Saturday, December 10, 2016

So Here We Are

OK.  So Trump won.  Now what? 

So far, I see things I like and things I don't like.  His selections for most of his cabinet posts are pretty good, a few not so good, others I have yet to judge one way or another.  I'd love to see him appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State, if for no other reason than to see leftist head's explode like a 4th of July fireworks display (Oooh!  That's the kind I like!)  Though neither of them needed Bolton's help, JB would make Clinton and Kerry look like absolute idiots.  He's not a pushover and he knows foreign affairs far better than either of them.

Not crazy about Trump's moves concerning either Carrier or Boeing.  With Carrier, it is really no different than what lefties do to keep large companies from leaving town.  They offer a deal.  While I like the the company isn't moving to Mexico, I'm hoping it doesn't mean that as president, Donnie will satisfy himself with picking winners and losers like Obama does.  The real goal is to remove the reasons that compel them to leave.  That means getting together with Congress to lower corporate tax rates and ease regulations everywhere it makes sense to do so.  That's about all a president can do or should do. 

From there, one must hope that there are unemployed people who will choose to work for any of these corporations that stay or return.  I recently heard that there are about half a million manufacturing jobs available right now that go unfilled.  These are good paying, skilled positions.  How many are offering on the job training, I don't know.  To what extent a president can influence work ethic, I hope Trump can figure out, because many of those who dropped out of the job market don't really wish to return at this point.  And the young aren't quite of the same cut as workers of previous generations, so remaining and returning companies are only part of the solution to unemployment.  But Trump has campaigned on making it easier for companies to stay and thrive, so let's hope he can have success on his end of the bargain.

Boeing is a different deal.  And it's a deal between them and the those who ordered their talents in developing a new fleet for AirForceOne planes.  They aren't even contracted to build anything yet.  I just don't think it's as simple as saying "that's too much dough...forget it".  At the same time, it puts people on notice that Trump is concerned about costs for that which government intends to do.  So that's good.  I just hope he doesn't think he can simply oppose something superficially and expect that his will be done.

Over at Dan's, he worries about Trump's truthfulness.  Remarks Trump made about landslide wins and millions of illegal votes have provoked Dan's concern.  I have trouble with Trump's liberal use of hyperbole, but mostly because of reactions to such as in the case of Dan.  When Trump doesn't weigh his words, he'll have to waste time clarifying or walking back from them.  That's just the type of crap the left loves, since it's easier than actually coming up with solutions to problems that actually make sense.

But worse, Dan's concern is ludicrous given the deceit of the opposing party leaders.  "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  "Benghazi was the result of a video."  "I was pinned down by sniper fire in Bosnia."  and a host of other crap sandwiches served up by Obama, Clinton and others in the Democratic party.  They live on that stuff, draw in voter support by such stuff and have no shame in continually perpetuating such stuff.  But should Trump exaggerate....OH.  MY.  GOSH!!!  Can't have that, can we?

The bottom line, though, is that I am still filled with trepidation with Trump's victory, while still greatly relieved by it.  But I think he's off to a fairly good start, even if not a perfect one.  We'll see. 

45 comments:

1eternitymatters said...

Merry Christmas to you and your family -- great to see you posting!

I couldn't vote for Trump, but am so glad Hillary lost. Seriously, it has been a month and it has given me sweet, sweet schadenfreude every single day. And Trump, while a mixed bag thus far, is always going to be better than Hillary.

It has been fun reminding the Left -- including the "Christian" Left -- that we wouldn't have Trump if it weren't for them. The DNC, the Clinton campaign and the MSM all conspired to give us what everyone viewed as the weakest possible candidate. Nice work, folks. Seemed like a good idea at the time, right?

And when they foam at the mouth over impeaching Trump, I just laugh. Sure, guys, impeach Trump and we get Pence. Yea! He's much better than Trump, and we'd get him for the rest of Trump's term plus up to two more terms. Woo-hoo!

The ironic thing is that Trump is such a RINO. He is already openly admitting that he just said a bunch of things to get elected and has no plans to follow through on them. Shocking, eh? And I hate his crony capitalism.

That said, with just a few basic moves he'll be able to create a lot of jobs and jump-start the economy. Just get rid of some regulations, lower corporate taxes, get the coal industry back to work, etc. then sit back and watch.

And it appears that on the military alone he will be amazing. We will actually have them doing their Constitutional roles and not just being a case study in how to let the LGBTQX pervert lobby ruin your military.

And his national concealed carry idea is brilliant and Constitutional. And the Left will never stop wetting their pants over it.

I hope he follows through on the Supreme Court judges. A couple conservatives there and he will have been worth the risk. Hope he puts Cruz on it. Can you imagine, God willing, having Cruz on the SC for the next few decades?!

Side note: I had no issues with Christians voting for him as a better-than-Hillary alternative, but I still have issues with those putting a Christian veneer on Trump. Those people are sell-outs.

1eternitymatters said...

P.S. And when they show people sobbing over how Hillary lost I get drunk on their tears. She was so off-the-charts cartoonishly evil before the election. Can you imagine how unhinged she would have been if she had won?!

Marshall Art said...

Hi Neil!

Yeah, it's a good news/bad news kind of thing with the extent of the bad side an unknown. Hopefully, as the hope had always been, his advisors can get through to him when he's about to be his true lefty self. The good news is that he'll never be as far left as Hillary or Barry O. So that's turning the aircraft carrier slowly, if nothing else.

For my part, I couldn't NOT vote for Trump. The "put it in God's hands" thing seems too much like that stupid John Mayer song, "Waiting For The World To Change". God can do anything, but why leave Him to do it all when we can pitch in easily? HE knows why I voted for Trump. HE knows I don't support Trump specifically. HE knows I felt the need to pull back on the reins of that runaway horse to leftist hell. Our liberty was at stake. Trump has a better handle of the concept of liberty, though he could use some guidance on that as well, considering his talk about trade agreements.

