Christian Forums

I was checking the news at 11 pm and even thought Trump was ahead they couldnt admit Kamala Harris was losing the election. I fell asleep and woke up later and still they wouldnt allow that Kamala Harris couldnt find a way to win, and when I woke up at 5 am they were still at it, with eyes heavy with sleep and slurred speech they still tried to keep up a pretense that she had a chance.

It doesnt look like they will ever be able to accept another Trump presidency if they cant even admit what the truth of the matter right before their very eyes..

"Opinion: Trump wins again. Will Democrats now practice what they've preached on democracy?

The Democratic Party can only blame itself for the outcome of this election. A stronger, more thoroughly vetted candidate than Kamala Harris could have likely defeated Donald Trump.

I will never forget the shock I felt late on Election Day 2016, when it started to look like Donald Trump would pull off a longshot victory over Hillary Clinton.
In the early morning hours of the next day, it became clear Trump had sealed the deal.
And now, he's done it again.

Kudos to the president on his victory.

While I have concerns about how Trump will begin his second term in office, including whether he'll be able to bring together a strong Cabinet and top-notch advisers, I have an even more pressing worry:

Whether Democrats will accept the results of this election and come to terms with Trump as president.... "

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/11/06/trump-wins-2024-election-results/75893069007/

And the shocked media reaction...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinion-no-election-day-result-but-heavy-trump-vote-shows-america-has-already-lost/ar-AA1tAHUt?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Without a doubt in my mind he will lead magnificently. I have strong doubts that the Left will take this "graciously". I think the next few weeks until inauguration will be interesting, to say the least. They will not go quietly into this good night.

If I were him, I would immediately overhaul the Secret Service, to enable them to actually help prevent future assassination attempts. Which I tend to doubt, are over.

Quote from: Jaime on Wed Nov 06, 2024 - 08:01:28Without a doubt in my mind he will lead magnificently. I have strong doubts that the Left will take this "graciously". I think the next few weeks until inauguration will be interesting, to say the least. They will not go quietly into this good night.

If I were him I would try to get Dan Bongino as Secret Service head.

Quote from: Hobie on Wed Nov 06, 2024 - 05:52:34The Democratic Party can only blame itself for the outcome of this election. A stronger, more thoroughly vetted candidate than Kamala Harris could have likely defeated Donald Trump.

This right here.

They literally had a candidate in the primary who would have beaten both Biden and won the general election.  Instead they chose to sue the crap out of him and force him out of the primary, eventually persecuting him so much that he endorsed Trump.

Then they had Biden go flop in a debate, and replaced him with Harris without any kind of vote whatsoever.

They then paired their far-left presidential candidate with an even-farther-left VP in Walz.  And then they tried to court the voters in the center?

Their campaign was a s***show.

Quote from: Amo on Wed Nov 06, 2024 - 08:21:01If I were him, I would immediately overhaul the Secret Service, to enable them to actually help prevent future assassination attempts. Which I tend to doubt, are over.

Quote from: Jaime on Wed Nov 06, 2024 - 09:27:08If I were him I would try to get Dan Bongino as Secret Service head.

Excellent

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Nov 06, 2024 - 10:19:10This right here.

They literally had a candidate in the primary who would have beaten both Biden and won the general election.  Instead they chose to sue the crap out of him and force him out of the primary, eventually persecuting him so much that he endorsed Trump.

Then they had Biden go flop in a debate, and replaced him with Harris without any kind of vote whatsoever.

They then paired their far-left presidential candidate with an even-farther-left VP in Walz.  And then they tried to court the voters in the center?

Their campaign was a s***show.

True

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Nov 06, 2024 - 10:19:10This right here.

They literally had a candidate in the primary who would have beaten both Biden and won the general election.  Instead they chose to sue the crap out of him and force him out of the primary, eventually persecuting him so much that he endorsed Trump.

They beat him down and forced him out because - like Trump - he can't be  easily manipulated and coerced to do what they want. They wanted Kamala for the same reason they wanted Joe. They're weak, so they can easily be manipulated by their political machine.
Liberals don't care if their leader is weak as long as the machine keeps running and moving left.

