I agree with those on yesterday’s thread that said Wallace is a class act.
He did well.
Some ladies said that Clinton looked nice.
In that category: “Shannon Bream for president!”
I too watch it unti the end…and was left with a sick feeling….darker days ahead….I’m filling out my ballot today…perhaps my vote will count for something….but I kind of doubt it….
It’s over. Trump is exactly who many of us thought he was from the beginning. That person can’t be elected, even in Idiocracy/Kardashian America. We will never know what he might have done as president. I don’t think it would have been good, but it would have been funny.
Solar Pancake, you said on yesterday’s thread: “Cheryl, the Bible calls for and allows for us to interact in various manner of ways with unbelievers. It doesn’t call for us, nor allow us, to make allies of and support God-hating men for political office. Not a difficult distinction here.”
You know, I don’t know of a single place that Scripture even hints about voting for public office, so one must go with some real interpretive stretches if one wants to speak of the Bible not “allowing” us to vote for unbelievers. But here are a few relevant points:
-I reject theonomy. I’ve seen it do really serious damage in churches, and it is a misinterpretation of Scripture. The focus of Scripture is Jesus Christ and Him crucified, not whether we may eat pork today.
-The most relevant Scriptures I can think of offhand for “what type of man to vote for” would include “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” In other words, who sits in the Oval Office is a secondary concern; our bigger concern should be the church. We do our civic duty, including paying taxes and voting or in some cases even run for office, but we dare not put them in a bigger place than they are. If you were living in an unevangelized country, you wouldn’t vote at all–but nothing in Scripture would be restricting you. Most missionaries, once a few men have been led to Christ, would be looking for some of them to be the foundation for the church, the elders and deacons. A theonomist would be looking for which ones of them can be political leaders. Nothing wrong with Christians running for office . . . but it’s secondary. We don’t put our trust in princes. We aren’t a theocracy; our bigger concern is the church.
-A second passage tells us not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. That has long been used primarily to say “Don’t marry an unbeliever.” It also is usually taken to mean that if you are going into partnership (say two lawyers or two doctors), don’t bind yourself in a “yoke” with someone with an entirely different belief system. I’ve never ever heard it suggested that if you are on a board of a corporation, you must insist on hiring only Christian CEOs.
-The government is invested with true authority over our lives. They may use it well or badly, but they are given actual authority to write laws. A state that allows abortion, for example, is using it poorly. But we are still called to submit to state authority unless they require us to do something God forbids. I know a theonomist who allows his 15-year-old son to pump gas, in spite of the law posted on the gas pump that no one under 18 can pump gas unless he is a licensed driver. As a theonomist, he thinks he is in a position to judge which laws should or shouldn’t be there, and accordingly obey or disobey. But God has not given us such authority; such disobedience is rebellion, not godly discernment.
The law exists to point us to Christ, and as a means of showing us what pleases God. God cares about our sexual purity, for example. But an over-focus on the law is dangerous. I heard a pastor, preaching through Leviticus, tell the congregation that it is a sin to have sex during a wife’s period. But that’s a serious misinterpretation of the law. The church is not under the ritual laws of the Old Testament. We do not live in a theocracy, and this is not Israel. The New Testament puts much greater emphasis on the church; it is no longer one and the same with the state. Israel has been set aside as the focus, not “replaced” by America but by the Seed of the woman, the Son of David, and His spiritual offspring. (I put replaced in quotes because biblically it isn’t that Israel has been set aside, but that unbelieving Israel has been. The church has in fact been “grafted into” the remnant of believing Israel, and secular Israel goes on its way, a footnote to history. But the law was fulfilled in Christ, not through obedience to the various OT regulations.)
Chas, I didn’t watch any of it, though I watched the others. The Cubs were on, and they offered more entertainment with less pain. (Now, if they’d have lost . . . but a 10-2 win for the Cubs is a whole lot more pleasant to watch than a 0-0 debate.
I doubt the riot thing. But the winner will have a rough time, no matter who.
I don’t know if either of them are up to it. I know Hillary isn’t.
The new president will be tested. Obama withdrew the missile defense from Poland. That set the stage for the remainder of his presidency. The “red line” quickly turned yellow.
I am reluctantly beginning to believe those who say that God is bringing judgment to America.
I say, “Remember the ten good men”.
Most of the social disruption, GLBT, abortion, no prayer in school, drugs, etc. have been imposed from above (government). But most of the people seem to want it that way.
I’m glad I lived in the epoch when America was a great nation. When we flew our B-29 into Karachi, Pakistan, we were respected. Not liked, but respected.
I watched it all. We’ll see what the polls start showing by this weekend, but I suspect most people’s minds have been made up.
God’s judgment often plays out in letting people go their own way. So in that sense, it’s fair to say we’re seeing some judgement play out in the U.S. While the federal government has become heavy handed in enforcing issues like gay marriage, it’s been generally with the acceptance of the majority of people (some are simply confused and don’t know how to argue otherwise on this issue, they’ve become so separated from the truth).
While I dread the thought of (another) Clinton presidency, I wonder if a Trump presidency wouldn’t just cause such an uproar in so many ways that it’s the least disruptive way forward in terms of violence. Not that that’s a reason to prefer it, but if Trump is elected I’d look for much social unrest.
As long as Republicans can hang on to at least part of Congress, the way forward politically will simply be to endure and regroup for 2020.
For followers of Christ, we will carry on as always but perhaps the state of our culture & nation will provide a bit of a wake-up call to the church militant.
Donald Trump’s allegations that the election is “rigged” constitute a motif in the closing days of his presidential campaign. The theme emerged last night in his refusal to acknowledge he would concede the election when he loses.
I find Trump’s allegation of the rigging of the election bizarre. It advertises his understanding that he will lose the election. He disclaims responsibility for the loss in advance, but there it is, even if his enthusiasts fail to understand what he is saying.
Why would Trump advertise his loss in advance? He wants us to know that it’s not his fault. It couldn’t be helped. It’s beyond his control. When he loses an eminently winnable race to the most beatable Democratic candidate of the modern era, so he believes, it won’t be because of his failures as a candidate. …
… A modestly capable candidate could make hash of her.
Trump is not the man. He can barely frame a coherent thought or articulate a comprehensible argument against her.
… Understanding that he is going to lose “big league,” as he would say, to a pitifully weak opponent, he is more concerned about salvaging his pride than putting up a fight. …
_______________________________
The genteel, decorous, largely behind the scenes campaign of 1796 devolved into an acrimonious, ugly, public war in 1800 when Adams and Jefferson squared off a second time. This time both parties mobilized a print campaign, enlisting partisan authors to abuse the other party in newspapers, pamphlets, circulars, and broadsides. Democratic-Republican writers castigated the Federalists as closet monarchists and Tories in league with Britain to subvert American liberties. They were the puppets of international financiers whose goal was to reduce the people of the United States to “rags, hunger, and wretchedness.” At best, their economic policies were products of “imbecility and impudence.”