I like Cruz for the Supreme Court, but I don't think he's on the short list. But I think he'd have served better picking justices rather than just being one. Then again, would there be any leftist heads left to explode?

I agree with your side not as well, but I do think it is more Christian to support the lesser of two evils. The thing is, the evil of which I speak is in the policies and positions these candidates supported, not necessarily the candidates themselves. We can't wait for Jesus to throw his hat in the ring.

A Facebook foe spoke of waiting for the gloating to subside before he resume posting his leftist memes based on an alternate reality. I can't gloat over Trump's victory because he wasn't the guy I wanted as the GOP candidate. But I am totally enjoying the spectacle of liberal lamentation. It's hilarious! These people need to be mocked openly and often!

Timothy Hammons said...

Hi Art,
Love your commentary, as well as Neil's comment. Both are well thought out. I'm a bit surprised by some of the moves by Trump, pleased as well. I'm not getting my hopes up, so there will not be a lot of disappointment. And given that I didn't vote for him, I don't feel like I have to defend him. Other than that, I'm delighted he is there instead of Hillary. That was truly dodging a bullet.

Marshall Art said...

Hi Tim. Yes, we did indeed dodge a bullet, and for me that was all important in this election, which is why I cast my vote for him. I am of the opinion that unlike Clinton, Trump will have absolutely no one outside his inner circle who will rubber stamp his every fart and belch. I believe the opposite will be true. We know the media will scrutinize his every twitch, and the Dems will make crap up. But also, his supporters who are not parallels of Obama's will be watching closely to see that he comes through on his promises, and hold his feet to the fire. Yet still, we'll just have to see about all of it.

Marshall Art said...

It is also helpful to remember that now is the time to be truly involved in the process. Waiting for the next campaign cycle leaves us with other questionable choices for office. Paying attention to what happens from this point on, on every level of government and the courts, is paramount to helping to make sure we never again have to choose between two unworthy candidates. (I've begun a list just today of judges in my state who rule in ways I cannot abide. Those names will find my vote going elsewhere the next time I see their names on a ballot. I intend to track politicians as well, to the best of my ability) Trump may very well end up proving himself worthy of a second term. I'd then vote for him again. But should he not, I hope another better choice can emerge to make choosing easy.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I didn't think of it so much as the lesser of two evils as it was voting for a whole administration. Trump came with a Republican, sorta conservative administration which historically sticks to the Constitution better than the Demokrats. With a Killary administration it would be just more and more loss of rights, further destruction of the military, etc, etc. Yep, vote for the administration if you cant vote for the candidate.

Marshall Art said...

I agree, Glenn. At its most basic level, that's what any election is about...not so much the candidate, but what the candidate has stated he is trying to accomplish. No Democrat these days comes anywhere near what common sense people believe to be true. Conservatism and all it encompasses is never championed by Dems to any degree of consequence, if at all...which is usually never. The risk here is that Trump has no track record of public service, and his past seemed to indicate he leaned leftward in more than a tiny bit. Then again, Reagan began as a Democrat, too. And it could be that Trump merely pandered to Dems as a business man in much the same way Dems pander to those they seek to convince of their agenda.

Anonymous said...

But I think he's off to a fairly good start, even if not a perfect one.

You are fine with a cabinet full of billionaires and millionaires to represent the "little people's" best interests?

Already he's broken/backed down from his promises to
prosecute Clinton,
to build a wall,
to drain the swamp,
to abolish gay marriage/gay rights advances,
to abolish Obamacare,
to deport immigrants,
to back out of the Paris Agreement,
to release his taxes (you don't really think he ever meant that promise, did you?)

and on and on. I guess you don't appear to take any of his claims and promises to be "facts" and actual "promises," so it's not a problem for you?

What makes you think he means any of what he says, when it's all hyperbole and part of the show to swindle the suckers out of their money?

~Dan

Marshall Art said...

"You are fine with a cabinet full of billionaires and millionaires to represent the "little people's" best interests?"

Is it your opinion, as a Christian who allegedly "embraces grace" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), that billionaires and millionaires are, by virtue of their wealth alone, untrustworthy and insensitive the the needs and concerns of "the little people"? Real nice.

" I guess you don't appear to take any of his claims and promises to be "facts" and actual "promises,"..."

You again demonstrate that you are distinctly guilty of the same low regard for truth and honesty for which you accuse Trump. Nothing I've ever written has made any claim regarding Trump's honesty. All I've done is respond to YOUR lack of integrity and honesty as you whine one about Trump being a liar. Case in point:

"What makes you think he means any of what he says, when it's all hyperbole and part of the show to swindle the suckers out of their money?"

I never said "it's all hyperbole". Feel free to link to that comment where you believe I did, and I'll show how you either lied about what I said or are just too stupid to understand plain English. Or, you can stop playing games and put on your big boy pants before you attempt to post a comment. The fact is that I don't assume anything about what he says. Why you insist on pretending otherwise demonstrates your own mental idiosyncrasies. Why don't we just let him take office and then see what happens?


Anonymous said...

The point about billionaires is that we are a diverse nation. Thus, I want our representatives to be diverse, not all a bunch of super wealthy white dudes. Trump ran on being a voice for the average working class folk, do you think this bunch is going to be working for us or for themselves?

So, it appears then that you are fine with it. So be it, just say so. And when our policies are designed to help the rich get richer and stomp on the needs of the poor, don't be surprised.

"Is it not the rich who oppress you?"

"God has lifted up the poor but torn down the rich..."

Yeah, that's right, being wary of the trappings of wealth is a bad and ungracious thing. Stupid Jesus and his followers!

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

So the super wealthy can't understand about the "average" American? I suppose they ALL started as super wealthy and never had to work a day in their lives? Never started from scratch building stuff in their own garage or basement?

