With less than two weeks until election day (November 8th, despite what Mr. Trump believes), we can know some things with relative certainty:
There will NOT be an electoral deadlock. Clinton already has 252 of the 270 electoral college votes needed to win.
Trump will not be the "outsider" white knight his supporters believed him to be. There isn't a scenario where he takes the states needed to win. He's going to lose Florida. He's going to lose Pennsylvania. He's going to lose North Carolina. Polls are only still reflecting a "tight race" because the media needs their ratings to stay up through November 8th. Their advertisements depend on it.
Clinton WILL BE the President of the United States for the 2016 - 2020 term. Whether you or I like it or not, it's going to happen. In all likelihood, she will win in a landslide not seen since Obama vs McCain in 2008.
Gary Johnson WILL NOT be President...
Evan McMullin WILL NOT be President...
And that is precisely why you should vote for either of them.
I think we can all agree, American Politics need to change. Those running the show now are unapologetically divisive, unapologetically corrupt, and are unabashedly seeking the power of those offices above all else. This campaign has shone a spotlight on the cesspool that our political parties have become. We have fallen so far from what our country was intended to be. I imagine the founders would take us out behind the tavern and beat us mercilessly. The abolitionists, suffragists, and civil rights icons would weep at what their efforts have yielded.
America needs change, and the only way that happens is for the 220 million eligible voters in the United States to force a change through the ever-debilitating electoral process.
Why should you STILL VOTE for Gary Johnson? (or Jill Stein)
Because this is the most safe election to do so. A vote for Gary Johnson will not swing the election one way or the other.
Because if Gary Johnson gets 5% or more of the popular vote, the two party system will have to deal with a Libertarian party that will have access to the same funding they do, and will not have to waste time registering in all 50 states for ballot access.
Because the verifiably corrupt mainstream media (Thanks Wikileaks) will have to admit publicly that people are dissatisfied with both major parties, disappointed with those candidates, and voted accordingly. That 5% number is everything. It's so important that the MSM has teamed up this morning to inform all of us that Gary Johnson is "tanking" in the polls. Their polls. The polls that they manipulated to keep Gary out of the debates. Those polls. Simply put, if Gary Johnson gets anywhere near the 5%, it will be reported as 4.8% or 4.9%. That's why it's time to make a statement. With 7-8% of the Popular vote, they will be forced to take notice.
Third parties will be emboldened to step up their game over the next 4 years and come back with more money, more supporters, more media presence, because they'll have a shot to break the American political duopoly once and for all. And it will shut up everyone who mindlessly parroted the idea that "A third party vote is a wasted vote", telling them "Go fuck yourself. No it isn't."
Why should you STILL VOTE for Evan McMullin? (if he's on your state ballot)
The rationale is different than voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. McMullin won't get 5% of the Popular Vote, and even if he did, it wouldn't change anything, because he is running as an Independent.
But Evan can win Utah, and frankly, he needs to. The moment ONE STATE goes to someone other than the Red shill or the Blue shill, the moment those electoral college votes go to someone NOT NAMED TRUMP OR CLINTON, the system will be blown wide open. People will once again believe what has been true all along, that a vote of conscience, of reason, of morals, and of ethics has value in America. Those votes turn in to victories, and those victories make a real difference toward the betterment of our great nation.
So get out there. Stump for the underdogs. Vote for the losers that deserved to win. Use your vote to throw a huge middle finger or double palm-pound (ala Ross Gellar) at the Rs and Ds and the news agencies propping them up. This HAS TO BE THE YEAR. They gave us two terrible candidates, and it's up to us to make sure they never make that mistake again. We have a chance to make a real difference, and it is our civic duty to make the most of it.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Why I'm Still Voting for Gary Johnson, and Why You Should Too
On the day of the third and final presidential debate for the 2016 presidential election, and I'm amazed at all of the corrupt revelations that we've beheld so far...
* It was revealed that the polls which determine eligibility to participate in presidential debates are biased in favor of the major party candidates. These polls exclude demographics such as independent voters and voters under 35.
* The Commission on Presidential Debates is a bipartisan agency whose goal is to restrict third party interference in presidential debates. Even when served with a petition with over a million signatures, they flatly refused to include Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in the presidential debates, despite calls from prominent legislators, pundits and news agencies to do so.
* The Democratic Party fixed the primaries in favor of their heir apparent, Hillary Clinton. The DNC chair was fired only to be immediately rehired by the Clinton campaign. Bernie Sanders never had a chance.
* The Democratic Party worked with major news outlets to pump up Trump's primary bid in an effort to ensure a Hillary Presidency.
* The Veritas Project recently released undercover video and audio showing that the Democratic Party willfully commits voter fraud in order to win elections.
* Julian Assange and Wikileaks have dumped a treasure trove of information highlighting Hillary Clinton's political misdeeds (perjury and treason to name a few) as well as her political invincibility thanks to relationships with the leadership at the Justice Department and President Obama himself.
* It has been revealed that Donald Trump has used campaign donations to bolster his own businesses and those of his children.
* Mr. Trump was exposed as the misogynist pig we all believed him to be in the now infamous "Trump Tapes". His racism and sexism are simply unmatched in all of the American Political Landscape.
And the list goes on and on and on. And yet, somehow, these are still the only two candidates who will be at the podiums tonight. We have seen with crystal-clear certainty that the political system in the United States is corrupt to the core. And while that is disheartening, I'm still not giving up. Here's why: Gary Johnson can still be elected President in case of an electoral deadlock. And most importantly, he can easily secure 5% of the popular vote which would promote the Libertarian Party to "major party" status in 2020. This would automatically include them on the ballots in all 50 states, would release federal funding for their national campaign, and in so doing would finally challenge the two party system which has proved incapable of representing the will of the people.
Some people want to see the "glass ceiling" for women shattered. Me? I want to see the two party political system toppled. If this year in politics has taught us anything, its that the Republican and Democratic Parties aren't interested in or capable of putting forward the best candidates to be the greatest servant of the Constitution or the citizens of the United States of America.
I'm still voting for Gary Johnson (even if my political platform more closely resembles Evan McMullin, or past traditional candidates like Mitt Romney). And I'm calling on you to do the same. Please consider my reasoning below, and share it with any who are still on the fence about who to vote for in November.
1. Gary Johnson is a social liberal and fiscal conservative. These are the same political beliefs as a majority of Americans, especially when examining the positions of millennial voters. Simply put, the next generations of voters are already Libertarian, they just don't know it yet.
2. The Libertarian platform is one of balance and liberty, deferring many social issues to States' rights to govern their citizens. This empowers citizens to enact change on the local and state levels of government.
3. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans are going to adopt a Congressional Term Limit Amendment to the Constitution, as most of them are career politicians. Gary will, on the other hand.
4. Gary Johnson would move quickly to remove US presence from wars which we have no business fighting (Syria civil war, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen), preferring to use the US Military to protect the United States and support our allies.
5. Hillary Clinton should not be allowed to hold public office. Donald Trump should not be allowed to hold public office. The only way to ensure neither do is to vote for Gary Johnson.
6. A plurality of Americans are Independent (43%), and deserve more than two political parties to represent them on all levels of government. The centrist Libertarian Party is best poised to do that immediately.
7. Gary Johnson is the only candidate on all 50 state ballots who has successfully governed US citizens, and whose plan to cut taxes and balance the budget extend beyond the theoretical.
8. Hillary Clinton is a far-left progressive. Donald Trump is a far-right nationalist. Neither represent the vast majority of American Voters.
9. Prior to this election, you hadn't heard of Alleppo, the capitol city of Libya, either. To demonstrate this fact, I'll point out that you likely didn't recognize just now that I misspelled Aleppo. Furthermore, you probably didn't notice that Aleppo isn't the capitol Libya, but Syria; it's this whole other country. And lastly, you probably missed that Aleppo isn't Syria's capitol, but Damascus instead.
10. Gary Johnson wants to decriminalize marijuana as a Class/Schedule 1 drug. And while many have tried to write him off as a "Pothead" for this reason, they fail to recognize that his proposed change would result in many overturned prison sentences for personal possession, benefitting the African American and Latino communities most, since they are disproportionately imprisoned for these offenses. It would reduce the overall prison population, which would in turn reduce the federal cost of prison programs. And finally, it would pave the way for privatized medical marijuana. The medicinal and economic benefit of this change simply cannot be overstated.
For things to change in America, we don't need "outsiders" joining the major parties. We need to install a party who isn't yet corrupted by all the power and greed of Washington. To do that, we need to vote for Gary Johnson.
As President, he can and will bring about real change (without all the scandals). It's time for another option. It's time to vote Libertarian.
