[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: The astonishing weakness of Hillary Clinton
Source: TheWeek
URL Source: http://theweek.com/articles/569184/ ... shing-weakness-hillary-clinton
Published: Jul 31, 2015
Author: Michael Brendan Dougherty
Post Date: 2015-07-31 10:43:17 by Tooconservative
Ping List: *2016 The Likely Suspects*     Subscribe to *2016 The Likely Suspects*
Keywords: None
Views: 6697
Comments: 124

Hillary Clinton is as unpopular as she ever has been. Her favorability ratings have fallen to just 40 percent. Her campaign is already heading south, even though she has serious advantages over everyone else in the campaign, both Democratic and Republican.

Her opponents in the Democratic field do not pose a plausible mathematical threat. Bernie Sanders can attract huge crowds in college towns, but he is going nowhere with the African-American voters who would be key to building an anti-Clinton Democratic primary coalition. Martin O'Malley's record, shaped by his transition from the Baltimore mayoralty to the Maryland statehouse, has made him radioactive to an activist Democratic base that wants criminal justice reform and that winces when a politician like him says, "All Lives Matter." Clinton is thus free to define her agenda apart from them.

Because the Republican field is startlingly unanimous in its positions, Clinton has the opportunity of running against a coherent platform, while picking out its weakest spokesperson on every individual issue. She can run against Trump on immigration, against Huckabee on social issues, against Walker on foreign policy.

But it's an opportunity that she has so far passed over. Perhaps she doesn't want to get bogged down in actual policy details, always unpopular with an electorate that grows fat on cliché but retches at details.

Still, it means that the entirety of Clinton's campaign has alternated between distancing herself from the legacy of her family name, and stonewalling reporters investigating one scandal or another. In the first category, she has repudiated the tough-on-crime policies of her husband. She has strongly embraced gay marriage even though her previous support for traditional marriage was, according to Clinton, rooted in timeless religious principles. She has joined the new gender politics, despite her own history of slut-shaming her husband's mistresses. Calling Bill's pump-and-dump paramours "trailer trash" and "narcissistic loony tunes" is understandable in my own view, but considered impolitic today.

Hillary Clinton has never won a competitive election. This can't be repeated enough. She beat Republican Rep. Rick Lazio for her Senate seat in 2000. And she defeated a mayor from Yonkers in 2006. In her first competitive race, the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, she began as a heavy favorite and she lost.

What has she done to improve her chances in that time? She's aged well, I guess. And she served without distinction as secretary of state. The most notable addition to her CV was her strenuous support of military intervention in Libya, which has left that nation in ruins and vulnerable to ISIS. In turn, Libya has left Clinton with a new scandal about her home-brew email server and the deletion of thousands of emails that congressional oversight might have used against her.

She has high name-recognition. Until she started campaigning she was polling well even with Republicans. She has the Obama coalition, and an electoral map where Republicans need significant pickups. But boy, it all seems underwhelming. What is the task for Democrats in the post-Obama era? Why is Clinton the one to take on this mission?

After achieving a policy almost approximating universal health care, the dream of Democrats since Harry Truman, what are the Democrats to do? Are they pro-globalization? Do they have ideas for integrating the great wave of immigration to America that has occurred over the past 50 years? Do they have anything to offer the dying white working class? Are they for reforming any of America's major institutions?

Clinton just seems like a mismatch for the party and the moment. The center-left darling of Wall Street talking up issues of inequality. The former Walmart board member posing as savior of American jobs. The "Smart Power" leader whose achievement at state was wrecking a nation and turning it over to Sunni terrorists faster than George W. Bush. A champion of women who pretended the leader of the free world was the victim of his intern. The wife of a man who flies on the "Lolita Express" with a porn star that was booked for "massages." The vanquisher of a Yonkers mayor.

Is this really the best the Democrats can do? Yes, and that should worry them.


Poster Comment:

After a few weeks of Trumpsterism, the GOP has forgotten about Hitlery altogether. But she is self-destructing from her own scandals and repulsive public persona. Her name recognition and reputation are sky-high. And that is her biggest problem. The Dems know who and what she is. I think the writer overlooked just how repulsive her major Wall Street banking connections are with Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan, Chase, the new UBS scandal, etc. That's pure poison to the Dem base voters, the bulwark of the Occupy Wall Street types. And the Xlintons are still loathed by the Obama Dem establishment.Subscribe to *2016 The Likely Suspects*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.

