Oh, For Pete's Sake!

In 1 Peter 3:15 (NIV) we're told, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."  A good plan.  It not only results in a stronger faith, but deflects from accusations of having only "blind" faith.  How nice it would be if more people did the same with regard their politics!

The concept is rather a public service as I see it.  If someone wants to know why I believe in "the Flying Spaghetti Monster", a solid argument for the existence of God and the truth claims of the Christian faith could turn the the life of the questioner around for his eternal benefit.  Politically, it can turn someone who supports one party to support other, or from support or opposition to a policy proposal to the opposite position>

Sadly, the reality on the political scene is that it is harder to turn someone from the dark side despite that more often than not, clear and unassailable evidence is easy to view, digest and, if clear and unassailable evidence to the contrary actually exists, debunk.  But that would require both sides being equally willing to enter into discussion with an open mind to all facts one or both can bring to bear. 

So while the faith can be difficult to impart to others and politics less so, easier still is the argument between the two candidates on the ballot (Trump and Harris...there is no other with any hope of winning).  And in this election, it should be really easy if there was indeed a logical, intelligent answer to give for rejecting Trump in favor of Harris...or simply just rejecting Trump in favor of no one or someone with no chance to win, which not only is a total waste, but is not a "statement" anyone hears...so it's a waste at best.

So anyway, as I stated in an earlier post, there's two ways to argue for one's choice:  by either focusing one the positives of one's candidate, or on the negatives of the other guy.  And since the Trump-haters and other leftists can't speak well of their own, but only rip on Trump, I'm going to "give an answer" which focuses on some of Harris' many shortcomings (and I won't do the leftist thing and focus on things like her cackling and pantsuits and word salads...though the salad tossing is just another way she lies).  What follows is a link to a post about pro-lifers supporting Trump over Harris.  While it makes the case well that Harris is totally down with infanticide, it also lists on atrocities for which Harris/Biden are responsible to a great degree:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/10/why_i_a_staunch_pro_lifer_staunchly_support_trump_and_why_you_should_too.html

From the link comes these additional points regarding the character of the person leftists are choosing as the better choice. 

  --The misguided COVID lockdowns, instituted almost entirely by Democrats, resulted in 100,000 excess deaths a year in 2020 and ’21 alone, a 2022 study found.

 --Fentanyl deaths have increased during the Biden-Harris administration, numbering 250,000 during their tenure. And while their opening of the southern border isn’t entirely to blame, it certainly exacerbates the problem.

--Criminality-facilitating Democrat prosecutors, and the miscreant aliens the administration has allowed into our country, are responsible for much increased murder and mayhem.

--The disastrous Biden-Harris Afghanistan withdrawal resulted in at least 200 deaths, according to the left-wing Washington Post. 

--Euphemistically and incorrectly termed “child gender transitioning,” entirely the handiwork of liberal Democrats such as Harris, results in irreparable damage to young bodies. It will assuredly lead to greater mortality, too, as there are strong indications that those undergoing sexual-distortion surgeries have higher suicide rates.

--Harris and her chicken-hawk, warmonger co-ideologists have been inching us closer to nuclear war with Russia. How this imperils life, on a massive scale, is obvious.

All of the above constitute just a small fraction of the many examples of harm inflicted upon the people of this nation by Harris and Biden.  The following link, which I think I posted at least once already, contains a lengthy interview with someone who worked in the legal profession in California during the time Harris references as her "tough prosecutor" past.

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/10/must_watch_video_kamala_harris_s_sordid_past_from_her_old_associate_harmeet_dhillon_as_told_to_tucker_carlson.html

And when we go through policy proposals for a Harris administration that she actually chose to reveal to the public, it's exceedingly difficult to argue just how Trump would be an actual problem for America, especially with his first term already being head and shoulders better than both the Harris/Biden and Obama administrations. 

So, whether it be supporting Trump or opposing Harris, there's no disputing the fact that my arguments should compel an opponent to relent and come to the light.

But here's the problem.  There are two types of opponents.  The first is the Dan type, who constantly focuses on his hatred of Trump and his many inconsequential, superfluous and insignificant reasons he puts forth to rationalize and legitimize that hatred.  Most are like him, and when they pretend they're giving reasons why Harris is better, well...it's no better.  It's fluff and nonsense, platitudes and fantasy.  They won't point to any actual great thing she's done which justifies promoting her for being a checked box, affirmative action hire by an incompetent presidential candidate who is as stupid as those who voted for him. 

However, there's another type and I had a discussion with him just the other day.  This one hurts because he's a long time friend.  His method is to NOT give a reason, saying he doesn't have to explain himself.  He made an excuse regarding not destroying our friendship, which is insulting to me.  I already know he's a flaming lefty and it hasn't mattered to the strength of our friendship.  Frankly, this lame excuse does.  It suggests I would reject him because of his support, when it turns out that should I decide to reject him, it will be because he didn't have faith and respect enough for me to engage in this weighty and important discussion.  I don't know where I've ever given him cause to believe I'd bail on him.

But more importantly, what his refusal to engage says is one or both of two possibilities:

1.  He doesn't have a clue about either side of the equation, or

2.  He knows what he believes is indefensible and expressing that is self-indicting. 

Clearly, neither he nor Trabue knows or understands all of what either candidate will bring to the table.  That is, beyond the superficial. 

But I fear they actually believe that what the Dems and Harris intend and have been doing is somehow good for our country.  Yet they refuse to explain how we will benefit.  Thus, they could also feel they won't be negatively impacted personally. 

Most egregious, was a comment my friend made abusing the concept of personal responsibility.  I don't know if he meant what he said, but I fear he was trying to throw at me this concept in which I firmly believe.  It came up when I began speaking about the hardships suffered by so many due to the Harris/Biden "Bidenomics" policies, and how that will be exacerbated by the Harris/Walz policy proposals which again prove Dems don't understand economics.  

 Now, I'm all in on personal responsibility.  If you're struggling financially, how have you managed your spending and saving of your income?  What behavioral choices have you made without considering the potential consequences?  Walk through a bad neighborhood at night with cash hanging out of your pocket while you shout racial epithets the inhabitants of that neighborhood will find offensive, and none of them are justified in beating your ass.  But you are responsible for that beating to at least some degree.

Such is the case here.  While many responsible people make bad choices out of ignorance, and others simply by virtue of the fact they couldn't possibly have absolutely every angle covered, that doesn't excuse the economy destroying policies of the Democrats and worse, one's choice to vote for Democrats in light of their historic failures to truly improve the economy...or the border...or the legal/judicial system...or the military...or the culture.  In short, there's pretty much nothing the Democrat Party has improved in the last 16 years and lots of human suffering.  In that period, Trump and a select few in Congress (as well as several governors, like DeSantis and Abbott) has stood as a bulwark against what would surely be an even worse climate than it is now.  And yet, those like Trabue and my friend continue to support this party without anything akin to logical, reasoned and fact-based argument. 

Thus, it seems clear to me that in light of this sad reality, these are people...and arguably those like my friend more than truly corrupt and perverse people like Dan...should stay the hell away from a voting booth and treat all ballots like a highly contagious disease.  If one cannot "give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the" support you continue to give to such an anti-American party...which if legitimate may enlighten and improve the understanding of the person asking so that that person might be "saved" from voting poorly, it's clear they have no business voting at all.  To lay out an argument against the argument in opposition might result in no change in attitude by either side, but we'll never know, will we, if one side refuses to proudly and boldly defend what such a person regards as the truth.  No one can make the truth disappear, so what's the fear of engaging?  I just don't get it.