Federalists gave as good as they got. Federalist writers accused Jefferson of being an atheist (false), of fathering “mulatto” children (probable), and of being an unabashed supporter of the French Revolution (undeniable). If Jefferson was elected, they prophesied that America would suffer the “just vengeance of Heaven.” The worst excesses of French radicalism would come to America: “dwellings in flames, hoary heads bathed in blood, female chastity violated . . . children on the pike and halberd.” (Translation: if the other side wins, cities will burn to the ground, the aged will be murdered, women will be raped, and children will be speared. This was hardly a golden age of civil discourse.)
In the end, the Democratic-Republicans won the election by a hair, with Jefferson claiming the victory in the electoral college by a vote of 71-68. (Technically, Jefferson tied with running mate, Aaron Burr, but that’s another story.) John Adams had every reason to view the outcome as illegitimate. Schemers in his own party, most notably Alexander Hamilton, had failed to support him. What was worse, Thomas Jefferson owed his slender electoral margin to the fact that his support came disproportionately from states with large slave populations; thanks to the Constitution’s “three-fifths” clause, those states were entitled to extra electoral votes. Had the Founders not made this compromise with the owners of human property, Adams, not Jefferson, would have gained the victory.
Yet Adams did not contest the election formally, nor openly condemn the outcome. And Jefferson, for his part, used his inaugural address not to castigate his opponents but to seek common ground with them. “Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind,” he exhorted. “Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. . . . Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.”
So transpired the first transfer of power from one political party to the other in U. S. history. It was, despite the acrimony on both sides, remarkably peaceful. Both parties submitted to it. Both sides respected the outcome, despite the depth of their differences and the magnitude of what was at stake. This was not something the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 could have predicted. It is not something Americans in 2016 should take for granted. It is, in fact, one of the most precious legacies we have inherited from our forebears.
Cheryl, it’s not a stretch to argue that if God requires certain qualities in a political ruler–if He provides a job description specifically for that role–then it follows we ought to support only persons who would fulfill that role; further, we ought NOT to support those who clearly act contrary to the role. If he described how a plumber ought to do plumbing, and we had an opportunity to support, or not, a plumber who plumbed *contrary* to how God has instructed, it would be our duty to *not* support him. If a person plans to vote for a politician who, in violation of Psalm 2, does not “kiss the Son,” it is incumbent on *that voter* to justify supporting someone who clearly violates a command of God.
Proverbs 29:2: When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.
2 Chron 17 describes the godly rule of Jehoshaphat, and that, *therefore,* the Lord established the kingdom under his rule.
Proverbs 8: 15, 16: By me [wisdom] kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; by me princes rule, and nobles, all who govern justly.
Proverbs 29:2: When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.
Proverbs 16:12: It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness.
Etc. A person who rejects Christ cannot rule according to these commands and principles. Read the verses in context. They aren’t speaking of some generic form of living uprightly; they’re talking about deliberate submission to the King of Kings.
So if someone wants to vote for a person who rejects Christ, that voter needs to justify giving support to someone who, at the very foundation of his view of life, thinks and acts contrary to these Scriptures.
Your view of theonomy isn’t relevant. I don’t even know if I’d be considered a theonomist, but my views here wouldn’t make me one. I’m saying nothing different than what guys like Calvin and Spurgeon and others we’ve all heard of have said. Are they theonomists? I pointed this out before here once. Parenthetically, your reference to eating pork is a mischaracterization of theonomy. I do know that much about it.
Nothing I’ve said approaches a neglect of rendering to Caesar, nor diminishes the more primary role of the church, and the idea that we are not to put our trust in princes certainly supports what I’m saying–remember that I’m suggesting NOT voting for certain candidates!
Trace your analogy of insisting on hiring only Christian CEOs onto my suggestion we should only vote for godly candidates. If you do, I think you’ll see you’re not really hitting the mark and the analogy doesn’t translate.
The other stuff about theonomy isn’t relevant; seems like you’re kind of trying to poison the well there. I don’t advocate breaking laws. Why assume that’s an outgrowth of what I’ve argued?
I don’t intentionally “over-focus” on the law. (You assume so much!) But anyone could suggest that about almost anyone else. You allude to adultery. Someone can say YOU over-focus on the law. But that just begs the question.
Psalm 2 speaks to Gentile rulers. The place of Israel and the Church in this era–whatever you or I believe about it, and I suspect we have similar beliefs there–doesn’t change the fact that Psalm 2 had, and continues to have, authority over Jew and Gentile rulers anywhere. They are to kiss the Son, lest He be angry.
I think either one might bring unrest. But I think a Trump election would mean Republicans are no longer even “sort of” conservative, and I think it would mean the end of the party. Whereas Trump losing holds just a smidgen of a hope that it’s the end of the crazy RINO nominations. I’m not “hoping” for a Clinton presidency, because I honestly think that either one is likely to mean disaster. But I do think that if anything Trump is more reckless (he’s almost certainly more erratic), and he has “Republican” on him. So if he is elected, we may not ever see another Republican president, and it’s likely the party will need to dissolve. That’s my assessment.
I remember one gubernatorial race in Illinois, when the Republican was pro-abortion and the Democrat pro-life–how that happened, I don’t know, but it did. And so I voted for the Democratic candidate. But when the Republican won, I thought Oh well, that was really almost an election I couldn’t “lose,” because I either get the pro-life Democrat or the candidate from the pro-life party. As it turned out, however, he was corrupt, and he fell, and after he fell, Republicans didn’t do well in Illinois for quite a few years. He tainted them. Honestly, I’m almost past caring whether the Republicans are tainted by Trump, since I think they’ve moved too far from being really “my” party, anyway. I’m beginning to think that “pro-life” is just a slogan for most, for example. But Trump isn’t doing Republicans any favors unless he somehow wakes them up.
cheryl, I agree that a Trump win would make things much more problematic for the Republican party (and conservatives as a whole) going forward in any kind of an organizational way.
If Trump loses (which I believe he will), he may fade into the background fairly quickly as a personality (although he apparently wants to launch his own media empire and network — but he’ll be a tainted “brand” at that point).
How this whole thing happened is a marvel (in a bad way).
Either way, the GOP has a long and complex road ahead after this is over and done with. Conservative social issues appear to have lost the day (for now), so it will be interesting to see what (and who) emerges from the party ashes.
And I have to say that the nation’s demographics are rapidly changing. Conservatives have to figure out a way to reach out and capture some of the multi-ethic and minority vote in the future. And that will require some new leaders to rise up, people who can present a winsome view for those on the outside of the party of what it means to be conservative.
“But I think a Trump election would mean Republicans are no longer even “sort of” conservative, and I think it would mean the end of the party. ”
I disagree. I think a Trump loss means the end of the R party. To Trump supporters it’s apparent that the R party elites did everything they could to ensure his loss, from the primaries on. If you think they will come back to the party, you’re dreaming. They will never again believe the RINO’s and party leaders like Ryan can be trusted.