#3. To: TooConservative (#0)

Not a bad article, but I can sum it up in fewer words:

The ruling party will determine whether or not all of its election fraud, stuffing ballot boxes, and illegal immigrant voting will be enough to get a flawed candidate like Hilliary Xlinton elected.

It may or may not be - the jury's still out on that one.

But since the ruling party will decide who the republican branch candidate will be, they'll just have to ensure Xlinton's "opponent" will be the Jebster - another flawed candidate.

Jebster or Xlinton. Doesn't matter.

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-07-31   11:54:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Rufus T Firefly (#3)

Jebster or Xlinton. Doesn't matter.

Despite their similarities, there will be significant differences in the outcomes from those two. Appointees to the Supreme Court, etc.

I'd say too little difference but not "no difference".

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-07-31   13:26:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: TooConservative (#5)

Despite their similarities, there will be significant differences in the outcomes from those two. Appointees to the Supreme Court, etc.

There will indeed be differences between the Supreme Court appointees.

Democrat Supreme Court appointees will be reliably liberal on all things. Pick the issue, and you can virtually guarantee how the Democrat appointees will vote. Since we haven't had a Supreme Court controlled by Democrat appointees since 1969, we can expect that if Democrats get control of the court, they will continue to act in lock-step with their ideology, as they always have.

Republican Court appointees will be reliably corporate capitalist. The Kelo decision and the "corporations are people too" campaign finance funding are reliable Republican positions. Republican Presidents can be relied upon to make sure, through their appointments, that a pro-choice majority sits on the Court.

So the real choice between Democrats and Republicans is the welfare state economy and the crony capitalist economy. That is really what the fight is over.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   13:54:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13 (#6) (Edited)

So the real choice between Democrats and Republicans is the welfare state economy and the crony capitalist economy.

There is one party - the Ruling Party - and it has D and R branches. I've been saying this for years.

I see a lot of views posted that go back to a bygone era - which probably ended circa 1950

The view you have - quoted above: Why do you say that, when you have billionaires like Soros and Buffett that LOVE the crony capitalism - so by your measure they should be republicans.

Yet they are democrats.

What gives?

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-07-31   14:43:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Rufus T Firefly (#11)

The view you have - quoted above: Why do you say that, when you have billionaires like Soros and Buffett that LOVE the corporate capitalism - so by your measure they should be republicans.

Yet they are democrats.

What gives?

Some billionaires give huge amounts to charity. And some of them, I think Warren Buffett is one, did not start out as billionaires and, for all of their wealth and their experience, still do have their eye on what is best for all.

They actively seek what is good for them, but they don't want, say, their fellow Nebraskans to be in poverty either. They know how to make themselves rich, and they know what is needed to make life for everybody else tolerable too.

They act on what makes themselves rich, but they're not kings and cannot simply wave a wand and make things better for everybody else - that takes legal change. And they will not simply impoverish themselves - they won't give it away so that somebody ELSE can be rich and rule the roost like they do. They genuinely want to change the system ITSELF so that those who are not ruling the roost have it somewhat better.

Most billionaires are nothing like that, and billionaires who came from nothing are frequently uncharitable. All billionaires are hard-minded. I think that some of them, Perot and Buffett in particular, really DO give a damn about their fellow men.

And they are smart, and sit on top of the economic system of the world, so they have better information, better knowledge, a more complete picture, and are also just simply more intelligent when it comes to finance and managing things than regular people.

And those guys, in America, trend Democrat. The reason why is pretty basic.

First, it has nothing to do with Christianity. These men are not Christians. They are secular humanists. They support abortion because they see the alternative as overpopulation and increased human misery from unwanted children. They don't believe there is a caring God who will supply aid. They think that extra babies who are unwanted is a pure deadweight loss on society, increasing misery.

Obviously I do not agree with them. But then, I know God. They don't, and they are operating on logical, financial principles and worried about the people on the bottom. Truth is, when poor people and teenagers have babies, they and the babies are headed for a life of struggle, suffering and probably crime. That is why seculars like Buffett are pro-choice. It is not a matter of supporting sexual libertinism. It is because they see abortion as the only realistic way to stop human misery, in a real world and universe in which (they believe) there is in fact no God to assist anything or anybody. Because they are not religious, they do not moralize about sex.

