Trump Rally in Austin - 8/23/16

[TexasTornado]

TT,

Mr.Blanker is just trying to agitate. I'd just ignore him.

I'm not agitated at all. Not even my party that he's making look juvenile and foolish.

I'm one of those independent things nobody seems to believe Trump brings to the party.

Let me start by saying that, while my personal opinions are largely informed by my spiritual faith, I fully recognize that this is not necessarily the case for a lot of people (thank God for the 1st Amendment!); but my worldview colors what follows:

I'm an independent too, and you're right......a certain number of independents who have not wanted republican membership will support Trump. The problem is this...... Independents now make up something like 43% of the electorate (LINKY) and that is higher than it has ever been before......and some independents vote democrat too. Independents elected Obama. Historically, the democrat party has outnumbered the republican party in terms of registered voters, but registered republicans turned out in greater numbers to vote than registered democrats - which made for close election results, regardless of which party won the POTUS race. It also points to republicans being generally more politically active and less apathetic than democrats. But both parties are bleeding members and losing them primarily to the independent fold, and I expect the number of independents to continue growing as the major parties continue to lose relevance for their more traditional bases.

But this election cycle is different than any I can recall in my 46 years of being a registered voter.....and only partly because Trump is a nominee. It seems pretty apparent to me (and probably a lot of other folks too) that a significant percentage of republicans have become so disenchanted with the direction their party has taken that they're not inclined any longer to take direction from or believe what they're told by their party's elites. In fact, I think that Trump's candidacy is - for better or for worse - is exactly a symptom of this discontentment with the party's direction. A lot of people, myself included, left the party after the 2012 election and became independents.

My personal political values lean toward the (small "L") libertarian, but I'm not a libertarian party member, nor do I have any intention of joining that party. I was a registered democrat for 23 years before joining the republican party in 1993, so twice burned, twice shy. I'm done with parties, because they have become more about the accrual of power than they are about proclaiming a set of standards (the talk), and then defending those standards (walking the talk).

My personal social values lean toward the conservative and are informed by my faith. But, there was a time when I thought of the republican party as the best political repository of that combination of libertarian political and conservative social values that I cleave to. I no longer believe that to be the case about the republican party. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who feels this way. FWIW, the democrat party is in a mirror image of that same same boat, which explains the rise of the Bernie Bros......but I don't really care what happens to democrats if their party goes down the tubes. I DO care about what happens to republicans when their party goes down the tubes, because for all of its flaws as a party, republican ideals are still closer to my personal set of beliefs than that crap the dems are selling. If only the republican party still promoted and defended those ideals.

Regardless of how you or I or any other independents vote, one thing seems certain: the party elites for both of the major parties are directly responsible for the current state of their parties, and this is why independents now make up as much as 43% of the electorate. I've never seen the republican party as divided as it is today. But despite any ongoing tensions between the Bernie Bros and the Hillary Hagiographers, the party rebels are mostly unifying behind their candidate, even if she wasn't their first choice. For all of her many faults, Clinton is much closer to being a traditional democrat than Trump resembles a traditional republican. In fact, my observation is that Trump is the least "republican" candidate that party has ever produced, and consequently the traditional republican base is finding it very hard to unify and rally behind him.

One of the complaints I hear against him is that Trump was a democrat for most of his political life. Well, people change. When I registered as a republican in 1993, I had been a democrat for all of my political life up to that point. So I don't have a problem believing that Trump might have changed, but the problem is, "changed into what"? He certainly hasn't morphed into a traditional republican. As Ronald Reagan once famously said, "I didn't leave the democrat party, it left me". In my own case, I hadn't changed so much as the republican party had changed. And that is why I reregistered as an independent after the 2012 election. The republican party changed.......and I think that Trump's candidacy is proof of that.

