Friday, October 7, 2016

It Isn't Easy, But It's Easy

The attached video has a moral and religious theme.  That may be of interest to you, perhaps important.

Or perhaps not.  And that's okay.

If the topic is uninteresting to you, no problem.  Just skip over it and go to the next topic.


*Waits for the room to clear*


I don't like either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.  I've been listening to my conscience and thinking through which candidate I'll vote for, and it's been a challenge at times.  For a while, I toyed with voting for one of the alt candidates, but that would be wasting a vote and taking the easy way out of making a decision.

My indecision came to an unexpected end Tuesday while watching this video of Reverend John Lankeit delivering a sermon from the pulpit of Saints Simon and Jude Cathedral in Phoenix.


This means everything to me. Which I am moved to write about it. It may not mean a thing to you, we each have free will to think and believe as we have chosen.

I no longer have any question about which candidate will receive my vote, and why.


Lem said...

Well put. Thanks for posting MH.

Chip Ahoy said...

It is easy and it's still easy. Drudge is killing me today. Killing me, I tell you. Just as soon as he posts a seriously damaging entry on Trump he posts another seriously ridiculous damaging entry about Hillary's surpassingly rambunctious husband of convenience and of political ambition. Crazy season indeed. Even with all that, it's still easy.

And you know, I was under the misapprehension that Catholic services were more well attended. That's a rather sparse congregation. And he risks forfeiting his tax exemption given the absolute fierceness of the Left's aggravation with the church. He speaks plainly about an unacceptable party without mentioning the party but chastising if his congregation does not know which party he's speaking against.

Lastly, that is a strange segue from "would you kill someone if they came into your country illegally? Hold up your hand if you would. Praise to God none of you raised your hand. But one party does! Under one condition." Strangest segue to abortion that I've ever heard.

edutcher said...

The "seriously damaging entry on Trump" is 11 years old and contains nothing any guy who chases girls hasn't talked about, and the words so horrifying to the Beast are words a lot of women themselves use.

Especially feminists so this is hypocrisy on the half shell.

My guess is this was released to a) rattle Trump before the debate (good luck) and/or b) distract people from the "seriously ridiculous damaging entry about Hillary's" admission she's a two-faced liar incredibly detached and indifferent to the lives of ordinary people.


PS Presidential elections aren't (or shouldn't be) about whom one likes, but who's the best man.

MamaM said...

I don't need to watch. I took the "isidewith" poll two weeks ago and to my surprise found out I was 97% aligned with the candidate whose name came up as the match. Surprise is too mild a word. I was stunned actually, as I did not know I was that close on actual issues, having been distracted by the side energy and drama dominating this race.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

I am #NeverHillary...

rcommal said...

As for me, I am taking the very hardest decision way [for me], though--thanks be to God!--an unexpected advantage one presidential cycle later of moving from Iowa at the very worst time in many other ways [none having to do with political stuff]--has a silver lining: the "very hardest decision way" won't matter.

rcommal said...

First time in 37 years I'm letting myself off the hook (although, even so, I'll still be going to my local voting site, as I have, for whatever election, for whatever offices [including hyper-local], wherever I lived, no matter what, since I turned 18).

rcommal said...

@MamaM: When the "isidewith" first came out a while ago I took it for fun and texted it to my husband for fun. What startled both of us is when, a couple-so weeks ago, our son, age 16, homeschooled and yet also enrolled in an online, private, accredited, high school program, came to us and told us that as part of his 11th-grade government class he'd been directed to take (participate in) that quiz. (Not as part of his grade, btw.) He, too, like you,was surprised by the result (he ended up asking a whole lot of questions).

If you share your results, I might consider sharing his (assuming he gives permission, after he gets to see yours first).

rcommal said...

First time in 37 years I'm letting myself off the hook (although, even so, I'll still be going to my local voting site, as I have, for whatever election, for whatever offices [including hyper-local], wherever I lived, no matter what, since I turned 18).