The Democrat party is defined by the most radical in the party. No serious old school Democrat voter even recognizes their party if they were honest. Same is true with the GOP as co-conspirators in the Establishment Party with Democrats. This Uniparty (especially the RINOs) is the very genesis of the Trump phenomenon. No where else to search for the blame of that than the spineless RINO sect of the Uniparty.

I recently watched the Reagan movie and I was reminded that Reagan was a rebellious spirit like Trump. Reagan (aka Ronnie Raygun of SDI fame) was considered a buffoon B movie actor that was likely to start WWIII, but proved to be a great President. The Left these days is MUCH bolder and determined than the opposition that Reagan faced. A metastasized evil in my opinion. AND intent to put forth the worst possible ticket against Trump this time around.
 

So would you call this a divine retribution for the Democrats stand on LGBTQIA2S, and atheistic ideology?

Quote from: Hobie on Thu Nov 07, 2024 - 06:06:00So would you call this a divine retribution for the Democrats stand on LGBTQIA2S, and atheistic ideology?

Not necessarily retribution.

But I am one of many who said Trump was saved by God from death in the Butler shooting.

And it was for a reason.

I don't know if this defeat was divine retribution or not. I think it was due mainly from the Democrats picking the worst possible ticket they could after throwing Biden under then bus, who was undeniably impaired even before the 2020 election. For a major party to pick someone like Kamala to run against anyone is a puzzle, but to pair her with someone like Tim Walz is inexplicable. It's like there was a meeting of the Democrat brain trust and the decision was, "Let's make sure Trump is elected for the second time." Inconceivable! 🤓

Maybe it was so they could jail Trump as a sitting President for the sake of the spectacle itself. At any rate we haven't seen the last of the Democrsts Lawfare! Especially from now to January 20th.

Quote from: Rella on Thu Nov 07, 2024 - 06:23:10Not necessarily retribution.

But I am one of many who said Trump was saved by God from death in the Butler shooting.

And it was for a reason.

I agree.

Quote from: Hobie on Wed Nov 06, 2024 - 05:52:34I was checking the news at 11 pm and even thought Trump was ahead they couldnt admit Kamala Harris was losing the election. I fell asleep and woke up later and still they wouldnt allow that Kamala Harris couldnt find a way to win, and when I woke up at 5 am they were still at it, with eyes heavy with sleep and slurred speech they still tried to keep up a pretense that she had a chance.

It doesnt look like they will ever be able to accept another Trump presidency if they cant even admit what the truth of the matter right before their very eyes..

"Opinion: Trump wins again. Will Democrats now practice what they've preached on democracy?

The Democratic Party can only blame itself for the outcome of this election. A stronger, more thoroughly vetted candidate than Kamala Harris could have likely defeated Donald Trump.

I will never forget the shock I felt late on Election Day 2016, when it started to look like Donald Trump would pull off a longshot victory over Hillary Clinton.
In the early morning hours of the next day, it became clear Trump had sealed the deal.
And now, he's done it again.

Kudos to the president on his victory.

While I have concerns about how Trump will begin his second term in office, including whether he'll be able to bring together a strong Cabinet and top-notch advisers, I have an even more pressing worry:

Whether Democrats will accept the results of this election and come to terms with Trump as president.... "

I'm reminded of the cyclical nature of power and the importance of humility in leadership. Our faith teaches us to accept God's will, even when it doesn't align with our personal desires. This election result, while surprising to many, is now a reality we must all come to terms with.

What we're witnessing is a classic case of cognitive dissonance among many Democrats and media figures. Their deeply held beliefs about the inevitability of their candidate's victory are clashing with the reality of the election results. This dissonance can lead to denial, anger, and a refusal to accept facts that contradict one's worldview.

The inability of some to acknowledge Kamala Harris's defeat, even as the evidence mounted, speaks to the power of confirmation bias and the echo chambers we often find ourselves in. It's a stark reminder of how our perceptions can be clouded by our desires and expectations.

As for the future, I worry about the potential for further division in our nation. The author's concern about Democrats accepting the results is valid. Our democracy depends on the peaceful transition of power and the acceptance of electoral outcomes, even when they're not what we hoped for.

In times like these, I'm reminded of St. Augustine's words on the City of God and the City of Man. We must strive to be good citizens of both, accepting earthly authority while keeping our eyes on higher truths.

Let us pray for wisdom, healing, and unity for our nation. May we all find the grace to accept this outcome and work together for the common good.

