The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)

[Dave Likeness]

As we begin to prepare our hearts and minds for those children who will "trick or treat"
at our front door on Oct. 31,  may we never forget that these little kids do not care about
politics right now.

Instead, they are thinking about the haul of candy they will get on Halloween.  Snickers bars,
Hershey bars,  Taffy apples, M & M's, and the rest of the cavity producing treats they will eat.
The American Dental Association has proclaimed Halloween as their favorite holiday.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen writes:
Let's not forget that until the night of November 8, 2019 just about everyone figured that Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in for the next president. It was so certain that she didn't bother to campaign much in several of the meaningless Midwest states that would have little or no effect on the election anyway. There was absolutely no way that buffoon Donald Trump could possibly win. Politics is unpredictable.
I comment:
The concern was not the candidate. Almost everyone knew he was an immoral, lying fool. Even many of those who voted for him knew that.
But we underestimated the hatred some have for the Clintons and/or "liberals."
We who were disappointed Nov. 8 also over-estimated the common sense, intelligence and decency of the general population, and the power of a shameless demagogue to affect that population. We did not think we were 1930s Germans, falling victim to the blandishments of someone telling them how miserable they were, how bad their country was and picking someone to blame. Then there was the racism and sexism too.
But that was long ago.

[D. Engebretson]

But we underestimated the hatred some have for the Clintons and/or "liberals."
We who were disappointed Nov. 8 also over-estimated the common sense, intelligence and decency of the general population...

A pretty broad-brushed indictment of many voters. It seems to ring a bit like the "basket of deplorables" comment by Clinton....

That said, I think that too many on the left do not understand a lot of the voters, especially the ones in the Midwest "flyover country," and tend to discount the legitimacy of their concerns.  That will be unfortunate in 2020 if they fail again to properly 'read' the electorate.  I think that they overestimate the number of people who desire to head in the socialistic direction some of the candidates wish to lead.  Attacking Trump's character will do little to win over the votes they truly need to win the general election. But I suppose they can try this tactic. Who knows, maybe they have polled enough people to determine the sufficient level of hate and disgust to actually win this time around. 

[mj4]

Regarding the Nordic countries, let's remember that Sweden, for example, hasn't had a war in two centuries whereas we are currently involved in 6 or 7. We have so many overseas military bases I'd be surprised if even the Defense Department knows how many we have.

[D. Engebretson]

Regarding the Nordic countries, let's remember that Sweden, for example, hasn't had a war in two centuries whereas we are currently involved in 6 or 7. We have so many overseas military bases I'd be surprised if even the Defense Department knows how many we have.

Their defense budget is 1% of their GDP, compared to the 3.145% for the US.

[Dan Fienen]

Pastor Fienen writes:
Let's not forget that until the night of November 8, 2019 just about everyone figured that Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in for the next president. It was so certain that she didn't bother to campaign much in several of the meaningless Midwest states that would have little or no effect on the election anyway. There was absolutely no way that buffoon Donald Trump could possibly win. Politics is unpredictable.
I comment:
The concern was not the candidate. Almost everyone knew he was an immoral, lying fool. Even many of those who voted for him knew that.
But we underestimated the hatred some have for the Clintons and/or "liberals."
We who were disappointed Nov. 8 also over-estimated the common sense, intelligence and decency of the general population, and the power of a shameless demagogue to affect that population. We did not think we were 1930s Germans, falling victim to the blandishments of someone telling them how miserable they were, how bad their country was and picking someone to blame. Then there was the racism and sexism too.
But that was long ago.

Once again you demonstrate the utter contempt that you have for anyone who does not think like you, and the utter contempt that that you have for a large portion of the American population. They did not share all of your concerns and had other concerns that you did not share. Therefore the only reason they elected the man you disdain was that they were too stupid or morally weak to not see things your way. Your post is offensive, but that's OK, you're offended that nearly half of your fellow Americans are your fellow Americans.

[peter_speckhard]

I still plan to vote for Trump. Never thought I would, but here we are. This thread changes my opinion of some of the other posters more than it does my likely vote.

One challenge— demonstrate to me that Trump is a racist, in a meaningful sense of the word, but in the way all white people are racists or all conservatives. Show me why you think he is actually a real racist. If you can, I won't vote for him, as long as whoever takes up the challenge also refuses to vote for any Democrat who has done the same racist thing that proves Trump is a racist.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen writes:
Therefore the only reason they elected the man you disdain was that they were too stupid or morally weak to not see things your way.
I comment:
You are partially correct. Many of our fellow citizens are stupid and morally weak. And some of them are probably Democrats. But...