And they are right.
This is already starting to play out, and will escalate if Trump loses. The R party will be destroyed, and I’m OK with that. Then maybe we can have a real, live, legit 3rd party.
“A sneak preview at the coming Republican civil war if things go sideways tonight and the election produces a blowout. According to YouGov’s Will Jordan, Ryan’s net favorable rating within his own party stood at +23 a week or so ago. Then, after the “Access Hollywood” tape was revealed, Ryan told House Republicans that he’ll no longer defend Trump or campaign with him. Trump spent the following week needling Ryan on Twitter and at his rallies for not showing the same support for him as Democratic pols showed for Clinton. That culminated in Trumpers chanting “Paul Ryan sucks” at a rally in Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin a few days ago.”
“That’s 40 percent favorable, 45 percent unfavorable among Republicans — five points underwater, a 28-point shift in a week. In a week! His job approval among Republicans is even worse at 36/44.”
“The Republican Speaker of the House is more widely disliked among the Republican base than he is among the Democratic one. Lest there’s any doubt what’s causing this, here’s what YouGov got when they asked people if Republican leaders were right or wrong to withdraw their support from Trump after the tape was released.”
—————————-
The landscape may shift in time (and that will require some brilliant leadership to rise up), but as of now (and this is usually the case) conservatism is not a majority cultural or political view in this country. You have a vast center that more than not *leans* left (though not nearly as left as a Bernie Sanders or even a Hillary Clinton).
I’m not a fan of the “burn it all down” sentiment. I think it leaves you in ashes (and out of power for the foreseeable future). I suppose I’m just not getting what the more far right conservatives really want here, or what they expect can be a workable coalition going forward to win at least a few elections?
There is a divide in the Republican Party. If Trump stands for anything other than idiocy, rudeness and crudeness, it is a combination of protectionism, the current welfare state and nativism. He is a combination of Bernie Sanders and Pat Buchanan, packaged in a foul New York City wrapper. Paul Ryan is the ideological successor to Reagan and Kemp, optimistic and conservative. Republicans must choose between the two.
It is interesting that Ryan did not seek the Speakership. He was reluctant to serve and agreed after no alternative could be found and representatives from across the spectrum urged him to run.
Cheryl is right. If the Trumpkins prevail over Ryan, there will be no Conservative party in America. As HRW has noted, a Trumpkin party would be similar to the nationalist parties of Europe.
Solar Pancake, FYI, “Parenthetically, your reference to eating pork is a mischaracterization of theonomy”: some theonomists. I have a relative who attends a church in which several people, including the pastor, “follow the Old Testament food laws.” So there is a range on this one, and I wasn’t just making up that example. Also, I think there is a bit of an overlap between Seventh Day Adventists and theononomists, and SDA actually go beyond the OT food laws, though I guess they stop just short of making their meat-free, alcohol-free principles binding.
But no, I do not think that commands to rulers on how they should rule can be treated as a command to those who are not rulers, that we must “sit out” any election unless a truly godly person is running. I do think that we can refuse to vote for a truly foolish, immoral candidate, and I am making that choice. But I don’t think we avoid voting for someone who will make a good leader, to whom God has granted gifts of leadership, unless we are personally satisfied that he is a strong Christian. We are not a theocracy.
Thanks for the info on the theonomists and SDAs, but I never mentioned anything like those you alluded to. I would have been more interested in how you correct not those people, but the Calvins and Spurgeons and others whose words I’ve basically echoed.
AJ, when I say Trump isn’t Republican, I’m not speaking of the fact he isn’t “establishment.” I get that, but I don’t care about that as much as I care that he isn’t conservative. I’m not “Republican” as much as I am “conservative.” And if the Republicans actually think Trump is a good choice–not just “he’s who we have to work with, so I guess we can tolerate him,” but an actually good choice–then they can have him, and by “they” I mean they, not “we.”
In other words, I voted for every Republican presidential candidate since Reagan (I was five months too young to vote for Reagan his second time, though even his first time I was a strong supporter–even my school’s principal told me she heard I was a Reagan supporter), but if Trump is actually the “face” of the Republican party now, then I’m not interested. I don’t need what he’s selling, nor do I want it. We already have had one too many candidates run on “change” (remember “hope and change”?) without limiting the word to “change for the better.”
I “get” the non-establishment part of his appeal. Our government has disrespected the constitution, disrespected the people, tarnished their offices. But throwing excrement around while you scream curses on the government and the people alike is not a formula for the right kind of change. Anarchy isn’t a change for the better, and neither is dictatorship, and those are what he is selling. I don’t want it.
Solar Pancake, I would have to do a whole lot more research than I have time for to see what Calvin, Spurgeon, et al have said, and the context in which they have said it, to be able to answer that.
I cannot really “see” either of them, however, presented with a man like Reagan but who was probably not (at his first election) a Christian and who probably was (at his second election) a Christian but not one who chose to be public about it or use his faith for political advantage, saying, “No, the godly choice is not to vote at all.” But America is really in a unique situation, because we don’t have the same church/state entanglement that much of the Western world has had. I’d really be more interested in hearing such dialogue from someone who can apply such concepts directly to modern America or at least to a democratic republic. Thing is, in America, the only ones I know of who are saying “Don’t vote unless the candidate is not only a Christian, but a particularly mature and godly one” are the theonomists, and I reject their teaching out of hand. I just don’t know of reasonable Reformed folks who make such an argument. If you can point me to such a source (an inexpensive or free one), I would read it.
In fact, if you can link me to Calvin or Spurgeon, I’ll read that too–but they wouldn’t have been speaking of the system we see, so I’m not quite sure how that would be a direct connection. (In other words, if I myself have freedom to appoint anyone I choose to government office, my choice is going to naturally be different than if I can only take one from the choices that are actually there. If I’m choosing between Reagan and Carter, I’ll take Reagan without any hesitation, even though at the time I believed Carter to be a Christian and I wasn’t sure about Reagan–now I don’t think Cater was, either. If I could actually appoint anyone at all, Reagan might not have been who I’d choose . . . though I can hardly imagine anyone who would have done a better job in the years he was in office. Anyone if Calvin and Spurgeon were speaking of men being appointed to office, that’s irrelevant, because it isn’t the situation we face.)
BTW, the theonomists I know personally don’t tend to say “Politics is less important, and if I don’t vote, I don’t vote.” They tend to see politics as super important. So it isn’t “We don’t have any good candidates this season, therefore we won’t vote. But the church is where God chooses to work, and that’s where I will focus my energy.” It’s “We need to get Christians in office! We need to protest, network, train people in politics . . .” I’m perfectly fine with “There are no good candidates on this ballot, so I will stay home this time” or “I’ll only vote for other offices.” But the connection between “Only Christians qualify to be government officials” and “Christians must do whatever they can to change our government” is way too close a tie for comfort. It almost can’t help but be. If we’re going to say that only Christians can serve in any government office, then we should have Christians on the ballot in every office! That ends up putting way too much focus on politics.
