Can Christians get political without hurting the Gospel message?

"Polarization, confirmation bias, and dehumanization present challenges for all Americans, and Christians should counter, rather than contribute to these problems" - Christian Post

1690 reads

There are 31 Comments

G. N. Barkman's picture

Sorry, but I still don't get it.  What do Christians supporting the political positions of President Trump have to do with Christians approving of his flaws?  I, for one, cringe at many of Trump's insulting Tweets and other manifestations of arrogance and crudeness.  But politics is a chess game.  We don't support someone because we like their style, but because we like their principles and positions.

I'm getting more than a little weary of people telling Christians why they should not support Trump.  Who would they approve our supporting?  Clinton, in 2016?  Any of the present list of Democratic contenders in 2020?  Give me a break!  Once Trump won the Republican Primary, the options for meaningful political support for religious freedom, restraint of big government, conservative judge appointments, etc., were narrowed down to one viable candidate, like it or not.

G. N. Barkman

Bert Perry's picture

G.N., I agree with you as far as it goes, but read the article closer.  What the author is decrying is the tendency of any group, ours included, to start becoming "inbred" through isolation to where we do not see our own faults in thought, presentation, and the like.  The Babylon Bee spoofs this tendency admirably in posts like this.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

mmartin's picture

This!

I've yet to hear a good answer to the question of who else should've we voted for?

 

G. N. Barkman wrote:

I'm getting more than a little weary of people telling Christians why they should not support Trump.  Who would they approve our supporting?  Clinton, in 2016?  Any of the present list of Democratic contenders in 2020?  Give me a break!  Once Trump won the Republican Primary, the options for meaningful political support for religious freedom, restraint of big government, conservative judge appointments, etc., were narrowed down to one viable candidate, like it or not.

Joeb's picture

Whether you like Trump or not the other choices are insane unless Biden gets the Democrat nomination.  Even Chris Mathews said today the Democrats have gone off the rails.  No matter who goes up against Trump he will chew them up and spit them out.  Trump could be in a video in bed in his birthday suit with an Orangutan and he would still get elected President.  

What I don’t like is Christians giving Trump the status of a Prophet or a Spiritual being chosen by God.  That is very very scary.  So if you disagree with Trump or criticize Trump your sinning.  

It’s interesting that the same groups of Christians doing this are the same ones who do this with their Pastors.  If that’s not scary and I can’t think of anything more scary.  

A lot of the same people who were involved with Bill Gothard ie Sarah Palin Mike Pence Mike Huckabee Mr Green owner of Hobby Lobby and a number of Freedom Cacus Members including Founders Daniel Webster and Jim Jordon.  Daniel Webster has been a Gothardite for 30 years.  If that doesn’t shiver your timbers I don’t know what will.   These are some of the same people who have brought a disgrace to our Lord’s name and painted a bad picture for Fundy/Evangelical Christians. Did anyone order Jim Bakers end of times food stores yet.  

 Note: I’m not a Mike Huckabee fan since he released Violent Super Criminal Predator Maurice Clemens from a 112 year sentence against everyone’s warnings not to do it because Maurice got saved. After he was released he went on to rape a child and assassinate 4 Police Officers eating lunch at cafe.  If I had that kind of blood on my hands I would not say anything about anyone but that has not stopped Mike Huckabee.  Huckabee JUDGES EVERYONE WHO GOES AGAINST TRUMP. 

GregH's picture

Joeb wrote:

A lot of the same people who were involved with Bill Gothard ie Sarah Palin Mike Pence Mike Huckabee Mr Green owner of Hobby Lobby and a number of Freedom Cacus Members including Founders Daniel Webster and Jim Jordon.  Daniel Webster has been a Gothardite for 30 years.  If that doesn’t shiver your timbers I don’t know what will.   These are some of the same people who have brought a disgrace to our Lord’s name and painted a bad picture for Fundy/Evangelical Christians. Did anyone order Jim Bakers end of times food stores yet.  

I am curious. Do you really know that these people were involved with Gothard? Daniel Webster--yes I know that to be true because I performed in his son's wedding. Green, yes. Jim Jordan is probably the politician I most despise in DC today but I see no connection between him and Gothard. If Huckabee put his daughter in Gothard's character-baed education, she apparently missed the section about honesty since her job now is to lie dozens of times a day. And the others?

For sure, these kinds of Christians are pragmatic hypocrites of the first order and do incalculable damage to any reputation Christianity is clinging to. But are you sure they are associated with Gothard?

Rolland McCune's picture

G N Barkman, mmartin, Joeb

Thanks for the fresh air of common sense and common grace in your analyses of the continuing saga of our duly-elected president. Will the "Nevers" and their well-wishers ever stop nitpicking Mr. Trump to death? Since the sometimes decades-old evidences of his being an incorrigible life-long moral leper have subsided due to a lack of fresh, recent juicy tidbits, the certified moralism "character counts" has used up all its mileage. Now we are down to the second-tier complaints of his incompetence--his unflattering remarks at the stupidity of his enemies. Are the egos of the "Nevers" that easily bruised in judging his abilities and efforts  in domestic, national and international affairs?

