'I was saved by luck or God,' Trump says

I’m not claiming to know the answer, but I wonder how the prayers inspired by this event would be different if the target had been Joe Biden?

I don’t think they should be different at all.

For my part, I would like very much to see Donald Trump gone from America’s political and cultural scene. But not that way. (I’d also very much like to see Joe Biden gone from America’s political and cultural scene, but again, not that way.)

Ironically, the reasons I’m against Trump are the same reasons I’m against anyone shooting him. Both are serious threats to the rule of law, which I often think is about all that is left holding us together as a nation (other times I think there is a lot more!). But political violence is a bigger threat to rule of law than any individual would-be tyrant (especially one 78 years old).

Even secular news media is referring to "providence" in Trump's survival. Some Christians may assume that Trump's survival is a sign of God's approval. God's sovereignty and providence explain the "what", but do not explain the "why". God directs lives and events as simply as "channels of water" (Proverbs 21:1). But we often do not know the specific reason(s). I told my wife Saturday evening that, unless some major event changes the election dynamics, Trump won the election Saturday night. Anything can happen in politics, especially Presidential politics. Nothing is certain until the votes are counted.

Referring to Trump as "would-be tyrant" is extreme and an over-reaction. Trump's strong point is that he says what he thinks. Trump's weak point is that he says what he thinks. If Trump is re-elected, I do not have any concern about his being a tyrant. Often those who proclaim the loudest that they are "defenders of democracy" (mostly Democrats) are the ones to watch carefully. However Trump and some Republicans must share some responsibility for current political hysteria, as he and others often called for some of their political opponents to be "locked up". Democrats used the same language as well and even implemented their desire. We still have sufficient rule of law to keep either major political party from going too far in "locking up".

Referring to Trump as “would-be tyrant” is extreme and an over-reaction.
Trump’s strong point is that he says what he thinks.

This is how we know he is a would-be tyrant. He has communicated it clearly and often.

If Trump is re-elected, I do not have any concern about his being a tyrant. Often those who proclaim the loudest that they are “defenders of democracy” (mostly Democrats) are the ones to watch carefully.

This is true but it doesn’t follow that those who proclaim the loudest that they can do whatever they want don’t mean it. (“Out of the abundance of the heart…”)

I am a bit less concerned about his obvious tyrannical tendencies than in the past only because: (a) It is harder for presidents to get what they want than most people generally assume (and than I have thought). (b) He does not know how to win over opposition. (c) The voters may very well put him in office then elect a Democrat majority in the House. (d) He is too old to become Castro or Gaddafi or Putin. (e) He’s not really all that competent in general (as demonstrated by, for example, botched efforts to illegally hang on to secret documents, and what the majority of former staffers think of him)—so in addition to the other factors, his ability to achieve what he wants is limited in that way. I could probably add that (f) pendulums always swing and how much longer can the mood of the right really stay in his favor? I’m less certain of that one, since the right continues to get dumber at a pace that does not seem to be slowing. But time is not on his side anymore. He will probably have four not very effective years.

We could certainly do worse (than a 2nd Trump term), so these are mercies for which I am thankful.

Trump's strong point is that he says what he thinks. Trump's weak point is that he says what he thinks.

If you think Trump speaking his mind is his weak point... :(

Anyway, I'm not sure why presidential candidates choose weak vice-presidents. Pence was an empty suit until Jan 6. JD Vance is another empty suit. Perhaps he picked them because he felt they wouldn't stand up to him. When Pence did stand up against Trump on Jan 6, Trump disowned him. Trump would win Ohio without JD Vance on the ticket. Not sure why he is the best VP pick.

But, I don't plan to vote for Trump / Vance anyway...

Back to the topic of the thread, Trump is quick to use / abuse Christianity for his benefit. I see this as another example of that.

There is no question that we saw the outworking of God's providence on Saturday. I agree with Wally, however, that we are not privy to the exact purposes behind such providence.

I was a guest speaker in a church on Sunday, and opened the service with reading 1 Tim. 2:1-4, and prayers for both President Trump and President Biden. It felt like a significant moment in our history.

I would think it would really give tremendous pause to any elected official, on any level, for so many reasons. It is a weighty thing indeed to seek to be a ruler or leader over the people of our country. May we pray for all who hold this kind of authority.

And ... may we use the word providence much more than we do!

"Trump says ‘God alone’ saved him from assassination attempt"

What I pray is that Trump takes a moment and reflect on his depravity, and turn his heart to Christ. The destination of his soul is much more important to him than he realizes and much more important than his desire for worldly praise and power.

God works all things, whether it saves Trump or not is another matter.

THoward: Not wise to verbalize everything you think. Note the many Proverbs about speech. Trump's careless use of words has created much trouble for himself. I suspect the concerns about Trump being a "would-be tyrant" can be traced to his careless use of words which can be understood different ways in context.

We have been hearing many in the media and online (not to mention our current President) identify President Trump as a "threat to democracy," a "would-be tyrant," and as "literally Hitler." What does this kind of rhetoric produce? We saw it Saturday night. Maybe it's time to consider the impact of such irresponsible words.

I suspect the concerns about Trump being a "would-be tyrant" can be traced to his careless use of words which can be understood different ways in context.