So IF I decide to vote for Trump in November, it will NOT be motivated by any loyalty I feel to a party, but purely based on whether or not I can make myself pinch my nostrils closed in the voting booth. The one thing I know is this......Tuesday, November 8 is still 2-1/2 months away. Until then, I am under no obligation to declare in advance for whom I will vote. I will be considering all angles prayerfully, and seeking God's guidance first and foremost, and then I will make my decision on that day. But this is for absolute certain: IF I vote for Trump, it will not be motivated out of a spirit of fear over what will happen if I don't, but rather motivated by Holy Spirit - whose authority is sovereign over all things. God can use, and has used in the past, unrighteous people to accomplish His purposes, for His own glory. I have absolutely no faith in Trump being a righteous man. In fact, I believe he is more or less the opposite of righteous. So if Holy Spirit leads me to vote for Trump, it will be because He has told me that He will be using Trump for His purposes, and not for any other reason. I'm still waiting for that particular message from the Lord, but my decision will not be motivated out of a spirit of fear over the consequences of not voting for him.

Romans 8:15 (ESV)
For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry "Abba! Father!"

2 Timothy 1:7
for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control

Personally, I think we may be under God's judgement at this point in our history, and even a Trump victory isn't going to delay or avert that judgement.

I realize that these views are my own, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just sharing my thoughts.

TAM, I have "identified" Democrat for the majority of my political life, mostly due to my social views although I have never voted for a Democrat for President. The candidate I was most compelled by unfortunately received little traction and zero respect from the Democratic base. He was the hero they needed, but possibly didn't deserve at this time, who knows.

What I do know is that although my views probably align more with Hillary's than 98% of the members here, I can not accept her as the leader of my nation when she does not accept the principles that my nation was founded on.



We can debate on policy all day and night but in the end the Constitution is not flexible on some issues, nor am I. One of the biggest things for me personally and probably the largest reason I refuse to vote Democrat is the continual decline in the capacity and care of our service members and Veterans. For me this is the hot button issue that takes precedence over all. It's personal.

[dale blanker]

Oh I understand now, you're an electrical engineer....that explains everything!

Yeah, but I've been retired over 20 years so I'm not nearly as funny as I used to be. My sweet wife used to be even funnier, a chemical engineer, but she's been retired a lot longer and after almost 6 decades together we don't argue about what kind of scientific presents to give the kids anymore.

Cheers!

[jason812]

TT, I don't know how you are so high on both Trump and Hilliary. I'm 96 Castle, 93 Trump, 89 Johnson and 2 for her majesty. Guess it's safe to say she won't be getting my vote, unless I die before the election, then she will get my vote 3 times.

[TexasTornado]

TT, I don't know how you are so high on both Trump and Hilliary. I'm 96 Castle, 93 Trump, 89 Johnson and 2 for her majesty. Guess it's safe to say she won't be getting my vote, unless I die before the election, then she will get my vote 3 times.

Let me see if I can explain in meme format for everyone's entertainment....

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM, I have "identified" Democrat for the majority of my political life, mostly due to my social views although I have never voted for a Democrat for President. The candidate I was most compelled by unfortunately received little traction and zero respect from the Democratic base. He was the hero they needed, but possibly didn't deserve at this time, who knows.

What I do know is that although my views probably align more with Hillary's than 98% of the members here, I can not accept her as the leader of my nation when she does not accept the principles that my nation was founded on.

..............

We can debate on policy all day and night but in the end the Constitution is not flexible on some issues, nor am I. One of the biggest things for me personally and probably the largest reason I refuse to vote Democrat is the continual decline in the capacity and care of our service members and Veterans. For me this is the hot button issue that takes precedence over all. It's personal.

I share your concern about democrat treatment of service members. I took that same survey a couple of months ago, and it showed me leaning heavily toward Gary Johnson more than the others....something like 93% if I recall correctly. But Johnson is off-putting to me personally for reasons I find hard to articulate, which contributes to why I am still wrestling with choosing whom I will support with my vote.