Personally, I think people who have made their way to the top fully understand what it is like, especially since they are the particular targets of the LEFTISTS who seem to think that because they have the money that they should bear the BRUNT of all taxes and should be seen as horrible capitalists, etc. They really understand the economy, by the way, and they have been experienced managers of large corporations, etc. Lots of real experience that they "average" Joe on the street doesn't have a clue about.

The real people who were out of touch with reality were the Obamanites pushing agendas of perversion and socialism on the entire nation -- a real nation which got fed up with them.

Anonymous said...

What evidence do you have that, whether or not they understand the average American (and I'm guessing many of these people started wealthy, just because that's the norm) and will act in their interests? The Bible and all of history warn us against the dangers of wealth, how the wealthy have this tendency to exploit and seek their interests, not the interest of others.

And sorry, Glenn, but your side doesn't get to talk out against "perversion," even in the imagined sense you use here. Your side has embraced the biggest presidential pervert in all of US history. You've given up the high moral ground when you embraced the pussy grabbing sexual assailant and probable child rapist. You simply have no credible grounds to speak out against any perceived immorality until such point as you all collectively seriously repent for the harm you've done.

Al Mohler warned that this would happen and he was (for once) right.

So, shall I assume you have nothing but blind faith in Father Trump that these 1%-er, elitist types will act in our best interests? And that faith is in the faith of a demonstrated liar who is a sexual pervert?

Got it.

Your naive hunches are dismissed.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

re: "a real nation that got fed up with him"...

You do know that Obama is leaving office with the highest approval ratings of any president since Bill Clinton? Higher than Reagan? He has had the most scandal-free and decent administration in either of our lifetimes. He is a good (flawed, but good) man who has done a good job as president, and better than any other recent administration, especially given the vile and falsehood-based opposition to him from day one by an obstructionist, do-nothing Congress.

Yeah, you have no credibility. I imagine in your make-believe world, the polls are making it up about how supported and beloved he and his whole family are?

What you all need to start fearing is if Michelle Obama runs for the presidency. You couldn't touch her because she is beloved even more than Obama.

I pray that, as you pass through this season of remembering the birth of the One who came proclaiming peace and good news specifically to the poor and gave warnings specifically to and about the wealthy and the religious, that you will repent and embrace the teachings of our Lord Jesus, in a more biblical and moral manner, brother.

Merry Christmas

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Obama's approval rating:

Most recent weekly average 56 Dec 12-18, 2016

George W. Bush 31 Dec 2008

Ronald Reagan 53 Dec 1988

A "real nation" that got "fed up with him..."? I don't think you mean a real nation. I think you are speaking of the racists and fundamentalists who were opposed to him because they believed he was a Muslim and a socialist and wanted to take away their guns and other fake news fairy tales.

But don't conflate the bubble of racists and fundamentalists with all of America. That would be a mistake.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Well, Trabue,

What evidenced do you have that they WON'T act in the best interests of the nation?

The Bible never warns about the "dangers of wealth" -- NEVER. Of course you read a different Bible, don't you -- you know, the one where God is okay with homosexuality. No, the Bible warns against greed, not wealth.

No one on "my side" ever endorsed any sexual immorality of any candidate. "My side" voted for an administration. By the way, there is never any evidence Trump raped anyone, nor did he say he ever grabbed a woman's sex part (which wouldn't be perversion, by the way), rather he was talking like a locker room jock about what he COULD do and get away with, not that he ever did. And no he has never promoted any perversion so he isn't the most perverse president ever - that title goes to Obamanation.

You drink the kool-aid of the LEFT if you think Obama has a high approval rating among anyone but the far left like yourself. The man has done more to destroy this nation than anyone else in history.

The "obstructionist" congress only obstructed what should not have passed and/or is unconstitutional. The real obstructionists are the Demokrats who always obstruct what is Constitutional and should pass.

Your credibility is NOTHING. You, like all your LEFTIST ilk, immediately pulled out the racist card because that is all you have. The majority of the "fundamentalists" (real Christians who follow the fundamentals of the Christian faith -- unlike your ilk) I've ever known or read commentaries by never said Obamanation was a Muslim, but that he favored Muslims over Christians and even stated that he would stand with Islam whenever necessary. His actions in office demonstrated his disdain for Christians (and he ISN'T a Christian based on his beliefs and actions) and his love for Islam, especially as he forced his perverse agenda on the USA and invited hundreds of thousands of Muslim "refugees" to invade us.

If it wasn't for California, Trump would have had the popular vote by 1.4 million, which demonstrates what real Americans wanted and it wasn't the socialist agenda of the LEFT.

I wouldn't wish you a merry anything, nor do I accept from you, you blasphemer of God.

Anonymous said...

The Bible doesn't speak about the dangers of wealth?

I wonder: Is it the case that you are ignorant of what the Bible says about wealth or that you explain away these rather obvious verses?

And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word...

as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life...

But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?...

God has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich God has sent away empty...

If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property...

For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs...

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other You cannot serve God and wealth...

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy...


No, it doesn't use the phrase "Dangers of wealth," but we see repeated warnings about wealthy people in general, about how it can be a trap if you're too committed to it (and not just greed, but "trusting in" wealth, "storing up treasures," etc, stuff that most of us do without being necessarily greedy... You will note that James does not warn against "the greedy rich," or "those greedy people..." he warns against "the wealthy." I will note that Mary does not say God pulls down "the greedy," but "the wealthy.")

I'm guessing you're aware of the verses, it's just that you explain away the implications of these repeated, many warnings about wealth and the wealthy, as a class. So be it. I would disagree with your interpretation if you don't see the obvious warnings against wealth and the wealthy. It sounds like a rather convenient excuse of a wealthy man, rather than rational, objective biblical exegesis.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

You drink the kool-aid of the LEFT if you think Obama has a high approval rating among anyone but the far left like yourself. The man has done more to destroy this nation than anyone else in history.

