Pro-Trump preachers on message against impeachment probe

Only those on the left seem to be convinced that Trump has done anything rising to the level of impeachment. Nixon saw the handwriting on the wall when Republicans favored his impeachment. So far, only Democrats seem to be convinced. Witness the recent vote on the House, and hear the even more recent statement by McConnel in the Senate. Scolding Evangelicals for not supporting impeachment assumes that they are unprincipled and need to come to the sensible position of the Left. But maybe they have sound reasons for believing this is an underhanded scheme without sufficient basis. That may change if more substantial evidence is produced. But after more than two years of fruitless, frenzied searching, it looks like an unprincipled ploy to reverse a legal election. Why does the Left assume that they are the only ones who see things clearly or who act morally? Why are they so blind to their own foilbles?

This silly notion that evangelicals shouldn’t vote for Trump because, Trump, while repeatedly failing to acknowledge the gigantic leap leftwards of the Democrats (including jumping farther to the left on abortion), is asinine. According to some on this thread, you get the feeling that we evangelicals are scum if we vote for Trump even as a vote against the Democratic (pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, etc, etc.) candidate, never mind actually “supporting” him.

Some people on this thread seem to understand that balance. Others … WOW!

But, go ahead and keep railing against white, uneducated, evangelical voters.

I will be voting republican in 2020.

Perhaps some of you would prefer Warren???

Just because they are left does not mean they are wrong.

Just because they are left does not mean they are not moral.

In this case, the left is more correct and more moral than the right.

Regarding your comment about substantial evidence, it is very clear by now that no evidence produced is going to be “substantial evidence” to those determined to protect Trump. It is very interesting to watch crooked Republicans trying to spin Sonderland’s reversal which is about as substantial as you can get if you are a normal person. At some point, you just have to accept that these people don’t care about truth. Their entire worldview is pragmatic and geared toward their own political survival. The only thing that will change their minds on what is true is Trump’s approval numbers dropping.

[G. N. Barkman]

Or maybe voters realize that our system is designed in a manner that makes it virtually impossible.

Put it however you like. Your presuppositions determine your perspective. I happen to disagree that 3rd parties are impossible in our system, and I think history is on my side.

[GregH]

Just because they are left does not mean they are wrong.

Just because they are left does not mean they are not moral.

In this case, the left is more correct and more moral than the right.

Regarding your comment about substantial evidence, it is very clear by now that no evidence produced is going to be “substantial evidence” to those determined to protect Trump. It is very interesting to watch crooked Republicans trying to spin Sonderland’s reversal which is about as substantial as you can get if you are a normal person. At some point, you just have to accept that these people don’t care about truth. Their entire worldview is pragmatic and geared toward their own political survival. The only thing that will change their minds on what is true is Trump’s approval numbers dropping.

Lets be honest here though. Impeachments are almost always along party lines and the incumbent party is always entrenched in protecting their leader. Not a single Democrat voted Clinton to be guilty. We had plenty of evidence on Clinton and the same speech went around, “no evidence produced is going to be enough to those determined to protect Clinton”. Everyone is going to spin this. The Democrats have done just as much spinning as the Republicans. I don’t really care too much about whether he stays in office, is impeached or goes to jail. The more the government fights amongst themselves, the more they stay out of my life. Ha!

GregH, the things you say about the Right can equally be said about the Left. That’s part of the problem. The Left believes they are the only ones who are correct, and that everybody on the Right is either immoral or stupid. Those on the Right have a similar perspective of the Left. To you, impeaching Trump is clear, and you can’t see how anyone can objectively deny it. To the Right, impeaching Trump is anything but clear, and they can’t see how anyone can reasonably justify it.

However, as mmartin said above, there is a clear difference between the Left and the Right when it comes to Christian values. I think many continue to support Trump, not because they like him, but because he is the only thing standing in the way of the Left controlling our country, and moving it further away from the Bible.

He claims to know that Hunter Biden took millions of dollars “off the books” from Burisma. Why isn’t the left demanding an investigation into the Joe and Hunter Biden scandal? No one’s accusing Trump of profiting financially from his dealings with Ukraine. If Donald Trump Sr. or Jr. were accused of what the Biden’s are accused of, all hell would break loose. I doubt that many would deny that such activities, if true, rise to the level of impeachment. The Left would have a whole lot more credibility if they demonstrated a little bit of even handedness. The blatant and glaring double standard is what convinces many Americans that the Trump issue has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with politics.

[pvawter]

G. N. Barkman wrote:

Or maybe voters realize that our system is designed in a manner that makes it virtually impossible.

Put it however you like. Your presuppositions determine your perspective. I happen to disagree that 3rd parties are impossible in our system, and I think history is on my side.

Honest questions: When has a 3rd party had a sustained & effective impact on American politics? How would you see a 3rd party become relevant & effective in today’s American political scene.

Just curious about your perspective.

Thanks!

[mmartin]

pvawter wrote:

G. N. Barkman wrote:

Or maybe voters realize that our system is designed in a manner that makes it virtually impossible.

Put it however you like. Your presuppositions determine your perspective. I happen to disagree that 3rd parties are impossible in our system, and I think history is on my side.

Honest questions: When has a 3rd party had a sustained & effective impact on American politics? How would you see a 3rd party become relevant & effective in today’s American political scene.

Just curious about your perspective.

Thanks!

