Can Christians get political without hurting the Gospel message?

Agreed, Mr. B.

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

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.”

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.

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]

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.

.

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?

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?

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.

[Bert Perry]

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.

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?

Of course it does. In 2016, we had two very flawed characters, to put it mildly. Who could make a case for preferring Hillary’s character over Trump’s? But even when character is sound, principles, policy, and political ideals are extremely important. Think about Jimmy Carter. Few would question his character. but not many members of SI would defend his record as president.

Trump is a very flawed character. His personal failings cannot help but harm our country. This is regrettable. Wouldn’t we all prefer Ronald Reagan! But Reagan wasn’t running. It was either Trump or Clinton. Given the political policies of each, it is hard for me to see how electing Clinton would have been better for the country than Trump. Clinton is deeply flawed. So is Trump. Character issues pretty much cancel each other. I don’t see any value in listing Clinton’s personal failings against Trump’s. Who could possibly assess the relative impact of one verses the other? But their politics are poles apart. Trump has succeeded in stemming much of the flood of liberal gains under Obama. Clinton would have continued that flood. That difference is enormous, and has immeasurable consequences for the future.