[Dan Fienen]

Pastor Fienen writes:
Therefore the only reason they elected the man you disdain was that they were too stupid or morally weak to not see things your way.
I comment:
You are partially correct. Many of our fellow citizens are stupid and morally weak. And some of them are probably Democrats. But...

Charles illustrates what a difficult task the Democrats have.  It's hard to hold people in contempt and then ask them to vote for you without letting that contempt show or convincing them that being held in contempt is good.

[Dan Fienen]

I still plan to vote for Trump. Never thought I would, but here we are. This thread changes my opinion of some of the other posters more than it does my likely vote.

One challenge— demonstrate to me that Trump is a racist, in a meaningful sense of the word, but in the way all white people are racists or all conservatives. Show me why you think he is actually a real racist. If you can, I won't vote for him, as long as whoever takes up the challenge also refuses to vote for any Democrat who has done the same racist thing that proves Trump is a racist.

Democrats have demonstrated that there is a strain of racism among some prominent Democrats, antisemitism. And it is a racism they have a hard time facing or effectively denouncing.

[D. Engebretson]

Again, if the Democratic strategy is to concentrate on the more liberal coasts and urban centers, it could prove to be a less than effective one just as it was in 2016.  The Midwest, although far from the bastion of conservative values of years past, is still politically more conservative than the coastal areas and the larger urban areas within them.  I know that some disdain the Electoral College and think that a pure democratic popular vote is the only fair way to carry out an election, but the EC still exists and we are still technically a republic not a pure democracy.  It seems that the left understands this academically, but fails to appreciate its full force practically.  Anger over the impeachment could translate into votes for those who see it as an unfair coup by the Democrats to take back the executive branch.  Clinton had a blind spot in the Midwest.  The Democrats would do well to learn from her mistakes if they wish to have a real, strong chance in 2020.

[Eileen Smith]

Pastor Fienen writes:
Let's not forget that until the night of November 8, 2019 just about everyone figured that Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in for the next president. It was so certain that she didn't bother to campaign much in several of the meaningless Midwest states that would have little or no effect on the election anyway. There was absolutely no way that buffoon Donald Trump could possibly win. Politics is unpredictable.
I comment:
The concern was not the candidate. Almost everyone knew he was an immoral, lying fool. Even many of those who voted for him knew that.
But we underestimated the hatred some have for the Clintons and/or "liberals."
We who were disappointed Nov. 8 also over-estimated the common sense, intelligence and decency of the general population, and the power of a shameless demagogue to affect that population. We did not think we were 1930s Germans, falling victim to the blandishments of someone telling them how miserable they were, how bad their country was and picking someone to blame. Then there was the racism and sexism too.
But that was long ago.

When the Forum was being upgraded I took it as a sign that I needed a mental health break, quite honestly from this topic.  When someone told me it was back up resolved not look at this topic but in a weak moment I did.

Pastor Austin, this post is, for me, as unacceptable as Sam Donaldson's remarks citing that the 30% of Americans who backed Trump are ignorant.  According to Donaldson, they don't know or understand or even want to know the issues.   This is what the progressive edge of the Democratic party needs to understand:   they not any more intelligent than the rest of the country.   They're elitists who seem to think they're right and not only is everyone who disagrees wrong, but they're ignorant. 

We need a new ism in our vocabulary.   We need an ism to define those who are, perhaps, uneducated, who work in a blue collar job, who work in a mine, who enjoy all sorts of sports, who cling to guns and religion, who speak with a twang, who don't have the gift of living on one of the elite coasts of this country.  If among primarily conservative Republicans we have misogynism, racism, and the host of other isms, we need one to define progressive Democrats who seem to hold contempt for those who them deem inferior in intelligence.   

We also need an ism for what I see as hypocrisy of the left.  Hillary Clinton didn't win the election and the analysis of the left holds that while sexism apparently must have played a role so did the hatred of the Clintons. No!  It was Hillary who did this to herself.  A lackluster candidate who went in knowing this was her entitlement.  It was her casting aside the basket of deplorables.  It was her policies (or lack thereof).  It was her purely amoral character, the sense that she can do anything and get away with it.   Yet when we say that those who resist Trump hate Trump (and practically cite the same rationale) well, no, they simply see the light -- his policies, all that he's taken away from us, his brashness, his business dealings.  But no hate there.

