Whereas marmoewp used Montenegro to distract from the fact that some are unwilling to pay the cost of staying in NATO.”

            Gotcha. Sorry Tom, just read this. Point taken.

            Like

          19. Heh, that’s when NATO had a much more compelling reason to exist. Now it seems to me to be a destabilizing force as they add relatively unstable satellite countries. I don’t want to go to war with Russia over a small satellite country. I can definitely understand why that country would want the might of the US military behind it.
            Just to add to my despicability (and then I’ll drop it, sorry Citizen Tom) I’d like to address that first point:

            “I find the attitude despicable, that Montenegro is deemed good enough to have its soldiers fight by your side in Afghanistan, even before becoming a member of NATO, but not deemed worth defending.”

            It’s a little known fact that one member state was willing to provide 10,000 troops, all combat veterans, complete with their own medical unit, to secure the Srebrenica enclave during the Balkan campaign. It was the Islamic Republic of Iran (its offer was rapidly turned down due to political considerations which seemed valid at the time).
            Should we invite them into NATO too?

            Liked by 1 person

        2. And you can do something about climate change starting today
          Sure, I can do my thing and feel good about it. Will not do much about climate change, but hey, what’s more important: Actually tackling the problem or feeling good?

          Allow me to offer an imperfect metaphor: We are living in a valley at the foot of a dam and somehow had the idea, that digging for gold inside the dam is a good thing. Now we found out that continuing to do so will flood the valley. Will me alone stopping to dig prevent the flood? Will half of us stopping to dig prevent the flood? Can the flood be prevented without all of us stopping to dig?

          Unless we get all our governments to get their acts together now, we and especially our offspring are screwed. Unfortunately, for Republicans it has become an article of faith to dismiss our role in climate change as a hoax.

          Like

          1. We need to change the individual country’s energy mix away from fossil fuels. Push for higher efficiency (short term: gas instead of coal), more wind and solar power, nuclear power where neccessary (despite the difficulties in power station safety and disposal of spent fuel). A carbon tax increasing over time could be market oriented push away from fossil fuels. Push research into energy storage technology, be it batteries, hydrogen, or liquid fuel production from non-fossil sources (for example we do not have energy storage alternatives suitable for air flight, kerosin packs a lot of energy into small volumes and small weight).

            Yes, this will put coal miners out of their job and disrupt other industries. As far as I can tell, doing nothing will be worse in the long run.

            Like

          2. I agree to the point of the human cost to this. Just closing down traditional industries for the betterment of mankind through changing technologies is one thing.. but you simply don’t displace former workers in those industries and cast them into the wilderness. This is what has been forgotten with the fossil fuels industries; economic supply & demand is wonderful, but we have a social responsibility to include displaced workers… through re-training, re-education, cross-training… and even community re-direction if a given industry threatens an entire community. Fossil fuels will be around for a while.. but science has proven the emissions are bad. If technology is not fixing the emissions.. then the industry should evolve away.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. You are absolutely correct, Doug, and I am sorry I did not point it out myself. If society decides some industry needs to be destroyed for the “greater good”, it has the obligation to help
            the people affected getting a foothold to another good life. I know how hard the end of coal mining and the dwindling of heavy industry hit the Ruhr Area where I live, despite efforts to attract / start new economies and a good social safety net.

            Like

          4. What is “vital to free markets” is a government that doesn’t tamper with industry “for the greater good”.

            In a truly free market, when alternatives to fossil fuel are cheaper AND sufficiently meet the demand for energy, the government won’t need to figure out what to do with unemployed coal minors – the new industry will be desperate for workers.

            A good starting point for you would be to trust the free market.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. @John

            There you go suggesting you would do a better job of making your own decisions and running his own life. Don’t you know some people are incapable of that? If we can save just one person from an imperfect decision — if we can save the world from the astronomically remote possibly of global warming — then shouldn’t we put government committees in charge of everyone and everything?

            Liked by 1 person

          6. This dude straight-up admitted that disrupting industry was horrible for the people he knows. Apparently, he believes the government has a magic wand that will fix everything but they won’t wave it unless compassionate socialists stage protests.

            Typical leftist. Lots of passion. No solutions.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Excellent point, Doug.
            There’s no doubt people are sick of right wing political theories. What good is a job when you don’t feel love from congress?

