debisimons

So I couldn’t resist including her article, sort of a re-visit of my own post about “it might have been!” She sets out in depth and detail how four actually talented Republican candidates would have taken Clinton apart in Monday’s debate.  How I’d love to have the privilege of voting for one of them! (I know, I know. I said yesterday’s post was the last one on the debate. But this is a horse of sort of a different color.)

“Imagine If Republicans Hadn’t Lost Their Minds”

“Donald Trump’s Rise Reflects American Conservatism’s Decay“

Takeaway line from this excellent article::
Hillary Clinton may have offered little sense of humility, of obligation, of responsibility in Hempstead, but it was Donald Trump who directly rejected those virtues, reframing them instead as vices. He painted altruism as a sucker’s game, and left sacrifice for the losers. It was a performance that made clear one broader meaning of his candidacy—the eclipse of the values that long defined America.

Read the article in its entirety here:
“America’s First Post-Christian Debate“

My prediction? Trump will try to weasel out of the remaining two debates. He has to know that his performance last night was an unmitigated disaster. He was unprepared and floundering, spouting various bits and pieces that sometimes hit his target (as in his remarks about Clinton’s support of the TPP or his challenge about her e-mails) but which he then utterly failed to follow up. You can disagree with every single one of Clinton’s policies and positions and still say, “We can’t have this childish, pouting, rude, ignorant man sitting in the White House.”

I’ll end with a little shout-out to Ted Cruz, who got booed on the floor for his speech last night in which he refused to endorse Trump.  What a great honor!  Of course one must say that he’s probably being purely pragmatic.  As I keep saying and saying, the only conservatives who will be left standing after this disastrous election will be the Trump holdouts.  (In “Beating the Saul Alinsky Dead Horse.”  Scroll to the bottom for this quote.)

We’ve never before seen a candidate who’s spent his life enriching himself at the expense of others. He’s the first candidate in our history to be a serial fabricator, making up things as he goes along. Even when he tells the truth, such as, “Barack Obama really was born in the U.S.,” he adds two lines, that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement, and that he finished it, even though when Barack Obama put out his birth certificate, he didn’t believe it. We’ve never had a candidate before who not just once, but twice in a thinly disguised way, has incited violence against an opponent. We’ve never had a candidate before who’s invited a hostile foreign power to meddle in American elections. We’ve never had a candidate before who’s threatened to start a war by blowing ships out of the water in the Persian Gulf if they come too close to us. We’ve never had a candidate before who has embraced as a role model a murderous, hostile foreign dictator. Given all of these exceptions that Donald Trump represents, he may well shatter patterns of history that have held for more than 150 years, lose this election even if the historical circumstances favor it.

If you are planning to vote for the man who fits the above description, here are my challenges to you:

1) Ask yourself whether or not the the professor’s words are accurate. Listen to your answer.

2) WATCH THE DEBATE TONIGHT. Try, as much as possible, to cast aside your partisanship and simply observe and evaluate. Remember the words of James 1:5: “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.” It is always appropriate to ask for the truth to be revealed.

God may indeed be planning to pour out His judgment on this nation by the election of Donald Trump, who is not a Cyrus figure but a Nebuchadnezzar one.

Here’s the entire article:

​“Trump Is Headed for a Win, Says Professor Who Has Predicted 30 Years of Presidential Outcomes Correctly”

Takeaway line: 

The candidates’ face time with him was unmerited and ill-advised, considering that Mr. Sissi, in addition to overseeing the extrajudicial killing or disappearance of thousands of Egyptians and the imprisonment of tens of thousands, has directed a vicious campaign against U.S. influence in his country. There was, however, a notable difference in the way that Mr. Trump and Ms. Clinton handled the strongman — one that reveals a substantive and important divide on foreign policy. 

Read the entire article here:

​“The Stark Difference between Trump’s and Clinton’s Meeting with a Dictator”