I did vote for Trump in 2016 (and I'm not ignorant).  After the final debate I could not have cast a vote for Clinton.  About a year ago I told my husband that even thought I agreed with some of Trump's policies I couldn't vote for him again in 2020.  Then came the field of Democratic hopefuls.  Once again, unless this changes, I will be voting for Trump.  I will, as my husband said in 2016, hold my nose and cast that vote.

This country and our legislators have spent almost four years doing absolutely nothing but hating Trump and resisting him.  In church terms it is extraordinarily poor stewardship of time and talents.  People weren't served.  Issues that needed addressing went by the wayside as the resist movement took hold of the House. 

Quite a few posts back we were derailed and moved back to issues of sexuality.  Pastor Austin you reminded us of the title of the thread and wrote "Focus!"  I'd say that was focused. Trump isn't going to undermine this country nor the fabric of our society.  The fate of our nation doesn't lie in Trump's hands. Nor will the right nor will the left.  We stand on our morality.   A society that turns its back on babies being aborted, that teaches children from pre-K on up the LBGTQ+ agenda as acceptable even holding up a transgendered child star as an icon of acceptance, that puts assigned gender aside to the point of allowing a child to take hormones to become the gender they wish, that seeks to undermine the role of parent in these issues, that has so little regard for marriage that the divorce rate is over 50%, where sexual immorality is portrayed in all forms of media as acceptable behavior so that we become inured to it -- that is where the fate of our  nation lies.  That is where we are unraveling.  Trump?   He'll be a figure in history some day just as other presidents and leaders are today - some of whom we thought would tear about our country and destroy it -- both on the right or the left.    We change our language to make life palatable in our never ending enforcement of politically correct speech and yet we cannot honor one another's differences when they are in opposition of the progressive agenda.  A supporter of Trump may go against all that progressives hold dear, but that person is equally integral to the fabric of our society and the opinions of each of us holds worth and merit.

[Dan Fienen]

Eileen, Like!

[pastorg1@aol.com]

Eileen!

[Brian Stoffregen]

We need a new ism in our vocabulary.   We need an ism to define those who are, perhaps, uneducated, who work in a blue collar job, who work in a mine, who enjoy all sorts of sports, who cling to guns and religion, who speak with a twang, who don't have the gift of living on one of the elite coasts of this country.  If among primarily conservative Republicans we have misogynism, racism, and the host of other isms, we need one to define progressive Democrats who seem to hold contempt for those who them deem inferior in intelligence.

"uneducated," but who is proposing free higher education for all?
"blue collar jobs," but who supports the unions that gives higher pay and benefits to those jobs?
"who work in a mine," again the importance of unions for mine workers; and keeping the global economy that buys our mine products? (When living in Wyoming, our economy suffered when Japan's went down and they weren't buying Trona, which is mined there, like they used to.)


"inferior in intelligence," but who talked about building the wall in Colorado (among many other less than intelligent statements)?   

We also need an ism for what I see as hypocrisy of the left.  Hillary Clinton didn't win the election and the analysis of the left holds that while sexism apparently must have played a role so did the hatred of the Clintons. No!  It was Hillary who did this to herself.  A lackluster candidate who went in knowing this was her entitlement.  It was her casting aside the basket of deplorables.  It was her policies (or lack thereof).  It was her purely amoral character, the sense that she can do anything and get away with it.   Yet when we say that those who resist Trump hate Trump (and practically cite the same rationale) well, no, they simply see the light -- his policies, all that he's taken away from us, his brashness, his business dealings.  But no hate there.

True: Hillary Clinton didn't win the election.
True: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. More people voted for her than for Trump.
True: Russia meddled in our elections (perhaps influenced some votes for Trump)
"She can do anything and get away with it," but who talked about shooting someone and not lose voters?


I would not say that those who voted for Trump are "inferior in intelligence," but I think that some of their thinking is misguided. Do those blue collar workers think that they would be better off without unions fighting for their wages and benefits? Do the minimum-wage workers think that $7.25 per hour is a livable wage? Do high school graduates think that they've learned all that they need to know to be marketable in today's job market? Do they really think that the Chinese companies end up paying for the higher tariffs and not the American consumers? Did they really believe that Mexico would pay for the wall that they don't want? Or that a wall with Mexico would keep terrorists out?