* It was revealed that the polls which determine eligibility to participate in presidential debates are biased in favor of the major party candidates. These polls exclude demographics such as independent voters and voters under 35.
* The Commission on Presidential Debates is a bipartisan agency whose goal is to restrict third party interference in presidential debates. Even when served with a petition with over a million signatures, they flatly refused to include Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in the presidential debates, despite calls from prominent legislators, pundits and news agencies to do so.
* The Democratic Party fixed the primaries in favor of their heir apparent, Hillary Clinton. The DNC chair was fired only to be immediately rehired by the Clinton campaign. Bernie Sanders never had a chance.
* The Democratic Party worked with major news outlets to pump up Trump's primary bid in an effort to ensure a Hillary Presidency.
* The Veritas Project recently released undercover video and audio showing that the Democratic Party willfully commits voter fraud in order to win elections.
* Julian Assange and Wikileaks have dumped a treasure trove of information highlighting Hillary Clinton's political misdeeds (perjury and treason to name a few) as well as her political invincibility thanks to relationships with the leadership at the Justice Department and President Obama himself.
* It has been revealed that Donald Trump has used campaign donations to bolster his own businesses and those of his children.
* Mr. Trump was exposed as the misogynist pig we all believed him to be in the now infamous "Trump Tapes". His racism and sexism are simply unmatched in all of the American Political Landscape.
And the list goes on and on and on. And yet, somehow, these are still the only two candidates who will be at the podiums tonight. We have seen with crystal-clear certainty that the political system in the United States is corrupt to the core. And while that is disheartening, I'm still not giving up. Here's why: Gary Johnson can still be elected President in case of an electoral deadlock. And most importantly, he can easily secure 5% of the popular vote which would promote the Libertarian Party to "major party" status in 2020. This would automatically include them on the ballots in all 50 states, would release federal funding for their national campaign, and in so doing would finally challenge the two party system which has proved incapable of representing the will of the people.
Some people want to see the "glass ceiling" for women shattered. Me? I want to see the two party political system toppled. If this year in politics has taught us anything, its that the Republican and Democratic Parties aren't interested in or capable of putting forward the best candidates to be the greatest servant of the Constitution or the citizens of the United States of America.
I'm still voting for Gary Johnson (even if my political platform more closely resembles Evan McMullin, or past traditional candidates like Mitt Romney). And I'm calling on you to do the same. Please consider my reasoning below, and share it with any who are still on the fence about who to vote for in November.
1. Gary Johnson is a social liberal and fiscal conservative. These are the same political beliefs as a majority of Americans, especially when examining the positions of millennial voters. Simply put, the next generations of voters are already Libertarian, they just don't know it yet.
2. The Libertarian platform is one of balance and liberty, deferring many social issues to States' rights to govern their citizens. This empowers citizens to enact change on the local and state levels of government.
3. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans are going to adopt a Congressional Term Limit Amendment to the Constitution, as most of them are career politicians. Gary will, on the other hand.
4. Gary Johnson would move quickly to remove US presence from wars which we have no business fighting (Syria civil war, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen), preferring to use the US Military to protect the United States and support our allies.
5. Hillary Clinton should not be allowed to hold public office. Donald Trump should not be allowed to hold public office. The only way to ensure neither do is to vote for Gary Johnson.
6. A plurality of Americans are Independent (43%), and deserve more than two political parties to represent them on all levels of government. The centrist Libertarian Party is best poised to do that immediately.
7. Gary Johnson is the only candidate on all 50 state ballots who has successfully governed US citizens, and whose plan to cut taxes and balance the budget extend beyond the theoretical.
8. Hillary Clinton is a far-left progressive. Donald Trump is a far-right nationalist. Neither represent the vast majority of American Voters.
9. Prior to this election, you hadn't heard of Alleppo, the capitol city of Libya, either. To demonstrate this fact, I'll point out that you likely didn't recognize just now that I misspelled Aleppo. Furthermore, you probably didn't notice that Aleppo isn't the capitol Libya, but Syria; it's this whole other country. And lastly, you probably missed that Aleppo isn't Syria's capitol, but Damascus instead.
10. Gary Johnson wants to decriminalize marijuana as a Class/Schedule 1 drug. And while many have tried to write him off as a "Pothead" for this reason, they fail to recognize that his proposed change would result in many overturned prison sentences for personal possession, benefitting the African American and Latino communities most, since they are disproportionately imprisoned for these offenses. It would reduce the overall prison population, which would in turn reduce the federal cost of prison programs. And finally, it would pave the way for privatized medical marijuana. The medicinal and economic benefit of this change simply cannot be overstated.
For things to change in America, we don't need "outsiders" joining the major parties. We need to install a party who isn't yet corrupted by all the power and greed of Washington. To do that, we need to vote for Gary Johnson.
As President, he can and will bring about real change (without all the scandals). It's time for another option. It's time to vote Libertarian.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Defenses for the Trump Tapes
College was a wonderful place. If I, or anyone for that matter, spoke up with a thought that wasn't developed fully, professors would ask questions to help. And in a classroom setting, we got to challenge each other's ideas.
The most awkward and most important classroom experiences happened when we would say something so off-the-wall that the professor would flatly refuse to entertain it, and choose instead to call the idea what it is ... Stupid. I graduated in 2006, and back then, we didn't have "safe spaces", so we were forced to have to wrestle through ideas that made us uncomfortable because they contradicted our previously constructed worldview. It was a wonderful time.
You know what isn't wonderful? Social media. Unlike a college classroom, people can say pretty much anything, and then curate a friend's list that cheers them on, and utterly ignore dissenting views.
For the last week, I've had a news feed that has been crammed full of bad logic surrounding the now infamous "Trump Tapes", in which Trump brags about kissing and groping beautiful women simply because he's famous, so they let him. Some of the strangest posts have come in defense of Mr. Trump's words, actions, and continued candidacy after-the-fact. So I thought it best to challenge a lot of these ideas. And please, if you want to challenge mine, feel free in the comments section. Unlike some, I don't shy away from being contradicted.
Let's have some fun.
"Trump's 'locker room talk' and the behavior it exposed shouldn't be a big deal because..."
... Bill Clinton did worse.
Worse? I don't know about that. He certainly did the same. He used his power and influence to sexually proposition women, and if all accusations are taken into account, some were consensual and others were not. But what does that have to do with Donald Trump?
If you remove Bill Clinton out of the picture, Trump still sexually assaulted women, and felt it was so normal that he was bold enough to brag about it to a TV show host. Clinton's actions don't excuse Trump's, or somehow open the way for him to keep running for president. If Clinton's affairs and sexual indiscretions came to light before his presidential bid, I suspect he would have had the good sense to bow out.
Donald Trump acted out of his own character and perversions. It doesn't matter if other people did the same or worse. He's still a dirty old man.
... the Supreme Court nominations are all that matter.
So let me get this straight - Trump supporters are so scared of Hillary's pro-choice platform that they are willing to turn a blind-eye to a letch groping and harassing women at will, before, during and after his presidency, as long as he promises to appoint the Supreme Court Justices who share their ideology and will legislate their particular morality? Really?
What exactly about Trump gives his supporters any confidence that he will keep his word? He hasn't; not in his business dealings, not with his contractors, not with his wives, not in the debates ... he is as big of a liar as anyone in Washington. So why in God's name does anyone actually buy what he says, rather than seeing him for what he is - a man who will say anything to get elected?
It isn't righteous, moral, ethical or logical to say "We are comfortable with Trump sexually assaulting women as long as he helps us save unborn babies."
... Fifty Shades of Grey was popular.
Whoo boy, this one has been all the rage. Listen, I get that most Christians haven't read the books or seen the movies, and those who have wouldn't be bold enough to even admit it. So because they don't know what the book is about, it boils down to, "the book is naughty, and Trump is naughty, so give him a break." I can minimalize too, and it makes as much sense. Let's give it a shot: "Jesus never sinned, and the tree in my front yard has never sinned, so the tree in my front yard is Jesus." (I'm being sarcastic, fanatics, stay off my lawn)
First of all, it's a terrible parallel. Here are just a few of the most important differences between Christian Grey and Donald Trump:
Christian Grey is fictitious, Donald Trump is, unfortunately, an actual person.
Christian Grey is single, Donald Trump was and is married.
Christian Grey required consent, Donald Trump did not. "I don't even ask, I just kiss. They let you do anything. Just walk up and grab them by the p*ssy."
Christian Grey is not running for President of the United States, while Donald Trump, unfortunately, still is.