And because they see the obvious economic and social implications of "pro- life", and know all of the suffering that will come from more unwanted babies, they have no patience of Christians, Muslims and - to their view - other superstitious and unrealistic nutjobs inflicting massive hardship and pain on people in order to respect the laws of a God that does not exist. In the real word, unwanted pregnancy means poverty, welfare, crime and suffering. Therefore, secular billionaires are all pro-choice, and the Democrat Party is unapologetically pro-choice.

Republicans, by contrast, are flagrant liars. Their decisions in courts and in laws is pro-choice, but they go out there and stir up the ignorant Christian rabble with lies - that they'll stop abortion (they don't intend to), and with half-gestures.

So, that's the first part. Billionaires are practical, successful, worldly people. They are not strong believers in God, and even to the extent they are nominal Christians, they are liberal Christians or Jews who flatly reject the superstitious nonsense of Christians, as they see it, and they also reject the deceit and bad policy proposals of Republicans, driven by the Republican desire to pander to a base of ignorant zealots who know nothing and who need to be ignored - for their own good! - not encouraged.

That is brick one.

Brick two is purely economic. The billionaires at the top, with a heart to go with their brains, recognize that people have needs. All people. They know the cost of retirement and of health care and education, because they provide those benefits. They have the big picture, and they recognize that government is the only POSSIBLE source of finance for retirement, education and medical costs. It cannot be done universally for a profit. Sure, the private sector can profit on the broad middle where there is profit to made in treating boo- boos, but when it comes to the six-sigma disasters - the father who, having just seen sextuplets born, comes down with pancreatic cancer that can only be cured by a $10 million dollar treatment - those people cannot ever be profitably covered. Yet they MUST be.

So, the billionaires who care about their fellow men strongly support universal Social Security, and want it strengthened to be THE full retirement program, so that all of the money that currently goes into expensive and ineffective private programs instead goes into the federal coffers. They support universal health insurance. They want to see education improved across the board, and college made a birthright.

And they are internationalists who see people as people, and therefore do not support slamming shut the border.

Now, middle class people, who do not really understand economics or finance but who often think they do, frequently oppose the broad social programs that the billionaires who care see are VITAL to social stability and reasonable standards of living for all. So these middle class people, ignoramuses relative to the billionaries - vocally OPPOSE necessary things, calling them "Socialists". The billionaires know that is absurd. They're not socialists, they're capitalists. But they recognize that if the government doesn't do it, there will be calamity and social unrest. So they support the Democrats because the Democrats, again, are the only party that unabashedly supports those programs that the socially-conscious billionaires see as needful.

That is precisely why the Buffets of the world vote Democrat. Milionairs who aspire to be billionaires vote Republican. Top billionaires vote Democrat. That's why.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   15:06:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Vicomte13 (#13)

Republicans, by contrast, are flagrant liars. Their decisions in courts and in laws is pro-choice, but they go out there and stir up the ignorant Christian rabble with lies - that they'll stop abortion (they don't intend to), and with half-gestures.

Your posts seem more often then not to be contradictory.

As usual you broadbrush Republicans as "flagrant liars." Yes, one wing of the party certainly are. That would be the hypocritical establishment Republican Wing.

Can you please clarify:

1) Exactly WHICH Republicans are doing the "lying" and "stirring"?
2) Of which specific "lies" do you speak?
3) And exactly which Christians do you consider "rabble"?

The point you never seem to comprehend or concede is that ONLY within the Republican Party are pro-life legislators. There is only so much they can do, considering there is the House, the Senate, and veto power of the Executive office. BESIDES a corrupt Supreme Court. The power of individual Republicans (pro-lifers comprise most of the conservative wing) are limited by the stench of the ruling wing of the Republican Party -- RINOs, aka the establishment Republicans. Do you understand the difference? And do you concede that there are ZERO Democrats who support the pro-life position?

Democrats, again, are the only party that unabashedly supports those programs that the socially-conscious billionaires see as needful.

What you perceive of Democrats as compassion and addressing the "needful" is anything BUT. Democrats have by design created a constituency and class of voters who are TOTALLY dependent on FREE STUFF. You believe the Dems lie, then compound it by believing your own lie.

Social programs were originally intended as a safety net for the unfortunate and those unable to care for themselves; NOT the "Entitlement" you seem to believe is a God-given right. The Bible speaks of Charity. NOT Grand Larceny in the name of constituency-building and enslavement. The wealth redistribution you apparently advocate is illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional.

You're either willfully ignorant of the truth, or live in fantasy-land. Billionaires are all about quashing the middle class and building their empires. They are NOT the humanitarians and philanthropists you seem to envision. America is only a vehicle for the majority of them.