I think it’s acceptable for Christians to run for office if that is where their gifts lie. I think a wise government leader can do much good in a temporal sense, and a foolish one can do much harm. But I care MUCH more that the men in office in the church are godly, wise, and devoted to doing good. I’m willing to “render to Caesar” by paying taxes and voting, but I think that in one sense politics is really a trivial concern.
I am older than Cheryl. I first supported Reagan as a 10 year old in 1968 when he ran a brief campaign for the White House. I voted for him in 1976 as a conservative challenger to Gerald Ford in the primaries.
In 1980, Reagan ran as a conservative. Big Bush, Dole, and Howard Baker ran as moderate Republicans. John Connally failed miserably as the candidate of big business. John Anderson ran as a liberal Republican. The most conservative candidate was Congressman Phil Crane. I loved Phil Crane and agreed with him on virtually every issue. However, I voted for Reagan because:
1. He was an honorable conservative;
2. I thought he could win;and
3. I thought he could lead the people and the Congress to move the country in the right direction.
Reagan did not disappoint. There isn’t another Reagan, but I still look for the same things: an honorable conservative who can win and lead the country in the right direction.
The Republican party once had a distinct left-leaning “wing,” if you will — Rockefeller, Lindsay — that has largely gone by the wayside. Anderson was perhaps one of the lat of that breed. The party has become, in general, I think, distinctly more conservative since the 1980s.
(Many will argue that’s been its downfall in winning elections — while some argue the party has become ‘RINO’-ish, others argue just the opposite; it’s a matter of perspective.)
I happen to like Ryan as well and consider him sufficiently conservative.
There won’t be lock-step agreement on all issues. Successful political parties don’t operate like that (they can’t unless they want to remain a “3rd” style party that is perpetually out of power; and I don’t get the point of that, really).
Michelle, Glad to hear that. Arnold’s Transition Team has been active. My daughter-in-law will hold him as he puts his paw on the Bible and snorts (He seldom barks) the Oath of Office.
But don’t worry, I will be a benevolent dictator. Most of the time anyway, after the initial crackdown and renditions of course, but after that I’m sure I will be……
Isn’t he the guy who last year assured us Trump only had a 5% chance of winning the nomination? That guy? Who cares what he thinks. He’s been consistently wrong about Trump.
Well, we voted this afternoon. There are 5 early voting places in our area and I read yesterday, one of them had people in line for an hour or more waiting to vote–they only had 5 machines.
So we chose another polling place and got lucky with paper ballots which are much quicker and don’t require those big booths. The line moved very quickly and we only waited about 30 minutes. But the place was packed out. There were all kinds of people too—all races, and quite a few people coming in on crutches and walkers. And this is just the second day of early voting for us.
I wonder if there is going to be a big turnout nationally.
I haven’t read today’s comments here yet, but wanted to share this before I forget. . .
In last night’s comments, some of you were complimenting Hillary’s outfit. I agree – she looked good, even classy.
Then I read a Hillary-hating friend’s Facebook post. (She & her friend’s are so pro-Trump & anti-Hillary that they make comments on how “ugly” she is.) Last night, my friend’s post said, “Hillary looks like Boss Hog from the Dukes of Hazzard in that ugly white suit. I actually think Boss Hog wore it better.” And then a couple of her friends who agreed with her piled on. One was that Hillary is lost in the 70s, wearing a Nehru jacket.
That kind of pettiness, on either side, makes me sad. 😦
Ricky Weaver I don’t see a whole lot of the Trump supporters rioting but I do see the Clinton one’s rioting if she doesn’t win. I have had one liberal friend tell me that is exactly what she will do. It probably isn’t much of a worry because Hillary Clinton sold her soul to the Devil a long time ago and it won’t matter who else gets vote she WILL be the next president. She wasn’t amused back in the 90’s when she didn’t get to be co-president. Forgive me but she WILL BY GOD BE PRESIDENT THIS TIME OR HEADS WILL ROLL.
I also wouldn’t put it past the DNC to instigate some riots and claim they are Trump supporters rioting because he lost.
I hate to be a “sky is falling” person, but I am in real fear for what this election will be like. I also suspect there are people out there who are going to vote for Trump who just won’t tell anyone that is what they are doing. I, myself, have waffled back and forth on what to do.
I agree with AJ. If the Republican Party goes up in flames perhaps a phoenix can rise from the ashes. The Republican’s have already lost most of the power they had, so an alternative may not be a bad thing.
I take a different view of what my vote for a candidate means from what I see a lot of people saying here. If I vote for either Clinton or Trump, it will not mean that I “endorse” them or “support” them. I’m just choosing between the options I have. Practically speaking, we will get either Clinton or Trump and my vote can affect that choice. So my question is simply: Which one will do the most good, or the least harm, for our country in the long run? And if I get any confidence that one jerk is better for us in the long run, I’ll vote for that jerk.
Cheryl, I think your distinction between who you’d vote for and who you’d appoint is spot on.
“A perfect complement to yesterday’s post showing Ryan’s favorable rating now underwater among … Republicans.”
“It’s Trump’s party now. And by “now,” I mean “for the next 19 days.””
“I’ll give you three theories for that, none of them mutually exclusive. One: The GOP’s base isn’t nearly as “conservatarian” as movement conservatives would like. Ted Cruz learned that the hard way in the primaries, right? Much of the base is populist first and foremost, and that populism trends strongly towards nationalist/reactionary politics, not classical liberalism. Republican voters, especially Trump’s white working-class fans, care little for conservative economics as practiced by Randians like Ryan. They’re Republican chiefly because that party is their best vehicle for white identity politics and culture war waged against left-wing political correctness.
Two: It’s immigration, stupid. As America’s demographics have continued to change, the right has become more sensitive to that change accelerating by importing millions of workers from Mexico, Asia, and so on. “
Kevin, I don’t have a strong amount of confidence that either jerk is better, and I do think that on at least some level we are “endorsing” someone when we vote for him. Not entirely–a couple times in Chicago I voted Democrat in the primaries and voted against one person by voting for the other. But that was the primaries. In this instance, if Trump were to win (and he won’t), I could at least tell myself, “I didn’t vote for him” rather than “Reluctantly or not, I voted for this guy.” In Indiana it won’t matter–our primaries were late enough that there were no choices left, and I had to vote for someone who technically was not still running (since the last non-Trump choice had just dropped out), and this state will vote for Trump no matter what I do. But even if they wouldn’t, I’m not at all convinced he is the more conservative candidate, or stable enough to be president.
Wandering Views 
Confusing. This is 10-20?
Google says Trump dug the hole deeper.
I disagree. Hillary reminded me several times why I couldn’t vote for her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
b
LikeLike
Got confused there.