See, if Donald Trump WASN'T running for President, this would be a much smaller issue, though the offense would be just as repugnant. Then he's just another rich, powerful tycoon trying to live out his perverted little fantasies. But the moment he decided he wanted to be President, he voluntarily opened himself up to the scrutiny he's receiving, and rightly so. And while many Presidents have not been honorable during their time in office, that doesn't mean we should expect less than honorable men and women to pursue the office. And we, the people, need to insist with our votes that lesser men and women, like Donald Trump, step aside, so that their shame won't become all of ours.
Listen, "Taken" was a popular work of fiction enjoyed by many women. That doesn't mean that women inherently approve of being kidnapped, sold into the international sex trade, or raped. To say our culture shouldn't be offended at Donald Trump's lewd advances because a briefly popular book talked about BDSM makes exactly zero sense.
... America is sinful and depraved, so we shouldn't be surprised now.
This is about the most hypocritical things I hear being said. In saying the above, the one defending using this rationale implies:
Leaders shouldn't be held to a higher standard.
Believers can choose to crucify Clinton for her failings but are allowed to write off those displayed by Trump.
The sins of one (or many) pardons the sins of another.
None of the above are Biblical. It's that simple.
... he apologized.
I'm going to do another blog on this soon, because I think people sincerely believe that the only requirements of an apology is to use the words, "I'm sorry". That's sad.
So Donald Trump said the words, "I'm sorry". There are juuuuuuuuuust a few things that completely negate his "apology". Here's the short list:
He did it in a national statement in order to put the scandal behind him.
He immediately shifted the focus to Bill Clinton.
He didn't actually address any of the women who he admittedly harassed.
He blamed the media for exposing the tape.
I, through being mentored and married, have learned what a real apology looks like. Folks, this ain't it. He said the words, because that's pretty much what he does - say words that he thinks people will believe. He doesn't mean or even remember most of the words he uses, because they are so very voluminous. If he were sincerely remorseful, apologetic and repentant, he would be able to use all those many words to convey it. Unsurprisingly, he didn't.
... he is a new Christian, so we can't hold him to high standards.
The New Testament is clear on this: don't promote new believers to positions of authority or prominence, because they would be tempted beyond what they can handle and fall into the sin of pride. It goes on to say that those who would serve the church ought to exemplify certain marks of character before being appointed.
If American Christians really cared about the welfare of Donald Trump's soul, they would encourage him to drop out of the race (and his very public lifestyle) to allow him to start bearing fruit in keeping with repentance. But as you may have guessed, they don't care about his soul. They only care about having a say in the legislation of a powerful man who can help them enforce their own moral standards on their society.
... all guys talk that way.
No, they don't. Granted, some guys talk that way. Maybe guys in a strip club. Not in locker rooms (at least not high school, college, gyms, or the YMCA). Not at water coolers. Not via messenger. Not via text.
Good men speak respectfully of women. And even the men who are comfortable enough to objectify women do so about women with whom they consensually "scored" with. Vile, evil men brag about sexually assaulting women. It's really that easy.
... Hillary Clinton did worse to Bill's mistresses.
Again, as with Bill Clinton, Hillary's treatment of Bill's accusers and mistresses does not excuse Trump's.
And perhaps you don't remember how riled up the religious right got when Bill confessed to having an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He was put up for impeachment. The news wouldn't let it go. They blasted him for going to church and holding a Bible. It was ugly. Where was all the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" talk back then? It seems as though the church would rather play Pharisee than Jesus in the narrative of the woman caught in adultery. Stone Bill. Pardon Donald (without even having the courtesy to implore him to "go and sin no more"). What a shame.
... Obama is bad.
This tape was from 2005. Obama was elected in 2008. Stop it.
You disagreeing with Obama's policies has literally nothing to do with the validity of Trump's misdeeds.
... the liberal media is biased.
Is a lot of the media both liberal and biased? Yes of course they are! And while I'm not excusing that, it's also important to point out that some media is also conservative and biased. Unfortunately, the news is not what it used to be. In my father's generation, the media's duty was to report the events and facts of the day, and they trusted the people to interpret it accordingly. That is no longer the case. News agencies are little more than storytellers. And that is unfortunate.
So, of course those liberal news agencies are trying to assassinate the character of Donald Trump in favor of Hillary Clinton. But here's the thing, and you can't really get around it: Donald Trump is providing the ammunition. He has been churning it out for his entire adult life. To put it more explicitly, if he didn't want people attacking him about his treatment of women, he shouldn't have treated women this way. It's not complicated.
It's important to note at this point that we know a great many things about Hillary Clinton because of the biased media as well. We know about her health issues. We know about the Clinton foundation. We know about Benghazi. We know about the Democratic national convention. All of these things have been reported because of the conservative media. That doesn't make them wrong.
So while the media may be making a big deal about Donald Trump's words and deeds, he's the one sending the tweets. He's the one making the speeches. He's the one scheduling the interviews. He's the one censoring his taxes. At the end of the day, he is simply reaping what he has sowed ... and he doesn't like it.
The most awkward and most important classroom experiences happened when we would say something so off-the-wall that the professor would flatly refuse to entertain it, and choose instead to call the idea what it is ... Stupid. I graduated in 2006, and back then, we didn't have "safe spaces", so we were forced to have to wrestle through ideas that made us uncomfortable because they contradicted our previously constructed worldview. It was a wonderful time.
You know what isn't wonderful? Social media. Unlike a college classroom, people can say pretty much anything, and then curate a friend's list that cheers them on, and utterly ignore dissenting views.
For the last week, I've had a news feed that has been crammed full of bad logic surrounding the now infamous "Trump Tapes", in which Trump brags about kissing and groping beautiful women simply because he's famous, so they let him. Some of the strangest posts have come in defense of Mr. Trump's words, actions, and continued candidacy after-the-fact. So I thought it best to challenge a lot of these ideas. And please, if you want to challenge mine, feel free in the comments section. Unlike some, I don't shy away from being contradicted.
Let's have some fun.
"Trump's 'locker room talk' and the behavior it exposed shouldn't be a big deal because..."
... Bill Clinton did worse.
Worse? I don't know about that. He certainly did the same. He used his power and influence to sexually proposition women, and if all accusations are taken into account, some were consensual and others were not. But what does that have to do with Donald Trump?
If you remove Bill Clinton out of the picture, Trump still sexually assaulted women, and felt it was so normal that he was bold enough to brag about it to a TV show host. Clinton's actions don't excuse Trump's, or somehow open the way for him to keep running for president. If Clinton's affairs and sexual indiscretions came to light before his presidential bid, I suspect he would have had the good sense to bow out.
Donald Trump acted out of his own character and perversions. It doesn't matter if other people did the same or worse. He's still a dirty old man.
... the Supreme Court nominations are all that matter.
So let me get this straight - Trump supporters are so scared of Hillary's pro-choice platform that they are willing to turn a blind-eye to a letch groping and harassing women at will, before, during and after his presidency, as long as he promises to appoint the Supreme Court Justices who share their ideology and will legislate their particular morality? Really?
What exactly about Trump gives his supporters any confidence that he will keep his word? He hasn't; not in his business dealings, not with his contractors, not with his wives, not in the debates ... he is as big of a liar as anyone in Washington. So why in God's name does anyone actually buy what he says, rather than seeing him for what he is - a man who will say anything to get elected?
It isn't righteous, moral, ethical or logical to say "We are comfortable with Trump sexually assaulting women as long as he helps us save unborn babies."
... Fifty Shades of Grey was popular.
Whoo boy, this one has been all the rage. Listen, I get that most Christians haven't read the books or seen the movies, and those who have wouldn't be bold enough to even admit it. So because they don't know what the book is about, it boils down to, "the book is naughty, and Trump is naughty, so give him a break." I can minimalize too, and it makes as much sense. Let's give it a shot: "Jesus never sinned, and the tree in my front yard has never sinned, so the tree in my front yard is Jesus." (I'm being sarcastic, fanatics, stay off my lawn)
First of all, it's a terrible parallel. Here are just a few of the most important differences between Christian Grey and Donald Trump:
Christian Grey is fictitious, Donald Trump is, unfortunately, an actual person.
Christian Grey is single, Donald Trump was and is married.
Christian Grey required consent, Donald Trump did not. "I don't even ask, I just kiss. They let you do anything. Just walk up and grab them by the p*ssy."
Christian Grey is not running for President of the United States, while Donald Trump, unfortunately, still is.
