I figured this out a few years ago: Democrats do not care about women or gays or blacks or Muslims or whatever other group they try to cater to. The Democratic Party is not about them at all, the party is only about Democratic/liberal ideology. How do I know this? Because Democrats don’t listen to women or gays or blacks or Muslims who don’t agree with them. Those people are not welcome in the Democratic party. It is really that simple. It’s a strategy called “identity politics.” They label people according to certain characteristics, then say that they care about that group of people. But it is verifiably false.
Even though it probably first happened with women or blacks, I first noticed it with gays. There ARE conservative gays, and gays who are against gay marriage. But do they get a hearing within the Democratic party? Nope. Why? Because it’s not about gays, it’s only about the Democratic/liberal ideology. As long as women or gays or blacks or Muslims are talking the liberal talking points, they’re golden. If not, they’re anathema.
Democratic talk about inclusiveness is a smokescreen to cover the promotion of their ideology. Here are a few examples of people who are not welcome in the Democratic party:
With Hillary Clinton almost certainly winning the popular vote, you are going to encounter people advocating for the abolition of the Electoral College. So I thought of a graphical way to represent it. Hopefully this will help you make the case to your friends.
The Electoral College is sort of like a fulcrum.
How a fulcrum works: the object on the left is larger and heavier than the one on the right. The black line on which they rest is called the lever. If the fulcrum was in the center, the object on the left would exert more pressure and the lever would not be level. Since the fulcrum is positioned closer to the larger object, this makes the lever level.
I used blue and red deliberately, to show how the Electoral College shifts the power dynamic between the Democratic party and the Republican party. If it had gone the other way, I would have reversed the colors. This same exact dynamic played out in the year 2000 between Democratic candidate Al Gore and Republican candidate George W. Bush.
I think this tells us something important about how our Founders set up the country. Here is a great article about the Electoral College by David Barton. It was written in 2001 after the 2000 election. It’s quite long so I suggest scrolling down to the section called, What Led to the Formation of the Electoral College? Begin reading there. Notably, he says this:
… if the popular vote is extremely close, then the candidate with the best distribution of popular votes will be elected.
Compare that with this Size of Lead map available at the New York Times:
Also, anybody advocating for the abolition of the Electoral College after this election is almost certainly doing it because they’re upset; they’re not doing it out of a truly principled objection. I say this because it is highly, dramatically unlikely that these same people would be making the same argument if the situation were exactly reversed. Similarly, if Republicans are not objecting to the Electoral College after this election, then their moral authority for making this objection is diminished if or when it doesn’t go our way in the future. For me, the system makes sense and I like the principle behind it, so I doubt I will ever object to it.
Using the figures from the NYTimes, as of right now it looks like Clinton will win the popular vote. Yet Trump still wins through his Electoral College votes. This happened back in the year 2000, when Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College to Republican George W. Bush. If it happens in this current election, it will be the fifth time it has happened in our nation’s history. Even though this kind of win seems counterintuitive, it has a precedent and is legitimate, assuming of course that the popular votes were cast and counted legitimately. In this election, I have no reason to think that foul play was a deciding factor either way.
This is a great time to review the Electoral College. Most important take-away: our country was not founded as a direct democracy. The Electoral College balances the votes of the more populated areas and larger states with the smaller states and rural areas. Read more about the history and purpose of the Electoral College here:
After the 2012 election when Romney lost, Bill Whittle had a speech that was making the rounds on places like Facebook. It is really good and I watched it several times back then. It brought me a lot of comfort after that painful loss.
He made a prediction that stuck with me and I want to share it with you to get your thoughts. He predicted that the next president would be a Republican from the pop culture. I made a mental note of that prediction, since the way he framed it made a lot of sense.
I think Trump fulfills the prediction. He’s never held public office, he had a TV show, and was a household name because of his business career, not because of any political activism.
The speech is only 15 minutes long so check it out. I think you’ll like it.
I have a strange feeling about both presidential candidates, I feeling I don’t think I’ve ever had about presidential candidates. It is this: that God is setting them up. For example, Mr. Trump once said that he never asked God’s forgiveness:
That’s not what we Christians wanted to hear, but at least it was honest. It is also a point about which we can pray, and if he loses tomorrow it will be the biggest public loss of his life (I don’t know what he thinks is his biggest loss in his private life). Losses of this magnitude are often opportunities for the Holy Spirit to work in people’s lives in a big way to bring them closer to God. They are opportunities for self-reflection and introspection.
Similarly for Mrs. Clinton. When I hear her speak about abortion, for example, I have the impression that she doesn’t really believe in it, that she is going along with it for votes and power. So I see this also as an opportunity for prayer, that God will give her the courage to proclaim what she actually believes, that the unborn are human and that marriage is between one man and one woman. The following statement is quite possibly the most eloquent statement on marriage ever made by a politician. She nails it. This is what she really believes about marriage. I think:
So in addition to praying for the country and for the election, I am praying for both candidates, that he will use whatever happens to bring both of them closer to himself.
To repair and restore the Church in the world: pray a Rosary (5 decades) each day for one of the five great Sees lost to Islam so long ago: Monday for Constantinople, Tuesday for Antioch, Wednesday for Jerusalem, Thursday for Alexandria, and Friday for Carthage. For their liberty and their salvation and the restoration of their ancient position as pillars of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church in communion with the See of Peter in Rome.
"You equate your understanding of your particular sectarian form of Catholic Christianity and its institutional expression with God's own truth primarily to justify your petty armchair popery...." Yep, that's what it's all about.