            Hopefully there will be a candidate in 2020 whose entire platform is compassion. He (or she!) will shut down all the dirty industries that pollute our planet, drive unemployment to 40%, then focus on feeling the pain of our citizens.

            Hey! Would you be available to run? If not, maybe you could suggest someone who cares more than you.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Whoa.. John.. that almost sounds like traditional republicanism! We are buddies! Well, almost maybe. Not even Trump is free market… he’s got that bastardization Trumpian republicanism going on.. I want none of that.

            Anyway.. regarding displaced industry workers… the alternative fuel sources.. solar, wind, etc. has already got more employees than all the fossil fuel industries combined. The problem is that to the economy there’s some sort of one-offsets-the-loss-of-the-other, the reality is that fossil fuel sources are regionally specific… like communities with local coal mines. If there’s no alternative energy businesses in town those displaced miners can’t just “move over” to an industry no local to them. Technically, the free market would adjust to the industry shift.. but the people themselves will fall by the wayside. There’s a human side to free market.

            Like

          9. I get it, Doug. Trump is terrible. Horrible! The worst human being to ever occupy the office of the President!! The poor, working class people will never recover from the catastrophe of this administration.

            Compassion. That’s the answer. We gotta get a President who cares.

            In Indiana, workers are allowed to move to other places in order to find work. I don’t know how it works in other states.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. I realize your sarcasm, John.

            “Trump is terrible. Horrible! The worst human being to ever occupy the office of the President!!”
            Well, ya.. pretty much.

            “The poor, working class people will never recover from the catastrophe of this administration.”
            Ohh.. it’s far more being affected than some “poor working class” whatever that means.

            “Compassion. That’s the answer. We gotta get a President who cares.”
            Well, more like we need a president who can lead, inspire, and work for ALL Americans. Compassion would be a bennie of all that.

            “In Indiana, workers are allowed to move to other places in order to find work. I don’t know how it works in other states.”
            You mean Indiana residents have the freedom to travel to find a job? When did they start that?? Indiana is pretty damned progressive!

            Like

          11. @Doug
            Not really. Socially I think I’m center-left, economically center-right, on the German political scale. However, I do acknowledge that the Greens added much needed accents regarding the environment and LGBT rights to German politics, it’s just that I do not want to see their fundamentalist wing near power. In the US, most likely I’d be a Democrat.

            Like

          12. @John Branyan
            What is your free market solution to the Tragedy of the Commons? Mine is to put a proper price tag on the environmental damage caused by the product, in order to level the playing field, and let market forces run their course. You seem to think that subsidising the old industries by not holding them accountable for the damage they cause. Is that a free market to you?

            As for your reading comprehension, the industry in my area went down in the 70s not because of government intervention, but because it was no longer competetive on the global market. It happens, if your coal seams slant downwards and you need to dig more than half a mile under the surface. Automation saved some mines for a few more decades at the cost of the loss of many jobs. As the local coal was no longer cheap enough, most of the steel production went down the drains, too. That’s simply what happens in a free market and that’s OK, as hard as it is on the local population. Old industries go down, new ones come into existence. The better is the enemy of the good. And that’s where society via its goverment can help with a kick-start.

            The demise I described is what happened to your rust belt, too, and your coal mines in West Virginia, btw. The very industries Trumps wants to protect with tariffs. No idea, how this is supposed to bring jobs back lost to automation, but that is Trump to you.

            I just have to wonder, John, who between you and me is more of a free market capitalist? The one wanting to level the playing field and let innovation run its course, or the one wanting to bring back the status quo ante?

            Like

          13. Your hatred for Trump is understood. It is not necessary to reference him in every comment. I won’t forget.

            Which one of us is more a free market capitalist? Easy. “Me.”

            The playing field will never be “level”. If you believe the government has the power to make life fair, you are deluded. If you give away your liberty because a politician says, “I care” – you are a fool.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. Ok.. you’re more free market than me.. and Trump. I’m not about comparing measurements.