Democrats? They "unabashedly" endorse "kinda-spreading-the-wealth-around" which is BS-Speak for STEALING blood and sweat from SOME, and giving it to OTHERS. As a means of remaining in power. They accomplish this retention of personal and political power via coercion, threats, or at the barrel of a gun. That's a strange ethic to advocate. Never mind justifying it as Bible-chic.

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-31   16:14:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Liberator (#15)

Can you please clarify:

1) Exactly WHICH Republicans are doing the "lying" and "stirring"? 2) Of which specific "lies" do you speak? 3) And exactly which Christians do you consider "rabble"?

Exactly WHICH Republicans?

For starters: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell.

The specific lies? Well, Reagan went out there courting the "Moral Majority" with his pro-life schtick. Of course, like Romney, when he was Governor of California, Reagan was pro-choice, supporting the abortion law. And Reagan installed Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. A "pro-lifer" Republican? No. A lying panderer. The Moral Majority bought it then, hook, line and sinker.

But since then we've had Bush put Souter on the court, and another Bush try to put Harriet Miers on the Court. We've had Romney create Romneycare, on which Obamacare is pattered, and populate it with state-funded abortion as a matter of right. And we had Romney himself, pretending to be pro-life. And we've got the Republican Senate, just now, pass through Planned Parenthood funding on a snap voice vote, to get it done before the controversy could stop it, and to do it all off the record.

All of those Republican leaders are liars. All of those things they have done are lies, when they hold themselves out as a pro-life party.

Now, back in the day, the Moral Majority were not rabble as such. They were sincere pro-lifers who expected their political will to be advanced by the party they supported.

But NOW, after THIRTY YEARS OF BETRAYALS, 30 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS CONTROL OF THE SUPREME COURT with abortion as entrenched as ever, 20 of those years having Republican Presidents...who appointed 3 clear pro-abortion Justices to the Supreme Court.

(Democrats NEVER appoint anybody who is not a loyal partisan - AND REPUBLICANS DON'T EITHER. SO, the fact that Republicans name pro-choice Justice after pro- choice Justice to the Court, ensuring that the pro-choice contingent is always the majority, is not some ACCIDENT, it IS the policy of the Republican Party - to CLAIM to be pro-life while quietly and effectively upholding abortion. Reagan installed abortion in California and appointed 2 pro-choicers to the Supreme Court, Bush appointed a pro-choicer, the second tried appoint a fourth, and did appoint two justices who are untested on abortion...but we've got John Roberts twice upholding Obamacare. And Romney. And now the Republican Senate funding Planned Tissue Harvesting of Babies "Parenthood".)

30 years on, it is perfectly obvious that the Republican Party is not pro- life. IT is perfectly obvious that they are crony capitalists who LIE about being pro-life in order to capture the Christian vote, of the old Moral Majority.

It is perfectly obvious that the Moral Majority were DUPED by these Republican liars.

So, who are the Christian rabble?

They are the Christian pro-lifers who, after 30 years of betrayal by a Republican Supreme court and every single Republican President from Reagan on, and also by every recent Republican Presidential nominee, and just this past week by the Republican Senate - Christian pro-lifers who persist in being Republican on the absurd insistence that the Republicans are "pro-life" - THEY are the Christians who are rabble. What they are, are partisan fools who refuse to open their eyes or learn anything from experience.

The Bible speaks about wealth redistribution, both testaments. The Bible makes it clear that this is mandatory for anybody who wants to go to Heaven. If one refuses to accept that, he defies God and is "Christian" rabble.

Most billionaires are about getting rich and using their money to get richer, and dominating everything. A few of them are philanthropists. The question I was asked, and which I answered, was why they vote Democrat. That was what I answered.

Now I've answered you.

You have decided to make defense of the Republican Party a point of honor. It's a pity, because you have far more honor than they do.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   17:20:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 17.

#72. To: Vicomte13 (#17) (Edited)

The specific lies?

Well, Reagan went out there courting the "Moral Majority" with his pro-life schtick. Of course, like Romney, when he was Governor of California, Reagan was pro-choice, supporting the abortion law. And Reagan installed Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. A "pro-lifer" Republican? No. A lying panderer. The Moral Majority bought it then, hook, line and sinker.

Let me first thank you for at least addressing my questions and addressing your positions. That said, your narrative is not only wrong, but misguided and much of it untrue.