What can I say? The data does not support your wild, unsupported, emotion-driven irrational false claims.

As a point of fact:

Right now, Obama has a 56% approval rating amongst Americans. Now, does that mean that the dedicated fundamentalists and racists who self-identify as conservative like him? No, of course not. But - and here is the vital point you need to understand, Glenn - fundamentalists and racists and other conservative types are not all of America. Just because you disagree with slightly over half the nation does not make us not part of the US.

That's just a fact. Thus, your claim that "real America" is shrilly and irrationally hateful of Obama because you all believe he's a Muslim or not an American or a socialist or whatever fake news kool aid YOU have been drinking is factually not true.

Thou shalt not, Glenn.

Right now, the nation is doing quite well by many of the normal standards we use to measure such things.

* Unemployment is at record lows (half of what Bush left with, a record high)
* As of October 2016, a record 73 consecutive months of overall job growth.
* As of October 2016, there have been 80 consecutive months of private sector job growth.
* Oversaw a reduction in the federal budget deficit by two-thirds since taking office.
* Reduced the federal budget deficit from 9.8% of GDP in Fiscal Year 2009 under Bush, to 2.5% of GDP in FY 2015.

and, well, I could go on and on. But here's the data, with citations.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

Now, please proceed to ignore the data and rely on more fake news and false claims if you want, but again, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Now, you want to see a shipwreck of a presidency, just watch where things go with this ignorant, perverted liar/con man you people have elected. Unfortunately, I think he will give us plenty of shit to shovel, when it comes to a nation actually crumbling.

What do you think the unemployment rate will be after two years of Trump? Do you think it will rise like it has under most GOP presidencies? What will foreign affairs look like? How many wars and scandals and perversions will we sit through under this, the most perverted and most casually lying of elected presidents?

Lord have mercy.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Context, trabue,

They are all about the greed of wealth, the behaviors of wealthy which are based on greed. If wealth was so horrid to God, why did he make Solomon the wealthiest in the world? But you never have cared about context, have you?

The data on Obamanation's popularity comes from polls, polls run by the LEFTIST media. Yeah, I trust their accuracy.

Contrary to your kook-aid version of Obama, try the facts for once:
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/12/21/legacy-10-ways-barack-obama-broke-american-system/

And this doesn't even cover his forcing the biology-denying "transgenderism" on America, including wrecking the military with it.

Keep believing your fake news, and kept promoting your irrational LEFTIST ideology -- when Muslims take over you will not be keeping your head either.

You keep saying Trump is perverted but you have no evidence of perversion by him or preached by him, while YOUR president brought us same-sex fake marriage and promotion of homosexuality in every way possible, and the promotion of "transgenderism" and would likely bring in bestiality with executive orders if he had another term.

Oh, and for you to make any statement about Trump being a liar is about as hysterical as it gets when you consider that Obama is one of the worst liars, right behind Hillary. "If you like your doctor..." Don't forget that with his lies Obama has divided this nation racially as no one else ever has.

Marshall Art said...

"The point about billionaires is that we are a diverse nation. Thus, I want our representatives to be diverse, not all a bunch of super wealthy white dudes"

"Diversity" is bullshit. It is meaningless. All that matters is the quality of those selected, a point which remains to be seen in the jobs to which they were appointed. I don't care if all our reps are Lithuanian Zoroastrians as long as they can get the job done.

"Trump ran on being a voice for the average working class folk, do you think this bunch is going to be working for us or for themselves?"

As one who strives to do more than merely give lip service to concepts like "embracing grace" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), I tend to run with a "let's wait and see" posture. I have no reason to think that they won't be working for us simply because they're loaded.

"And when our policies are designed to help the rich get richer and stomp on the needs of the poor, don't be surprised."

When you can prove that any center right policies are designed with that intent, I'll be greatly surprised. We've seen what center left policies have done to the poor...they've increased their number...more no longer looking for work, more collecting food stamps, more working multiple jobs to make ends meet. Yeah. These guys can't possibly do worse.

""Is it not the rich who oppress you?"

"God has lifted up the poor but torn down the rich...""


And again you demonstrate your willingness to lie and distort, using these verses to suggest that Christ/Scripture was referring to all rich people and not to a specific group of rich people that existed at the time these words were spoken. Stupid Dan and his idiotic and BS, self-serving misrepresentations of Scripture! Shame on you!

Anonymous said...

Both of you: it's literally what the text says. But,you two just don't see it.

I'd suggest that's part of why wealth is a trap: it blinds you, makes you simply unaware of the trap you're in.

May Christ's actual blessings fall on you, gentlemen. Peace on earth and in your hearts, healing for your hearts.

In Christ, merry Christmas.

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Good old Trabue. "It's what the text says" -- but he never understands context. NEVER.

Wealth isn't a trap, not at all. Only greed associated with wealth is bad. Again, why did God make Solomon so wealthy if wealth was considered a trap and bad in any way?

You don't know the real Christ, Trabue, as has been proven over and over and over again.

Anonymous said...

"It's what the text says" -- but he never understands context. NEVER.

Only you understand the text and context and disagreeing with Glenn is disagreeing with God... is that what you're saying?

If so, do you see the bald, diabolic arrogance in such a claim?

Glenn, you're free to hold your own opinion. I think that clearly you are mistaken. You all are reading into the text something that isn't there in the text or the context (for instance, what in the context says that James meant only the greedy in his words? Or Mary, in her Magnificat? It's just not there. It's something you're making up out of swamp gas). But feel free to do that if it comforts you.

As to my salvation, thankfully, I'm not saved by your grace or I certainly would be doomed. But my salvation rests in God and God's grace, not Glenn. Embrace a bit of that grace by which you are saved, Glenn.

