Trump Should Not Be Removed from Office: A Response to Mark Galli and Christianity Today

[Dan Miller]

pvawter wrote:Dr. Grudem found Donald Trump to be so disqualified that he called him to voluntarily step down from running. What does Hillary have to do with that? Nothing.

Yes she does. It’s like this:

Mom: We’re going vote to choose supper in two choices. Choice #1: spaghetti or hot dogs

Son: Oh, let’s do spaghetti! I don’t want hot dogs.

Dad: I vote hot dogs

Mom: I vote hot dogs also. Vote #2: hot dogs or a turd on a plate.

Son: I will vote for hot dogs.

He switch from voting against hot dogs to voting for them. Not because he started liking hot dogs better between the votes. Because he did not want to eat poop.

Your illustration fails because the turf on a plate was an option all along, and the 4th option is go hungry. There’s always another choice that doesn’t involve holding your nose and eating a turd.

[pvawter]

Dan Miller wrote:

…He switch from voting against hot dogs to voting for them. Not because he started liking hot dogs better between the votes. Because he did not want to eat poop.

Your illustration fails because the turf on a plate was an option all along, and the 4th option is go hungry. There’s always another choice that doesn’t involve holding your nose and eating a turd.

[Larry]

What does Hillary have to do with that?

She was the alternative (as he pointed out in the article. It was Trump or Hillary and Grudem judged Trump, with all his failures, to be the better option.

2019 Wayne Grudem is contradicting 2015 Wayne Grudem, not to mention 1998 Wayne Grudem who spoke very publicly concerning the importance of a leader’s private character.

Perhaps, but why is this a problem? Are people not allowed to change their mind based on further evidence or evaluation? Perhaps he was wrong then and right now. Perhaps he was wrong in all three cases. Perhaps he was right in all three cases because of different circumstances,

Again, remember, most evangelicals voted against Trump until he was the only option other than Clinton. You know why? Because they agree with you and Aaron and me and Grudem that Trump should

But Hillary…

Yes. And?

Do you think the state of our nation would be better or worse with Clinton as president?

Let’s be clear that Grudem cited his words from 2015, not to demonstrate that he’s changed his mind about Trump, but as proof that he still believes in basic moral standards for the Presidency, something that many even here on SI seem to reject. But apparently what was disqualifying in 2015 is no longer disqualifying in 2019. Somehow Presidential ethics have changed.

For years I was taught to reject situational ethics. Then along comes an esteemed professor of ethics who argues, based on his many decades of experience in the field, that situational ethics are not merely acceptable but necessary in 21st century politics, because…Hillary. Pardon me if I am not impressed.

You’re trying to Kobiashi-Maru my turd.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I like the turd analogy. But to me, it’s more accurate to say that in 2016 I was offered a plate of cow manure by one party and horse manure by the other major party. I declined them both. :-)

Let’s be clear that Grudem cited his words from 2015, not to demonstrate that he’s changed his mind about Trump, but as proof that he still believes in basic moral standards for the Presidency, something that many even here on SI seem to reject. But apparently what was disqualifying in 2015 is no longer disqualifying in 2019. Somehow Presidential ethics have changed.

This really isn’t fair to what Grudem was saying.

He was saying that in the 2016 election primaries, he wanted Trump to step down. But once he was the republican choice, he saw it at a binary choice between Trump and Hillary. Between them, he chose Trump.

He goes on to say that many of the things that made him want Trump to step down in 2016 have not been the case since, which he lays out a pretty good case for that.

The problem is that Grudem does not see the choice like you and Aaron do. You guys see it as, “Is Trump satisfactorily qualified for my endorsement?” Grudem sees it like Larry and I do: “Is Trump better than the alternative?” Since that is his underlying question, it is not self-contradictory to prefer XYZ to Trump in 2016 primaries and then prefer Trump to Hillary in 2016 general election.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I like the turd analogy. But to me, it’s more accurate to say that in 2016 I was offered a plate of cow manure by one party and horse manure by the other major party. I declined them both.

I’m okay with this logically. It’s valid. BUT I don’t see how you can say that they are that close to one another.

True, you can not vote. And I am fine if you do that. But do not judge my vote.

This, I think, is the point.

Aaron, if you feel that Trump is so bad that you feel convicted to spend your vote on a 3rd party, follow your conviction.

I believed in 2016 that Trump was a huge question mark. He wasn’t my choice in the Primaries. But he was far better than H, so I voted Trump. At this point, most of my questions have been answered by him and I’ll vote for him more happily.

–===–

The result:

You see Trump as bad enough that you would feel guilty about voting for him regardless of the alternatives or consequences.

And I see Trump as enough better than the other electable candidates that I would feel guilty about not voting for him.

That’s it.

You can go over the reasons he’s bad enough all day.

- It won’t matter because you don’t think he’s pure evil. And I already agree that Trump isn’t perfect.

You can go over the reasons why a candidate must be considered endorsable or not on his own merits all day.

- It won’t matter because I see voting as a choice between two. Not voting (or 3rd party) means giving half your support to each. I don’t see that as an indirect result. That is what it is.

And I can go over the reasons he’s better than all day.

- It won’t matter because you already agree that he’s better than. You just don’t see the guiding principle as a comparison between two choices.

And I can go over why it’s a comparison all day.

- It won’t matter because you just don’t see it that way. And I agree that there could be a case where both candidates were so bad that the comparison doesn’t matter and you could vote for neither. (This would be like P’s choice of manure and a turd.)

–===–

Aaron,

As I said, you and I are at a point where you would feel guilty if you voted for Trump and I would feel guilty if I didn’t. As such, I believe that we are called by Scripture not to despise one another. I will confess to you that I did that in my response to you in the other thread (Sat, 12/28/2019 - 7:38pm). I’m sorry for that.