What "shtick" did Reagan pull?? You seem to forget that a President is NOT a King (with all due respect to B. Hoosane.)

The ONLY reason the "Moral Majority" was able to impose ANY moral influence upon America during Reagan's 1980s (and it was substantial) was because Ronald Reagan supported them and their mission -- as well as creating the freedom and political elbow room to do so. Reagan accomplished this while fending off the maniacs of the Left, moderates like Poppy Bush and his gangsters, AND a Dem-dominated Congress.

Wait; Are you REALLY comparing Reagan to Romney? Reagan sincerely changed his entire life philosophy and you're dinging him for a past he regrets? He became PRO-LIFE and demonstratively PRO-GOD. That is TOTALLY unlike Romney, who was ALL about political expediency. HE NEVER CHANGED his philosophy.

As to Reagan's appointments, yes he nominated Sandra Day O'Connor. And Kennedy (neither of whom were definitively "pro-choice," so you're speculating.) But he also appointed Scalia and Reinquist. The Gipper got knocked down on Bork and Ginsburg -- ALL rock solid conservatives. You seem to forget the mob of Dems who controlled Congress. If Reagan hadn't had to deal with a Dem-controlled Congress, would the complexion of the SC have been different?

Both Bushes are a totally different story. Because THEY belong to the establishment GOP, they betrayed conservatism (Dubya gave us Alito, but also Roberts and yes, tried to impose Miers on the GOP before conservative Republicans strongly and vociferously opposed her. Forgot that, eh?)

Despite Dubya Bush having a Republican majority to work with in BOTH the Senate and House, and arguably SCOTUS (before appointing chameleon Roberts) he and his GOPe brethren REFUSED to advance a single conservative policy -- never mind addressing Roe v Wade. No sane political observer would EVER compare Ronald Reagan to either Bush. (Poppy Bush was pro-choice right up until Campaign, 1980.)

You STILL can't seem to differentiate between conservative Republicans and their agenda, AND establishment Republicans -- you know, the Republicans who call ALL the shots and collude with Democrats. The same Democrats YOU support for their fascist entitlement of MY money to subsidize Marxists and Marxism.

They [the Christian rabble] are the Christian pro-lifers who, after 30 years of betrayal by a Republican Supreme court and every single Republican President from Reagan on, and also by every recent Republican Presidential nominee, and just this past week by the Republican Senate - Christian pro-lifers who persist in being Republican on the absurd insistence that the Republicans are "pro-life" - THEY are the Christians who are rabble. What they are, are partisan fools who refuse to open their eyes or learn anything from experience.

Do you actually know the definition of "rabble"??

Pro-life Christians have had NO other party to support on the issue of abortion. Was your solution and chances to overturn Roe v Wade really increased by supporting the Democrat Party? ON WHAT PLANET?

Pro-life Christians are put in a no-win situation, betrayed by liars. Yet they (we) hope hearts are change in THE ONLY PARTY who can logically and pragmatically overturn Roe V Wade. Those liars are ESTABLISHMENT Republicans, country club Republicans. THEY control the GOP. NOT conservative Republicans. Why can't you understand the ramifications of the power of the GOP's dominant wing?

Back on 1988...1992....1996...2012...was your solution to support a Third Party? If so, which. If so, tell me the odds of not only a victory, but tell me exactly how establishment Republicans and Democrats were going to support a pro-life SC judge.

Your problem Vic, is that you're idealistic, but so much so that your expectation are unrealistic. Look -- The Fix has been in since before WWII. Reagan's election has been to only outlier President who didn't belong to the establishment of either party. Reagan is why NO war was waged during his entire President. He ushered in an era of hope, of morality, of freedom, of America-First. Lumping him in as you've done with the likes of "George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell" is just plain nonsense.

The Bible speaks about wealth redistribution, both testaments. The Bible makes it clear that this is mandatory for anybody who wants to go to Heaven. If one refuses to accept that, he defies God and is "Christian" rabble.

Your definition of "rabble"...is pretty insulting. Your notion of scriptural "clarity" in support of "wealth redistribution" is total misrepresentation. I don't doubt that *you* believe your own meme. But by all means -- go ahead and provide scriptural citations that endorse government coercion and grand theft, and Marxist "wealth redistribution," please. Yes, there's is some responsibility to care for our brothers and sisters in need -- but that is a totally different case. And so too is worshiping money over worship of the Lord. But in NO case does Scripture ever sanction the confiscation of earned wealth over to others.