And I suspect that Trump's words are not entirely careless. I think he takes great care to choose words that are incendiary enough to rankle his opposition but also fluid enough that he can then deny the meaning of what everyone just heard him say. He's the ultimate showman. Most politicians, upon getting shot at, would want to stay low. Not Trump. His immediate thought was to make a show of standing up and raising a fist. He cared quite a bit about creating a certain impression.

I think his political carelessness is indeed a problem for him. He is simply not a seasoned politician. If he had been in office for 20 years he might have a better instinct for what not to say. But he would be politician.

What about JD Vance? No discussion here about him. Why was he a Never Trumper? Why did he come around to the reasonable side of things? I just learned this morning that he’s a long time friend of Vivek Ramaswamy. Named his son Vivek.

JD Vance is a bit of an enigma. He has practically no political background, so it is hard to understand where he fits and what his policy stances are. He is a recent convert to Catholicism and his wife is a practicing Hindu. He has strong ties to the neo-reactionary movement, that at its extremes is a proponent of neo-facism. It is essentially critical of the concept of democracy. How much he falls into this is unknown, but he has close ties to the current leaders of this movement and has spoken highly of many of its concepts. He is not against Russian expansion and promotes the ending of Ukranining aid. He was recently a "never Trumper" and compared Trump to Hitler. Those are the warning flags I see about him. Otherwise he falls along the lines of most in the party.

THoward: Not wise to verbalize everything you think. Note the many Proverbs about speech. Trump's careless use of words has created much trouble for himself.

Wally, I don't disagree with you. I just think Trump has many more weaknesses as a potential president that surpass his careless words.

What about JD Vance? No discussion here about him. Why was he a Never Trumper? Why did he come around to the reasonable side of things?

He began supporting Trump before he started his senatorial campaign in Ohio. JD Vance comes across to me as an opportunist. He got Trump's backing during the campaign. I view him as a Trump lackey because he has no real qualifications to be a senator, let alone a VP, other than his relationship and support of Trump.

We have been hearing many in the media and online (not to mention our current President) identify President Trump as a “threat to democracy,” a “would-be tyrant,” and as “literally Hitler.” What does this kind of rhetoric produce? We saw it Saturday night. Maybe it’s time to consider the impact of such irresponsible words.

The terms “threat to democracy” and “would-be tyrant” and “literally Hitler” are not equal to the terms “people we should shoot.”

And they might also be true. I’ve personally never used the terms “threat to democracy” or “literally Hitler”… especially since Hitler is literally dead. 😀

But “would-be tyrant” is quite mild as language goes. Also manifestly true, in his case. Historically speaking, all three of the terms above are quite mild in the context of political rhetoric in countries with democratic traditions and free speech.

I think we have to mostly steer clear of linking political violence to political rhetoric, as far as blame goes. But there is one place we can draw something of a line: when political speech uses actual language of violence. … which, ironically in this context, Trump has done multiple times. He was almost certainly being metaphorical, but still… it’s one thing to say “this politician is Genghis Kahn” vs. saying if I don’t get my way there’s going to be a bloodbath. These are qualititatively different kinds of statements.

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/02/trump-call-violence-presidency

A lot of the above examples are trivial, to be sure. Not all of them.

But, honestly, does anyone seriously question that Trump is irresponsible in his rhetoric? I thought even most of his fans owned up to that… and not a few openly admire it.

Aaron, RE the bloodbath comment. I encourage you to do a bit more research before quoting your "trusted media sources". The full context of that comment is about the auto industry.

"China now is building a couple of massive plants, where they're going to build the cars in Mexico and … they think that they're going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China. If you're listening, President Xi, and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal, those big, monster car manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now, and you think you're going to get that, you're going to not hire Americans, and you're going to sell the cars to us, no. We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars."

"If I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the whole, that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That'll be the least of it. But they're not gonna sell those cars."

There is plenty to criticize Trump for without making things up and the more people keep doing that, the more they will drive people to ignore their criticisms and vote for Trump. I have been warning never Trumpers about that for years. So many never Trumpers are just ignored because so many of their accusations have been proven to be uncredible.

For those that say JD Vance has "no real qualifications" for Senate or VP, it would be helpful to know what you consider qualifications for either role.

Mr. Vance is, to my mind, very qualified: personal experience as an average/below-average American, has learned from poor decisions of his family during his childhood, gifted communicator, US military service, college graduate from a public institution, law school graduate from one of America's leading law schools (<> agreeing w/ Yale's views), business decision maker and allocator of capital, demonstrably non-racist, and the humility to change his mind when the evidence he has received changes.

Doesn't make him my ideal pick, but he meets my qualifications. BTW, some folks want someone who has more experience (generally requiring more years on earth). Yet people do not automatically learn from experience or get wiser with years. Age and good judgement are often positively correlated, but not always. We have all known or read of people who are unusually insightful and wise in their youth and we are also aware of those who are quite old by modern standards and still make terrible decisions. Based on his personal history and his self and family awareness as expressed in his writing, Mr. Vance has learned more from his 39 years of experience than many people learn from 2x that many years. Still not my ideal pick, nor is Trump my ideal POTUS pick. But I can't say Mr. Vance is unqualified.