Please re-read the three bloggers cited above and answer the simple questions broached. And please avoid the often-complicated logical, philosophical, pietistic and moralistic truisms. We really don't live in that kind of a world.

By the bye, I thought Gothardism was dead.

Rolland McCune

Bert Perry's picture

One trick, per Greg's comment, regarding Gothardism is that just as Gothard borrowed a lot of his ideas--like I'm told from None of these diseases--a lot of Gothard's ideas got borrowed by others.  For example, Vision Forum and the Duggar family borrow(ed) a lot of his ideas, and you'll still see hints of that in the craziest places, stuff like Josh Harris and I Kissed Dating Goodbye all the way to small fundamental publishing houses that don't give you actual sources.  So it's hard to draw a hard line at who did, and did not, get impacted by his work.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

GregH's picture

Rolland McCune wrote:

G N Barkman, mmartin, Joeb

Thanks for the fresh air of common sense and common grace in your analyses of the continuing saga of our duly-elected president. Will the "Nevers" and their well-wishers ever stop nitpicking Mr. Trump to death? Since the sometimes decades-old evidences of his being an incorrigible life-long moral leper have subsided due to a lack of fresh, recent juicy tidbits, the certified moralism "character counts" has used up all its mileage. Now we are down to the second-tier complaints of his incompetence--his unflattering remarks at the stupidity of his enemies. Are the egos of the "Nevers" that easily bruised in judging his abilities and efforts  in domestic, national and international affairs?

Please re-read the three bloggers cited above and answer the simple questions broached. And please avoid the often-complicated logical, philosophical, pietistic and moralistic truisms. We really don't live in that kind of a world.

By the bye, I thought Gothardism was dead.

I try to understand your position Rolland and do to an extent. I am curious as to whether you understand the other side. For example, this is how I view Trump.

1) He is a bumbling fool in business who got an inheritance handed to him and then proceeded to grow his fortune through filing bankruptcies, stiffing his contractors, and getting government incentives. In spite of his cheating and working the system, he still would have done better putting his inheritance in a decent mutual fund.

2) He is a habitual liar. He has close to 10,000 lies on record since entering his current office. That is hardly "decades old" evidence of his morality.

3) He has no accomplishments in office really outside of perhaps appointing judges. Really, what has he done to further the US on the international stage? How has he helped anything in the US?

4) He has cheapened the national discourse though his petty insults and behavior. For that reason alone, the US will not be better off when we are finally rid of him.

Is he the worst president in history? Probably not. There were probably even more stupid, narcissistic presidents though thankfully, they were able to hide it because they did not have twitter. That is the silver lining to Donald J. Trump: we have probably survived worse and will probably survive him too.

Just wondering if you understand that viewpoint?

Joeb's picture

Greg Jim Jordon from my reasearch was not involved with Gothard. I stand to be corrected.  Pence is known to spout Gothard’s authority principles and attended a church in Indianapolis pastored  by a man who was a follower of Gothard.  So Pence was influenced but not a Gothardite persay  

Palin and Huckabee were up to their eye balls with Gothard and you can now add Sony Purdue and Betsy Devos and Al Perkins and the FRC to that list  

Rolland if you are a very public person as these people are and claim Christ as your Savior and are very much involved in an obvious Satanic Cult like don’t report sex predators in the church to the Police if they Repent and they get 4 chances to do so.  One needs to make a VERY PUBLIC CONFESSION OF ONES SIN AND ASK FORGIVENESS OF THE PUBLIC AND STRONGLY VEHEMENTLY LOUDLY DENOUNCE GOTHARD AND HIS TEACHINGS.  Hey Rolland none of the people I have named have done that EVER.   So they are all walking in SIN and judging others who speak out against Trump and his policies. Kind of like Josh Duggar. .  It’s called being a HYPOCRITE.  So Gothard does matter and most of these people are still involved with ATI.   

