Pro-Trump preachers on message against impeachment probe
“Evangelicals understand that the effort to impeach President Trump is really an effort to impeach our own deeply-held faith values, and we’re not going to allow that to happen,” Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, said Nov. 1 on Fox Business. “That’s why you’re getting such pushback to impeachment from his evangelical base.” - BNG
- 2 views
On the one hand, I will miss GregH. It can be helpful to hear the thoughts of those on the Left, and to be able to interact with them. On the other hand, it will be nice not to be scorned, derided, and castigated for opinions that have as much, if not more substance then his. GregH tells us to quit reading news sources of which he disapproves. (I, for one, do not read Brietburt, and doubt that many others on SI do either.) I have encountered similar statements from Leftists in the past. I don’t think I have every scolded GregH or anyone else for their preferred news sources, even though I suspect GregH is getting his views from biased sources. He’s free to choose the sources he thinks are best. I wish he would grant me the same liberty. I have read his statements, and posted my disagreement when appropriate. I have never derided him personally. Why do so many on the Left accuse those on the Right of being disrespectful of others and yet fail to recognize their own scornful attitudes, which seem to me to be usually greater than the ones about which which they take offense? I think GregH would be helped if he would stay on SI, and listen respectfully to opinions that differ from his own, instead of sarcastically attacking those with whom he differs.
G. N. Barkman
With all due respect, you have no idea what I believe.
As for defending “rapists,” all I have done is oppose knee-jerk responses to things none of us know anything about. NONE OF US KNOW what happened at SWBTS with Patterson. That was my point the entire time. Plain and simple. All we have is the loud report of the person saying they were victimized. One side. That’s what we have, and no independent investigation.
The same goes for a lot of other allegations. Show me some evidence and I am your strongest supporter. Take the latest claims against the pastor candidate at FBC Clarksville, Wes Feltner. The photos are enough to show something isn’t right. Seminary students should not be hanging on to 18 year old women the way he does in many photos. That alone raises problems. Las Vegas vacations… three girlfriends… Christmas meals with three women’s families. On and on. Not good. Like I said, give evidence and I am with you.
As for Trump… I think I have made myself clear. Trump at his worst is 1000x better than Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, et al at their best. Its as simple as that. I mean politically here. I do not think Trump is a racist by the way. He is not a white nationalist and all that nonsense. Read his speeches and comments. The full comments and not something posted on Politico or Vox. If I could would I have picked a better Republican candidate in 2016? Yes. Who? I have no idea. They all have flaws. None of that matters now. It is Trump in 2020 or $52 Trillion just for healthcare. Which is worse?
Whistleblower- please… EVERYONE KNOWS who the guy is. EVERYONE. His life is not threatened anymore than anyone else. And, if you want protection, act like it. Don’t call the DNC to arrange a lawyer to write your whistleblower report, then parade around to all the people in the know while claiming protection. He is the one who should be ashamed of himself!
[G. N. Barkman]GregH tells us to quit reading news sources of which he disapproves. (I, for one, do not read Brietburt, and doubt that many others on SI do either.) I have encountered similar statements from Leftists in the past. I don’t think I have every scolded GregH or anyone else for their preferred news sources, even though I suspect GregH is getting his views from biased sources. He’s free to choose the sources he thinks are best. I wish he would grant me the same liberty.
Politically, I read pretty much everything from left to right, everything between Mother Jones and Breitbart. However, I’ve found I can’t take as much of the radical sites like those two, and prefer stuff more toward the middle. I actually find it most useful to read the opposition writers on sites from center right to center left. I like reading right-leaning writers on say, NY Times or USA Today (and there are a few) and some of the opposition on Fox News, because I find those are the ones that make me think a little. Too much of the news today (let alone commentary) is too “Rah Rah” for their side, whether you read Fox or MSNBC. For world news, I read a lot from Europe, because while most of Europe is left-leaning to our thinking, you’ll many times get more honest news than here. I watch the German Tagesschau (their nightly news program on the main German network) regularly, and while it’s obvious that they have a mainstream European (i.e. center-left) point of view, they are actually more fair to Trump (or people on the left) than most sites here — you’ll actually hear what happened, and when they agree they say so as easily as when they disagree. Pretty refreshing compared to the constant onslaught of outright partisanship here.