As to the criteria for "Heaven," though you mean well, you've got that wrong as well.

You have decided to make defense of the Republican Party a point of honor. It's a pity, because you have far more honor than they do.

Again you miss the mark. I defend conservative Republicans for their intention to change the party from within. Your indictment of the Republican Party by default is an indictment of ALL Republicans. Vic, that just isn't true, isn't right, isn't fair.

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-01 13:09:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

The Bible speaks about wealth redistribution, both testaments. The Bible makes it clear that this is mandatory for anybody who wants to go to Heaven. If one refuses to accept that, he defies God and is "Christian" rabble.

"My Kingdom is not of this World"
~Jesus, Gospel of St. John, chapter 18 verse 36

This is the way I understand Scripture. Judaeo-Christian belief tells us that the only God controlled earthly government that ever existed was in the Garden of Eden. Man, being what he was, messed that up. From then on, we have been on our own.

In the Old Testament, God DID have representatives (spokesmen, if you will) who made His will known to the people. The people could listen to these Judges and later, prophets. (or not). There IS after all that thing called "free will" that God put in us.

The people looked around, saw all the other nations had "kings", and decided they wanted a king, too. (Gee, kind of sounds like "all other countries have socialized health care. We need to have it, too." But I won't go there now.)

The Israelite's desire for a king frustrated the prophet Samuel, but God told him "they have not rejected you, they have rejected Me." (I Samuel 8:7). So God gave them Saul, and it didn't work out so well. David followed, then the wisest king, Solomon. That was pretty much the high water mark for Israel. Many kings -some good, but most bad - followed after that. Eventually, like all EARTHLY kingdoms, Israel divided, then fell to its enemies.

Not to get too deep in the weeds here, but the main point is that while Israel was referred to as "God's chosen people" (Exodus 19:6; Deut. 7:6), they (as individuals or a nation) were never denied their free will.

They had the free will to follow the Mosaic laws and its sacrificial system. Or not. They could reconcile themselves to God and presumably reside with Him in the afterlife. Or not.

There was a 400 year inter-testimental period between Malachi the prophet, and the Advent of the Christ (i.e. Messiah)

When Our Lord came on the scene, Israel was far from being the kingdom it once was. It was just a province, a backwater, of the mighty Roman Empire. The Jews were a conquered people (they, understandably, didn't like it one bit)

Several of Jesus' disciples were revolutionaries who misunderstood His talk of a kingdom as being an Earthly one vs. a Heavenly one. They saw Him as their ticket to throw off Roman rule and re-establish Israel. Simon the Zealot, and likely Judas, are two who fell into this category. There may have been others.

That, of course, isn't what Jesus was about then. It's not what He's about now.

I have to respectfully disagree with you when you imply that "works" is a prerequisite for entering Heaven. John 3:16-18 gives us the roadmap for entering Heaven. Our pitiful and pathetic works cannot add to His perfect sacrifice.

Now I know that you are RC and I am not, and there are honest, theological differences. My purpose isn't really to debate those, here.

But let me close with this: You and I, though we follow different Christian doctrines, can likely agree on this: God is absolutely the HIGHEST AUTHORITY there is.

Yet he DOES NOT require us to obey Him - to follow Him. He (way back at Creation) gave us Free Will.

An all powerful government, however; one that you envision with the resources to provide cradle-to-grave care; will NEVER allow free will. You follow and do what the government says, OR ELSE.

You may not intend it or mean it that way, but I see your all-powerful government as putting itself ABOVE God. And one of the things both the Old and New Testaments agree on - God does not bless those who put themselves above Him.

That goes for governments as well as individuals.

Finally, caring for the poor and infirm has always been an INDIVIDUAL commandment. The entire theme of the book of James in the Bible is "Faith without works is Dead" (James 2:14-26). In other words, if we are to follow Christ and trust in Him, we will "naturally" want to do what pleases Him. (i.e. feed, clothe, otherwise help the poor and less fortunate than ourselves)

WE are commanded to do so. NOT our governments.

You can argue passionately (as you have done) for big government, cradle-to-grave solutions to all of mankind's ills. You can search (but I do not think you will find) a humanistic Utopia.

People have been searching in vain for that throughout history - perhaps you'll succeed.

I just caution that when you say that GOVERNMENTS are commanded to do by God what we - as individuals - should be doing, that you are on shaky theological ground.

And I'm not even a Theologian :-)

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-08-01 21:29:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com