I CAN’T BELIEVE I WATCHED THE WHOLE THING!
But I did. right tp to the closing statements.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with those on yesterday’s thread that said Wallace is a class act.
He did well.
Some ladies said that Clinton looked nice.
In that category: “Shannon Bream for president!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I too watch it unti the end…and was left with a sick feeling….darker days ahead….I’m filling out my ballot today…perhaps my vote will count for something….but I kind of doubt it….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Early voting starts today in Greensboro.
I need a sample ballot.
LikeLike
It’s over. Trump is exactly who many of us thought he was from the beginning. That person can’t be elected, even in Idiocracy/Kardashian America. We will never know what he might have done as president. I don’t think it would have been good, but it would have been funny.
LikeLike
Solar Pancake, you said on yesterday’s thread: “Cheryl, the Bible calls for and allows for us to interact in various manner of ways with unbelievers. It doesn’t call for us, nor allow us, to make allies of and support God-hating men for political office. Not a difficult distinction here.”
You know, I don’t know of a single place that Scripture even hints about voting for public office, so one must go with some real interpretive stretches if one wants to speak of the Bible not “allowing” us to vote for unbelievers. But here are a few relevant points:
-I reject theonomy. I’ve seen it do really serious damage in churches, and it is a misinterpretation of Scripture. The focus of Scripture is Jesus Christ and Him crucified, not whether we may eat pork today.
-The most relevant Scriptures I can think of offhand for “what type of man to vote for” would include “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” In other words, who sits in the Oval Office is a secondary concern; our bigger concern should be the church. We do our civic duty, including paying taxes and voting or in some cases even run for office, but we dare not put them in a bigger place than they are. If you were living in an unevangelized country, you wouldn’t vote at all–but nothing in Scripture would be restricting you. Most missionaries, once a few men have been led to Christ, would be looking for some of them to be the foundation for the church, the elders and deacons. A theonomist would be looking for which ones of them can be political leaders. Nothing wrong with Christians running for office . . . but it’s secondary. We don’t put our trust in princes. We aren’t a theocracy; our bigger concern is the church.
-A second passage tells us not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. That has long been used primarily to say “Don’t marry an unbeliever.” It also is usually taken to mean that if you are going into partnership (say two lawyers or two doctors), don’t bind yourself in a “yoke” with someone with an entirely different belief system. I’ve never ever heard it suggested that if you are on a board of a corporation, you must insist on hiring only Christian CEOs.
-The government is invested with true authority over our lives. They may use it well or badly, but they are given actual authority to write laws. A state that allows abortion, for example, is using it poorly. But we are still called to submit to state authority unless they require us to do something God forbids. I know a theonomist who allows his 15-year-old son to pump gas, in spite of the law posted on the gas pump that no one under 18 can pump gas unless he is a licensed driver. As a theonomist, he thinks he is in a position to judge which laws should or shouldn’t be there, and accordingly obey or disobey. But God has not given us such authority; such disobedience is rebellion, not godly discernment.
The law exists to point us to Christ, and as a means of showing us what pleases God. God cares about our sexual purity, for example. But an over-focus on the law is dangerous. I heard a pastor, preaching through Leviticus, tell the congregation that it is a sin to have sex during a wife’s period. But that’s a serious misinterpretation of the law. The church is not under the ritual laws of the Old Testament. We do not live in a theocracy, and this is not Israel. The New Testament puts much greater emphasis on the church; it is no longer one and the same with the state. Israel has been set aside as the focus, not “replaced” by America but by the Seed of the woman, the Son of David, and His spiritual offspring. (I put replaced in quotes because biblically it isn’t that Israel has been set aside, but that unbelieving Israel has been. The church has in fact been “grafted into” the remnant of believing Israel, and secular Israel goes on its way, a footnote to history. But the law was fulfilled in Christ, not through obedience to the various OT regulations.)
LikeLiked by 3 people
LikeLiked by 3 people
Chas, I didn’t watch any of it, though I watched the others. The Cubs were on, and they offered more entertainment with less pain. (Now, if they’d have lost . . . but a 10-2 win for the Cubs is a whole lot more pleasant to watch than a 0-0 debate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I predict riots one way or the other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I doubt the riot thing. But the winner will have a rough time, no matter who.
I don’t know if either of them are up to it. I know Hillary isn’t.
The new president will be tested. Obama withdrew the missile defense from Poland. That set the stage for the remainder of his presidency. The “red line” quickly turned yellow.
I am reluctantly beginning to believe those who say that God is bringing judgment to America.
I say, “Remember the ten good men”.
Most of the social disruption, GLBT, abortion, no prayer in school, drugs, etc. have been imposed from above (government). But most of the people seem to want it that way.
I’m glad I lived in the epoch when America was a great nation. When we flew our B-29 into Karachi, Pakistan, we were respected. Not liked, but respected.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kim, Trumpkins tend to be old and white. Their riots will be in slow motion and will end before 9:00 so they can get to bed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Logical prediction, Kim. But I hope not. Where do you think will be the worst hit with rioting and llooting? Some people look for any opportunity.
LikeLike
I watched it all. We’ll see what the polls start showing by this weekend, but I suspect most people’s minds have been made up.
God’s judgment often plays out in letting people go their own way. So in that sense, it’s fair to say we’re seeing some judgement play out in the U.S. While the federal government has become heavy handed in enforcing issues like gay marriage, it’s been generally with the acceptance of the majority of people (some are simply confused and don’t know how to argue otherwise on this issue, they’ve become so separated from the truth).
While I dread the thought of (another) Clinton presidency, I wonder if a Trump presidency wouldn’t just cause such an uproar in so many ways that it’s the least disruptive way forward in terms of violence. Not that that’s a reason to prefer it, but if Trump is elected I’d look for much social unrest.
As long as Republicans can hang on to at least part of Congress, the way forward politically will simply be to endure and regroup for 2020.
For followers of Christ, we will carry on as always but perhaps the state of our culture & nation will provide a bit of a wake-up call to the church militant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/not-rigged-thrown.php
__________________________________
NOT RIGGED, THROWN
Donald Trump’s allegations that the election is “rigged” constitute a motif in the closing days of his presidential campaign. The theme emerged last night in his refusal to acknowledge he would concede the election when he loses.
I find Trump’s allegation of the rigging of the election bizarre. It advertises his understanding that he will lose the election. He disclaims responsibility for the loss in advance, but there it is, even if his enthusiasts fail to understand what he is saying.
Why would Trump advertise his loss in advance? He wants us to know that it’s not his fault. It couldn’t be helped. It’s beyond his control. When he loses an eminently winnable race to the most beatable Democratic candidate of the modern era, so he believes, it won’t be because of his failures as a candidate. …
… A modestly capable candidate could make hash of her.
Trump is not the man. He can barely frame a coherent thought or articulate a comprehensible argument against her.