I want to explain what I mean by my "conservative social values"...... (please forgive, I'm not trying to proselytize here, but just to explain the underpinnings of my thought processes)....

For the 23 years I identified as a registered republican, it was because I was ignorant to libertarian thought, and the republican party most closely reflected the totality of my personal beliefs. It's perhaps worth noting that social values are more complex than simply "liberal" or "conservative". I am an unapologetic evangelical Christian, but my social values are mine, for me. I guess that, in the sense of libertarianism, what other people do with their lives, is between them and God, not between them and me. I may still view their choices as sin, but it's their sin, not mine, and I am far too busy trying to live my life according to scriptural standards to stand in condemnation of others. (It is important to know the difference between the exercise of judgment, and condemnation. I may judge another person's actions as sinful, but I don't condemn the person for that sin, because the right of condemnation is God's and his alone.) Anyone who has read the second half of Romans chapter 7 would understand this duality. Paul - the author of a sizable chunk of the New Testament - writes about his struggle with the flesh.......the things he wants to do, he does not do; but instead, the things he does not want to do, he does. And this brings him, this bibilical giant, into conflict with what he knows about God's perfect law. In the end, biblical law only applies to those people who believe it is true......says so right in that chapter......and since (a) only complete adherence to the Law in all things can save us, and (b) none of us is capable of being obedient to the law (Romans 3:23), we are not saved by our adherence to the law, but by our faith in Christ. This is why a secular society like our own never has to fear from it's Christian members. We don't believe in any kind of Christian form of Sharia law. Why? Because we believe that salvation is about the individual's relationship with God, not the society-at-large's relationship with God. Whether or not same-sex preferences (for instance) is sinful has nothing to do with whether or not that person can find salvation, because we are ALL sinners. Those who believe are saved only by God's grace, not out of any inherent righteousness or works of our own (Ephesians 2:8-10). Therefore, I do not condemn people whose personal morality and social standards are outside of my own, because I don't view them as any worse than myself - a sinner saved only by God's grace.

That is why my political values lean to the libertarian. I don't believe that I have the right to force other people to live by my spiritual values. It's that pesky 1st Amendment thing. I don't condone some things, in fact I may think they are demonically inspired, but I don't want to see people imprisoned for them. For example, I do think that abortion is murder, but I don't want women who have had abortions to be jailed for it. I would hope to have an opportunity to convince someone struggling with that decision to choose life instead, but the decision is hers, not mine. It would be sinful, but it is her sin, between her and God, not my sin. I think that drug use is the ruination of the society, but 40+ years of the "war on drugs" has succeeded only in spending $ trillions of taxpayer dollars, getting a whole lot of people killed on both sides of the border, exacerbated an already out of control immigration policy, and solidified the hold of various cartels over the gov'ts of the countries from which the drugs originate. And, 40+ years later, more people today use drugs than ever before. What a waste. Prisons are full of people who did nothing more than buy and sell weed......a naturally occurring plant which used to be found in roadside ditches all over the country. I don't smoke it. I don't think you should smoke it because it's not good for you (the truth is that most of the alleged "health benefits" are pure malarkey), but you own your body, and if you want to turn your mind to mush, that's your right. If I had a nickel for every joint I smoked as a yoot, well, let's just say that my thoughts might be more coherent today, and I wouldn't have to write such long screeds to explain myself. ;)

I'm a free market capitalist. I don't believe that the Republican Party pays anything more than lip service to that principle - they being nearly as enamored of oligarchs as are the democrats. Heck, the republican nominee is an oligarch......which is part of why I struggle over supporting his candidacy. I believe in consequences as part of the natural order of things, and thus, while I agree with the idea of a very limited safety net for the downtrodden, I also believe that most people will never learn to adapt to their circumstances and improve their positions in life if the nanny state is always there to haul their ashes out of the fire, whenever those ashes are the result of their own demonstrably bad choices (chronic drug abuse, for instance). But similarly, I think that gov't needs to stop being a welfare state for corporatists. "Too big to fail" has been a product of both parties, not just one or the other, and it is the "little people" like you and me who are paying the price for that folly.