Dave Barnhart
My news sources:
- NYT subscription (spend most time here)
- WSJ subscription (spend some time here; excellent stuff)
- BBC (good for broader perspective; there is a world beyond the USA)
- USA Today (rarely look at, but it’s there)
- Al Jazeera English (same as BBC)
I’ve considered subscribing to the Times of London, but I’m not sure it’s worth it.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Quite possibly the best news source out there right now is Washington Examiner. They have a fair amount of Trump defenders but also Trump critics, so you get perspectives. National Review is still doing a decent job, though a few too many Trump justifiers.
The Bulwark is all anti Trump, all the time.
The Morning Dispatch, just getting off the ground, is pretty critical of Trump, but without all the tonal problems at the Bulwark, and more fact focused.
As for Trump… I think I have made myself clear. Trump at his worst is 1000x better than Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, et al at their best. Its as simple as that.
Yes, it’s very simple if you select the criteria for evaluation that make your chosen one look best and then use those criteria alone to evaluate everyone in the field (and also assume that you have to support someone in that field). But this irrationally narrow selectivity is what has brought the GOP to its current low point. It will continue to pull it lower until more leaders recover their backbones and start calling spades spades… in other words, until they come to realize that they’re not even doing pragmatism very well anymore! Even reasonably well-executed pragmatism would yield better results than the current incoherent mess that is the GOP and just about all of “conservative” talk radio and TV.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I of course read nothing but Drudge, Breitbart, WND, and FoxNews….and that’s the least of it, as I also read CNN, Washington Post, and NY Times articles at times. Shame on me! Actually, I only rarely read Drudge or Breitbart, and WND mostly rehashes what you’ll see on Fox or CNN.
Seriously, I’ve found that if someone claims that he is not biased, or his sources are not biased, that’s generally the most biased person you’ll meet that month. The trick is that if we all have a filter—and we all do—then the person arguing he’s unbiased is merely in denial about his own filter, and will be moreover prone to attacking you without knowing where you’re coming from simply because he is compelled to blame you for the disparity between what he sees and what you see. And the trick to being as unbiased as possible is….to concede and own your own filter.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
on MSNBC from time to time.
[Aaron Blumer]As for Trump… I think I have made myself clear. Trump at his worst is 1000x better than Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, et al at their best. Its as simple as that.
Yes, it’s very simple if you select the criteria for evaluation that make your chosen one look best and then use those criteria alone to evaluate everyone in the field (and also assume that you have to support someone in that field).
Aaron, I do not think most people who voted for Trump (as a vote against Hillary) actually think Trump is “the chosen one.” We were simply making a choice between two very bad, worst possible options and taking from Mark’s point, Trump at his worst is better than the Socialist, $52 Trillion Healthcare, & Abortion & LGBTQ loving candidate. Are there some who think Trump is “the chose one,” sure, but most do not.
Many from the Left assume that my difference of opinion comes from listening to only radical, far Right-wing news sources. Actually, I don’t read anything of that kind. I don’t have time for propaganda from either side. I’m looking for factual information, knowing that it can sometimes be difficult to find. Because I can’t spend hours each day following the news, I get most of my information on line, primarily from Fox News, but also CNN and similar outlets. I used to enjoy reading Huffpost until it became too biased to be helpful. I usually have the Wall Street Journal coming to my house. I also listen to NPR (National Public Radio) when I’m in the car. I’m disappointed at the leftward drift at NPR. They used to make a greater effort to be fair, including people from both political parties in their interviews, etc. Now, they are far more weighted to people on the Left, at least 75% or more of the time. But it helps me understand the news from different perspectives.