See, if Donald Trump WASN'T running for President, this would be a much smaller issue, though the offense would be just as repugnant. Then he's just another rich, powerful tycoon trying to live out his perverted little fantasies. But the moment he decided he wanted to be President, he voluntarily opened himself up to the scrutiny he's receiving, and rightly so. And while many Presidents have not been honorable during their time in office, that doesn't mean we should expect less than honorable men and women to pursue the office. And we, the people, need to insist with our votes that lesser men and women, like Donald Trump, step aside, so that their shame won't become all of ours.
Listen, "Taken" was a popular work of fiction enjoyed by many women. That doesn't mean that women inherently approve of being kidnapped, sold into the international sex trade, or raped. To say our culture shouldn't be offended at Donald Trump's lewd advances because a briefly popular book talked about BDSM makes exactly zero sense.
... America is sinful and depraved, so we shouldn't be surprised now.
This is about the most hypocritical things I hear being said. In saying the above, the one defending using this rationale implies:
Leaders shouldn't be held to a higher standard.
Believers can choose to crucify Clinton for her failings but are allowed to write off those displayed by Trump.
The sins of one (or many) pardons the sins of another.
None of the above are Biblical. It's that simple.
... he apologized.
I'm going to do another blog on this soon, because I think people sincerely believe that the only requirements of an apology is to use the words, "I'm sorry". That's sad.
So Donald Trump said the words, "I'm sorry". There are juuuuuuuuuust a few things that completely negate his "apology". Here's the short list:
He did it in a national statement in order to put the scandal behind him.
He immediately shifted the focus to Bill Clinton.
He didn't actually address any of the women who he admittedly harassed.
He blamed the media for exposing the tape.
I, through being mentored and married, have learned what a real apology looks like. Folks, this ain't it. He said the words, because that's pretty much what he does - say words that he thinks people will believe. He doesn't mean or even remember most of the words he uses, because they are so very voluminous. If he were sincerely remorseful, apologetic and repentant, he would be able to use all those many words to convey it. Unsurprisingly, he didn't.
... he is a new Christian, so we can't hold him to high standards.
The New Testament is clear on this: don't promote new believers to positions of authority or prominence, because they would be tempted beyond what they can handle and fall into the sin of pride. It goes on to say that those who would serve the church ought to exemplify certain marks of character before being appointed.
If American Christians really cared about the welfare of Donald Trump's soul, they would encourage him to drop out of the race (and his very public lifestyle) to allow him to start bearing fruit in keeping with repentance. But as you may have guessed, they don't care about his soul. They only care about having a say in the legislation of a powerful man who can help them enforce their own moral standards on their society.
... all guys talk that way.
No, they don't. Granted, some guys talk that way. Maybe guys in a strip club. Not in locker rooms (at least not high school, college, gyms, or the YMCA). Not at water coolers. Not via messenger. Not via text.
Good men speak respectfully of women. And even the men who are comfortable enough to objectify women do so about women with whom they consensually "scored" with. Vile, evil men brag about sexually assaulting women. It's really that easy.
... Hillary Clinton did worse to Bill's mistresses.
Again, as with Bill Clinton, Hillary's treatment of Bill's accusers and mistresses does not excuse Trump's.
And perhaps you don't remember how riled up the religious right got when Bill confessed to having an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He was put up for impeachment. The news wouldn't let it go. They blasted him for going to church and holding a Bible. It was ugly. Where was all the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" talk back then? It seems as though the church would rather play Pharisee than Jesus in the narrative of the woman caught in adultery. Stone Bill. Pardon Donald (without even having the courtesy to implore him to "go and sin no more"). What a shame.
... Obama is bad.
This tape was from 2005. Obama was elected in 2008. Stop it.
You disagreeing with Obama's policies has literally nothing to do with the validity of Trump's misdeeds.
... the liberal media is biased.
Is a lot of the media both liberal and biased? Yes of course they are! And while I'm not excusing that, it's also important to point out that some media is also conservative and biased. Unfortunately, the news is not what it used to be. In my father's generation, the media's duty was to report the events and facts of the day, and they trusted the people to interpret it accordingly. That is no longer the case. News agencies are little more than storytellers. And that is unfortunate.
So, of course those liberal news agencies are trying to assassinate the character of Donald Trump in favor of Hillary Clinton. But here's the thing, and you can't really get around it: Donald Trump is providing the ammunition. He has been churning it out for his entire adult life. To put it more explicitly, if he didn't want people attacking him about his treatment of women, he shouldn't have treated women this way. It's not complicated.
It's important to note at this point that we know a great many things about Hillary Clinton because of the biased media as well. We know about her health issues. We know about the Clinton foundation. We know about Benghazi. We know about the Democratic national convention. All of these things have been reported because of the conservative media. That doesn't make them wrong.
So while the media may be making a big deal about Donald Trump's words and deeds, he's the one sending the tweets. He's the one making the speeches. He's the one scheduling the interviews. He's the one censoring his taxes. At the end of the day, he is simply reaping what he has sowed ... and he doesn't like it.
Monday, October 10, 2016
The Time Has Come for Christians to Stop Voting Anti-Abortion...
This election cycle has arguably been the strangest in history. In one corner, we have a career politician whose legacy is riddled with scandals and lies. In the other, a hot-headed businessman with no filter or ethics to speak of, business or otherwise.
And while I could, like the rest of the country, wonder how we got here; how our choices have devolved to such a degree, there is another question that has been a pebble in my shoe: Why have many Christians stood by Donald Trump as their standard bearer?
So rather than trying to figure it out behind the scenes, I decided to ask that question early and often. A great many of my friends are conservative, and Christian, and a part of the Evangelical or Charismatic traditions. The result of my poll was consistent; the answers have all maintained a common rationale: Trump is the Republican candidate, and as such is "Pro-life", and will appoint several Supreme Court Justices over the next 4 years who will oppose abortion. All of Trump's other indescretions, both past and present, are justified, rationalized, minimalized or completely ignored for this fact.
I have my doubts about the legitimacy of Trump's "pro-life" stance, but that's beside the point. What has me perplexed is this one question: is abortion the only thing Christians care about? And is the Church by and large actually just anti-abortion, rather than pro-life? While that last statement may seem like a comparison of synonyms, it is anything but. Simply put, which lives are conservatives "Pro", I mean, beside unborn children?
The homeless?
Children born into poverty?
Single parents taking care of those children?
Female victims of sexual assault?
Orphans?
Refugees?
Which lives matter to conservatives? All of the above? Any of the above? Is the liberal accusation true, that conservatives only care about life prior to birth?
So to answer this question, I did what I always do. I did research. Here is what I discovered:
615 thousand - The number of US abortions in 2015
12% - the percentage which abortions in America have declined during the Obama administration.
1982 - the year when the abortion rate peaked post-Roe v Wade
5,647 - The number of US adoptions in 2015
12 million - the number of single parents in America
9.6 million - the number of single mothers in America
13.1 million - the number of malnourished children in America
564,708 - the number of homeless in America
15,000 - the number of women and children being sold into sexual slavery and exploitation in the US
4.5 million - the number of women and children being sold into sexual slavery globally, annually
85 thousand - The number of refugees settled in the United States in 2015
3 million - The number of refugees settled in the United States since 1975
1 million - Number of new immigrants in 2014
81 million - Number of immigrants and immigrants' children living in the United States
And my favorite take-away: If all of the aborted babies from 2015 were born to families that could not support them or did not want them, it would take 109 years to adopt them all.
The
Now you may be asking to yourself, "What do those numbers have to do with abortion?". I'll answer, but first, a resolute statement: I am opposed to abortion. I believe what was intended during Roe v Wade to be a last-resort action to protect victims of rape, incest, and life-threatening conditions has become a procedure often used for convenience. I believe abortions are a heartbreaking loss of life, and look forward to the day when they are no longer necessary.
Now back to the question: Why do the above numbers matter? Because they all represent American lives, but these groups seem to get a great deal less press from the conservative right than abortion. Case in Point: Donald Trump.
Here we have a man who is on his third marriage, representing the party of traditional family values. We have someone who has bragged about his own sexual assaults representing the party of propriety and discretion in the bedroom. We have a man who has, as a businessman, has used bankruptcy and loopholes to avoid paying debts ant taxes representing the party of fiscal responsibility. We have someone who is comfortable insulting POWs and Gold Star families representing the party who claims to stand for the military and their families.
And yet, with all of his ineptitude, Christians still support him because he said he is pro-life.