I believe that if we don't get term limits passed for both Congress and the federal judiciary, we will see the end of the nation and a complete loss of our liberties in our lifetimes.......regardless of which party is in charge.

Etc., etc.

I am currently reading a biographical trilogy on the life of Winston Churchill with the master title of "The Last Lion", and boy howdy......if you want to see a perfect example of the two adages that "the more things change, the more they remain the same", and "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them", I cannot recommend those books highly enough. Here is a great quote from that book. The year is 1922, and the place is London, England. Churchill has just succeeded as Colonial Minister in founding the Irish Free State in Southern Ireland, and Lloyd George is still Prime Minister:

Critics of the prime minister were appearing on all sides, partly because he had unwisely abandoned the custom of consulting Parliament before taking action. Harold Laski wrote: “He seems determined to sacrifice upon the altar of his private ambition the whole spirit of our public life.” The Times declared that the word of England had “lost currency throughout the greater part of the world as the word of an upright land.” Francis Williams observed that the coalition had “produced at the centre an atmosphere more like an oriental court at which favourites struggled unceasingly for position than anything seen in Britain for a century or more.” It moved Sir Edward Grey “to indignation and despair such as I have never felt about any other British Government.” After a weekend with Lloyd George, Austen Chamberlain, and Birkenhead, Arnold Bennett noted: “I never heard principles or the welfare of the country mentioned.” Leo Amery later recalled that Conservatives “felt that they no longer had any policy of their own, but were being dragged along in the wake of an erratic Prime Minister whom they once again profoundly distrusted, by a little group of their own leaders who had lost, not only their principles, but their heads.”

[emphasis mine]

It is my observation that the part I have emphasized would be true today for large swaths of both major parties, which explains both the astounding degree of success Bernie Sanders enjoyed this year, and Donald Trump's candidacy. Back during the 21 years when I was a registered democrat, an openly avowed socialist would have never been well-received by the party. Socialism was one of the "3rd rails" of politics. Most of the party's "social justice" schemes were socialist in nature - i.e. LBJ's great society, FDR's "new deal" - but the party was canny enough to label them otherwise, knowing that the voting public would never willingly swallow socialism if it was sold as socialism. Bernie Sanders is proof positive that nearly half of the party today will openly proclaim it for what it is........and happily vote for it. How different from JFK, who was a rabid anti-communist and extremely mistrustful of socialism.

It used to be that there were enough elected democrats firmly ensconced in the pro-2nd Amendment camp that our gun rights were reasonably secure. I say "reasonably", because there's always going to be some nut burger who believes the populace ought to be disarmed.......but those nut burgers did not hold a majority opinion in the matter. Nevertheless, the GCA of 1968 was passed and signed into law by LBJ, and ironically, it was officially supported by the NRA (of which I am an endowment member), and equally ironically, it was passed in response to the assassination of JFK, who was a life member of the NRA.

So, Donald Trump has made certain promises about his support of the RKBA, and to appoint SCOTUS justices in the Scalia mold. IF he gets my vote, it will be for that reason, and that reason alone. But the big question is this: given his track record over the course of his life prior to this election season, and given his track record of having a chameleon nature, and given his support in previous years for the AWB of 1993 and other gun-control measures, can he be relied upon to fulfill his promises?

That is a huge unknown. This is why, even though I might vote for him based on protecting the second amendment, I still struggle today over the decision. I know exactly how I would feel if he turned out to be a liar on that score. I am fairly certain that the nation would experience an upheaval not seen since the Civil War years. Electing Clinton would only hasten that. So EVERTYHING depends on Trump becoming (suddenly) a man of his word. It's not a comfortable place to be.

[Bitter Clinger]

Oh I understand now, you're an electrical engineer....that explains everything!

hhhmmmm....yes, that might explain the "fuzzy logic"!