Well, my NFL favorites prediction was actually extremely accurate, only the Buffalo Bills lost straight-up (and they only lost by a single point on a late touchdown) and favorites were 8-5 against the spread. Though I'm not trying to toot my horn or something silly like that, especially since I had my worst week of the season last week. And I apologize for not getting this out before, I was running into some technical difficulties.
Presidential Race
Unemployment 'below' 8%
You can color me unsurprised that jobs were 'below' 8% for the first time in 40 months. I've thought for a couple of months that jobs would be below 8% starting around August or September, so while I was off a little, I was still pretty close. The reasons for thinking such was because 1. More people would give up hope of finding a job. And 2. Because I thought that the last stimulus package had some little 'presents' that wouldn't be opened until a few months from the election.
You can color me unsurprised that jobs were 'below' 8% for the first time in 40 months. I've thought for a couple of months that jobs would be below 8% starting around August or September, so while I was off a little, I was still pretty close. The reasons for thinking such was because 1. More people would give up hope of finding a job. And 2. Because I thought that the last stimulus package had some little 'presents' that wouldn't be opened until a few months from the election.
Debates
I thought the debates were extremely predictable. The first debate was about the $, the second was about being competitive, and the third was about a second term.
I thought the debates were extremely predictable. The first debate was about the $, the second was about being competitive, and the third was about a second term.
Is it a sin to vote for Obama?
It has been said that it is a sin to vote for Barack Obama, because of all the evil he has helped to facilitate.. But if I were to grant their point, then isn't voting for Romney a sin too, if Romney's track-record is just as bad as Obama's?
It has been said that it is a sin to vote for Barack Obama, because of all the evil he has helped to facilitate.. But if I were to grant their point, then isn't voting for Romney a sin too, if Romney's track-record is just as bad as Obama's?
Saying that it is a sin to vote for someone is interesting.. I guess I would tend to agree with them that voting for a candidate who supports evil is a sin. But at the same time, I hope they realize that every candidate (and person) is evil, so in a vague and literal sense they are voting for evil no matter the candidate. (So in a sense you could actually truthfully say that every presidential choice is a choice between the 'lesser' of two [or more] evils)
Trying to infer political verses in the Bible
(And I'll say up front that it's a vaguely dangerous thing to try and infer political things into the Bible, but I wanted to incorporate some Bible verses in my discussion.)
I think it could be said that Christians in the Republican party like to follow the verse, Luke 6:29, "If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also." In my opinion, Luke 6:29a is largely referring to religious persecution. If a person suffers religious persecution, then they should be willing to suffer more. (Mainly spiritual abuse, not necessarily literal physical abuse [at least in this part of the world]) And Luke 6:29B, is largely saying that we should not want revenge on an enemy, but instead offer our enemies love and give them even more than for what they asked. I think that Luke 6:29 can generally be applied on an individual level, but not really on a political or national level.
In the OT when Israel would be invaded, would God tell Isreal, "You Israelites constantly sin, I'm not even sure why I set you up as a nation.. When the Philistines (or whoever) come to attack Jerusalem, let them take it. Don't put up a fight. Give them anything and everything that they want." Is that what God would do? No. He would have the Israelites face insanely tough odds, and yet beat the pulp out of their enemy. (And I'm not trying to say that God is endorsing creating some sort of righteous third party, or that God blesses America more than any other country, I'm just saying that just because evil has the apparent upper-hand doesn't have to insinuate a compromise by the righteous.)
(And I'll say up front that it's a vaguely dangerous thing to try and infer political things into the Bible, but I wanted to incorporate some Bible verses in my discussion.)
I think it could be said that Christians in the Republican party like to follow the verse, Luke 6:29, "If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also." In my opinion, Luke 6:29a is largely referring to religious persecution. If a person suffers religious persecution, then they should be willing to suffer more. (Mainly spiritual abuse, not necessarily literal physical abuse [at least in this part of the world]) And Luke 6:29B, is largely saying that we should not want revenge on an enemy, but instead offer our enemies love and give them even more than for what they asked. I think that Luke 6:29 can generally be applied on an individual level, but not really on a political or national level.
In the OT when Israel would be invaded, would God tell Isreal, "You Israelites constantly sin, I'm not even sure why I set you up as a nation.. When the Philistines (or whoever) come to attack Jerusalem, let them take it. Don't put up a fight. Give them anything and everything that they want." Is that what God would do? No. He would have the Israelites face insanely tough odds, and yet beat the pulp out of their enemy. (And I'm not trying to say that God is endorsing creating some sort of righteous third party, or that God blesses America more than any other country, I'm just saying that just because evil has the apparent upper-hand doesn't have to insinuate a compromise by the righteous.)