Marshall...

I tend to run with a "let's wait and see" posture.

Did you do this with Obama? I think not. It appears your "grace" only extends to self-described sexual perverts, liars, con men and sexual abusers, and then only when they tell you they're conservative (whether they are or not).

That isn't grace, Marshall. It's hypocrisy, or at least seems like it on the face of it. Embrace actual grace, brother.

Again, Merry Christmas, may the Peace of Christ fall upon you.

~Dan

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, Oct, 2008, just before Obama was elected...

And we've gotten more confirmation, in the form of a 2001 radio interview, that the Obamanable one views the Constitution as most view used toilet paper.

Obummer. Barry. Barely. Comparisons of Obama's election to anal rape.

Yeah, that was grace. That was giving him a chance and taking a wait and see approach.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue, again makes claims as to what my thinking is -- he must be omniscient.

Trabue, you've never understood context. Your idea about the passages about wealth doesn't align with commentaries by scholars (other than the LEFTIST type). But go ahead and think you have it right, the same way you think you have it right about homosexuality and abortion, etc.

You aren't saved at all, because the Christ and God you worship are those of your own making, just like members of cults. A fake, made-up Jesus cannot save you.

By the way, we KNEW what Obamanation's political stance was going to be, since he wrote a book about his beliefs, he attended a fake church for 20 years which was racist, anti-Semitic, and socialist. And he was a worthless senator. So there was no "wait and see" with him.

Marshall Art said...

"What evidence do you have that, whether or not they understand the average American...and will act in their interests?"

None whatsoever. Nor do I have any legitimate reason to believe they will or won't. And that's the point. Neither do you. But you, in your graceless manner, choose to suppose that these successful people are selfish and care only for other rich people, simply because they are successful and wealthy...an unChristian speculation based on your own contempt, distrust and envy of them.

"(and I'm guessing many of these people started wealthy, just because that's the norm)"

Not the norm at all, apparently, though it serves your covetous nature to believe so:

http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2871-how-most-millionaires-got-rich.html

"And sorry, Glenn, but your side doesn't get to talk out against "perversion," even in the imagined sense you use here."

Of course we do. But let's first look at what "perversion" is:

1. The alteration of something from it's original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended. ...such as the perversion of the definition of "marriage" or the perversion of human sexual morality by the LGBT activists and their enablers, such as Dan Trabue.

synonyms--distortion, misrepresentation, misconstruction, twisting, corruption, subversion, misuse, misapplication, debasement "a twisted perversion of the truth"

Wow! If that doesn't sound like basic leftist strategy and tactics, I don't know what does! We here see that those words apply well to most every position taken by Dan Trabue.

2. sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable.

Here, we see that only half of the above can be applied to Trump, as for most conservatives and conservative Christians (and those of other faiths), Donald's sexual history is largely, unacceptable. But desire of men for women isn't abnormal, even to the degree of the most lecherous. So the tag "perversion" doesn't quite fit unless a lefty like Dan perverts the meaning...which is lying. Dan's percentage of false utterances continues to rise above the 90% level he attributes to Trump.

"Your side has embraced the biggest presidential pervert in all of US history. You've given up the high moral ground when you embraced the pussy grabbing sexual assailant and probable child rapist."

No. That was YOUR side. At this point, you are basing all on speculation compelled by high school bragging from 11 years ago. The guy likes hot women! OH! THE! HORROR! I'm so ashamed that I married one myself!

What's more, the vast majority of those who voted for Trump in the presidential election, never "embraced" him at all (so you're percentage of lies continues to rise), but voted for him to deny a far worse scumbag from sitting in the big chair. This has been explained to you ad nauseum, and you desperately continue to lie about it. What's more, you continue to insist that he admitted to grabbing women by the crotch, when honest people know that in that interview with Bush, he merely claimed that he could grab women that way and get away with it due to the manner in which women react to rich dudes like him. He saw that as a plus, sure, but he didn't actually say in that interview that he actually does that. And as I just watched it yet again to confirm what I've said, I can only conclude that either you never watched it yourself, or that you're content with lying yet again.

continuing....

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/joshua-rauh-what-forbes-400-list-says-about-american-wealth

http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth/

Marshall Art said...

NOTE: in the previous comment, somehow I did not get the links grouped together like I had meant to do so, and thus some of the sources showing Dan knows nothing are what are at the bottom. Not that it matters, since Dan doesn't actually read links other people post.

Anyway, to continue...

"You simply have no credible grounds to speak out against any perceived immorality until such point as you all collectively seriously repent for the harm you've done."

When you apologize for your complicity in foisting Obama and the harm he brought upon America, then you might have grounds of your own for making such a pathetic demand. What's more, the extent of harm that Trump might bring about is as yet unknown at this point, since he hasn't be sworn in. For all his character flaws, he might be the best president ever. Time will tell and despite my own trepidation, I'm willing to wait and see. Too bad you haven't the grace to do so as well.

"Did you do this with Obama?"

Of course. The difference is that Obama had, for lack of a better more accurate term, a "track record" that would suggest a likely direction. That was enough to make justified assumptions that trouble was on the way. Nonetheless, the hope was that he would actually do something good, such as at least narrowing the racial divide. He expanded it nicely, so he pretty much failed in just the manner we who actually vetted him predicted he would in every area.

What you fail to accept is that leftist policy has a long history of failure. To expect success in employing that which has never succeeded, though, still does not mean that we can't hope a bozo will do something right. What choice do we have but to hope? Your bozo failed miserably. Ours at least proposes that which has a history of success. Thus the hope is far less desperate and far more justified. If you were honest, you'd realize this.

"So, shall I assume you have nothing but blind faith in Father Trump that these 1%-er, elitist types will act in our best interests? And that faith is in the faith of a demonstrated liar who is a sexual pervert?"