But let's forget about Trump, if only temporarily, to ask the real question which MUST be addressed by the American Church if they have any hope of keeping a voice in our culture: Are you pro-life, or merely anti-abortion? I ask, because it seems clear enough that if you hate and are afraid of refugees, you aren't pro-life. If you believe that adoption is someone else's responsibility, you aren't pro-life. If you believe that single parents and the homeless just need to stop being lazy, you aren't pro-life. If you support the death sentence, you aren't pro-life. If you tithe to a church without any concern about how much of their budget goes to helping widows, orphans, and the hungry, you aren't pro-life. If you don't concern yourself with the sex trade that is driven by our favorite pastimes, you aren't pro-life. And above all these other things, if you don't take time to consider what will happen to all these other groups when 600 thousand new lives are added to our population annually, you aren't pro-life. You may be anti-abortion, but that simply isn't enough anymore. The unborn are not the only ones in our society that are voiceless. It's time to advocate for more than the unborn.
We need to be the voting bloc that stands for all life, unborn included. We need to love more. We need to do more. And we need to insist that those who would desire to lead us be committed to the same. Think about it. Pray about it. Then vote for the candidate whose policies and past track record advocate for the lives of every American, and beyond that, every human soul. Given his words, deeds and reputation, though, I can assure you ... It isn't Donald Trump.
And while I could, like the rest of the country, wonder how we got here; how our choices have devolved to such a degree, there is another question that has been a pebble in my shoe: Why have many Christians stood by Donald Trump as their standard bearer?
So rather than trying to figure it out behind the scenes, I decided to ask that question early and often. A great many of my friends are conservative, and Christian, and a part of the Evangelical or Charismatic traditions. The result of my poll was consistent; the answers have all maintained a common rationale: Trump is the Republican candidate, and as such is "Pro-life", and will appoint several Supreme Court Justices over the next 4 years who will oppose abortion. All of Trump's other indescretions, both past and present, are justified, rationalized, minimalized or completely ignored for this fact.
I have my doubts about the legitimacy of Trump's "pro-life" stance, but that's beside the point. What has me perplexed is this one question: is abortion the only thing Christians care about? And is the Church by and large actually just anti-abortion, rather than pro-life? While that last statement may seem like a comparison of synonyms, it is anything but. Simply put, which lives are conservatives "Pro", I mean, beside unborn children?
The homeless?
Children born into poverty?
Single parents taking care of those children?
Female victims of sexual assault?
Orphans?
Refugees?
Which lives matter to conservatives? All of the above? Any of the above? Is the liberal accusation true, that conservatives only care about life prior to birth?
So to answer this question, I did what I always do. I did research. Here is what I discovered:
615 thousand - The number of US abortions in 2015
12% - the percentage which abortions in America have declined during the Obama administration.
1982 - the year when the abortion rate peaked post-Roe v Wade
5,647 - The number of US adoptions in 2015
12 million - the number of single parents in America
9.6 million - the number of single mothers in America
13.1 million - the number of malnourished children in America
564,708 - the number of homeless in America
15,000 - the number of women and children being sold into sexual slavery and exploitation in the US
4.5 million - the number of women and children being sold into sexual slavery globally, annually
85 thousand - The number of refugees settled in the United States in 2015
3 million - The number of refugees settled in the United States since 1975
1 million - Number of new immigrants in 2014
81 million - Number of immigrants and immigrants' children living in the United States
And my favorite take-away: If all of the aborted babies from 2015 were born to families that could not support them or did not want them, it would take 109 years to adopt them all.
The
Now you may be asking to yourself, "What do those numbers have to do with abortion?". I'll answer, but first, a resolute statement: I am opposed to abortion. I believe what was intended during Roe v Wade to be a last-resort action to protect victims of rape, incest, and life-threatening conditions has become a procedure often used for convenience. I believe abortions are a heartbreaking loss of life, and look forward to the day when they are no longer necessary.
Now back to the question: Why do the above numbers matter? Because they all represent American lives, but these groups seem to get a great deal less press from the conservative right than abortion. Case in Point: Donald Trump.
Here we have a man who is on his third marriage, representing the party of traditional family values. We have someone who has bragged about his own sexual assaults representing the party of propriety and discretion in the bedroom. We have a man who has, as a businessman, has used bankruptcy and loopholes to avoid paying debts ant taxes representing the party of fiscal responsibility. We have someone who is comfortable insulting POWs and Gold Star families representing the party who claims to stand for the military and their families.
And yet, with all of his ineptitude, Christians still support him because he said he is pro-life.
But let's forget about Trump, if only temporarily, to ask the real question which MUST be addressed by the American Church if they have any hope of keeping a voice in our culture: Are you pro-life, or merely anti-abortion? I ask, because it seems clear enough that if you hate and are afraid of refugees, you aren't pro-life. If you believe that adoption is someone else's responsibility, you aren't pro-life. If you believe that single parents and the homeless just need to stop being lazy, you aren't pro-life. If you support the death sentence, you aren't pro-life. If you tithe to a church without any concern about how much of their budget goes to helping widows, orphans, and the hungry, you aren't pro-life. If you don't concern yourself with the sex trade that is driven by our favorite pastimes, you aren't pro-life. And above all these other things, if you don't take time to consider what will happen to all these other groups when 600 thousand new lives are added to our population annually, you aren't pro-life. You may be anti-abortion, but that simply isn't enough anymore. The unborn are not the only ones in our society that are voiceless. It's time to advocate for more than the unborn.
We need to be the voting bloc that stands for all life, unborn included. We need to love more. We need to do more. And we need to insist that those who would desire to lead us be committed to the same. Think about it. Pray about it. Then vote for the candidate whose policies and past track record advocate for the lives of every American, and beyond that, every human soul. Given his words, deeds and reputation, though, I can assure you ... It isn't Donald Trump.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
16 Reasons to NOT Vote for Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson and William Weld are going to be participating in a CNN Town Hall hosted by Anderson Cooper tonight, and while I have strongly supported the Johnson/Weld ticket against the backdrop of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I would be remiss if I didn't at least try to depict the other side of the discussion.
So I have developed this list of 16 solid reasons why you shouldn't vote for Gary Johnson (including some which explain why they shouldn't be allowed in the Presidential Debates).
1. Both Democrats and Republicans have shown that they are perfectly capable of governing our country without need for a third party.
If the last 35 years have taught us anything, it's that the two major parties know how to operate harmoniously for the good of the people.
2. When dealing with two extreme civic philosophies, compromise and middle-ground are rarely helpful.
Who would want to live in a world that tried to break people up into more groups than just "Us" and "Them"? That's crazy talk.
3. The goal of elections is to get one party or the other in control of all branches of government. Libertarians would only mess that up.
We don't need no stinking checks and balances.
4. The world needs to hear more of what Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have to say about each other.
I don't know about you, but I'm tired of civilized political dialogue. I wish they'd tell us how they really feel already. If we could only get them on social media...
5. Mainstream media, in general, can be trusted to provide us with all options and perspectives, and they are merely leaving Johnson out as a benefit to us.
I mean, what else would their motivation be to leave out a third party candidate from most national polls, especially when those polls are the test of whether or not a third party candidate is allowed to debate? Save the conspiracy theories, the media is just looking out for us.
6. Both Trump and Clinton can be trusted to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
Let's be real - you don't need to read it to get the gist.
7. Either Trump or Clinton would make a responsible and trustworthy Commander-In-Chief of the United States Military and guardian of its secrets.
How hard could it be? I mean honestly.
8. Lawyers like Clinton and tycoons like Trump understand the American way much more so than an avid outdoorsman, triathlete, Ironman, cyclist and mountain climber like Johnson.
Who hasn't hiked Everest, Elbrus, Denali, Kilimanjaro, Aconcagua, Vinson, and the Carstensz Pyramid? Come back when you've really accomplished something with your life, Gary.
9. Clinton and Trump, at 68 and 70 respectively, are facing retirement and need more money in the form of taxpayer-funded presidential pension plans.
We need to take care of our elderly. Social Security just ain't what it once was. I pity the thought of either of them having to tap into their retirement accounts.
10. Both Bill Clinton and Melania Trump are champions of moral fiber and will represent our country's family values well.
Come to think of it, I think it would be good to get those two together behind closed doors for afternoon tea sometime.
11. Dr. James Dobson didn't write a brief and vague endorsement of the rumor of the possibility of his conversion.
If Dr. Dobson isn't willing to go on record about Johnson's Lutheran faith, it doesn't exist. Obviously.
12. Balancing budgets simply isn't the American way.
We need a president who is personally familiar with either bankruptcy or hedge fund management ... hopefully both.
13. When trying to elect a president based on "making history", we should use gender, race, and having no political experience to speak of as criteria.
Third party candidates to the back of the line.
14. Who in their right mind would elect as president someone who, until this election cycle, hadn't hardly been heard of by anyone.
What's next? A community organizer?
