Skip to main content

Some Thoughts on the Vice Presidential Debate

    As if it weren't painful enough to endure Trump and Hillary bashing each other, we were forced (okay, no one forced me to watch, but none of the other channels were airing much of anything to compete with it) to watch their running mates bash the presidential candidates as well.  This debate felt practically the same, with the exception of their candidates' posture (they sat at a round table as opposed to standing behind podiums--that seems like a weird psychological thing).  Here are a few observations from what was essentially a rerun of the Presidential debate.

    1) Kaine quoted Scripture against Trump and it actually made sense.  That's your presidential candidate, Republicans!  I guess you can officially dismiss any lingering doubt about whether or not the Republican party is the party for conservative Christians.  It's not.

    2) Kaine was infinitely better prepared than Pence, at least during the second half.  He literally had his responses numbered (cue the conspiracy theorists).  I think Pence is probably a better, smarter guy, but he often came across ill-prepared, in my eyes anyway.  This reminded me of Trump against Hillary.  Neither Trump nor Pence really had substantive responses to the initial questions or their opponents' challenges.  I think Pence's lack here is probably due to Trump's general dearth of actual policies or plans, something Kaine pointed out (and something the other Republican candidates pointed out in the primary debates).  Now, Kaine's well-rehearsed answers didn't really provide real details for how they would do what they say they'll do, but at least he presented ideas.  As far as debating goes, he won easily just based on that.

    3) Kaine is the better politician, just like Hillary.  Pence has a stronger history in politics than Trump, but neither have the polish of their opponents.  They must (and have been) point this out to have any shot at winning.  If you can't beat them at their own game, you have to change the game. Trump and Pence must present themselves as honest, real-world people who want to make a difference.  

    4) Kaine has absolutely no problem lying.  He knows people can't begin to fact check the litany of claims he made about Trump.  We all know some of them are based in fact, so we're prone to accept them at face value.  It's easy to paint a picture of Trump as a belligerent fool because we've all seen and heard much of the crap that spews out of his mouth.  

    5) Pence doesn't have great hair, but it is definitely better than Trump's.

    6) That moderator was uninteresting.  Who is she and how did she get that job?  Oh yeah, and she was pretty biased.

    7) Pence had major trouble defending Trump.  Resorting to the argument that he is not a polished politician really comes off as weak.  When Pence was first chosen, I had my doubts about anyone who would run alongside Trump.  How can anyone even begin to defend the words that have come out of Trump's mouth, let alone his character?  To call him a loose cannon is hilariously understated.  I don't think even he believes half the crap that comes out of his mouth!  This leaves Pence in an awkward position.  Pence ends up looking bad because he's trying to defend a Cretan.

    8) Kaine's defense of Hillary was even less convincing.  There were multiple times when he resorted to the argument that Hillary had been cleared of charges by the FBI and other investigative bodies.  Well, first off, that is sort of a half-truth.  Hillary has admitted to making a mistake in using a private email server to communicate classified documents.  In other words, she has admitted to committing a crime.  Even besides that though, the argument is ridiculous.  The government investigated stuff that Hillary did when she was part of the government and decided not to do anything about it.  Yeah, I'll trust that.  The American people do not believe that Hillary Clinton plays by the same rules.  We don't believe that she receives the same consequences that normal people do. We certainly don't trust Obama's justice department to bring her to justice!  Who can blame them? They're just interested in self-preservation!  

    9) Can we just have Pence run against Kaine for the presidency?

    10) Debates accomplish absolutely nothing.  Are undecided voters really swayed by what they hear?  Do they even exist in this election.  The undecided class has been replaced by apathetic citizens who would rather watch sports and scroll down their Facebook walls.  If you're a voter, you're opinion wasn't changed by watching either of these debates.  Jim Bob McGee is still voting for Trump.  Feminists are still voting for Hillary.  I'm still voting for Jim Harbaugh.

#jimharbaughforpresident




Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more