To make it clear, in case I have not, I'm referring to that top-of-the-ticket thing, that whole national politics thing, in presidential-election years.

Here's my record, stated plain, in terms of that particular office, from then unto now:

1980: John Anderson, Patrick Lucey

1984: Walter Mondale, Geraldine Ferraro

1988: George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle

1992: Ross Perot, Admiral James Stockdale

1996: Bob Dole, Jack Kemp

2000: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney (to date, at the time, this was the closest call, but I made it; it was only right after 9/11 that I was sure that I'd made the right decision [even if by accident, mostly by instinct, informed by gut, not to mention lots of informed, studied interests pursued over decades])

2004: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney

2008: John McCain, Sarah Palin

2012: Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan

2016: Blank

rcommal said...

To be clear, by "Blank" I mean that I will be going to the polling site, I will be voting with regard to various offices, and I will be leaving blank that whole top "thang."

No more "sucking it up" for me.

AllenS said...

Taking the test, I side with Trump 97%. So, there.

rcommal said...

@AllenS, this one's for you:

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I took the test and I am 85% Trump and not too surprisingly 63% Johnson. Nevertheless, I must vote for Trump otherwise it will be Hillary. A Hillary presidency is to horrific to imagine.

Trump may be an imperfect candidate, a dope, a clod sometimes but he is not stupid and more importantly......he is not evil. Hillary is an evil evil person who will do lasting harm to us, to the world.

AllenS said...

People who find Trump's comments rough, have never been Army Paratroopers.

Michael Haz said...

From Franklin Graham: (emphasis mine)

The crude comments made by Donald J. Trump more than 11 years ago cannot be defended. But the godless progressive agenda of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton likewise cannot be defended. I am not endorsing any candidates in this election. I have said it throughout this presidential campaign, and I will say it again—both candidates are flawed. The only hope for the United States is God. Our nation’s many sins have permeated our society, leading us to where we are today. But as Christians we can’t back down from our responsibility to remain engaged in the politics of our nation. On November 8th we will all have a choice to make. The two candidates have very different visions for the future of America. The most important issue of this election is the Supreme Court. That impacts everything. There’s no question, Trump and Clinton scandals might be news for the moment, but who they appoint to the Supreme Court will remake the fabric of our society for our children and our grandchildren, for generations to come.

Michael Haz said...

Not voting for Donald Trump is a vote for Hillary Clinton, by the way.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

People who find Trump's comments rough, have never been Army Paratroopers.

LOL Allen. My first husband was a career Navy sailor. His best buddies were ex Marines and Army Airborne....All Vietnam Vets. After military service most went to work in the logging and construction industries. Some of our buddies were also in bike "clubs" at that time too. A rather rough bunch of 100% good hearted hard working guys....and gals.

Trump's comments pale in comparison to what was, then, everyday conversation. My language, too, can be pretty 'salty' if I'm not careful :-)

Crude talk can be offensive. I'm not defending Trump. Merely pointing out that talking like a longshoreman or construction crew member should not be the criterion for rejecting Trump in favor of Hillary. Sticks and stones.... words don't kill you. Hillary's actions will and HAVE killed people and will destroy us. Trump says "bad" things.....Hillary DOES bad things.

Only those who are already offended at the thought of Trump in general are offended by off the cuff and off record conversations between a couple of guys. Most people are ....ho hum....the guy talks like people they know or how they talk themselves.


rcommal said...

Not voting for Donald Trump is a vote for Hillary Clinton, by the way.

Sorry, Haz, that doesn't work for me anymore. God knows (as well as you) that I used to say the same thing, and by God I lived by that.

No more.

No more.

No. More.


I sucked it up and voted in '12 when a whole bunch of folks sat it out. Did the same in '08. And '10. and '14.

You say whatever it is that you want to say in terms of expectations of me, now. At this point, it's water over a duck's back. Too late.

Where were you, back when it mattered, in terms of challenging those whom, I have come to realize, were your own? No frickin' where. You didn't bother.

Now you wanna put the crap that is "Not voting for Donald Trump is a vote for Hillary Clinton, by the way" on the likes of me?

No way will I put with that. Shoving it right back atcha.

Neither President H. Clinton nor President Trump will be on my back.

Full stop.

rcommal said...

For the record, I say the same thing, with equal vehemence, to those who would have the temerity to say to me that not voting for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Donald Trump.

How much more clear to do I have to make it?

All of y'all: Go to hell.

Sixty Grit said...

We will go to hell once Mrs. Clinton is elected. Thank you for doing your part.

rcommal said...

Oh, Sixty Grit. The only thing you worry about is that your own old ass gets taken care of. Don't worry: Under either presidency, it will be.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The only thing you worry about is that your own old ass gets taken care of.

Speaking for myself, not Sixty, my ass is too old to worry about. The sand in my hourglass is closer to empty on the top. I'll get by because my time is shorter than longer her on this Earth. My worry is for my family, children and grandchildren and what kind of future they will have when Hillary and the progressive/socialist left gets to gut the Constitution, remove our liberties and freedoms, continue with common core that will dumb down the future youth and turn us into a socialist county run by crony capitalist whores.

We have seen our liberty and freedoms disappearing drip by drip and have let it happen so slowly that it is now apparent that there are a couple of paths we can take. One being the same corruption under Hillary who HAS a track record of evil and of corruption. The other being Trump who while not a perfect candidate or even a perfect man does not embody evil, corruption, greed and who I feel truly cares about the future of the country for HIS children and grandchildren.

Neither candidate would be ones that I would have preferred, but we are now faced with this (unpalatable to many) choice. You can chose not to chose. That is your prerogative, however, you must face the consequences of your non choice. Don't whine about it when your children and grandchildren are living under the thumb of a fascist oligarchy, which is exactly where we are headed with Hillary and the progressive leftists. Explain to your children how it was when we were free, how it could have been and why they are living the lives they are living and how YOU helped it to happen.

rcommal said...


I'm already facing the consequences of what the likes of you chose for my kid a while back.

Don't lecture me.

And, oh, by the way, I am not whining.

I'm objecting to your hectoring.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm already facing the consequences of what the likes of you chose for my kid a while back.

And you know how I have voted in the past and what I believe Talk about judgmental.

rcommal said...

DBQ: Oh, please.

AllenS said...

Well said, DBQ.

rcommal said...

Question Mark: Are you, DBQ, and AllenS, living where you're living on account of being across the street from the next generation up. In other words, are you living your lives not just about you, or not

rcommal said...

DBQ & AllenS:

You object to my so-called judgment.

ricpic said...

It helps to be historically literate. If you are the choice is easy. The French Revolution ushered Hillary's ancestors into power. They rejected God, rejected organized religion (obviously), rejected all the thousand ties and mutual obligations that made then and have always made societies organic and functional. I was going to say they rejected absolutes in favor of relativism but that's not entirely true. They passionately set out to impose absolute state supremacy over and against every other man-made institution, formal and informal. And it is important to never forget that the French Revolutionists IMMEDIATELY set about murdering "the enemy." French Revolution, Russian Revolution, the American Progressive Revolution that began with Woodrow Wilson expanded greatly under FDR and LBJ and reached its apogee (so far) with the coup of January 2009: the line leads directly to Hillary. They are all of a piece and they haver all been at war with tradition. How to put it more clearly: they have all been and always will be at war with RESTRAINT. Which is why they always plunge society into horrors unimaginable to the godfearing.

rcommal said...

Got it.

rcommal said...

Thanks for clarity.

rcommal said...

God Forbid that the likes of me ever be nearby.

MamaM said...

If you share your results, I might consider sharing his (assuming he gives permission, after he gets to see yours first).

rcommal, based on a history of reading comments posted by you, along with the current comments containing sweeping statements in this thread, I don't experience you as an open, sincere, or respectful commenter, and am not interested in sharing my results for your consideration.

rcommal said...