How about not assuming in the first place, especially with regard to that which doesn't reflect anything we've ever said or suggested? That would be a good start on your path toward honesty and grace.

We have no faith in anyone at this point. We simply choose to let the guy take office and see what happens. We realize the risk of a Trump presidency, and have never stated that he is the best we could have put in the big chair. We realize only that he was the better choice between the only candidates with any chance to actually get that 270 electoral votes. Why not embrace enough grace and honesty to acknowledge this that we have continually maintained?

By the way, Dan....for whom did you vote? I admitted my vote cast for Trump. I accept all that goes with that. I want to know who you supported in the election before you continue your fact free demonizing.

more coming....

Marshall Art said...

"You do know that Obama is leaving office with the highest approval ratings of any president since Bill Clinton? Higher than Reagan?"

Only a dishonest person would suggest approval ratings are a real reflection of the entirety of American sentiment...greater than the rejection of the incumbent's party at election time. And not only did Obama twice win the presidency on the strength of racial considerations (overwhelming black support---simply because he is half-black), but his approval numbers are a result of the same racial consideration. Add that to the fact that Dems approve of anything a Dem does, regardless of how beneficial or not, approval numbers, even for Republicans, are a worthless barometer.

"He has had the most scandal-free and decent administration in either of our lifetimes."

While as the article itself says, these might not all constitute "scandal" in the classical sense of the word, I would posit that the same is true for that which Dan would call a scandal for center-right presidents. NOTE: The following is only that which occurred to about 2013:

http://www.naturalnews.com/041056_Obama_scandals_Benghazi_Fast_and_Furious.html

"He is a good (flawed, but good) man who has done a good job as president, and better than any other recent administration, especially given the vile and falsehood-based opposition to him from day one by an obstructionist, do-nothing Congress."

Nonsense. "Good" man? That's your opinion and subjectivity is hardly evidence of anything but that you're a hack. But if you think that he's done a good job as president, you'll need some proof. I still intend to attack feo's list of "achievements" at some point, but suffice to say that more people on food stamps, more people who no longer even try to find a job, more people having to work multiple jobs, more violence, more racial discord, just to name a few things, indicates a job well done, then you have proven yourself either a clinical idiot or one who has just lied yet again.

That's all for now. More to come later.

Anonymous said...

None whatsoever. Nor do I have any legitimate reason to believe they will or won't. And that's the point. Neither do you.

Conservatives will usually affirm the observable reality that people will commonly act in their own self-interests. Are you some bleeding heart liberal that assumes that these people will not do so?

If so, based on what? Blind hope? Faith in the pervert and liar, Trump?

There's a difference between grace and naivete.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

If that doesn't sound like basic leftist strategy and tactics, I don't know what does! We here see that those words apply well to most every position taken by Dan Trabue.

Again, I'm sorry if you are not understanding, but you all are defending a self-admitted sexual deviant, a liar and a con man. Which is your right. But one consequence of your actions is that, in this case, you no longer have a right to be taken seriously as being concerned about moral behavior. Sorry. The Right is now the party who is fine with sexual deviants and abusers and liars. That's on you.

Ask Al Mohler, he'll tell you that this is the natural consequence of your actions.

~Dan

Marshall Art said...

"Conservatives will usually affirm the observable reality that people will commonly act in their own self-interests. Are you some bleeding heart liberal that assumes that these people will not do so?"

Once again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what conservatism is. To say that people will generally act in their own self-interest does not suggest they will fail to act for others, particularly when tasked to do so. Indeed, a conservative who would normally act on his own self-interest will routinely suspend those actions when called upon to serve his fellow man. Conservatives who have achieved success in serving their own self-interests commonly use that success to help others in a variety of ways, including the political, serving not as a means to create wealth, like the Obamas and Clintons, but because they already have wealth enough to satisfy their own self-interests and can then focus on tasks at hand without regard to self-interest.

I think you well know this, but are too dishonest to act as though you do.

And again, I have made no assumptions about how any of Trump's cabinet will act once he is sworn in and they have been positioned in their respective offices. YOU obviously have because you lack grace and true Christian regard for your fellow man. In the meantime, Trump welcomed disordered people like Bruce Jenner into the restrooms of his hotels. And the following gives a bit of insight into one of this wealthy appointees that you lack the grace to assume:

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/12/23/learned-exxon-ceo-rex-tillerson-spending-week-jury-duty

So at least one of them has demonstrated the ability and willingness to act beyond his own self-interest.

"Again, I'm sorry if you are not understanding"

Well, you are most definitely sorry, but I understand fully that you pervert and support perversion. The word applies better to you than to Trump. Here, you blatantly pervert what I'm doing, either out of dishonesty or due to rank stupidity (at this point it doesn't matter which, and I'm fine with either). You need to believe that I support a guy I opposed in the primaries and for whom I voted only to impede a far worse individual from winning the election. And as he has succeeded in winning, I simply hope that he will do most of that which he promised to do. I have a wait-and-see attitude as I always do in these cases, though I feel confident that things will improve in some areas. But unlike you lefties, we on the right are not shy in jumping on even those we DO support personally when they fail to be what they say they are. We do not support our people when they act like yours do as a matter of routine.

And as long as people like me don't go insane and become leftists and Democrats, we absolutely have the right to be taken seriously about being concerned with moral behavior, particularly when we acknowledge the immoral aspect of Trump's character. We don't pretend it doesn't exist or is irrelevant as you lefties routinely do with your people.

So.. who got your vote for president?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trump is not sexual deviant. He is certainly oriented towards members of the opposite sex. Sexual deviants at those who deny biology and have sex with members of their own sex, or mutilate themselves to pretend they are members of the opposite sex. THAT is sexual deviancy. Of course there are other sexual deviations, but I've seen no evidence of any sort about Trump.

Anonymous said...

Wow.

You guys defend deviants because you don't even know what a deviant/pervert is.