We will never create a heaven on earth, but that doesn't mean we can just lay down to evil. Instead of trying to apply Luke 6:29 to their political thoughts, I would like Christians to try and apply the following verses: "Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults." 1st Corinthians 14:20, "Make sure that nobody pays back evil for evil, but always strive to do what is good for each other and for everyone else." 1st Thessalonians 5 and then also verses 21b-22 "Hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil."
While these verses don't apply perfectly, I think they apply fairly well to a Christian's political life. We should hold on to what is good and reject every kind of evil. A political party should be striving for good not accepting evil. We should not think like children in politics, but as adults. We don't need to somehow twist our political lives into something different than the rest of our life.
Perspective
130 years from now, barring some various things, the political issues of the day won't matter at all to us (though politics will probably still matter to our great-grandchildren), and we'll discern that only our' belief in Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and God's grace were the reasons for our salvation. And while hopefully the political things which we participated in during our lifetimes were 'good works', they did not matter to the final result of our eternal salvation.
130 years from now, barring some various things, the political issues of the day won't matter at all to us (though politics will probably still matter to our great-grandchildren), and we'll discern that only our' belief in Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and God's grace were the reasons for our salvation. And while hopefully the political things which we participated in during our lifetimes were 'good works', they did not matter to the final result of our eternal salvation.
Current Alternatives To These Two Guys...
 |
| We have done our compromising to evil and look where it has gotten us, atrocious and open depravity along with thousands of deaths every single day. |
Foreign policy
Foreign policy is a very interesting little conundrum. As a Christian, if there is a dictator who is butchering hundreds of his citizens each day, then I would have a very hard time not intervening. But, as a non-interventionist/Mayberriate, by stopping said-brutality I will likely be endangering American men and women. So I am not really convinced as to which choice is right.
Foreign policy is a very interesting little conundrum. As a Christian, if there is a dictator who is butchering hundreds of his citizens each day, then I would have a very hard time not intervening. But, as a non-interventionist/Mayberriate, by stopping said-brutality I will likely be endangering American men and women. So I am not really convinced as to which choice is right.
Abortion/'Gay Marriage'
In a way this is the same problem as before, only this time the policy is only affecting those in America, so I am sure Congressman Paul is in the wrong. It appears that Ron Paul believes that humans are basically good, or, at the very least, the government shouldn't interfere and Americans should be able to make their own decisions. While the second belief isn't entirely wrong, it is misguided.
In a way this is the same problem as before, only this time the policy is only affecting those in America, so I am sure Congressman Paul is in the wrong. It appears that Ron Paul believes that humans are basically good, or, at the very least, the government shouldn't interfere and Americans should be able to make their own decisions. While the second belief isn't entirely wrong, it is misguided.
What is the government's role?
Effectively speaking, the government's role is to persecute evil and uphold righteousness. Paul's position on Abortion/'Gay Marriage' is to downgrade the choice from a national issue to a state issue. This punting of important issues is a serious FAIL. In my humble opinion, 'downgrading' the choice is (at best) a Pontius Pilate washing of the hands on the issues. Simply regulating evil to a state-level doesn't solve anything. If a child is allowed to be murdered by the state instead of the national government, then he or she is not any less dead.
Question here.. Why should the regulation stop at the state level? Why not district? Why not county? Why not town? Heck, why not person? Oh, that's right, there's no good answer for that.. Because, (according to Doctor Paul) all of this simply boils down to each individual having a 'right' to do evil lawfully.
Effectively speaking, the government's role is to persecute evil and uphold righteousness. Paul's position on Abortion/'Gay Marriage' is to downgrade the choice from a national issue to a state issue. This punting of important issues is a serious FAIL. In my humble opinion, 'downgrading' the choice is (at best) a Pontius Pilate washing of the hands on the issues. Simply regulating evil to a state-level doesn't solve anything. If a child is allowed to be murdered by the state instead of the national government, then he or she is not any less dead.
Question here.. Why should the regulation stop at the state level? Why not district? Why not county? Why not town? Heck, why not person? Oh, that's right, there's no good answer for that.. Because, (according to Doctor Paul) all of this simply boils down to each individual having a 'right' to do evil lawfully.
While foreign policy is rarely a huge deal-breaker in voting (for me), Abortion most definitely is. Abortion and God's definition of marriage are (effectively) both non-negotiables for me. So... on the bright side I won't actually be forced to vote for Paul, since I'm (technically speaking) not eligible to vote. However on the downside, A. I'm not able to vote, and B. It would be a somewhat hard pill to swallow, but I think I would be willing to compromise slightly on my principles and vote for Ron Paul. Why? Because, in his Congressional voting history he has been extremely pro-life. And if the Congress went crazy and voted for a pro-life bill, then I'm (obviously) all-but positive that he would vote for it.
