Despite Trump’s Indictments, Evangelicals Continue to Back His 2024 Run
“…’most conservative evangelicals gave up on the politics of character in 2016’ and still consider their relationship to Trump as a pragmatic bargain.” - CToday
- 1270 views
The problem with Trump is that he always puts his own interests and gratifying his own ego ahead of everything else, including the country's interests. He likes to exert his dominance over other people and acts as a petty individual. I will not vote for Trump. And if it comes down to whether it is Trump or Biden, I would rather have Biden.
This guy is cuckoo! He is going to release a report on Monday that shows the election was rigged and that will exonerate him. He can’t let it go. He can’t imagine a scenario where the almighty Trump lost. So he will continue to stay in la la land. He won’t run the country he will just spend his entire 4 years trying to find the fake votes. His team was the one that broke into coffee county election offices to take equipment out. He was the one who tried to hide classified material, he was the one that weaponized the DOJ, to the point that Barr had to quit. This guy is so messed up. Oh but wait, he will help overturn abortion. So this is all okay.
>>Yep … Trump’s a victim. Nothing to see here. Meanwhile, there are a handful of good, strong, unindicted republican candidates that can’t get even a nod from Christians. Just two or three cycles ago, anyone with this many indictments (or any at all) wouldn’t have stood a chance at the oval office. Now, the more the better. Simply astounding.<<
I hope your argumentation on this thread is not indicative of your style from the pulpit, because if it is, I feel for the members of your church. I’m certainly glad I don’t get such preaching on a regular basis.
It’s amazing that simply wanting to stick to sound logical and legal principle (e.g. indictments are not convictions, and that guilt is not assumed from indictment) is responded to with child-like binary thinking (i.e. making a comment about abuse of the legal system means the person is only a victim and that there is nothing to see). I’ve never said that Trump is only a victim or that there is absolutely nothing to see. I’ve simply pointed out that so far, all the accusations of treason, guilt, etc. have simply not panned out in the way they were sold, that there is good reason to distrust the motives of those doing the prosecuting, and that indictments don’t prove guilt. As has been often said, in our legal system, it’s easy to indict a ham sandwich. I’ll wait for actual evidence and conviction, thank you all the same. I’d agree (at least under normal legal conditions) that convictions should prevent a chance at the oval office. In this environment, indictments can easily be simply political strategy, and sadly, I suspect that even convictions could be based on bias, not evidence.
Be that as it may, as I and others have pointed out multiple times, we intend to vote for (not just give a nod to) one of the other candidates that would be a better choice. However if it comes down to Trump vs. Biden (or Harris, or Newsom), and I’m hoping and praying that that does not happen, I do not believe that any of those Democrats would be a better choice than Trump as president. I understand that there are those here who disagree, but I have yet to see someone explain in a way that convinces me that their negatives are not worse than Trump’s for our country. And I don’t believe that wasting 8-12 years (if it could even be accomplished that quickly) of voting for a worse candidate on the other side because ours doesn’t measure up will give us the leaders we want in the future. Perhaps I’m not forward thinking enough, but you would have to convince me of that as well.
Dave Barnhart
I hope your argumentation on this thread is not indicative of your style from the pulpit, because if it is, I feel for the members of your church. I’m certainly glad I don’t get such preaching on a regular basis.
This, Dave, is a great comeback, especially in light of what you write just after it...
It’s amazing that simply wanting to stick to sound logical and legal principle (e.g. indictments are not convictions, and that guilt is not assumed from indictment) is responded to with child-like binary thinking (i.e. make a comment about abuse of the legal system means the person is only a victim and that there is nothing to see)....
I’d agree (at least under normal legal conditions) that convictions should prevent a chance at the oval office. In this environment, indictments can easily be simply political strategy, and sadly, I suspect that even convictions will be able to be had based on bias, not evidence.
So, you're not convinced that Trump is disqualified from the oval office based on his numerous federal and state indictments because you distrust the motives of the prosecutors. And, even if Trump is found guilty in a court of law (federal or state), you'll still question the validity of any convictions because you suspect the judge and/or jury is biased against Trump.
So, you just admitted that regardless of the outcome of the trials, you'll still view Trump as a victim of some nefarious political strategy.
My friend, who has bewitched you?
>>So, you’re not convinced that Trump is disqualified from the oval office based on his numerous indictments because you distrust the motives of the prosecutors. And, even if Trump is found guilty in a court of law (federal or state), you’ll still question the validity of any convictions because you suspect the judge and/or jury is biased against Trump. So, you just admitted that regardless of the outcome of the trials, you’ll still view Trump as a victim of some nefarious political strategy.<<
That’s a bit of a distortion what I said. I said indictments themselves don’t prove anything, which means that by themselves, they are not disqualifying. And while I do distrust the motives of the prosecutors currently, hard evidence coming to light that proves the indictments would convince me.
So no, I didn’t say that “regardless of the outcome [I’ll] still view Trump as a victim…” If the result is “guilty, but none of the evidence can come to light because of…’reasons,’” then yes I would distrust it. If the evidence is available for all to see, that would make all the difference. Until then, I’m willing to wait before making a hasty judgment.
Dave Barnhart
For those of you here who believe all of Trump's indictments and any future convictions are (or may be) part of a nefarious political strategy, I will make the following concessions:
- I believe all of the accusations, investigations, and mess surrounding Trump's collusion with Russia were part of a nefarious political strategy.
- I believe Hillary Clinton did not receive the amount of scrutiny that she should have received given the current obsession with Trump.
That said, Trump should be nowhere near the oval office. He shouldn't even be a candidate for office. Many of those who worked directly for him while he was president believe the same thing. That's scary. That's telling.
It is mind-boggling how many Christians defend Trump, even if they qualify it with “unless convicted”
I get the pragmatic argument that if the choice is Trump or Biden (or similar), Trump would be better. I also think it is wishful thinking.
If Trump is the nominee, Independents and many Republicans would vote the other way. I just don’t see how Trump wins the election even if he is the nominee.
the time to stop him is now, but it seems too many Republicans are in the thrall of the Trump cult
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
To stop stealing, deterrent theory makes laws as tough as possible and shames potential criminals in order to deter thieves from stealing
Isn’t the deterrent theory, both in the Bible and among conservatives, the idea that the penalty for a crime should be significant enough to deter someone from committing the crime? At times that is restitution (both the loss and punitive damages). At other times it is incarceration (when someone is a danger to others).
It is not to make laws as tough as possible but to make penalties tough enough to deter those who might be tempted and to, when necessary, deter by by incarceration. This is biblical: Strike a scoffer so that the naive may become wise (Proverbs 19:26, 21:11).
It doesn’t shame potential criminals, though it should create a certain amount of fear in them. It only shames actual criminals and rightly so. There should be a societal stigma attached to crime. Perhaps restitution should be used more often, but it is frequently used now and any sort of restitution requires resources which also has a broad impact. Very often, for first time offender, plea deals are worked out significantly less than the legal allowances in hopes of not incarcerating. Probation terms are there to deter criminals. But it doesn’t always work.
The easiest place to see this is in driving infractions. Penalties for speeding have to be high enough so that it is not worth it. If a speeding ticket were $5, it wouldn’t be that big of a deal. When it is $200, you think twice about speeding. When you car is taken away for DUI or DWI, it is a deterrent to you driving under the influence.
Discussion