… Understanding that he is going to lose “big league,” as he would say, to a pitifully weak opponent, he is more concerned about salvaging his pride than putting up a fight. …
_______________________________
LikeLiked by 2 people
Donna, a historian’s perspective: https://faithandamericanhistory.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/i-will-keep-you-in-suspense-trumps-reckless-break-with-history/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cheryl, it’s not a stretch to argue that if God requires certain qualities in a political ruler–if He provides a job description specifically for that role–then it follows we ought to support only persons who would fulfill that role; further, we ought NOT to support those who clearly act contrary to the role. If he described how a plumber ought to do plumbing, and we had an opportunity to support, or not, a plumber who plumbed *contrary* to how God has instructed, it would be our duty to *not* support him. If a person plans to vote for a politician who, in violation of Psalm 2, does not “kiss the Son,” it is incumbent on *that voter* to justify supporting someone who clearly violates a command of God.
Proverbs 29:2: When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.
2 Chron 17 describes the godly rule of Jehoshaphat, and that, *therefore,* the Lord established the kingdom under his rule.
Proverbs 8: 15, 16: By me [wisdom] kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; by me princes rule, and nobles, all who govern justly.
Proverbs 29:2: When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.
Proverbs 16:12: It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness.
Etc. A person who rejects Christ cannot rule according to these commands and principles. Read the verses in context. They aren’t speaking of some generic form of living uprightly; they’re talking about deliberate submission to the King of Kings.
So if someone wants to vote for a person who rejects Christ, that voter needs to justify giving support to someone who, at the very foundation of his view of life, thinks and acts contrary to these Scriptures.
Your view of theonomy isn’t relevant. I don’t even know if I’d be considered a theonomist, but my views here wouldn’t make me one. I’m saying nothing different than what guys like Calvin and Spurgeon and others we’ve all heard of have said. Are they theonomists? I pointed this out before here once. Parenthetically, your reference to eating pork is a mischaracterization of theonomy. I do know that much about it.
Nothing I’ve said approaches a neglect of rendering to Caesar, nor diminishes the more primary role of the church, and the idea that we are not to put our trust in princes certainly supports what I’m saying–remember that I’m suggesting NOT voting for certain candidates!
Trace your analogy of insisting on hiring only Christian CEOs onto my suggestion we should only vote for godly candidates. If you do, I think you’ll see you’re not really hitting the mark and the analogy doesn’t translate.
The other stuff about theonomy isn’t relevant; seems like you’re kind of trying to poison the well there. I don’t advocate breaking laws. Why assume that’s an outgrowth of what I’ve argued?
I don’t intentionally “over-focus” on the law. (You assume so much!) But anyone could suggest that about almost anyone else. You allude to adultery. Someone can say YOU over-focus on the law. But that just begs the question.
Psalm 2 speaks to Gentile rulers. The place of Israel and the Church in this era–whatever you or I believe about it, and I suspect we have similar beliefs there–doesn’t change the fact that Psalm 2 had, and continues to have, authority over Jew and Gentile rulers anywhere. They are to kiss the Son, lest He be angry.
LikeLike
Yes, it does help to remember that in some ways this is nuthin’ compared to the early days. 🙂 Elections have been rather tame affairs in our lifetime.
LikeLike
I think either one might bring unrest. But I think a Trump election would mean Republicans are no longer even “sort of” conservative, and I think it would mean the end of the party. Whereas Trump losing holds just a smidgen of a hope that it’s the end of the crazy RINO nominations. I’m not “hoping” for a Clinton presidency, because I honestly think that either one is likely to mean disaster. But I do think that if anything Trump is more reckless (he’s almost certainly more erratic), and he has “Republican” on him. So if he is elected, we may not ever see another Republican president, and it’s likely the party will need to dissolve. That’s my assessment.
I remember one gubernatorial race in Illinois, when the Republican was pro-abortion and the Democrat pro-life–how that happened, I don’t know, but it did. And so I voted for the Democratic candidate. But when the Republican won, I thought Oh well, that was really almost an election I couldn’t “lose,” because I either get the pro-life Democrat or the candidate from the pro-life party. As it turned out, however, he was corrupt, and he fell, and after he fell, Republicans didn’t do well in Illinois for quite a few years. He tainted them. Honestly, I’m almost past caring whether the Republicans are tainted by Trump, since I think they’ve moved too far from being really “my” party, anyway. I’m beginning to think that “pro-life” is just a slogan for most, for example. But Trump isn’t doing Republicans any favors unless he somehow wakes them up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
cheryl, I agree that a Trump win would make things much more problematic for the Republican party (and conservatives as a whole) going forward in any kind of an organizational way.
If Trump loses (which I believe he will), he may fade into the background fairly quickly as a personality (although he apparently wants to launch his own media empire and network — but he’ll be a tainted “brand” at that point).
How this whole thing happened is a marvel (in a bad way).
LikeLike
Either way, the GOP has a long and complex road ahead after this is over and done with. Conservative social issues appear to have lost the day (for now), so it will be interesting to see what (and who) emerges from the party ashes.
LikeLike
And I have to say that the nation’s demographics are rapidly changing. Conservatives have to figure out a way to reach out and capture some of the multi-ethic and minority vote in the future. And that will require some new leaders to rise up, people who can present a winsome view for those on the outside of the party of what it means to be conservative.
LikeLike
Cheryl,
“But I think a Trump election would mean Republicans are no longer even “sort of” conservative, and I think it would mean the end of the party. ”
I disagree. I think a Trump loss means the end of the R party. To Trump supporters it’s apparent that the R party elites did everything they could to ensure his loss, from the primaries on. If you think they will come back to the party, you’re dreaming. They will never again believe the RINO’s and party leaders like Ryan can be trusted.
And they are right.
This is already starting to play out, and will escalate if Trump loses. The R party will be destroyed, and I’m OK with that. Then maybe we can have a real, live, legit 3rd party.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/19/yougov-paul-ryans-favorable-rating-among-republicans-drops-28-points-week/
“A sneak preview at the coming Republican civil war if things go sideways tonight and the election produces a blowout. According to YouGov’s Will Jordan, Ryan’s net favorable rating within his own party stood at +23 a week or so ago. Then, after the “Access Hollywood” tape was revealed, Ryan told House Republicans that he’ll no longer defend Trump or campaign with him. Trump spent the following week needling Ryan on Twitter and at his rallies for not showing the same support for him as Democratic pols showed for Clinton. That culminated in Trumpers chanting “Paul Ryan sucks” at a rally in Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin a few days ago.”
“That’s 40 percent favorable, 45 percent unfavorable among Republicans — five points underwater, a 28-point shift in a week. In a week! His job approval among Republicans is even worse at 36/44.”
“The Republican Speaker of the House is more widely disliked among the Republican base than he is among the Democratic one. Lest there’s any doubt what’s causing this, here’s what YouGov got when they asked people if Republican leaders were right or wrong to withdraw their support from Trump after the tape was released.”