15. Johnson holds a personal belief that prostitution is safer when it is legal and regulated.
Infinitely worse morally than owning a strip-club, or a casino in Vegas that accommodates prostitutes, and certainly worse than a candidate who prostitutes themselves to corporations in exchange for votes.
16. People love Income Taxes. And Property Taxes. And Sales Tax. And Taxes on Use. And Consumption Tax.
Reducing individual taxes is a terrible idea. It's the Federal Government that's having a hard time putting a roof over its citizens' heads, putting food in its citizens' mouths, paying its bills, its debts or its employees. The government needs our help.
That last one wasn't sarcastic. Just sad. Very sad.
So I have developed this list of 16 solid reasons why you shouldn't vote for Gary Johnson (including some which explain why they shouldn't be allowed in the Presidential Debates).
1. Both Democrats and Republicans have shown that they are perfectly capable of governing our country without need for a third party.
If the last 35 years have taught us anything, it's that the two major parties know how to operate harmoniously for the good of the people.
2. When dealing with two extreme civic philosophies, compromise and middle-ground are rarely helpful.
Who would want to live in a world that tried to break people up into more groups than just "Us" and "Them"? That's crazy talk.
3. The goal of elections is to get one party or the other in control of all branches of government. Libertarians would only mess that up.
We don't need no stinking checks and balances.
4. The world needs to hear more of what Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have to say about each other.
I don't know about you, but I'm tired of civilized political dialogue. I wish they'd tell us how they really feel already. If we could only get them on social media...
5. Mainstream media, in general, can be trusted to provide us with all options and perspectives, and they are merely leaving Johnson out as a benefit to us.
I mean, what else would their motivation be to leave out a third party candidate from most national polls, especially when those polls are the test of whether or not a third party candidate is allowed to debate? Save the conspiracy theories, the media is just looking out for us.
6. Both Trump and Clinton can be trusted to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
Let's be real - you don't need to read it to get the gist.
7. Either Trump or Clinton would make a responsible and trustworthy Commander-In-Chief of the United States Military and guardian of its secrets.
How hard could it be? I mean honestly.
8. Lawyers like Clinton and tycoons like Trump understand the American way much more so than an avid outdoorsman, triathlete, Ironman, cyclist and mountain climber like Johnson.
Who hasn't hiked Everest, Elbrus, Denali, Kilimanjaro, Aconcagua, Vinson, and the Carstensz Pyramid? Come back when you've really accomplished something with your life, Gary.
9. Clinton and Trump, at 68 and 70 respectively, are facing retirement and need more money in the form of taxpayer-funded presidential pension plans.
We need to take care of our elderly. Social Security just ain't what it once was. I pity the thought of either of them having to tap into their retirement accounts.
10. Both Bill Clinton and Melania Trump are champions of moral fiber and will represent our country's family values well.
Come to think of it, I think it would be good to get those two together behind closed doors for afternoon tea sometime.
11. Dr. James Dobson didn't write a brief and vague endorsement of the rumor of the possibility of his conversion.
If Dr. Dobson isn't willing to go on record about Johnson's Lutheran faith, it doesn't exist. Obviously.
12. Balancing budgets simply isn't the American way.
We need a president who is personally familiar with either bankruptcy or hedge fund management ... hopefully both.
13. When trying to elect a president based on "making history", we should use gender, race, and having no political experience to speak of as criteria.
Third party candidates to the back of the line.
14. Who in their right mind would elect as president someone who, until this election cycle, hadn't hardly been heard of by anyone.
What's next? A community organizer?
15. Johnson holds a personal belief that prostitution is safer when it is legal and regulated.
Infinitely worse morally than owning a strip-club, or a casino in Vegas that accommodates prostitutes, and certainly worse than a candidate who prostitutes themselves to corporations in exchange for votes.
16. People love Income Taxes. And Property Taxes. And Sales Tax. And Taxes on Use. And Consumption Tax.
Reducing individual taxes is a terrible idea. It's the Federal Government that's having a hard time putting a roof over its citizens' heads, putting food in its citizens' mouths, paying its bills, its debts or its employees. The government needs our help.
That last one wasn't sarcastic. Just sad. Very sad.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Why I'm Voting For Gary Johnson (And Why You Should Consider Doing So, Too)
My name is Ryan, and I am a moderate conservative; a religious one at that.
While not a member of any party, I have overwhelmingly voted for Republican candidates. George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. McCain in 2008. Romney in 2012. Senators, Representatives, both state and federal. I live in NC and voted for McCrory.
So when I tell you that I'm not voting for Trump, even in the face of his running against Hillary Clinton of all people, you need to understand how radical of a deviation this is for me.
I will be voting for Gary Johnson and William Weld, the Libertarian candidates, in this year's general election. This was made set in stone the moment that Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton went from being presumptive nominees to official nominees of their respective parties. In the interest of time, I won't go into how amazed I am that it came to this; that somehow these two were the best that the United States of America had to offer.
I have been deliberately outspoken about this on all social media. I have purchased domain names, created Facebook pages, Twitter accounts and Instagram feeds, and am just beginning to get them off the ground. Yet in the midst of this, I find myself spending most of my time explaining to friends, family and colleagues WHY I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate. "You realize you're splitting the ticket, right?" "You know he's pro choice, right?" "You know he supports gay marriage, right?" "You know he has absolutely no chance of winning, right?"
I get these questions on repeat, and handle them as politely and succinctly as I am able (which is to say, not very well. Just ask my wife). So I decided it was high time to address these questions and some others that confront some statements made in opposition to the very existence of a third party.
But before I launch into becoming a libertarian apologist, I'd first like to take a bit of time and explain why, outside of those hot-button issues, I will be voting Johnson/Weld.
First of all, I needed something better than just voting against one candidate or the other. I believe that men and women have fought and died to provide our right to vote. I believe men and women have fought and died to protect that same right. I consider it a sacrament of the American experience, and one I hold in sincere reverence. I don't treat this like American Idol; I don't vote with a primary motivation of sending someone home. I need to believe in someone if I am going to vote for them. I have believed in every candidate for which I have cast a ballot, and I have no intention of changing that habit. So when I tell you I believe that Gary Johnson will make an honorable and trustworthy President, I mean it. And regardless of political maneuvering, I cannot say that about Clinton or Trump. I believe they are con artists, and their only successes are dependent on that specific skill-set.
I believe it takes experience to govern, and Johnson and Weld have done that (successful Governors of New Mexico and Massachusetts). I believe it takes experience to compromise and work with those who maintain different civic philosophies, and Johnson has done that (elected as a republican in a democratic state). I believe that someone whose decisions will have a direct impact on the taxes, economy and deficit of our country ought to have experience balancing budgets and managing taxes, and Johnson has done both (balanced budgets, cut taxes, and left surpluses, not deficits).
So now, let's get down to the concerns friends have raised as they have learned about my support of Gary Johnson.
"You realize you're splitting the ticket, right?"
No, at least not in the way most people intend. The assumption here is that by choosing Trump, I'm helping Clinton by taking away votes from him. That's a terrible assumption, because I wasn't ever going to vote for him in the first place. Might I have voted Republican if another candidate had been chosen? Sure. But the Republican ticket lost my vote the moment they made Trump their candidate. More to the point, they lost my vote the moment they let him hijack their nomination and hold it ransom.
See, what's interesting here is that both sides are claiming the same thing. "If you vote for Johnson, you're giving the election to Clinton/Trump". It's interchangeable, and it isn't true on either side of this election. I'm voting FOR Johnson, and as a happy consequence I also happen to be voting AGAINST Clinton AND Trump, and that's the whole point.
Am I splitting the ticket? In a way ... a very good way. I'm saying with my vote that both "major" parties have run off the rails, and that this is the time to establish and support alternate parties. As Johnson has said, "The two party system is a dinosaur, and we're the comet."
As an aside, this is NOT the same as Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996. He was an uber conservative who ran as the Reform Party candidate and drew votes almost exclusively from Republicans. And it isn't the same as Ralph Nader in 2000. Nader was a Green Party candidate that leached votes exclusively from Gore. Gary Johnson is drawing equal votes from both sides, because both parties are fed up with the corruption and collusion on their side of the aisle. He is polling incredibly well with independents, first-time voters, and minorities.
"You do realize he's pro-choice, right?"
Yes, and this was the most challenging internal knot I had to untangle. See, I'm pro-life. Always have been, and likely always will be. This is one of my least "moderate" positions. So how can I bring myself to support a pro-choice candidate? Because all of the candidates in this election cycle are pro-choice. In what I believe to be a very accurate representation of current and future America, everyone in this race is pro-choice. Furthermore, all candidates support Planned Parenthood. So how do I distinguish between them? Johnson is pro-choice until the viability of the fetus (24 weeks, and conservative states define it at 22 weeks), whereas Clinton and Trump have supported or do support mid-to-late term abortions. The biggest difference is that Johnson wants states to be able to govern themselves with minimal federal government interference. For me, that makes a very, VERY big difference.