            I was rather of the idea that “I care” was an American ideal… not a slogan in the defense of some perception of liberty you think is being threatened. I see the Constitution being stronger than ever.. which is my only concern. Or is this your extrapolation of some fear someone has sold you? Politicans? They have been around since this country was founded.. and in fact, a few of them indeed founded this country as illustrated in the Constitution. The idea is not to simply elect them and imagine they will do what YOU want without some monitoring of their performance. Free market does not have to be completely about survival of the fittest… because, our Constitution does not make any free market guarantees. It guarantees that free market, or any other social or economic entity, does not infringe on our rights. I want nothing to do with socialism. I’ve owned three businesses in my past across three industries.. service, retail, and a dabble in manufacturing… and I’ve been in corporate management. I’ve had employees. All three of my businesses existed to a point where market conditions changed and I failed to adapt properly, and I fault NO one for the decisions I made which brought them over time to cease to exist. Survival of the fittest. But I did care for my employees.. not out of some business obligation but out of a level of personal empathy because a large part of my life I was where they were.

            There’s a part of me that wants to tell those red state people who lament “oh poor us.. our local big industry that paid me $50 is no longer here and our community is now in the economic dumper because of it, and we need a villain to blame for all this so let’s latch onto off-shore outsourcing and bad nasty countries that Trump says are not trading fair… and Obama.. and Hillary’s 30,000 emails.”, and tell them that the Constitution does not guarantee you a living; it guarantees you a chance to decide for yourself how you want to live. If you can’t adapt to the changing demographics and economies of your communities.. then move the hell out and live somewhere else.. and yes, you likely will be paid what current market conditions indicate you will be paid.. and not some high-paying union wage. But there’s a reality of life.. if the failing industry has supported a large workforce in the past then government might be a bit obligated to help by offering choice “enhancements” to becoming re-employed.. like training and education alternatives. Flat out giving cash stimulates nothing. But the sooner that large segment of the workforce gets back to working the sooner the national economy course-corrects itself.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. You responded to my comment to Marmoewp.

            I’m sorry your businesses went away. I have no doubt you cared about the plight of your employees. Compassion is not found exclusively on either side of the political aisle.

            Like

          16. @Doug

            Anyone who can set up and manage a business has my respect. That said, the Federal Government under the Obama administration decided to put the coal industry out of business. That was after the Feds decided to subsidize “clean” energy. These choices were political, not based upon either science or economics. Hence the victims of these decisions have every right to demand the fools responsible stop interfering.

            Like

          17. No, Tom.. prove it was political.. and please do not cite the Fox Ministry of Propaganda or any other conservative nonsense site. In fact, prove the science of climate change is fake. Wait.. please tell me why ANY scientist worth their reputation would want to even fake that science to begin with.

            Like

          18. 1. That’s an awful lot of scientists to buy off. Rule of reasonableness suggests that’s not possible on concept of affordability alone.

            2. Rule of reasonableness also suggests that those scientists who were made an offer and refused on some moral grounds would not likely keep it a secret. Do we know of any sudden purchases of yachts, villas, etc. to suggest a windfall of cash in the scientific community was floating around?

            3. You rather think lowly of politicians for their financial corruptability.. and even toward people like scientists who are apparently weak enough to accept money to compromise morality. It rather suggests you have this cynical idea that everyone has a price. Well, does that mean back when you were doing your thing for USAF and had all that secret stuff going on that you had a personal price to betray those secrets to the highest bidder if an offer had come your way?

            Like

          19. @Doug

            The South owned slaves. People have owned slaves most of human history. We can convince ourselves that good is evil and evil is good.

            The Federal Government controls most of the money spent on research and much of the money spent on education. All kinds of tax payer dollars all around the world gets spent BECAUSE of the belief in global warming.

            Like

          20. Let’s put this in terms you can understand… lots of people donate to their respective religion with the idea it goes to some worthwhile service to the Almighty, but are they sure? If you’re a Catholic, and I know you can’t answer for Catholics, does the money you give to the church get used to pay off sex abuse victims? Do they have a choice where their money goes?

            So.. if all these scientists are being bought through fast tracking their grants for research projects.. would there not be some paper trail to suggest some sudden influx of that happening with the OMB? Oh.. the OMB is being paid off! It all makes no sense Tom.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

Allallt in discussion

Debate and discussion: Reasonable, rational and fair

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

TLP

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

altruistico

People Healing People

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

Because The Bible Wasn't Written In English

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Fr. Pietraszko's Corner

Discovering Truth and Love

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Healthy Mind Ministry

A Ministry Devoted To Mental Wellness Through Jesus Christ

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Why be stagnant?

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

Communio

"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

Running The Race

Hebrews 12:1

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. Wisdom to help us find the path to true love, peace, and joy in our lives, and our world.

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: