Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

Are you struggling with the concept of choosing the lesser of two evils?

A friend shared this article with me. I am not big into the political scene going on right now, but this issue expands to much deeper things than even political, but for now, lets consider it politically.

Here is the article:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/trump-cli...s-foolishness/

And an excerpt:

In this broken world populated exclusively by deeply flawed people, including you and me, the plain truth is that we are required to choose between the lesser of two evils all the time.

Every time you swallow a medication that causes harmful side effects, you are embracing the lesser of two evils to prevent a greater one. If you attend Harvard or Yale, you choose to endure a nonstop gauntlet of far-left indoctrination, stifling political correctness and insane sexual anarchy, all to obtain an Ivy League education. If you’re a severe diabetic and your doctor says your foot has to be amputated to give you a better chance at survival, you choose the lesser of two evils. It’s tough, but you do it. The examples are endless and everywhere.

Even our country’s revered Constitution was created and successfully ratified only because the Founding Fathers, from Madison to Washington, strategically embraced a “lesser evil” – slavery – the greater evil being the imminent dissolution of the newly born republic.

Remember your history? By 1787, under the flawed Articles of Confederation, the recently liberated union was already unraveling. States were growing increasingly hostile toward one another, engaging in tariff wars that paralyzed interstate commerce. The national government was too weak to have a usable currency or raise a decent army or navy, leaving the nation vulnerable. Escalating national and international problems threatened to destroy everything for which so many patriots had just sacrificed their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

So what did our nation’s founders do in Philadelphia almost 230 years ago?

They deliberately chose to accommodate slavery, something most of them detested even more than today’s NeverTrump voters detest Trump. Yet they constitutionally protected it for the next two decades – in the newly independent United States of America. Why?

Slavery is evil. Yet, to obtain the needed unanimous state ratifications, our nation’s founders chose to allow and preserve this evil (temporarily) in the Constitution, which provided for the continued “importation” of slaves until 1808 and prohibited citizens from helping escaped slaves, requiring they be returned to their owners.

Listen up, NeverTrumpers. The founders did not have to do this. They could have proclaimed with righteous indignation, “Slavery is evil, and we refuse to enshrine it in our new Constitution. It doesn’t matter if the republic dissolves, God will not hold us blameless if we elect to support slavery!” That would have been the end of the convention – and the country – as the Southern states would have bolted immediately, and the young nation’s slide into chaos would have continued unabated. Though America would have collapsed, at least the righteous NeverSlavers would have been able to tell each other they didn’t violate their principles.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/trump-cli...fF8EIF0PjVq.99

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

Oh good grief. :lol

#NeverTrump

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

Any justification for voting for DT is unconvincing. He is unlike other candidates of my lifetime. He is dangerous for our country.

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

DT is not dangerous that's just hyperbole.

what is dangerous is letting a self professed Progressive appoint 3 or 4 Supreme Court Justices.

THAT is dangerous.

good grief

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

:thumbsup

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

I think Trump is dangerous for several reasons:

- During a security briefing Trump asked about the possibility of using "nukes" about three times. When it was explained to him that using nuclear weapons on the battlefront wasn't a part of our conventional military strategy he asked why we have them if we can't use them. Notice, as result North Korea has stepped up its testing of nuclear weapons to rattle the sabers. Trump's question regarding using nukes shows where his mind is. He is actually interested in using nuclear weapons. Why else would he ask repeatedly and then offer a question of complaint as to why we have them if we don't use them. The man clearly has no real-world grasp on our nation's position on using nukes or international laws governing the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

- Trumps comments stating that he'd place fiscal conditions on defending NATO flies in the face of all treaty agreements with our NATO allies. Essentially, NATO views an attack on any of it's members as an attack on all it's members. This is acts as a deterrent with regards to any nation who even considers attacking a member of NATO. Why would Donald Trump take such an unprecedented position? Let's consider how close Trump is to Vladimir Putin. Let's also consider Trump's business and investment partnerships in Russia. Now, consider Russia's agenda... the Ukraine. Vladimir Putin has been hungry to bring the Ukraine back under Russian authority since it gained it's independence. However, the Ukraine has been courting the NATO alliance since 1994. In 2008 the Ukraine applied to join NATO's Membership Action Plan. In 2014, those plans were put on hold by the political regime that took over. After Russian military began to intervene in the Ukraine, the Ukrainian government made joining NATO a priority again in October 2014. Due to the Ukraine's relationship with NATO, member nations have considered the Ukraine's independence from Russia as being in the best interests of NATO. Essentially, Trump either wants an excuse to look the other way should Russia invade the Ukraine.... or .... Vladimir Putin and/or Trump's Russian investors and business partners have put the pressure on Trump to take such a position, and Trump caved. Either way, Trumps position on NATO is destabilizing and undermines NATO strength, especially when it comes to conflict negotiation. Imagine a world wherein other countries aren't so afraid of NATO due to the United States placing fiscal restriction's on rather it acts to defend member nations or not. In other words.... war becomes a business deal. The United States can choose not to intervene.... if the price is right. This is fascism at its finest.

- Please note, Russia has hacked into the servers not only of the DNC, but also of Congressional Democrats. WHY is Russia wanting to meddle in this election so bad? We can be assured that whatever Russia views as being in their best interests is NOT in our best interests. If the Russians are for Trump, be assured, we shouldn't be. And not only did Russia do this, in violation of international laws governing cyber attacks and espionage, but Trump seemed to find it "amusing" and instead of condemning the Russians for meddling in our democratic process and hacking into congressional servers, Trump applauded them and encouraged them to do further investigation to find "Hillary's emails". This is bordering on treason. Regardless of Trump being Hillary's political rival, both Trump and Hillary should be united in their condemnation of Russia's actions. This only underscores how cozy Trump is with Russia. Trump is ready to take the lead and sell the world to the highest bidder. This is NOT the ethical way to do things.

For the record, Russia fears Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton has publically compared Putin with Hitler and even questioned if he had a soul. Hillary has taken a hard line against any of Putin's interests when she was in the Senate and when she was a member of the Armed Services Committee. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took a hard line against Russia's dreams of expansion into the Ukraine, Russia's support of Iran and Syria (including weapons deals), and Russia's opposition to NATO and their desire to weaken the alliance. Frankly, the idea of Hillary Clinton becoming President would be a nightmare for a presently emboldened Russia. Based on history, a future Clinton Administration would be far tougher on Russia than the Obama Administration has been. This is one reason why most top brass in the military support Clinton over Trump. Trump is dangerous to our interests.


What would be so dangerous about it? The majority of the current SCOTUS was appointed by conservatives. And these conservative appointed justices have ruled against the people in favor of corporate power repeatedly, and still tended to favor liberal social causes. I'd like to see a liberal SCOTUS strike down corporate personhood and restrain corporate power to the extent intended by our founders. The only thing a liberal SCOTUS might do that would bother me is the possibility of the SCOTUS favoring more gun control.

So yes, Trump is dangerous.

And a liberal SCOTUS wouldn't be too bad, aside from the possibility of more gun control measures.

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

You mean, the same Hillary Clinton that enabled Russia to buy 20% of our Uranium rights, while she was SoS? Yeah, I'm sure they're soooooooo afraid of her. :nah

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

So do you consider Hillary a better candidate than Trump? OR are you just not going to vote at all?

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

Sickening and twisted

Just really really sickening..no words honestly.

FYI - Slavery was not intended to be "preserved temporarily", and most did not detest the practice.

This reasoning is so weird. This example is really sickening.

I'm willing to bet this was not written by a person who descended from slaves.

Or perhaps a situation of extreme cognitive dissonance?

This reasoning is just so horrible and tasteless...jeez!

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

Donald Trump: "I don't care" if manufacturers leave, because "we'll make a fortune" from the 35% tariff we slap on them if they do.

Spoiler Alert: Tariffs make things more expensive for consumers.

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

The Founders didn't have a problem with tariffs on imports.

What's important? Cheap garbage from China? Or American manufacturers?

Only a leftist neotard anti American progressive would argue in favor of flooding us with cheap imports.

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

You can now stop pretending I am on your Ignore list, as we see you read my post.

To the point, imports are the reason we conduct trade. In other places, there are people who make nicer and cheaper things than we do.

Ask Donald Trump why his ties are not made in the USA. Ask Ivanka why her scarfs are made in China.

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

Eddie Bernays would be very proud!!! :lol

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

:highfive

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

Eddie Bernays would be proud. :happydance

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

We have a winner!!!!

:clap

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

Our founders didn't have any issues with regulations and limitations on corporations. When American colonists declared their independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control held by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

◾Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
◾Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
◾Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
◾Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
◾Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
◾Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Government governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Frankly, our founders would not have embraced the anarcho-capitalist notions of "Free Market" economy held by many today. In addition, the founders would have fought to the death to oppose corporate personhood.

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

Actually, facts are important....

Donald Trump Inaccurately Suggests Clinton Got Paid To Approve Russia Uranium Deal
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...inton-got-pai/

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

Here's an interesting article....

Putin on Clinton
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ue-with-women/

Let's put it this way.... Putin has already attempted to meddle in the democratic process of a United States Presidential election.... and he wasn't trying to help Clinton. This should tell you, Putin clearly feels that a Clinton Presidency would be detrimental to Russia's plans to expand it's power in the region.

Putin has found a useful idiot in Donald Trump.

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?
 

Some feel anyone's better than Trump.

Others feel anyone's better than Clinton.

Wow, you guys have a ton of propaganda in your nation.

Re: Choosing lesser of two evils?