I also had to come to grips with the fact that I believe many of our political animosities are based on the fact that each party tries to impose its morality on society (Republicans push Judeo-Christian, while Democrats strongly favor Secular Humanism). But is that the purpose of a governing body? After all, America is not and was never intended to be a theocracy. Yes, we were founded on biblical principles. Yes, faith informed some of our greatest triumphs and tragedies. But that was not the purpose of America's founding. The purpose was freedom. Freedom to worship and to live in accordance with our beliefs. And we don't need the President to tell us how to do that. What we need is for our government to WORK, to defend our nation, safeguard our liberties, maintain positive relationships with our allies and trade partners, and to stand up to organizations who become too formidable for families and communities (to name a few). When I realized that I have been voting in order to impose my own morality on everyone, things changed drastically for me. I shouldn't do that. The Religious Right should never have done that. The Progressives should not be doing that now.
"You know he supports gay marriage, right?
See above. All three candidates do. But Johnson differentiates himself in that he wants the government out of the marriage business, out of couples' bedrooms, and supports religious freedom in ministers' right to perform or abstain from performing marriage ceremonies.
"You know he has absolutely no chance of winning, right?"
This circular argument upsets me more so than any of the others. It has no basis in polling data or election law.
In essence, here's what you're saying:
"You shouldn't vote for someone who can't win."
"Well why can't he win?"
"Because not enough people are going to vote for him."
That. Is Absolutely. Insane.
So allow me to put it to you a different way:
"You should vote for Johnson."
"Why would I go and do a thing like that?!"
"Because if everyone who was fed up with Washington voted for Johnson, he would win."
And guess what ... EVERYONE IS FED UP WITH WASHINGTON. We're sick of the cronyism. We're sick of the empty promises. We're sick of the absurd spending. We're sick of mandated political correctness. We're sick of being taxed on income, retirement, investments, our cars, our homes, our phone lines, our groceries and our internet. We're sick of being observed by every government agency for no reason whatsoever. And we are sick, sick, SICK of the two "major" parties conspiring to tell us who we should want for president. You know what? The vast majority of us don't want Trump. The vast majority of us don't want Clinton.
I wonder what would happen if we all voted that way.
While not a member of any party, I have overwhelmingly voted for Republican candidates. George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. McCain in 2008. Romney in 2012. Senators, Representatives, both state and federal. I live in NC and voted for McCrory.
So when I tell you that I'm not voting for Trump, even in the face of his running against Hillary Clinton of all people, you need to understand how radical of a deviation this is for me.
I will be voting for Gary Johnson and William Weld, the Libertarian candidates, in this year's general election. This was made set in stone the moment that Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton went from being presumptive nominees to official nominees of their respective parties. In the interest of time, I won't go into how amazed I am that it came to this; that somehow these two were the best that the United States of America had to offer.
I have been deliberately outspoken about this on all social media. I have purchased domain names, created Facebook pages, Twitter accounts and Instagram feeds, and am just beginning to get them off the ground. Yet in the midst of this, I find myself spending most of my time explaining to friends, family and colleagues WHY I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate. "You realize you're splitting the ticket, right?" "You know he's pro choice, right?" "You know he supports gay marriage, right?" "You know he has absolutely no chance of winning, right?"
I get these questions on repeat, and handle them as politely and succinctly as I am able (which is to say, not very well. Just ask my wife). So I decided it was high time to address these questions and some others that confront some statements made in opposition to the very existence of a third party.
But before I launch into becoming a libertarian apologist, I'd first like to take a bit of time and explain why, outside of those hot-button issues, I will be voting Johnson/Weld.
First of all, I needed something better than just voting against one candidate or the other. I believe that men and women have fought and died to provide our right to vote. I believe men and women have fought and died to protect that same right. I consider it a sacrament of the American experience, and one I hold in sincere reverence. I don't treat this like American Idol; I don't vote with a primary motivation of sending someone home. I need to believe in someone if I am going to vote for them. I have believed in every candidate for which I have cast a ballot, and I have no intention of changing that habit. So when I tell you I believe that Gary Johnson will make an honorable and trustworthy President, I mean it. And regardless of political maneuvering, I cannot say that about Clinton or Trump. I believe they are con artists, and their only successes are dependent on that specific skill-set.
I believe it takes experience to govern, and Johnson and Weld have done that (successful Governors of New Mexico and Massachusetts). I believe it takes experience to compromise and work with those who maintain different civic philosophies, and Johnson has done that (elected as a republican in a democratic state). I believe that someone whose decisions will have a direct impact on the taxes, economy and deficit of our country ought to have experience balancing budgets and managing taxes, and Johnson has done both (balanced budgets, cut taxes, and left surpluses, not deficits).
So now, let's get down to the concerns friends have raised as they have learned about my support of Gary Johnson.
"You realize you're splitting the ticket, right?"
No, at least not in the way most people intend. The assumption here is that by choosing Trump, I'm helping Clinton by taking away votes from him. That's a terrible assumption, because I wasn't ever going to vote for him in the first place. Might I have voted Republican if another candidate had been chosen? Sure. But the Republican ticket lost my vote the moment they made Trump their candidate. More to the point, they lost my vote the moment they let him hijack their nomination and hold it ransom.
See, what's interesting here is that both sides are claiming the same thing. "If you vote for Johnson, you're giving the election to Clinton/Trump". It's interchangeable, and it isn't true on either side of this election. I'm voting FOR Johnson, and as a happy consequence I also happen to be voting AGAINST Clinton AND Trump, and that's the whole point.
Am I splitting the ticket? In a way ... a very good way. I'm saying with my vote that both "major" parties have run off the rails, and that this is the time to establish and support alternate parties. As Johnson has said, "The two party system is a dinosaur, and we're the comet."
As an aside, this is NOT the same as Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996. He was an uber conservative who ran as the Reform Party candidate and drew votes almost exclusively from Republicans. And it isn't the same as Ralph Nader in 2000. Nader was a Green Party candidate that leached votes exclusively from Gore. Gary Johnson is drawing equal votes from both sides, because both parties are fed up with the corruption and collusion on their side of the aisle. He is polling incredibly well with independents, first-time voters, and minorities.
"You do realize he's pro-choice, right?"
Yes, and this was the most challenging internal knot I had to untangle. See, I'm pro-life. Always have been, and likely always will be. This is one of my least "moderate" positions. So how can I bring myself to support a pro-choice candidate? Because all of the candidates in this election cycle are pro-choice. In what I believe to be a very accurate representation of current and future America, everyone in this race is pro-choice. Furthermore, all candidates support Planned Parenthood. So how do I distinguish between them? Johnson is pro-choice until the viability of the fetus (24 weeks, and conservative states define it at 22 weeks), whereas Clinton and Trump have supported or do support mid-to-late term abortions. The biggest difference is that Johnson wants states to be able to govern themselves with minimal federal government interference. For me, that makes a very, VERY big difference.
I also had to come to grips with the fact that I believe many of our political animosities are based on the fact that each party tries to impose its morality on society (Republicans push Judeo-Christian, while Democrats strongly favor Secular Humanism). But is that the purpose of a governing body? After all, America is not and was never intended to be a theocracy. Yes, we were founded on biblical principles. Yes, faith informed some of our greatest triumphs and tragedies. But that was not the purpose of America's founding. The purpose was freedom. Freedom to worship and to live in accordance with our beliefs. And we don't need the President to tell us how to do that. What we need is for our government to WORK, to defend our nation, safeguard our liberties, maintain positive relationships with our allies and trade partners, and to stand up to organizations who become too formidable for families and communities (to name a few). When I realized that I have been voting in order to impose my own morality on everyone, things changed drastically for me. I shouldn't do that. The Religious Right should never have done that. The Progressives should not be doing that now.
"You know he supports gay marriage, right?
See above. All three candidates do. But Johnson differentiates himself in that he wants the government out of the marriage business, out of couples' bedrooms, and supports religious freedom in ministers' right to perform or abstain from performing marriage ceremonies.
"You know he has absolutely no chance of winning, right?"
This circular argument upsets me more so than any of the others. It has no basis in polling data or election law.
In essence, here's what you're saying:
"You shouldn't vote for someone who can't win."
"Well why can't he win?"
"Because not enough people are going to vote for him."
That. Is Absolutely. Insane.
So allow me to put it to you a different way:
"You should vote for Johnson."