Often, though, I find that those on the Left refuse to expose themselves to sources except the ones they agree with. They are usually entrenched in their views because they seldom hear a different perspective, yet generally pride themselves in being intelligent and well informed. Hmmm.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]I don’t have time for propaganda from either side. I’m looking for factual information, knowing that it can sometimes be difficult to find.
I agree. If there were actually real news sites that would just give the facts (good, bad, and ugly) about any and all sides, I’d read that. Since all or very nearly all new sources these days have a fair amount of propaganda, I wade through enough of it to try to get a good picture of what is really happening, so I can make up my own mind about it. It consumes more time than I would like, but in my mind, the alternative is to remain ignorant, and I can’t exercise good citizenship (of any kingdom, God’s or otherwise) by doing that.
Dave Barnhart
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript…
Every time the fake news refers to Trump asking for Ukraine to look into Biden and his sons corrupt dealings, they clearly think of it entirely as Trump doing bad by seeking dirt on a political opponent. I just don’t see it that way at all. To me, this is obvious corruption on Biden’s part and it should be uncovered. There is ZERO doubt in my mind that if it was Obama responding to something a Bush offspring had done in a foreign country and asking for the other country to investigate, the fake news would not for a moment think of it as bad on Obama’s part.
And the news completely ignores the dirt on Biden’s part. He gets a pass with zero investigation.
There’s a lot about Trump not to like. People object to the tweeting and unpresidential speaking. I don’t mind that one bit. If you have someone in office who is not a career politician, you will get politically incorrect stuff. You can’t say, “We need an outsider to fix things in Washington” and then complain when when he doesn’t talk like a politician.
How many saw and considered the importance of this story:?
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apples-new-mac-pro-to-be-made-in…
Whatever news source you use, if it’s reputable they’ll provide links to source documents. For example, when acting Ambassador William Taylor provided his recent damning testimony, the NYT provided a link to the transcript of his remarks. I skimmed the article, but read the remarks very carefully.
Take the news source with whatever size a grain of salt is appropriate (with the NYT, with the exception of the opinion columns, it’s solid reporting), but read the source documents when available. President Trump is fond of asking people to “read the transcript.” Well, I read it the day it came out. I believe it’s imprudent, but morally ambiguous. Some say it’s incomplete. We’ll see. In my opinion the transcript, when coupled with Ambassador Taylor’s testimony, is certainly damning.
My point is that you should go to the source documents, whenever possible. They’ll help you cut through the partisan hackery and make your own decisions.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I see nothing damning even if there was an explicit quid pro quo. It is important for our country to clean up corruption. So letting another country know that they must assist in that is important. And if they refused, sure, not helping them would be fine.
Bottom line is, if you don’t like Trump - or his policies - then “he’s guilty” and let’s make up a charge.
That is certainly one way to look at the evidence. There is a real question in my mind about whether the President’s actions actually qualify as impeachable offenses. Again, my point is to rely on source documents to make the best informed conclusions you can about controversial issues - whatever those conclusions might be.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Aaron Blumer]Yes, it’s very simple if you select the criteria for evaluation that make your chosen one look best and then use those criteria alone to evaluate everyone in the field (and also assume that you have to support someone in that field). But this irrationally narrow selectivity is what has brought the GOP to its current low point. It will continue to pull it lower until more leaders recover their backbones and start calling spades spades… in other words, until they come to realize that they’re not even doing pragmatism very well anymore! Even reasonably well-executed pragmatism would yield better results than the current incoherent mess that is the GOP and just about all of “conservative” talk radio and TV.
Aaron,
I must be confused. Who else is going to be President in 2020 other than Trump or one of the Democrat choices? My decisions are based on that cold, hard, pure, true, factual reality. Call that narrow if you like. It is 100% real.
Discussion