An aside, that kind of deals with that..
Would you vote to regulate murder?
If I was a Congressman, and my vote would be the deciding vote in a bill that would regulate abortion to only in the cases of rape and incest, I would have an insanely, insanely hard time not voting in favor of the bill. In regulating abortion. Regulating murder.
If I was a Congressman, and my vote would be the deciding vote in a bill that would regulate abortion to only in the cases of rape and incest, I would have an insanely, insanely hard time not voting in favor of the bill. In regulating abortion. Regulating murder.
I would be responsible for saving millions of children, sure, but I would also be responsible for killing thousands of children. But, they were just going to die anyways, right? Well.... Yes. But, my vote still doesn't match-up to the Bible. To God. And you do not argue with God. And yet.. I honestly don't know what should be done in that situation.
Now that I have said most of our differences, I'll move on to some things I really like about Ron Paul. One of the best compliments I can give him: He and his supporters aren't here to get a seat at the political table... They're here to smash the table. He doesn't buy into the zombified partyline lie: Republicans good, Democrats bad, or vice versa. Along the same lines, another good thing about him is that he is kind of a ctrl-alt-delete candidate who isn't afraid to upset anyone. And lastly, his economic and monetary policies are some of the (if not the) best out there.
Both the abused and the Christian constituency are dealing with an insanity complex.
(And I'm not trying to be too blunt or rude to either 'person', but sometimes the truth hurts.)
The abused often goes back to the abuser, because they think they are unable to make it without them and they think that someday the abuser will change. And applying that to the Republican Party.. How often does that 'someday' actually come for the abuser or the Republican Party? Almost never.
The Christian constituency of the Republican party thinks that a third party would have absolutely no legitimacy and so they simply toss their vote to the lukewarm 'conservative'. What's the definition of insanity? Why do 'we' keep nominating lukewarm Republicrats and then expect them to be conservative if they get into office? We think that creating a new party would be too hard. We lose before we even try. While we are mired in our complacency and stupidity, evil reigns, men and women commit atrocities, and babies are murdered. We have fought the war of compromises and WE HAVE LOST. And even though we have lost, we refuse to change our tactics. We try our compromising, we try our incrementalism, and we get the taste of defeat over and over again.
(And I'm not trying to be too blunt or rude to either 'person', but sometimes the truth hurts.)
The abused often goes back to the abuser, because they think they are unable to make it without them and they think that someday the abuser will change. And applying that to the Republican Party.. How often does that 'someday' actually come for the abuser or the Republican Party? Almost never.
The Christian constituency of the Republican party thinks that a third party would have absolutely no legitimacy and so they simply toss their vote to the lukewarm 'conservative'. What's the definition of insanity? Why do 'we' keep nominating lukewarm Republicrats and then expect them to be conservative if they get into office? We think that creating a new party would be too hard. We lose before we even try. While we are mired in our complacency and stupidity, evil reigns, men and women commit atrocities, and babies are murdered. We have fought the war of compromises and WE HAVE LOST. And even though we have lost, we refuse to change our tactics. We try our compromising, we try our incrementalism, and we get the taste of defeat over and over again.
Fingerprints
I know for sure that, one way or another, my fingerprints won't be on either candidate for the presidency, at least directly. If you feel that voting for the 'lesser' of two evils is the way to go, then have fun with your affirmation of that candidate and their policies. If you like the way a sheep looks more than a wolf, then feel free to vote for the wolf in sheep's clothing, rather than the wolf. Only know this--compromising with evil does NOT work. Why do Christians think that we need to compromise with evil? (to repeat) We will never create a heaven on earth, but that doesn't mean we just lay down to evil. Evil is evil. It doesn't matter what realm evil is in, or how much lipstick is applied to it. It is still evil. It doesn't matter whether evil is perpetuated by an individual or by the policies of a political party. Say it with me now, evil is evil.
Separation of politics and Christianity. The Invisible Separating Wall.
Some Christians think that politics is somehow a 4 letter word that must be avoided. They think that there is some sort of invisible line between politics and being a Christian. Some Christians are afraid of politics. They think that politics is better left to the world, and it doesn't really matter who wins, since God is in control anyways. And I will say that while nothing happens in the world that God doesn't allow, that doesn't actually mean that God makes things go His way.