"Why would I go and do a thing like that?!"
"Because if everyone who was fed up with Washington voted for Johnson, he would win."
And guess what ... EVERYONE IS FED UP WITH WASHINGTON. We're sick of the cronyism. We're sick of the empty promises. We're sick of the absurd spending. We're sick of mandated political correctness. We're sick of being taxed on income, retirement, investments, our cars, our homes, our phone lines, our groceries and our internet. We're sick of being observed by every government agency for no reason whatsoever. And we are sick, sick, SICK of the two "major" parties conspiring to tell us who we should want for president. You know what? The vast majority of us don't want Trump. The vast majority of us don't want Clinton.
I wonder what would happen if we all voted that way.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
#GreekLivesMatter
Racism is as old as humankind itself. The Bible is completely littered with accounts of racism, whether it be the misdeeds of the “heroes” of Biblical accounts, or else racist actions taken against them. That anyone denies racism as an actual part of the human experience blows my mind. For someone to sincerely believe that, they not only have to be completely blind to the world around them, but they also have to completely ignore the whole collection of our historic literature. If you’re someone who has been tempted to say that, stop and read a book. And after doing that, if you still need proof, I have a truckload of data. Make me use it. “Go ahead punk, make my day.”
For those of you who recognize the reality of racism, but are having a hard time grappling with the #BlackLivesMatter movement specifically or the validity of racism against minorities in America in general, this blog is for you.
But more specifically, I’m writing to fellow Christians, because I am compelled beyond restraint to do so. We read the Bible. We love Jesus. We worship and participate in sacraments, we pray and we fast. In our time doing all those things, it has become very clear to us that God is all about reaching the marginalized. He loves the outcast. He welcomes the foreigner. He chases after the discarded members of society. We know these things because He commanded His Church to behave this way. We know these things because the Son of God Himself behaved this way. In light of those things, I want to draw attention to two different challenges faced by the early church which I sincerely believe give us a clear course of action to take in this current cultural war.
In Acts 6, we find the first challenge. Verses 1-6 paint the picture: Greek Jews were upset because their widows weren’t being given their portion of daily food. Widows were provided for, because they had no way to provide for themselves, and had no family members to provide for them. The church took care of them. But in a very short period of time, preference was shown to Native Hebrews. When the Greek Jews came for their portion, they were told “Sorry, we’re fresh out.”
Now, let’s stop right there to clarify a few things: was this discrimination? Yes. Was it based on ethnic background? Yes. Was it therefore racist by our modern definition? Yes. We're believers in Christ the ones doing it? Yes. Christians were discriminating against other Christians because of their ethnicity. But as is often the case, this story doesn’t endorse the behavior. The Apostles’ response to this conflict is so good we should unpack it:
“Administrate it.”
“Handle it.”
“Take care of it.”
What we don’t find is any dispute. Now perhaps there was contestation, but it isn’t recorded here or anywhere else. The Native Hebrews didn’t deny the discrimination. They didn’t marginalize the claims. And if they did, that aspect was completely overlooked. Why? Because it didn’t matter. The Apostle’s direction shows that they ACKNOWLEDGED the discrimination and chose to CONFRONT IT with ACTION. Why? Because it was important that there be equality in Christ’s Church, a place where racial, social, economic, and gender distinctions were nullified as it relates to people’s inclusion and participation in God’s family. We are called to live "on earth, as it is in heaven."
In this instance, the Apostle's needed to make a statement, and they did it in short order:
#GreekLivesMatter
It’s really important to note here that affirming the fact that #GreekLivesMatter in no way rejected or prevented the Church’s practice of providing for non-Greek widows. It only motivated them to ensure that they were included and that the discrimination, whether intentional or unintentional, stopped from that point forward.
Why then is this so hard for us to acknowledge now? If we see that racism exists, and if we see that a particular segment of our population is on the receiving end of that discrimination frequently, why do we hesitate to speak up and act on their behalf?
Because the media twists it? Because they’re speaking for themselves? Because some of them are violent? Because they’re angry? Because it’s not as bad as it used to be?
What a despicable bouquet of excuses! Jesus would behave differently, because Jesus behaved differently (and had his own experiences being on the receiving end of racism). The Apostle's would behave differently, because they behaved differently when given the same opportunity that the Church is being given now.
THAT is why saying #AllLivesMatter is so damaging; so beneath God’s family. It’s not for us to generalize all of humanity as if that somehow makes racism a myth, as if closing our eyes to it somehow makes the storm around us go away. It’s not for us to spout off self-help platitudes as some kind of cheap substitute for our PARTICIPATION in the PROCESS OF RECONCILIATION. And it’s certainly not for us to laugh at, mock or tear down those who are doing what they can with what they have to try and DO OUR JOB FOR US.
I’ve decided to tackle Acts 11 in my next post. But for now, I’ll leave you with this question: If the Church was behaving as the agent of change in the world that God intended it to be, would there need to be a #BlackLivesMatter movement at all? Food for thought.
For those of you who recognize the reality of racism, but are having a hard time grappling with the #BlackLivesMatter movement specifically or the validity of racism against minorities in America in general, this blog is for you.
But more specifically, I’m writing to fellow Christians, because I am compelled beyond restraint to do so. We read the Bible. We love Jesus. We worship and participate in sacraments, we pray and we fast. In our time doing all those things, it has become very clear to us that God is all about reaching the marginalized. He loves the outcast. He welcomes the foreigner. He chases after the discarded members of society. We know these things because He commanded His Church to behave this way. We know these things because the Son of God Himself behaved this way. In light of those things, I want to draw attention to two different challenges faced by the early church which I sincerely believe give us a clear course of action to take in this current cultural war.
In Acts 6, we find the first challenge. Verses 1-6 paint the picture: Greek Jews were upset because their widows weren’t being given their portion of daily food. Widows were provided for, because they had no way to provide for themselves, and had no family members to provide for them. The church took care of them. But in a very short period of time, preference was shown to Native Hebrews. When the Greek Jews came for their portion, they were told “Sorry, we’re fresh out.”
Now, let’s stop right there to clarify a few things: was this discrimination? Yes. Was it based on ethnic background? Yes. Was it therefore racist by our modern definition? Yes. We're believers in Christ the ones doing it? Yes. Christians were discriminating against other Christians because of their ethnicity. But as is often the case, this story doesn’t endorse the behavior. The Apostles’ response to this conflict is so good we should unpack it:
“Administrate it.”
“Handle it.”
“Take care of it.”
What we don’t find is any dispute. Now perhaps there was contestation, but it isn’t recorded here or anywhere else. The Native Hebrews didn’t deny the discrimination. They didn’t marginalize the claims. And if they did, that aspect was completely overlooked. Why? Because it didn’t matter. The Apostle’s direction shows that they ACKNOWLEDGED the discrimination and chose to CONFRONT IT with ACTION. Why? Because it was important that there be equality in Christ’s Church, a place where racial, social, economic, and gender distinctions were nullified as it relates to people’s inclusion and participation in God’s family. We are called to live "on earth, as it is in heaven."
In this instance, the Apostle's needed to make a statement, and they did it in short order:
#GreekLivesMatter
It’s really important to note here that affirming the fact that #GreekLivesMatter in no way rejected or prevented the Church’s practice of providing for non-Greek widows. It only motivated them to ensure that they were included and that the discrimination, whether intentional or unintentional, stopped from that point forward.
Why then is this so hard for us to acknowledge now? If we see that racism exists, and if we see that a particular segment of our population is on the receiving end of that discrimination frequently, why do we hesitate to speak up and act on their behalf?
Because the media twists it? Because they’re speaking for themselves? Because some of them are violent? Because they’re angry? Because it’s not as bad as it used to be?
What a despicable bouquet of excuses! Jesus would behave differently, because Jesus behaved differently (and had his own experiences being on the receiving end of racism). The Apostle's would behave differently, because they behaved differently when given the same opportunity that the Church is being given now.
THAT is why saying #AllLivesMatter is so damaging; so beneath God’s family. It’s not for us to generalize all of humanity as if that somehow makes racism a myth, as if closing our eyes to it somehow makes the storm around us go away. It’s not for us to spout off self-help platitudes as some kind of cheap substitute for our PARTICIPATION in the PROCESS OF RECONCILIATION. And it’s certainly not for us to laugh at, mock or tear down those who are doing what they can with what they have to try and DO OUR JOB FOR US.
I’ve decided to tackle Acts 11 in my next post. But for now, I’ll leave you with this question: If the Church was behaving as the agent of change in the world that God intended it to be, would there need to be a #BlackLivesMatter movement at all? Food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)