These people are dragging the name of Christ thru the mud and turning many unbelievers away from us because they associate us with them   When a Penn State rips Joe Pareno’s statue out of the ground in two weeks and a Bible College which will remain unnamed takes a whole year to take a similar offender’s  name out of their sacred place it speaks volumes to the nonchristian world.    Believers in our Lord should not associate with Criminal Organizations or Criminals but yet they do whole heartedly ie Ethnos 360 and ABWE   They expose separation but don’t separate from obvious CRIMINALS  

I have no problem with Christians being politically active.  Vote your conscience.  My problem is the aforementioned Christian Right types calling me a sinner if I disagree with them. I’m my mind the only biblical issues are abortion and gay marriage the rest of the issues are how you govern within a certain spectrum.  Wow did you know Isreal has a one payer health system.  Those sinners.  Commies  

  My problem is these types attacking me and saying I’m a leach for collecting my pension.  My problem is these type of people telling me that the US Federal Government is responsible for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ instead of that responsibility belonging to the Church.  My problem is these people saying Muslims can not hold an elected Office in violation of our constitution and then supposing that Muslims will violate their oaths to uphold constitutions.  I don’t care if they worship Micky Mouse our constitution explicitly says their shall be no religious test to hold office. It also says the Federal Gov will not promote any one religion.  It’s called religious freedom.  As a US Citizen I can whorship the Stone in my back yard or the bird bath or the little boy statue peeing into the pool.  So so if one wants to be constitutionally pure some of these Christian Righties violate the constitution in spades  We the church change hearts and minds thru Christ not Uncle Sam   

 By the way as a Federal LEO I risked my life on occasion and worked hard for my pension but some of these Right Wing Christian are only pro Police if they are currently working then criticize retirees as leaches due to the good Pensions they collect and early retirement.  I have had diehard Christian Rightees tell me that is not fair but they don’t  have to carry a gun and ever decide to use deadly force as part of their jobs   

  I am now an Independent due to the aforementioned Hypocrite Christian Right Types overwhelming influence in the Republican Party   I used to be a diehard Republican but no more until these frauds and phonies are exposed or they very publically lay down and confess their sin and ask the public for their forgiveness and denounce Gothard’s teachings and ATI.  Short of that I’ll stay an Independent.    

Additionally I won’t ever step in the Mueseum  of the Bible financed by Mr Green.    Due to the fact that he is an unrepentant Gothardite and he single handedly set up the market for ISIS to sell stolen antiquities to finance their operation and kill our brothers in Christ by the thousands  Green did this by being the first and largest knowingly buyer of stolen antiquities out of Iraq and Syria.   He was fined and the items were siezed  by the Treasury Deparment    but he was not prosecuted even though he engaged in criminal activity  I guess Money talks and cow manure walks  

 

 

Rolland McCune's picture

1. Thanks for the info on Gothardism. I didn't buy it in its heyday, and the updated info confirms that decision.

2. Joeb:  I resonate quite well with your thinking regarding the country's choice of president and the attending reasons and circumstances. Your prognosis for 2020 is both reasonable and believable. 

3. GregH:  If your thinking represents "the other side," I read the words but confess I don't understand and thus tend not to believe your reasoning. The assumptions behind your conclusions seem impossible to document accurately. Who or what counted the 10000 lies?  The president's alleged lack of accomplishments, except the appointment of judges, is woefully understated and inaccurate.  It is also most difficult to understand Mr. Trump as a bumbling fool to account for his rise in the real estate  business in Manhattan. Of course, he got his father's work ethic, money and business, and no doubt drove hard business deals, some of which were shady. But does that constitute the man a pathological liar and business crook, and further, disqualify him from being able to understand the basics of the nation's financial and necessary business decisions? 

Joeb put the scenario tersely but plausibly: "Whether you like Trump or not the other choices (were) insane . . ."

Rolland McCune

Joeb's picture

The Trump Fortune is based on Grand Daddy’s Brothels. Very similar to the Kennedy Fortune built on Boot Legging. Both Criminal families who went legit.  

Has anyone heard anything from the CEO of Starbucks.  Now there is a good old fashion Democrat who is real rags to riches story. No silver spoon in his mouth to start.  He was talking about running as an Independent.  Sounds like it was all talk.  The guy seems to be a dark horse and has disappeared. 

Other than Mr Starbucks I don’t see anyone who could even come close to Trump unless Michele Obama threw her hat in the ring but I don’t see that happening. 

 I’m no Trump fan and will probably bow out of voting for President but you have to be realistic and it’s going to be Trump Trump Trump.  

What the real joke is the Republicans are probably just as much as an enemy of Trump as the Democrats.  You have to give the Democrats credit at least they backed Obama’s agenda 100 % like it or love it.  

The Republicans had an Auto Signing Machine with Trump during Trump’s first 2 years in office and totally blew it.  The Republicans controlled everything and could have made historic changes but let the opportunity go.  Idiots.  Total idiots. At least do something even it  goes in the wrong direction  Putting their own personal agendas ahead of the Country. No wonder the public voted for Trump.   

I have said it before.  Our Country is BROKE.  We can’t even afford what Trump wants to do.  The States are doing their own Infustructure projects.  Look what happened to Corbett in Pa   Corbett had the guts to raise the taxes on gas and other driving related fees to rebuild the roads and what did that get him.  Out of Office.  The ridiculous  penny pinching State Republicans turned on him.

Same thing with that nut Gov Brown in Kansas.  He cut the taxes so low the whole school system almost fell apart. His own Party rebelled on him.  

What we need in Office is someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.  When the financial poop hits the fan this country is in for a rude awakening. I’ll be more broke because all the Federal Retirees will take a 25 % cut just like the SSA Retirees.  Plus the Federal work force will take a 25% cut and private industry will follow with big pay cuts. We will be like Greece.  It’s not if it’s when and how hard we are going to hit the wall.  If these clowns don’t come up with a plan very soon we are going to go into a depression.  Not trying to be negative but tab is going to demand to be paid.  

The great thing about it is this maybe Part of God’s plan to bring us home.  I remember a former Pastor of mine said if North Korea nukes us why worry we are going to glory.  

My brother who was a Pastor said a lot of Christians are overly concerned with the here and now and lost touch with the true picture to be with Christ and bring as many people as we can with us.  Again change hearts and minds through Christ not creating a Christian Utopia in the US.  Do what you can but have we lost our perspective on what’s important. Changing hearts and minds through Christ will get us a lot further as a nation then Christian Right Militancy. 

GregH's picture

Rolland McCune wrote:

3. GregH:  If your thinking represents "the other side," I read the words but confess I don't understand and thus tend not to believe your reasoning. The assumptions behind your conclusions seem impossible to document accurately. Who or what counted the 10000 lies?  The president's alleged lack of accomplishments, except the appointment of judges, is woefully understated and inaccurate.  It is also most difficult to understand Mr. Trump as a bumbling fool to account for his rise in the real estate  business in Manhattan. Of course, he got his father's work ethic, money and business, and no doubt drove hard business deals, some of which were shady. But does that constitute the man a pathological liar and business crook, and further, disqualify him from being able to understand the basics of the nation's financial and necessary business decisions? 

We could debate Trump's business acumen I suppose and his "accomplishments" as well. But I am not going to spend time arguing with a guy who can't accept Trump is a habitual liar. There is just too wide a gulf between us. The Washington Post is keeping the tally which is up to around 10,000 now. You can go there and see for yourself. (And before you discount this as fake news, it is nothing of the sort. The Washington Post is capable of keeping track of factual black and white lies.)

Rolland McCune's picture

 GregH:

If your only clientele with whom you will debate current politics in the USA are those "guys" who agree with your sources and your pronouncement that President Trump is a "habitual liar,"  the chances  of anyone listening to or reading your ideas are less than nil. The accolade to the Washington Post was most discouraging. The old adage of the revered  NY Yankee manager, Casey Stengel ("you can look it up!"; i.e., in your words,"go there and see for yourself"), could never be applied to the WAPO. They are incapable of keeping track of anything.

Why don't you answer mmartin's question about whom we should have voted for in the general election?

On your terms, I suppose "there is just too wide a gulf  between us."

Rolland McCune

Bert Perry's picture

One thing I've noticed about the Post's "fact-checking" is that fairly often, they "helpfully" change the question and then declare that since the public figure didn't answer the question they suggested correctly, that the public figure was lying.  In other words, based on analysis of a position that the person clearly didn't hold, the Post (Glenn Kessler is a good example) declares that person to be "lying". 

So no, Greg, the Post is not capable of figuring these things out, and they've proven it repeatedly.  I don't contend that Trump has been uniformly honest--he has, like most politicians, told his share of whoppers--but "Fact Check" has a habit of moving the goalposts and therefore disqualifies itself as a source.  One example is linked (and fisked) here.

Regarding Trump's achievements, while of course people of different political views will differ on the virtues or vices of his moves, those accomplishments include a reversal of Obama foreign policy, a big tax cut, a reversal of Obama military procurement policies which idled large parts of the Air Force and Navy for lack of spare parts, a semi-serious conversation about immigration and trade, a lot of good judges appointed, more U.S. citizen hostages released in 2 years than Obama got released in two terms, and a lot more.

But back to the topic, I think it's important for both sides of the aisle (all sides?) to be a bit honest about things.  Trump backers need to admit that he's prone to whoppers--as do Obama supporters.  ("If you like your doctor/insurance, you can keep your doctor/insurance", "no scandals", etc..)  Get past the "I don't care how obvious the call is, it worked for my team" mindset, and a lot of good things can happen.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

GregH's picture

Rolland McCune wrote:

 GregH:

If your only clientele with whom you will debate current politics in the USA are those "guys" who agree with your sources and your pronouncement that President Trump is a "habitual liar,"  the chances  of anyone listening to or reading your ideas are less than nil. The accolade to the Washington Post was most discouraging. The old adage of the revered  NY Yankee manager, Casey Stengel ("you can look it up!"; i.e., in your words,"go there and see for yourself"), could never be applied to the WAPO. They are incapable of keeping track of anything.

Why don't you answer mmartin's question about whom we should have voted for in the general election?

On your terms, I suppose "there is just too wide a gulf  between us."

I will ignore your strawman arguments about who I will or won't discuss politics with.

It is just absurd how people have drunk the Trump Kool-Aid and decided that the WaPo is incapable of keeping track of simple facts. You need to read what kinds of lies they track. These are not WaPo opinions; they are simple situations where Trump claims things that are undeniably untrue. Trump is a prolific liar regardless of whether you want to admit it or not. But again, I am through arguing something so obvious.

As an aside, I am thankful for WaPo's heroic courage in standing up to the Nixon administration and thankful they stand up to Trump as well.

I voted for no one in the last election. I will not vote for Trump in the coming election either though I might abstain. I would most certainly vote for a moderate Democrat over Trump. I would not vote for a radical Democrat over Trump; I would just abstain.

 

JBL's picture

One of the more interesting topics that we covered in an international finance course in college was how OPEC can maximize the net present value of their assets.  

The underlying idea here is that there were more factors to look for than just the short-term price of crude oil.  Yes, OPEC does better in the short-term when prices are high.  But high prices (or the long-term expectation of them) also encourage investment in alternative energy sources, more fuel efficient technologies, and more non-OPEC exploration.  All of these tend to depress future revenue streams.  Low short-term oil prices tend to have opposite long-term effects, but at the cost of immediate revenue pressure.

Recently, OPEC has issued guidance saying that they would like to target a global price of around $65 / barrel.  It's not too high, not too low.

The same analysis can be made for politics.

Trump has made policy decisions and appointments that Clinton would not have made.  And for many political conservatives, Trump was, at least in the short-term, a better pick.  

My reason for not supporting Trump in 2016 is the belief that his short-term gains would not be enough to outweigh the long-term detriment his tenure will cause to conservatism as a political movement.  I believe the credibility and quality of future conservative candidates will be negatively affected by his tenure.  Furthermore, his public personae is so extreme that it motivates many middle of the road voters to consider more liberal political candidates.  Trump's personality is certainly a causal factor for the Republicans' underwhelming performance in the 2018 midterms and governors elections.  Unfortunately, Trump has done nothing since winning the nomination to change my opinion on this matter.

John B. Lee

Joeb's picture

A good friend and brother in Christ of mine is a prolific Trump punch drinker.  Even with the video on Air Force 1 of Trump making denials re the Bimbo Payments my friend still says Trump is not lying regarding his knowledge and involvement in the Bimbo payments.  So the punch seems to have its affect.   Then when you raise an argument my friend can’t overcome he retreats to FAKE NEWS.  Interesting.  

My problem with Trump is when the Christian Right raises him up to be the Chosen one and the Right Hand Of God.  Very dangerous to do.  We have seen the results of this before ie Jack Hyles Jack Schapp Wendell Kempton.  This issue spooks me the most.   

Now with the above being said I’m also a realist and right now there is no one I can see who could unseat Trump unless the economy goes into a nose dive or there is a dark horse out there.  

Rolland McCune's picture

GregH

Thank you for the interaction, as far as it went. Sorry it all landed in limbo..

The ending paragraph of your last post caught my eye immediately, and it troubled me.  Disenfranchising yourself, for me least, cost you any credibility on this subject. How can you so dogmatically berate the president when you didn't even bother to vote? It  makes calling him a pathological liar (on the authority of WaPo, no less) and refusing to interact with anyone who disputes that alleged factoid a completely vacuous notion. The proposed criteria for the next election are no less grim.

 

 

Rolland McCune

G. N. Barkman's picture

I don't expect serious Christians to like Trump.  He's a very obnoxious individual.  But politics is not about who you like.  (At least not for thinking Christians.)  It's about weighing the alterntives.  If enough Christtians who voted for Trump in 2016 had refused to support him, Hillary Clinton would now be our president.  Thank God that didn't happen!  That's all that needs to be said.  (Case closed.)

G. N. Barkman

Rolland McCune's picture

Agreed, Mr. B. 

You preach it and I'll find someone to turn the pages.

Rolland McCune

Dan Miller's picture

When people ask me if I like Trump, I say, “Not really, but it would have taken a Darth Vader / Sauron Republican ticket for me to have voted for Hillary.”  

Joeb's picture

I say Trumps connection to the question is part of the disgrace but the disgrace to our Lord happened way before Trump.  It started with groups like the Family Research Counsel and AL PERKINS a diehard Gothardite.  After Josh Duggar and Bill Gothard we’re exposed  still no one ditched Al Perkins or other Gothatdites.  Throw in AL Perkins heinous sin involving closet gay and rising Republican Christian Right Super Star Wes Goodman.  It’s a joke.  

I’m willing to bet Al Perkins and his other Christian Gothardite buddies never told Goodman’s wife that Godly Wes Goodman was hooking up with Men on Craigslist.  Considering they were putting Godly Goodman through Gay Conversion Therapy Id say they knew it.    The program was probably a Gothard based corrupt program to boot. I guess his wife getting an STD most likely did not bother them.  The higher call was more important   Just like those two Christian Right Michigan State Reps caught in adultery and using their official positions to cover it up   They both had spouses and children and refused to resign because they wanted to vote on family friendly issues ie abortion and gay issues Sounds like a disgrace to our Lord’s name to me   I’m betting these to Michigan State Reps were Gothardites to  

Back to Godly Perkins.  Perkins allegedly did not drop Wes Goodman until a Father accused Godly Goodman of sexually assaulting his son at a pro-life  seminar.  Ooops Godly Al Perkins never told anyone else.  Then Godly Goodman got reelected as a Ohio State Rep on a prolife Christian Family Man Antigay Platforn.  Now if Godly Goodman getting caught with his pants down with a naked man in his state office is not a disgrace to our Lord’s name I don’t kmow what is.  

Throw in Christian Right Poster Boy Josh Dugger,  Jerry Falwell Jr’s hiring of Baylor’s Former Athletic Director who was fired for looking the other way about allegations that Football Players were drugging and gang raping Baylor Female Students I’d say the Gospel has been sullied by overly politically active Christians.   Throw in the fact that the Former Special Counsel that investigated a President was fired from Baylor for the same reason.  I think it’s a lock and not a closed case ROLLAND. Add in Trump and his Bimbos and his comments about women.  Case closed alright in my favor  

 Oh yeah I forgot the RNC’S Finance Man’s relationship with his Playboy Bimbo and paying for her to have an abortion.  I’d say the Christian Right which runs the Republican Party now has done a great job.  Oh yeah did you notice a lot of them are Gothardites or are hooked up with Hyles Anderson Graduates 

Also  throw in Tea Party Manager and Favorite Fundy/ Evangelical Fringe Pastor Phil Kidd and his Confederate Boxing Gloves and Tie I would say I have a lock on my argument.  

Rolland I could go on all day.  Oh yeah the State Rep in Arkansas who goes to the same SBC church the Duggars now attend.  The State  Christian Right Group gave him an award for supporting family friendly issues even though he misused his position to adopt two young children. A boy and girl who he could not handle. Even after he just gave the kids to some guy that worked for him without telling anybody and this guy ended up doing the same thing to the 6 year old girl that Josh Duggar did at 15 to his five year old sister.  Same county as Josh Duggar and this guy got 60 years. Tells me Godly Josh would have probably been prosecuted as an adult and gotten a Nickle.  

Oh that’s right the guy got the award at a banquet held at the church.  Ted Cruz was scheduled to speak at this banquet but at the last minute canceled.  I wonder why.  Now the Arkansas State Reps actions were mot criminal but after the whole sordid affair the State Of Arkansas Legislators quickly made it illegal to transfer kids without notifying the State Adoption and Family Agency. Nah these type of actions by the Christian Right don’t bring disgrace to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Rolland your right case closed.  

 

Note: The above being said Trump will still be our President through 2024  There is no horse in the stable that can beat him   

 

 

 

 

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Toward some of Greg's (and others') observations above....

I think what causes some of the confusion is that Trump supporters and non-Trump supporters are coming to the situation with different assumptions. As an example, many Trump supporters assume that if we don't support Trump, we have to support someone else as alternative. For non-supporters like me, there is not really an either-or. What we should all be choosing--and I think we might actually agree on this point--is:

  • What is best for the country in the long run
  • What is not morally unacceptable in itself, regardless of outcomes

I know the second point tends to be controversial, but I think most who dispute it, don't really dispute it. That is, as an approach to ethics we probably all agree that some things are wrong even if we expect them to have good consequences.

So is there general agreement that the real choice in an election is (a) somebody who will be good (or at least better) for the country, and (b) not somebody who should be rejected even if he/she might be good for the country?

If there is agreement on that in principle, the real points of disagreement are, simplified, these:

  • Whether Trump is truly better for the country (in the long run)
  • Whether Trump is acceptable independently of outcomes.

For most of us who are not Trump supporters, point one looks pretty uncertain to us, I think. It is certainly not clear to me that, on balance, he will prove to have been good for the country (or even "better than..."). It maybe be a decade before we have a good idea of that. (I would say many harmful consequences are already in motion every day now, but are not being widely recognized. Time may change that.)

But probably most conservatives who do not support Trump are tripping on the second point. There are some things that are just wrong, regardless of outcomes. And though electing a US President has never been an approval of everything the man is and does it has always been an expression of believe in what sort of human being ought to be a President. I cannot personally say that Trump is the sort of man who ought to be a U.S. President, regardless of who else is on the ballot or what good he may accomplish.

I don't know if that helps, but it's putting it a different way than I have in the past, so maybe it makes my stance on this a bit more comprehensible to some who find it puzzling.

G. N. Barkman's picture

With Hillary Clinton as president, we would have two new left-wing Supreme Court justices already. plus scores more on other Federal Courts.  That's long term damage that would probably last for decades.  I doubt that the American Republic could ever recover from that.  We would have several more years of government backed and funded moral decline to add to the enormous gains of the gay agenda during the Obama years.  I doubt that we could ever see that reversed.  We would see an increase in illegal immigration well beyond what we are seeing now.  Once here, they are almost impossible to deport.  That's significant long term damage.  I fail to see how Trump's presidency, as problematic as he is individually, could possibly incur greater long term damage to the USA.

G. N. Barkman

GregH's picture

G. N. Barkman wrote:

With Hillary Clinton as president, we would have two new left-wing Supreme Court justices already. plus scores more on other Federal Courts.  That's long term damage that would probably last for decades.  I doubt that the American Republic could ever recover from that.  We would have several more years of government backed and funded moral decline to add to the enormous gains of the gay agenda during the Obama years.  I doubt that we could ever see that reversed.  We would see an increase in illegal immigration well beyond what we are seeing now.  Once here, they are almost impossible to deport.  That's significant long term damage.  I fail to see how Trump's presidency, as problematic as he is individually, could possibly incur greater long term damage to the USA.

Through their continued support for Trump, Christians have shown themselves to be pragmatic hypocrites. Do you think that might do great long term damage to the US? What moral authority will Christians have in the future to speak of moral issues after this?

I want to be clear. I am not talking about Christians who hold their nose and quietly accept Trump as the worse of two options. I am referring to Christians who unabashedly support him to this day and refuse to condemn his behavior no matter how egregious it gets (the Falwell and Jeffress sort of Christians). Trump does what he does because he knows he can get away with it with his base. 

Bert Perry's picture

I'm old enough to remember people saying that when they voted for a divorced man over a Baptist Sunday School teacher, they were being pragmatic hypocrites, too.  Let's be honest here; a great portion of those who have served in the Oval Office are known adulterers; FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Trump come to mind.  Others--Cleveland, Reagan, Clinton, Kennedy--are alleged or known to have had "rather active social lives" prior to marriage.  (e.g. "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?")

The reality here is that Christians have never really had the option of voting for super-virtuous candidates, and hence it is really an engineering problem of selecting the least obnoxious solution, not a science problem of choosing the perfect solution.

In 2016, I was confronted by one criminal candidate who had accepted tens of millions of dollars from Russian sources after signing off on the purchase of U.S. uranium assets by a Russian company, one who moreover had kept hundreds of classified documents on an unsecured private server, and who also supported unfettered immigration and prenatal infanticide.  She had tolerated and enabled her husband's horrendous personal life, up to and including credible allegations of forcible rape, for the sake of political power.

She was running against another guy who had a horrendous personal life, but not of known rape, or taking of bribes from Russian sources, and not one who had left classified documents where the KGB could get them and "reveal them" discreetly whenever a key decision regarding Russian interests was to be made.

I opposed Trump until it was him vs. Sauron Hilliary, but when it was, it wasn't a hard decision to make.  Part of it is that I've actually worked in environments where classified information was handled, specifically one portrayed in The Falcon and the Snowman, and the need to protect the same was drummed into us HARD.  I had no doubt that if there was evidence I'd handled even one such document, or even if I'd managed to get into the classified office areas, I'd have been summarily fired and the FBI would have had all my electronic devices THAT DAY.  There would have been no long negotiations, no time to scrub the hard drive, no such thing.

To draw a picture of how important this is, look at articles about the Cox Report--an investigation of how the Chinese got designs for all seven U.S. nuclear warhead designs--a theft completed during the....Clinton administration.  That theft probably advanced Chinese missile technology by decades.  

And I'm supposed to be all worried about Donald Trump sleeping with plastic filled bimbos in light of that?  When Hilliary was aiding and abetting her husband when he did the same or worse?  Really?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

GregH's picture

Bert, for a guy that spends a lot of time pointing out supposed logical fallacies in others, you sure do like the strawman fallacy. It is really easy to argue that way isn't it? Prop up some easy position and shoot arrows at it. But exactly where have I brought Trump's adultery into this particular discussion? 

Bert Perry's picture

Greg, when Trump is being criticized, his sexual behavior is rarely off the table.  No?

But if you want your other thoughts dealt with:

1.  Not that good of a businessman?  Your source, ultimately, is a 2015 Fortune article that took the stock market from a relative lull in 1987, right after the crash, to 2015. News flash: Trump entered business around 1968, 19 years earlier, and by 1987 had parlayed an initial stake of a few million dollars to about a billion.

So why was this time range chosen?  Easy; right after the crash of 1987 was a relative low for the stock market that would make the gains since 1987 look very good, and "coincidentally" three of Trump's bankruptcies due to the recession 1991-1993 followed soon after.  Plus, the tech boom of the 1980s and 1990s provided a list of tech execs who did far better.