—————————-
I for one will not grieve the loss at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And in its place what exactly?
The conservative movement will be split (which could easily keep them out of power for some time to come).
LikeLiked by 1 person
The landscape may shift in time (and that will require some brilliant leadership to rise up), but as of now (and this is usually the case) conservatism is not a majority cultural or political view in this country. You have a vast center that more than not *leans* left (though not nearly as left as a Bernie Sanders or even a Hillary Clinton).
LikeLike
I’m not a fan of the “burn it all down” sentiment. I think it leaves you in ashes (and out of power for the foreseeable future). I suppose I’m just not getting what the more far right conservatives really want here, or what they expect can be a workable coalition going forward to win at least a few elections?
LikeLike
There is a divide in the Republican Party. If Trump stands for anything other than idiocy, rudeness and crudeness, it is a combination of protectionism, the current welfare state and nativism. He is a combination of Bernie Sanders and Pat Buchanan, packaged in a foul New York City wrapper. Paul Ryan is the ideological successor to Reagan and Kemp, optimistic and conservative. Republicans must choose between the two.
It is interesting that Ryan did not seek the Speakership. He was reluctant to serve and agreed after no alternative could be found and representatives from across the spectrum urged him to run.
Cheryl is right. If the Trumpkins prevail over Ryan, there will be no Conservative party in America. As HRW has noted, a Trumpkin party would be similar to the nationalist parties of Europe.
LikeLike
Solar Pancake, FYI, “Parenthetically, your reference to eating pork is a mischaracterization of theonomy”: some theonomists. I have a relative who attends a church in which several people, including the pastor, “follow the Old Testament food laws.” So there is a range on this one, and I wasn’t just making up that example. Also, I think there is a bit of an overlap between Seventh Day Adventists and theononomists, and SDA actually go beyond the OT food laws, though I guess they stop just short of making their meat-free, alcohol-free principles binding.
But no, I do not think that commands to rulers on how they should rule can be treated as a command to those who are not rulers, that we must “sit out” any election unless a truly godly person is running. I do think that we can refuse to vote for a truly foolish, immoral candidate, and I am making that choice. But I don’t think we avoid voting for someone who will make a good leader, to whom God has granted gifts of leadership, unless we are personally satisfied that he is a strong Christian. We are not a theocracy.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info on the theonomists and SDAs, but I never mentioned anything like those you alluded to. I would have been more interested in how you correct not those people, but the Calvins and Spurgeons and others whose words I’ve basically echoed.
“We are not a theocracy.”
Oh bruddah. Whatevs.
LikeLike
AJ, when I say Trump isn’t Republican, I’m not speaking of the fact he isn’t “establishment.” I get that, but I don’t care about that as much as I care that he isn’t conservative. I’m not “Republican” as much as I am “conservative.” And if the Republicans actually think Trump is a good choice–not just “he’s who we have to work with, so I guess we can tolerate him,” but an actually good choice–then they can have him, and by “they” I mean they, not “we.”
In other words, I voted for every Republican presidential candidate since Reagan (I was five months too young to vote for Reagan his second time, though even his first time I was a strong supporter–even my school’s principal told me she heard I was a Reagan supporter), but if Trump is actually the “face” of the Republican party now, then I’m not interested. I don’t need what he’s selling, nor do I want it. We already have had one too many candidates run on “change” (remember “hope and change”?) without limiting the word to “change for the better.”
I “get” the non-establishment part of his appeal. Our government has disrespected the constitution, disrespected the people, tarnished their offices. But throwing excrement around while you scream curses on the government and the people alike is not a formula for the right kind of change. Anarchy isn’t a change for the better, and neither is dictatorship, and those are what he is selling. I don’t want it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Solar Pancake, I would have to do a whole lot more research than I have time for to see what Calvin, Spurgeon, et al have said, and the context in which they have said it, to be able to answer that.
I cannot really “see” either of them, however, presented with a man like Reagan but who was probably not (at his first election) a Christian and who probably was (at his second election) a Christian but not one who chose to be public about it or use his faith for political advantage, saying, “No, the godly choice is not to vote at all.” But America is really in a unique situation, because we don’t have the same church/state entanglement that much of the Western world has had. I’d really be more interested in hearing such dialogue from someone who can apply such concepts directly to modern America or at least to a democratic republic. Thing is, in America, the only ones I know of who are saying “Don’t vote unless the candidate is not only a Christian, but a particularly mature and godly one” are the theonomists, and I reject their teaching out of hand. I just don’t know of reasonable Reformed folks who make such an argument. If you can point me to such a source (an inexpensive or free one), I would read it.
In fact, if you can link me to Calvin or Spurgeon, I’ll read that too–but they wouldn’t have been speaking of the system we see, so I’m not quite sure how that would be a direct connection. (In other words, if I myself have freedom to appoint anyone I choose to government office, my choice is going to naturally be different than if I can only take one from the choices that are actually there. If I’m choosing between Reagan and Carter, I’ll take Reagan without any hesitation, even though at the time I believed Carter to be a Christian and I wasn’t sure about Reagan–now I don’t think Cater was, either. If I could actually appoint anyone at all, Reagan might not have been who I’d choose . . . though I can hardly imagine anyone who would have done a better job in the years he was in office. Anyone if Calvin and Spurgeon were speaking of men being appointed to office, that’s irrelevant, because it isn’t the situation we face.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where is
“None of the above.”
when you need it?
LikeLiked by 6 people
BTW, the theonomists I know personally don’t tend to say “Politics is less important, and if I don’t vote, I don’t vote.” They tend to see politics as super important. So it isn’t “We don’t have any good candidates this season, therefore we won’t vote. But the church is where God chooses to work, and that’s where I will focus my energy.” It’s “We need to get Christians in office! We need to protest, network, train people in politics . . .” I’m perfectly fine with “There are no good candidates on this ballot, so I will stay home this time” or “I’ll only vote for other offices.” But the connection between “Only Christians qualify to be government officials” and “Christians must do whatever they can to change our government” is way too close a tie for comfort. It almost can’t help but be. If we’re going to say that only Christians can serve in any government office, then we should have Christians on the ballot in every office! That ends up putting way too much focus on politics.
I think it’s acceptable for Christians to run for office if that is where their gifts lie. I think a wise government leader can do much good in a temporal sense, and a foolish one can do much harm. But I care MUCH more that the men in office in the church are godly, wise, and devoted to doing good. I’m willing to “render to Caesar” by paying taxes and voting, but I think that in one sense politics is really a trivial concern.
LikeLike
AJ, If Paul Ryan was gone, who would you choose to be the Speaker of the House?
If it was entirely up to you, who would you select to be the President?
LikeLike
I am older than Cheryl. I first supported Reagan as a 10 year old in 1968 when he ran a brief campaign for the White House. I voted for him in 1976 as a conservative challenger to Gerald Ford in the primaries.
