Takes the Bait: What Would Jesus Do?

[badger2]

Cap Times 14 Feb 2018 What Would Jesus Do?
'Zach Nielsen faced a dilemma heading into 2016's bitter election. The evangelical pastor of The Vine Church on Madison's south side did not discuss how to vote from the pulpit, but privately, he said, it was rough.

"For many people in my circle, the tension was wanting to cherish the right to vote, but on the other hand, not being about to, in good conscience, vote for Hillary or Trump. They were both seen as morally unfit for office. One because she is pro-choice, and the other because he is a loud-mouth lunatic who is a womanizer, celebrates all sorts of sin and behaves like a fourth-grader on Twitter." Nielsen ended up choosing a third party candidate and did not become one of the 80 percent of white, self-identifying evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump.'

Zach Nielsen is portrayed here as a 'smart' theologian under these voting circumstances, though Zach Nielsen took the information-compromised bait like many did, a bait that moves along the boundary twixt communism, socialism and capitalism.

Here's where Zach the Theologian got screwed:

'The working-class struggle puts the functioning of the law of value in definitive crisis, not only in the sense that its practices determine and reinforce the functioning of the law of the tendential fall of the rate of profit, but in the more even profound sense of destabilizing the very terms on which the law holds, in other words, taking away the meaning of the relation between necessary labor and surplus labor (which, as Marx says, is in the final instance the foundation of everything). At this very moment, socialism becomes impossible. Socialism and all the socialist utopias try to put forth the actual realization of the law of value, which amounts to saying the complete real subsumption of social labor into capital.'
(Hardt and Negri, Labor of Dionysus: A Critique of the State Form, p. 205)

 

[Hossfly]

Cap Times 14 Feb 2018 What Would Jesus Do?
'Zach Nielsen faced a dilemma heading into 2016's bitter election. The evangelical pastor of The Vine Church on Madison's south side did not discuss how to vote from the pulpit, but privately, he said, it was rough.

"For many people in my circle, the tension was wanting to cherish the right to vote, but on the other hand, not being about to, in good conscience, vote for Hillary or Trump. They were both seen as morally unfit for office. One because she is pro-choice, and the other because he is a loud-mouth lunatic who is a womanizer, celebrates all sorts of sin and behaves like a fourth-grader on Twitter." Nielsen ended up choosing a third party candidate and did not become one of the 80 percent of white, self-identifying evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump.'

Zach Nielsen is portrayed here as a 'smart' theologian under these voting circumstances, though Zach Nielsen took the information-compromised bait like many did, a bait that moves along the boundary twixt communism, socialism and capitalism.

Here's where Zach the Theologian got screwed:

'The working-class struggle puts the functioning of the law of value in definitive crisis, not only in the sense that its practices determine and reinforce the functioning of the law of the tendential fall of the rate of profit, but in the more even profound sense of destabilizing the very terms on which the law holds, in other words, taking away the meaning of the relation between necessary labor and surplus labor (which, as Marx says, is in the final instance the foundation of everything). At this very moment, socialism becomes impossible. Socialism and all the socialist utopias try to put forth the actual realization of the law of value, which amounts to saying the complete real subsumption of social labor into capital.'
(Hardt and Negri, Labor of Dionysus: A Critique of the State Form, p. 205)

 

[Meriweather]

Cap Times 14 Feb 2018 What Would Jesus Do?
'Zach Nielsen faced a dilemma heading into 2016's bitter election. The evangelical pastor of The Vine Church on Madison's south side did not discuss how to vote from the pulpit, but privately, he said, it was rough.

"For many people in my circle, the tension was wanting to cherish the right to vote, but on the other hand, not being about to, in good conscience, vote for Hillary or Trump. They were both seen as morally unfit for office. One because she is pro-choice, and the other because he is a loud-mouth lunatic who is a womanizer, celebrates all sorts of sin and behaves like a fourth-grader on Twitter." Nielsen ended up choosing a third party candidate and did not become one of the 80 percent of white, self-identifying evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump.'

Zach Nielsen is portrayed here as a 'smart' theologian under these voting circumstances, though Zach Nielsen took the information-compromised bait like many did, a bait that moves along the boundary twixt communism, socialism and capitalism.

Here's where Zach the Theologian got screwed:

'The working-class struggle puts the functioning of the law of value in definitive crisis, not only in the sense that its practices determine and reinforce the functioning of the law of the tendential fall of the rate of profit, but in the more even profound sense of destabilizing the very terms on which the law holds, in other words, taking away the meaning of the relation between necessary labor and surplus labor (which, as Marx says, is in the final instance the foundation of everything). At this very moment, socialism becomes impossible. Socialism and all the socialist utopias try to put forth the actual realization of the law of value, which amounts to saying the complete real subsumption of social labor into capital.'
(Hardt and Negri, Labor of Dionysus: A Critique of the State Form, p. 205)

I am very much pro-life. The reason I did not vote for Hillary has nothing to do with her being pro-choice. I did not vote for Hillary because when Benghazi went down, she could not face the nation and tell the truth. In fact, she went into hiding while someone else faced the nation and told a lie. I am willing to bet not even Hillary knows who she is and what she stands for--if anything.

With Donald Trump, people may not like him--but like him or not, the nation knew exactly what they were getting. He is probably more upfront about who he is and what he stands for than any other politician in Washington D.C. Ask, what is he willing to do for this country? Are you for that or against that?

 

[badger2]

If you are asking badger2, then Trump was the only choice, which is the Prisoner's Dilemma. The election was tailored to give the third choice which was the impossible choice, socialism. Thus, the smililarities and differences between communism and capitalism was conveniently eluded with an argument of the included (excluded) middle.