Honest comparison?  No, it's cherry picking.

2.  Honesty.  Um, do you remember Bill Clinton?  We've been there before, even before what I mentioned about the WashPo shifting the goalposts.  Plus, Hilliary.

3.  No achievements?  Um, see my comments above.  

4.  Cheapened the national discourse.  We've been there before, too, specifically in 1998, when national news forced parents to shoo their kids away or else start explaining terms for a specific sex act.  Plus, Obama had a habit of flipping people off, ostensibly by scratching his head.....with his middle finger.

But really, even if you were completely correct and fair in your assertions, the ugly reality is still that Trump would not have posed the threat to the Republic that Hilliary did.  Again, it matters that she took a boatload of money for the family foundation right after approving a sale of uranium assets.  It matters that classified documents--plus all kinds of other correspondence--were in the hands of Russian and Chinese intelligence agents.  It matters that plans for all U.S. nuclear warheads were stolen by the Chinese (others?) back in the 1990s.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

GregH's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Greg, when Trump is being criticized, his sexual behavior is rarely off the table.  No?

But if you want your other thoughts dealt with:

1.  Not that good of a businessman?  Your source, ultimately, is a 2015 Fortune article that took the stock market from a relative lull in 1987, right after the crash, to 2015. News flash: Trump entered business around 1968, 19 years earlier, and by 1987 had parlayed an initial stake of a few million dollars to about a billion.

So why was this time range chosen?  Easy; right after the crash of 1987 was a relative low for the stock market that would make the gains since 1987 look very good, and "coincidentally" three of Trump's bankruptcies due to the recession 1991-1993 followed soon after.  Plus, the tech boom of the 1980s and 1990s provided a list of tech execs who did far better.

Honest comparison?  No, it's cherry picking.

2.  Honesty.  Um, do you remember Bill Clinton?  We've been there before, even before what I mentioned about the WashPo shifting the goalposts.  Plus, Hilliary.

3.  No achievements?  Um, see my comments above.  

4.  Cheapened the national discourse.  We've been there before, too, specifically in 1998, when national news forced parents to shoo their kids away or else start explaining terms for a specific sex act.  Plus, Obama had a habit of flipping people off, ostensibly by scratching his head.....with his middle finger.

But really, even if you were completely correct and fair in your assertions, the ugly reality is still that Trump would not have posed the threat to the Republic that Hilliary did.  Again, it matters that she took a boatload of money for the family foundation right after approving a sale of uranium assets.  It matters that classified documents--plus all kinds of other correspondence--were in the hands of Russian and Chinese intelligence agents.  It matters that plans for all U.S. nuclear warheads were stolen by the Chinese (others?) back in the 1990s.  

I am not going to quibble about Trump's business acumen. What I stated is well documented; he is a relatively small player with a big mouth in the world of NY real estate. He is also a pariah to American banks, a guy who bilked taxpapers out of billions through bankruptcies (you could easily argue that his bankruptcies generated his entire net worth) and a guy who is a massive underachiever in business in spite of his inheritance and father role model. You are not going to agree with that but that is fine.

Your other points are just classic Trump-loving spin that I can read on Facebook any day--you can't defend him so you are reduced to trying to suggest that Hillary and Obama are worse. For the record, I don't buy into your uranium conspiracy theories nor your "Obama flips people off" conspiracy though I will give you an A for creativity on the latter.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I fail to see how Trump's presidency, as problematic as he is individually, could possibly incur greater long term damage to the USA.

There are alot of problems with the idea that the kind of human being who occupies the oval office can be separated from his policies. ... particularly when the man tweets straight from his character to the global public on a regular basis and has years of speaking his mind in the business world as well before taking office.

The man is disrespectful of anyone who disagrees with him, publicly shames people who work for him, fires people from a distance without warning, has repeatedly openly bragged about exploiting women, routinely throws the word "treason" around in reference to people who oppose him -- on and on it goes. This is not in the same category as voting for a guy who is divorced! Not remotely.

So how does this harm the country, potentially in ways that equal the harm a liberal the likes of Hillary would have done in office?

This is a large subject and I've tried to explain it before (here and in lots of comment posts), but I've found that Trump supporters are generally not willing engage the arguments.

I'll hit a few points in question form...

  • What's the narrative now on the left (and increasingly, all of the country) toward what used to be called "social conservatism"? (It isn't even called that anymore, which ought to tell us something.)
  • What impact does Trump have on that narrative?
  • In the long run (many decades), where does change in a society come from: legislation and court cases or changes in what people believe and think?
  • How is Trump impacting what Americans believe and think? In particular, what impact is he having on the segment of society that is not committed conservative or committed left?
  • What impact has Trump had on Americans' understanding of what conservatism is and what impact is he likely to have for years to come?

Pages