Real men aren't serial sexual predators/philanderers. As I said, given your inability to recognize basic decency, you all have no moral standing to criticize anyone.

First, remove the plank from your own eyes.

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue
You have no evidence of Trump being a predator. Thanks for false witness.

Being a philanderer isn't a deviant -- it's just immoral. You need to understand the difference.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

So you're just going to continue demonstrating your hypocrisy by suggesting we're defending Trump's immoral behaviors, while you celebrate actual perversion and sexual immorality every day? His character was the reason neither Glenn nor myself, nor Craig, Stand nor so many others, supported Trump's candidacy during the primaries, with some of those guys insisting they didn't vote for him in the presidential election. I have no trouble choosing the lesser of two evils, as I did in voting for him to help prevent the ascendancy of Clinton, as I believe we as a nation are better off with the lesser of two evils. Not all of my side believes as such, but that's up to them.

What is hypocritical is to suggest that he's so bad due to his form of sexual immorality while I suspect you would not hold against another their homosexual lifestyle were a homosexual to run for president. I suspect you'd celebrate the possibility that we could actually have "the first homosexual president", as if that, too, isn't immoral. Because you are immoral. It is YOU who have no standing to denounce the sexual immorality of Trump when you so fervently celebrate sexual immorality all the time, even pretending that God would bless it.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, you're right. Trump saying that he just grabs women by the pussy, he doesn't ask them, he just kisses. He can't help himself. And he goes into the dressing room where half dressed/undressed teenagers are exposed to him... and he boasts about all this predatory, perverted behavior, sometimes on the radio! And you all defend this man.

Real men don't do this sort of thing, nor do they defend it. Only perverts do this sort of behavior and defenders of perverts defend it.

And yes, Marshall, you ARE defending it. When you say that someone can engage in this sort of language and STILL be suited for the office of president, you are defending sexually predatory language and behavior. Shame on you. For this reason, you have no credibility, defender of perverts. I mean, look at Glenn, he can't even admit that he's perverted!

And it is a hellish lie to say that I celebrate any perversion. That you confuse a loving marriage relationship as "perverted" is yet another sign that you have no idea of what is and isn't perverted, and why your opinion is worthless.

You two have no credibility. Ask Al Mohler, he'll tell you.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

...and Marshall, with the perverted, deviant, unhealthy and immoral view you all have (being so twisted that you think a healthy, loving marriage between two loving adults is "perverse" and yet you give a pass and think that a man who stalks naked teenagers - AND BRAGS about it on radio! - and who sexually assaults women and brags about it to other men, saying he's entitled to do this... Normal moral adults say, "Hey, that behavior is beyond the pale! If I can't trust my teenaged daughter to visit the White House, then he is not suited for office. In fact, he should be arrested for what he has confessed to and bragged about")... this thinking is obviously awful to an increasing number of people. You all have driven young people away from your views with immoral and perverse views like this. You may be able to win today with the help of an aging, racist and perverse white and uneducated populace, but it won't last for long.

Repent fellows. Open your eyes to the perversion you're actually passing on and recognize its evil nature and repent, turn from these deviant ways and TO the ways of Christ, the Lord you hope to follow.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

You are being intentionally STUPID. Trump never said he grabbed anyone -- he was being arrogant and saying he COULD grab someone and get away with it. He was bragging about how he was such a great person == and that was years, and years ago! You LEFTISTS hang on to the stupidest things while promoting the worst sexual behavior which violate biology and the human body. You have NO RIGHT to even speak of sexual immorality of any sort.

Again and again we have said we have never defended any of his immoral actions; NOT ONE PERSON has ever defended his actions (the real actions, not the false accusations). Yet you continue to bear false witness claiming we have!

Voting for Trump was not supporting him, rather it was protecting the nation from more of Demokrat obamanite policies which have ruined this nation. We voted for a Republican administration, not for Trump, but you are too stupid to understand that.

And two people of the same sex cannot have a "loving" sexual relationship. God calls it an abomination, which means they are committing grave sin, which cannot include love because love seeks no harm to the other. Homosexual behavior is as perverted as it gets and is extremely harmful physically, medically, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually. And YOU are the master pervert, along with your perverted president, who supports such behavior while blaspheming God claiming He approves of it.

You are the one with no credibility. You wouldn't know credibility if it bit you in the behind. (And if you want to cite Mohler, perhaps you should see what he teaches about same-sex fake marriage!

Anonymous said...

Glenn, clearly you don't understand what Trump said about his sexual assault. But set that aside for just a minute: He bragged about walking around in a GIRL's dressing room, viewing many teenaged girls who were half-dressed, bragged about doing so. He's a deviant.

You do not recognize it, pointing out the deviancy in your own mind.

You have no credibility, Glenn, until you begin to recognize that these behaviors Trump admits to makes him not suited for office. It should be a game-stopper, yet you still support him and defend his deviancy.

Shame on you. I'm sure you don't even recognize your blindness to deviancy... the Bible tells us that those who engage in sinful thinking make their hearts hard to God's ways. I pray you open your eyes and take an honest look at the pervert you are defending and recognizing how, as Al Mohler has pointed out, you are destroying your credibility and witness.

Good luck.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Al Mohler:

"When it comes to Donald Trump, evangelicals are going to have to ask the huge question, 'Is it worth destroying our moral credibility to support someone who is beneath the baseline level of human decency for anyone who should deserve our vote?'"

http://www.christianpost.com/news/al-mohler-evangelical-moral-credibility-voting-beneath-human-decency-donald-trump-170808/#rebgt5bglPtXyKPM.99

Mohler is clearly wrong on many issues, in my opinion. He suffers from some of the same arrogance and delusion that is typical of so many conservative fundamentalist types. However, he is right on this point: You have destroyed your credibility.