The spiritual is most-definitely more important than the political, but that doesn't mean you can't try to have both. Really quick analogy here.. Let's say you have two children, and you have brought them up to be God-fearing Bible-believing Christians. And then let's say that you don't care what kind of friends they have, whether or not they'll be able to find someone to marry, when they will die, and what kind of neighborhood they will live in, etc. Don't you find that somewhat asinine?
Future Alternatives
Here are the Republican nominees for President in the last 60 years: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.
That's quite a list. Not exactly bastions of conservatism. Who stands out? I would say Ronald Reagan (his first term). With the possible exception of parts of Reagan's first term, they all largely implemented liberal policies. (Though admittedly I know basically nothing about what Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole supported) (So with that possible exception also taken out..) If you would have any of those Republican candidates run with a 'D' instead of an 'R', would anyone really know the difference?
Maybe it's just a rumor, but I think there's this thing called a primary. While it wouldn't be easy, I think that the best looking possibility right now is to forget this facade called the Republican Party and start a new political party.
A good baseline on deciding whether or not to vote for any candidate
If a candidate or political party won't defend those who are innocent.. the indefensible.., then what in the world will he or she defend? It's easy to tell that America is in a sad state when a person can't defend the innocent without being viewed as the antagonist, while the murderer is viewed as the victim.
Predictions
Best case scenario
Each House and Senate seat goes to the Republicans, marriage wins in each of the four states, Obama and Romney each get 269 electoral delegates, and (I forget if this can actually happen or not) the Congress ends up picking Ron Paul to be the President, and if not, then they can pick Santorum-Biden... Okay, okay, that wasn't very realistic.
Very optimistic best case scenario
Obama or Romney wins the presidency (it's kind of irrelevant who is actually in the White House), but the 'R's' tie the Democrats in the Senate, 50 seats to '49', the 'R's' get a larger lead in the House 250-185, all 4 'gay marriage' initiatives are passed in favor of marriage, the 'R's win a good majority of state wide seats. Then the House Republicans get a spine, eliminate the funding to ObamneyCare, terminate the past, present, and future 'executive orders', invalidate judicial activism, which in turn leads to the annihilation of Roe vs Wade and various other 'legislative' decisions by judges, so the 'law' defaults to something called the Constitution, and abortion is thus outlawed. Yeah, maybe my glasses still had just a tinge too much of rose in them.., especially considering that sticking up for good would require Republicans to actually show leadership and principles, which is something that very few of them actually have.
Likely best case scenario
The beginning of the previous scenario, but ending at 'Republicans get a spine'. In this scenario the Republicans in the House simply shut down the funding to the government. Take a principled stand, Republicans. It's not exactly very complicated. Simply, shut it down. I think this actually has a chance of happening, around a 20% possibility, so this is the first scenario that could actually possibly happen.
What I think will happen
Romney 49.8%, Obama 48.5%, Others 1.7%. Marriage wins in Minnesota, Maryland, and Maine, but, thanks to being outspent 120-1, loses 52% to 48% in Washington. Unlike 2008, when African Americans voted for Obama over 95% of the time, Obama doesn't even garner 90% of the black vote in 2012. The election isn't 'decided' until 3 a.m. on November 7th. The Republicans make small gains in the House 240-195, and Senate 48-'51'. As for the Electoral college, Obama wins 281-257. Effectively speaking, Obama and Romney are likely running to be president of Ohio, because the presidency will likely hinge on Ohio. If Ohio goes to Obama, he probably wins, if it goes to Romney, then it's quite possible that he will win.
Predictions for the next four years
I'm going to randomly guess that the fear-mongers who think that America will collapse with another term of Obama and that Americans will have trouble simply surviving, much less prospering, will be wrong. And I'll also guess that those who think we can simply put evil+incompetence together and it will somehow = economic prosperity, will be extremely wrong as well.
No matter who is elected I would tend to guess that over the next 4 years the DOW J will dip to 12,250, 'real' unemployment goes to around 19% (it's at 14.6% right not), inflation will be viewed as a large problem in the US (which admittedly could/would curtail or eliminate my DOW J prediction), the world suffers general economic difficulty, another 5 million babies are murdered, and an Iranian conflict nearly escalates into a 'minor' nuclear war.
Eventually the kicking-down-the-road of problems will snowball into a problem that will basically envelop America. And while America will quite possibly suffer some of my above predictions, I don't think that the majority of America's problems will catch up to America in the next 4 years. But, please remember that no matter the economy, the politics, or the regime president over the next 4 years, the True King is still alive and always shall be.
Psalm 27:1 “The Lord is my light and my salvation—whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life—of whom shall I be afraid?”
John 15:18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me first.”
Hebrews 4:16 “Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”