Well, since we no longer have the Federalist, Democratic-Republican, Whig, Bull Moose parties, etc. I’d say the ability of a 3rd party to topple an existing party has a pretty strong history in the United States. People act like since we don’t see 3 parties sharing power a 3rd party is ineffective. I think that’s short-sighted, but as long as it continues to be the dominant thinking in this country, many who would otherwise vote 3rd party and provoke real change will simply hold their noses and vote for less than desirable candidates in the party with which they traditionally identify. This will result in even less desirable candidates in the future for both major parties.

When has a 3rd party had a sustained & effective impact on American politics?

While it’s hard to know for sure, in 1992 a 3rd party likely gave us Clinton instead of Bush 41 which resulted in eight years of Clinton. It also probably gave us the Republican Revolution of 1994 that probably pulled Clinton to the right a good deal. What would have happened had Perot not run is of debate, but it certainly appears to have changed things significantly in many way. A third party in 2000 probably gave us Bush. Overall in 2000, 3rd parties garnered almost 4 million votes. Again we don’t know what might have happened otherwise, but it is difficult to say that didn’t cause a sustained and effective impact.

A third party in Kentucky last night probably elected a Democrat. We don’t know what the lasting impact of that would be.

What is your MAIN problem with Trump. I mean the very top, and only state one! I’m just curious what the real problem is.

My main problem with Trump is:

His constant Tweeting, which often includes a childish tone and abrasive language.

Is simple; why is Hunter Biden’s three million bucks from Burisma no big deal when his only qualification for the job was being the VP’s son, and why was it no big deal that Joe Biden explicitly threatened to withhold aid if the prosecutor investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden was not fired, but it suddenly is a huge deal when Donald Trump asks for the matter to be revisited?

Do Democrats get a pass on obvious corruption for some reason, but Republicans aren’t even allowed to ask that it be investigated?

Let’s remember as well that Adam Schiff is the same guy who was, well before this fiasco broke, arguing that there was enough evidence to indict Trump even though Robert Mueller had said just the opposite, and his report backed that up. So if Schiff had any evidence to back that up, he was more or less in huge violation of confidentiality laws. If not, he was lying on very important matters.

So why on earth is he heading this panel? Again, does obvious corruption by Democrats not matter, but implied problems with Republicans are a huge deal? Really?

Once again, it appears its time to point out the fact that in the 2016 GOP primary process, Trump was NOT the favorite of evangelicals. The data clearly shows this. Trump got the nomination because the GOP was splintered among so many other candidates. The data is pretty easy to find:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primar…

Here are the actual percentages of voters who voted for Trump in each state, in chronological order, showing the number of candidates in parenthesis. And keep in mind that several states are open-primary, meaning Democrats and independents could ask for the GOP ballot. And they did. Given the Democrat primary was fixed so Clinton would win, the voters were free to ask for the GOP ballot and mark Trump, believing at the time that he was the easiest out in the General Election.

IA: 24.3% (12 candidates)
NH: 35.2% (10 candidates)
SC: 32.5% (6 candidates)
NV: 45.7% (5 candidates)
AL: 43.4% (5 candidates)
AK: 33.5% (5 candidates)
AR: 32.8% (5 candidates)
GA: 39% (5 candidates)
MA: 49% (5 candidates)
MN: 21% (5 candidates)
OK: 28% (5 candidates)
TN: 39% (5 candidates)
TX: 27% (5 candidates)
VT: 33% (5 candidates)
VA: 35% (5 candidates)
KS: 23% (4 candidates)
KY: 36% (4 candidates)
LA: 41% (4 candidates)
ME: 33% (4 candidates)
HI: 43% (4 candidates)
ID: 28% (4 candidates)
MI: 37% (4 candidates)
MS: 47% (4 candidates)
DC: 14% (4 candidates)
WY: 7.2% (4 candidates)
FL: 46% (4 candidates)
IL: 39% (4 candidates)
MO: 40.8% (4 candidates)
NC: 40% (4 candidates)
OH: 36% (4 candidates)
AZ: 46% (4 candidates)
UT: 14% (4 candidates)
WI: 35% (4 candidates)
NY: 59% (4 candidates)

As one can easily observe, it wasn’t until the NY primary (Trump’s home state) that Trump finally got more than 50% in a primary. Earlier he came close in Massachusetts, but are there even any evangelicals at all in that state?

If you go back and read the narrative, even as late as the FL and OH primaries, GOP party operatives were hoping that it was still possible to stop Trump if they could just get down to Trump vs one other candidate. But each of Cruz, Rubio and Kasich refused to agree to be of the ones to drop out to help the other beat Trump, and so Trump got the nomination getting on average only about 1/3 of the vote of GOP voters. The vast majority wanted some other candidate.

But it is true that some outspoken preachers who wear the evangelical label were for Trump during the primary, and so now its easy for some to make the claims that evangelicals as a whole were for Trump during the 2016 primary, when in fact the data shows otherwise.

Of course the 2016 general election was a different question, because evangelicals had to choose between two immoral candidates, Trump and Clinton, and of the two many figured they would rather have Trump due to his SCOTUS nominee promises, which in fact he has kept.

But the media loves to paint evangelicals as moral hypocrites, and so the narrative goes that all evangelicals endorsed immorality in 2016 when in fact that was not the case in the GOP primary process, and morality was not an option on the general election ballot.

You nailed it.