Take it up with him, I'll waste no more time today talking to a man who defends such deviancy (and yes, supporting him as the Republican president IS supporting him in his deviancy. His deviancy disqualifies him for any position of responsibility.).

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Since when is it sexual deviancy for a male to want to look at females? THAT is the point.

Point two is again, WE NEVER SANCTION HIS IMMORALITY, you jackass!

If sexual immorality disqualified a man from being a president (although it should), then a huge number of past presidents should not have been presidents. Are you okay with John Kennedy? How about Franklin Roosevelt? Oh, wait -- How about Bill Clinton, sexual predator extraordinaire. You and your ilk are hypocrites of the highest order.

In my book anyone promoting same-sex fake marriage is not qualified for president yet Obama got it sanctioned nationwide.

You put an awful lot of stock in Al Mohler, the guy who ruins your theology in so many ways! Why do you listen to him on anything when you can't agree with his theology?!?!? Hypocrisy again. And Mohler in this case is only expressing his opinion, not biblical truth. So who cares.

Again, the vote was NOT for Trump, it was for the Republican party. If Mohler thought it was okay to vote against Trump so Clinton would get in, that is his stupidity talking.

And, no you fool, voting for Trump to get a Republican administration was NOT supporting Trump's immorality (not deviancy).

Marshall Art said...

"Yeah, you're right. Trump saying that he just grabs women by the pussy..."

You're a liar. Trump talks out his ass, repeats things he shouldn't (like Cruz's father being complicit in Kennedy's murder), engages in hyperbole and exaggeration and says things that aren't true. But YOU'RE a liar of the first order. I just told you that I listened again to the video interview with Billy Bush and he did NOT say that he does indeed grab women by the crotch (though you obviously enjoy typing "pussy", you deviant). But you need to believe that he said he actually does grab women in that manner, because you need to believe that others are more immoral than you and those you celebrate, so you intentionally repeat that which you have been told is not true, which means you're a liar...just like Donald Trump, if not worse than him.

"Real men don't do this sort of thing, nor do they defend it."

Then I'm glad I don't defend it, and instead have done just the opposite. But you're a liar by continually insisting that I defend his behavior, when I'm doing no more than correcting your lie about exactly what he said. You're a liar just like Donald Trump, but worse because he's just talking out his ass, and you're intentionally speaking falsehood...about not only Trump, but those of us who don't need to make shit up about his character like you apparently have a sick need to do.

"When you say that someone can engage in this sort of language and STILL be suited for the office of president, you are defending sexually predatory language and behavior."

And again you lie. I've corrected you repeatedly on my actions and what motivated them, but you insist that I'm defending his low character. Because you're an inveterate liar. Hillary routinely engages in vile language and I suppose I should have voted for her instead? Or not vote at all and risk her ascendancy and all the harm that would follow? Here's some foul language for you...kiss my ass.

And hey! I can easily find instances when you've engaged in typing foul language, so you're a hypocrite in that, too. Liar.

"And it is a hellish lie to say that I celebrate any perversion. That you confuse a loving marriage relationship as "perverted" is yet another sign that you have no idea of what is and isn't perverted, and why your opinion is worthless."

The "hellish lie" is when you call abomination "loving". So you lie about that as well, which is routine for you. You would suggest that sinning in a loving way makes the sin worthy of God's blessing. That's a lie, and an abominable one at that, with which pro-homosexual Biblical scholars agree. So, there's no confusion on my part, as I don't pretend two perverts saying "I love you" to each other makes their sinful sexual behavior not sinful. Liar. I should start calling you Daniel Trump, you lie so outrageously! (or Donald Trabue...either way)

continuing....

Marshall Art said...

"Repent fellows. Open your eyes to the perversion you're actually passing on and recognize its evil nature and repent, turn from these deviant ways and TO the ways of Christ, the Lord you hope to follow."

We've done nothing in preventing Hillary's win that requires our repentance. We did all we could to promote and support better people for president, but Trump won the party nomination. I'm not going to let the country go to hell in a handbag with Obama 2.0 Hillary Clinton, who is clearly a far worse individual than Donald Trump on his worst day.

You have no standing to dare suggest that anyone here needs to open their eyes to perversion. You support and celebrate it. We not only discourage it, but recognize the character flaws of Trump and have spoken out against it, voted against him because of it during the primaries, but are far more honest about it than are you...who is a liar. We recognize the evil of his behavior as well as the evil of yours and that which you celebrate. You lie about it. Because you're Dan Trump.

It's not my fault that we were faced with such a terrible choice between two low character people. There was no way to pretend that the nation would not be calling one of them "POTUS" when it was all said and done. The only question was which one would it be. I acted on that only choice to prevent the greater of two evils. The evil you would prefer was such that her evil would have a direct negative impact on the nation in the same way Obama did, and likely make things even worse than he did. Voting for the lecher was the clear choice over the despot who protected the lecher to whom she was married and lied about it.

What's more, the sad reality that Trump rose to this status is the result of leftist ideology that allowed cultural mores to decay as badly as it has thus far (culminating in the legitimization of abomination). Said another way, he succeeded politically because of people LIKE YOU!!! YOU are far more responsible for his current position in the political world than am I, or Glenn, or Craig, or Neil, or Stan or anyone on this side of the political and religious divide. People like us are just trying to deal with it. Withholding our votes from him and letting Clinton win is really all this is about for you. You don't give a flying rat's ass about his character, his behavior or his locker-room boasting. You lie about this, too.

Craig said...

I find the attitude that voting for Trump automatically means endorsing any and all actions he's ever engaged in strange.

Marshall Art said...

Well, Craig, Dan's a strange dude, so it shouldn't seem strange that he'd say something...uh...strange.

Dan looks at a Trump vote as an opportunity to posture himself as one on the moral high ground from which he can berate the Trump voter for not voting for Hillary or some other person who wouldn't have won.