In 1980, Reagan ran as a conservative. Big Bush, Dole, and Howard Baker ran as moderate Republicans. John Connally failed miserably as the candidate of big business. John Anderson ran as a liberal Republican. The most conservative candidate was Congressman Phil Crane. I loved Phil Crane and agreed with him on virtually every issue. However, I voted for Reagan because:
1. He was an honorable conservative;
2. I thought he could win;and
3. I thought he could lead the people and the Congress to move the country in the right direction.
Reagan did not disappoint. There isn’t another Reagan, but I still look for the same things: an honorable conservative who can win and lead the country in the right direction.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Republican party once had a distinct left-leaning “wing,” if you will — Rockefeller, Lindsay — that has largely gone by the wayside. Anderson was perhaps one of the lat of that breed. The party has become, in general, I think, distinctly more conservative since the 1980s.
(Many will argue that’s been its downfall in winning elections — while some argue the party has become ‘RINO’-ish, others argue just the opposite; it’s a matter of perspective.)
I happen to like Ryan as well and consider him sufficiently conservative.
There won’t be lock-step agreement on all issues. Successful political parties don’t operate like that (they can’t unless they want to remain a “3rd” style party that is perpetually out of power; and I don’t get the point of that, really).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m coming around more and more to Arnold W.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nate Silver is slower and more careful with his predictions than I am, but we arrived at the same place.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-probably-finished-off-trump-last-night/
LikeLike
Michelle, Glad to hear that. Arnold’s Transition Team has been active. My daughter-in-law will hold him as he puts his paw on the Bible and snorts (He seldom barks) the Oath of Office.
LikeLike
Speaker?
Trey Gowdy.
President if I was the only one picking?
Me.
But don’t worry, I will be a benevolent dictator. Most of the time anyway, after the initial crackdown and renditions of course, but after that I’m sure I will be……
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nate Silver at 538….
Isn’t he the guy who last year assured us Trump only had a 5% chance of winning the nomination? That guy? Who cares what he thinks. He’s been consistently wrong about Trump.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/
LikeLike
Well, we voted this afternoon. There are 5 early voting places in our area and I read yesterday, one of them had people in line for an hour or more waiting to vote–they only had 5 machines.
So we chose another polling place and got lucky with paper ballots which are much quicker and don’t require those big booths. The line moved very quickly and we only waited about 30 minutes. But the place was packed out. There were all kinds of people too—all races, and quite a few people coming in on crutches and walkers. And this is just the second day of early voting for us.
I wonder if there is going to be a big turnout nationally.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I haven’t read today’s comments here yet, but wanted to share this before I forget. . .
In last night’s comments, some of you were complimenting Hillary’s outfit. I agree – she looked good, even classy.
Then I read a Hillary-hating friend’s Facebook post. (She & her friend’s are so pro-Trump & anti-Hillary that they make comments on how “ugly” she is.) Last night, my friend’s post said, “Hillary looks like Boss Hog from the Dukes of Hazzard in that ugly white suit. I actually think Boss Hog wore it better.” And then a couple of her friends who agreed with her piled on. One was that Hillary is lost in the 70s, wearing a Nehru jacket.
That kind of pettiness, on either side, makes me sad. 😦
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think Silver has frequently noted that Trump is, indeed, unpredictable in many ways and so his numbers and odds are issued with that caveat in mind.
He nailed the Obama-Romney race, much to many people’s surprise
LikeLike
Ricky Weaver I don’t see a whole lot of the Trump supporters rioting but I do see the Clinton one’s rioting if she doesn’t win. I have had one liberal friend tell me that is exactly what she will do. It probably isn’t much of a worry because Hillary Clinton sold her soul to the Devil a long time ago and it won’t matter who else gets vote she WILL be the next president. She wasn’t amused back in the 90’s when she didn’t get to be co-president. Forgive me but she WILL BY GOD BE PRESIDENT THIS TIME OR HEADS WILL ROLL.
I also wouldn’t put it past the DNC to instigate some riots and claim they are Trump supporters rioting because he lost.
I hate to be a “sky is falling” person, but I am in real fear for what this election will be like. I also suspect there are people out there who are going to vote for Trump who just won’t tell anyone that is what they are doing. I, myself, have waffled back and forth on what to do.
I agree with AJ. If the Republican Party goes up in flames perhaps a phoenix can rise from the ashes. The Republican’s have already lost most of the power they had, so an alternative may not be a bad thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kim, I suspect there are some Secret Trumpkins. I have heard that in California, you risk your job if you admit to being a Trumpkin.
Here in Wise County, Texas, no one would admit to being for Hillary. I’ve even taken heat for backing Arnold Weaver and he is a very conservative dog.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I take a different view of what my vote for a candidate means from what I see a lot of people saying here. If I vote for either Clinton or Trump, it will not mean that I “endorse” them or “support” them. I’m just choosing between the options I have. Practically speaking, we will get either Clinton or Trump and my vote can affect that choice. So my question is simply: Which one will do the most good, or the least harm, for our country in the long run? And if I get any confidence that one jerk is better for us in the long run, I’ll vote for that jerk.
Cheryl, I think your distinction between who you’d vote for and who you’d appoint is spot on.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s Trump’s party now….
For at least a little bit.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/20/poll-majority-republicans-say-trump-not-paul-ryan-represents-gop-stand-politically/
“A perfect complement to yesterday’s post showing Ryan’s favorable rating now underwater among … Republicans.”
“It’s Trump’s party now. And by “now,” I mean “for the next 19 days.””
“I’ll give you three theories for that, none of them mutually exclusive. One: The GOP’s base isn’t nearly as “conservatarian” as movement conservatives would like. Ted Cruz learned that the hard way in the primaries, right? Much of the base is populist first and foremost, and that populism trends strongly towards nationalist/reactionary politics, not classical liberalism. Republican voters, especially Trump’s white working-class fans, care little for conservative economics as practiced by Randians like Ryan. They’re Republican chiefly because that party is their best vehicle for white identity politics and culture war waged against left-wing political correctness.
Two: It’s immigration, stupid. As America’s demographics have continued to change, the right has become more sensitive to that change accelerating by importing millions of workers from Mexico, Asia, and so on. “
LikeLike
Kevin, I don’t have a strong amount of confidence that either jerk is better, and I do think that on at least some level we are “endorsing” someone when we vote for him. Not entirely–a couple times in Chicago I voted Democrat in the primaries and voted against one person by voting for the other. But that was the primaries. In this instance, if Trump were to win (and he won’t), I could at least tell myself, “I didn’t vote for him” rather than “Reluctantly or not, I voted for this guy.” In Indiana it won’t matter–our primaries were late enough that there were no choices left, and I had to vote for someone who technically was not still running (since the last non-Trump choice had just dropped out), and this state will vote for Trump no matter what I do. But even if they wouldn’t, I’m not at all convinced he is the more conservative candidate, or stable enough to be president.
LikeLiked by 1 person