Quote from: Amo on Wed Nov 06, 2024 - 08:21:01If I were him, I would immediately overhaul the Secret Service, to enable them to actually help prevent future assassination attempts. Which I tend to doubt, are over.

The amount of security at an evident for a Presidential candidate was pitiful. Someone should be fired immediately. 

QuoteIn times like these, I'm reminded of St. Augustine's words on the City of God and the City of Man. We must strive to be good citizens of both, accepting earthly authority while keeping our eyes on higher truths.

Let us pray for wisdom, healing, and unity for our nation. May we all find the grace to accept this outcome and work together for the common good.

Act 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Quote

Chapter 11

A Voice From the Recent Past Concerning the Common Good


The Only Path To Tomorrow
Ayn Rand

Readers Digest, January 1944, pp. 88-90

The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called ``the common good.´´

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing ``the common good.´´ Napoleon ``served the common good´´ of France. Hitler is ``serving the common good´´ of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by ``altruists´´ who justify themselves by-the common good.

No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.

This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a clear consistent faith.
 
We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the common good is served by the abolition of individual rights. General happiness cannot be created out of general suffering and self-immolation. The only happy society is one of happy individuals. One cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees.

The power of society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable rights of the individual.

The right of liberty means man's right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.

The right to the pursuit of happiness means man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement. Each individual is the sole and final judge in this choice. A man's happiness cannot be prescribed to him by another man or by any number of other men.

These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual possession of every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and requiring no other sanction. Such was the conception of the founders of our country, who placed individual rights above any and all collective claims. Society can only be a traffic policeman in the intercourse of men with one another.

From the beginning of history, two antagonists have stood face to face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the individualist. His basic need is independence — in order to think and work. He neither needs nor seeks power over other men — nor can he be made to work under any form of compulsion. Every type of good work — from laying bricks to writing a symphony — is done by the Active Man. Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man's independence and initiative determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man.

The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative.

When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the Passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human progress.

Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for the incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the Active. But the Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is destroyed, the destruction of the Passive Man follows automatically. So if pity is the humanitarians' first consideration, then in the name of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man free to function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help him in the long run.

The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the Active Man and the Passive, between the individual and the collective. The countries which have produced the happiest men, the highest standards of living and the greatest cultural advances have been the countries where the power of the collective — of the government, of the state — was limited and the individual was given freedom of independent action. As examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception of law based on a citizen's rights, over the collectivist barbarism of its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based on the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of the United States to a degree of achievement unequaled in history — by grace of the individual freedom and independence which our Constitution gave each citizen against the collective.

While men are still pondering upon the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, every page of history cries to us that there is but one source of progress: Individual Man in independent action. Collectivism is the ancient principle of savagery. A savage's whole existence is ruled by the leaders of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

We are now facing a choice: to go forward or to go back.

Collectivism is not the ``New Order of Tomorrow.´´ It is the order of a very dark yesterday. But there is a New Order of Tomorrow. It belongs to Individual Man — the only creator of any tomorrows humanity has ever been granted. (Readers Digest, January 1944, pp. 88-90)

While the author of the above article was certainly not a Christian by any means, the truth embodied in the above article should not be denied by anyone who is. As it will be found in later chapters examining Protestant thought in relation to government and the founding of this nation, her thoughts concerning individualism were certainly not original or new. Though without question her views came from a different perspective, their motive was much the same as that of the Reformers, a reaction and observation in relation to experiential knowledge of abusive government. Hers at the hands of Communistic collectivism, and theirs at the hands for the most part of heavily Roman Catholic imbibed Feudalism. As the above author mentioned Hitler as one proposing the establishment of the common good, the above article itself being written in 1944, the following is his twenty fifth point, of the 25 Points of the Nazi Party.

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.
 
The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

Quote from: Jaime on Wed Nov 06, 2024 - 08:01:28Without a doubt in my mind he will lead magnificently. I have strong doubts that the Left will take this "graciously". I think the next few weeks until inauguration will be interesting, to say the least. They will not go quietly into this good night.

This morning Kathy Hockel from New York and Gavin Newsome from CA are planning to make their states Trump proof.

And Chicago is going to not go quietly into the future.

Does this mean that whatever Federal aid for those places can be withheld?