OK. Fair enough.

Thank you for stating it plainly.



Dust Bunny Queen said...

rcommel asked are we..... living where you're living on account of being across the street from the next generation up. In other words, are you living your lives not just about you, or not

What? That question makes no sense.

I live where I live because I like it, it isn't the city, the peace a quiet are soothing and I have lived here for the last 34 years. We live here because this is where my husband's work is located. My family, my daughter and her family, they live where they live because they like it, it is where their work is and it is close enough for visiting. Do I wish they were closer so we could spend more time together. Sure. They aren't....we aren't. SO we do the best and get together, skype, call and talk on the phone, share photos as often as we can. We go there more often because it is difficult to travel with little children and our work is more flexible.

Do we live for ourselves? What does that mean?

Was that what you are asking???

rcocean said...

If you don't vote for trump - you're voting for Hillary.

That's enough for me.

Rhythm and Balls said...

What a distraction. And how unhelpful. Do these yokels yammer and drone on about politics like this each time? Methinks a certain entity no longer has the same statist power it once had, and clearly misses.

Another Catholic, one certain Paul Ryan - says that women should be "revered." Seriously. Well, that sort of thinking probably goes back to Mary or whatever. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the backlash against Trump, that could lead to him totally spiralling down now, is the direct result of this thinking. Or non-thinking, as the case were.

So maybe Father Chrome Dome could go ahead and give us a homily on how women are gods and how Trump, having somehow "defiled" these gods, surely now deserves to lose.

These people just need to get out of politics. Not because they don't have a right to, but because they're so damned bad at it. If they weren't, the Catholic Church would be running the E.U. from the Vatican, instead of bureaucrats in Brussels doing the job.

Rhythm and Balls said...

California's not in play. And following this latest Lewinsky-ing of Trump, even less red and/or blue states will be.

So proceed as before. In a red or blue state, feel free to vote third party, it won't matter.

The only, and I repeat - ONLY - places in which "strategic voting" should EVER be requested of the public is in a purple state.

Anything more than that is just laziness and a refusal to make the politicians responsible for their coalitions. There is just no way in hell that anyone can justify making the people the segment to have to do this strategically. It's not their job, not their charge, not their role. If the duopoly's candidates aren't conservative or progressive or moderate enough and the fear a third party challenge, then that's the duopoly's problem.

Michael Haz said...

Sorry, Haz, that doesn't work for me anymore.

The math is not in question. A vote for someone who could defeat Hillary Clinton versus a vote for some doof in a minority party are two different things. One may lead to her defeat, the other is no more than a way for the indecisive to feel good about themselves.

rcommal said...

@haz: Yet, the question, in terms of conscience, still is in play. Is it not? I get it if you think that's no longer so; however, I think that you should get it if I do not.

rcommal said...

And. Not. or.

bagoh20 said...

There are people who are deeply offended by Trump, his positions, ideas, or statements. They may find him completely unacceptable as President. I completely get that, as I'm in that neighborhood myself. I think it is entirely appropriate to not vote for him, even if you find Hillary unacceptable as well. How can you support someone you find so dispicable, someone you think will be dangerous. It may happen anyway, but do you have to support it, or as Haz's pastor says, enable it.

I'm more of a pragmatist, but I can respect those who put principles above pragmatism, especially if their vote is nothing but symbolic as it is in California. Your vote won't count, so why cast one that violates your principles. I always vote as if it will count, but that is just a personal principle based on my feeling that it forces me to make a hard choice between two bad options, which is what all the tough choices of life are about. I'm not sure which position is more of a faith based one: that good will win out if I take a side or if I don't.

If it was between Stalin and Hitler, could you make a strong case to vote for either one? Some people see it that difficult.

rcommal said...

OK, Haz. I get it, that point of yours.

It bothers me, and make no mistake about that, to acknowledge that what I have to say matters not at all, much less that what I have done, especially in terms of our own little family, matters not all.

Hey, so it goes. Onward ho & etc.