Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

smltwnrckr

Evangelicals and the Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Orange said:

Uh, except for the absolutism inherent in religion.  There is no rational justifications ("hey, we need this man because he's qualified").  It's "god sez no girls allowed".  Other institutions have a built-in capacity for change.  Religion does not.

Religion does as well.  We've seen it these past 50yrs in many denominations.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Orange said:

Maybe you need to take even the most idle glance at the muslim world.  Women are 2nd class citizens there.  And when they do rape, the woman is punished.

You are such a simpleton

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Orange said:

Maybe you need to take even the most idle glance at the muslim world.  Women are 2nd class citizens there.  And when they do rape, the woman is punished.

Always funny when a guy who has never left Oregon starts pontificating about "The Muslim World". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pokebball said:

Religion does as well.  We've seen it these past 50yrs in many denominations.

Right, they agree the earth revolves around the sun after they burn a few people alive.  :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Joe from WY said:

Always funny when a guy who has never left Oregon starts pontificating about "The Muslim World". 

Never took you for a muslim apologist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Orange said:

Never took you for a muslim apologist.

Not really an apologist so much as a former longtime resident of the region, I'm really just pointing out that you (again) have no idea what you're talking about. But when you're from Sisters or Madras or whatever little burg it is you call home, I'm guessing talking about things you have no clue about is rather commonplace. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

Not really an apologist so much as a former longtime resident of the region, I'm really just pointing out that you (again) have no idea what you're talking about. But when you're from Sisters or Madras or whatever little burg it is you call home, I'm guessing talking about things you have no clue about is rather commonplace. 

tenor.gif?itemid=10994492

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Orange said:

Maybe you need to take even the most idle glance at the muslim world.  Women are 2nd class citizens there.  And when they do rape, the woman is punished.

lmao. Yeah. Sure. 

Just for the provincial among us, which definitely includes yourself, you ought to know that your friend, Saudi Arabia, =/= "the Muslim World"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NorCalCoug said:

 

It’s especially troubling how they embrace Trump but had an issue with Romney.

They had an issue with Romney because he changes his positions all the time and has no balls whatsoever to fight for a policy that’s being challenged by the left. They are tired of politician talk and no action. You just can’t trust Romney. In contrast, Trump gives his campaign promises, doesn’t deviate from them and fights like hell to get them done. If Trump were a truck, he’d have a terrible paint job, noisy and obnoxious sounding motor, but it would still be a big solid truck with a gas tank so big he goes goes and never runs out of gas. He travels straight from point A to Point B  on campaign promises. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

They had an issue with Romney because he changes his positions all the time and has no balls whatsoever to fight for a policy that’s being challenged by the left. They are tired of politician talk and no action. You just can’t trust Romney. In contrast, Trump gives his campaign promises, doesn’t deviate from them and fights like hell to get them done. If Trump were a truck, he’d have a terrible paint job, noisy and obnoxious sounding motor, but it would still be a big solid truck with a gas tank so big he goes goes and never runs out of gas. He travels straight from point A to Point B  on campaign promises. 

pfft.  revisionist history.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

I can't see how you can vote for either Hillary or Trump.  Which is why any one with a clue didn't.

I don’t know what world you live in, but in the real world there are two choices for president. Everything else is equivalent to not voting. You can say ‘well if everyone voted third party there would be a better choice’. That’s dreamland and won’t happen. And in the evangelicals point of view, a third party policy likely isn’t going be better than the GOP platform. Choosing the lesser of two evils has always been standard procedure in politics and even the norm for areas like foreign policy. If you don’t pick the lesser, the greater evil wins.

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

pfft.  revisionist history.

 

LOL, you just don’t know your history. A lot of the animosity towards Romney with his flip flopping has occurred since he lost that election and now. And his refusal to go after Obama and be tough on him really hurt his support post election. The fact that he thought he could win by being a perfect gentleman was delusional and killed his high standing in the GOP. He knew he could never run for president again because the entire GOP was done with him, and they still are. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

Really? It’s so ridiculously obvious, maybe too obvious that you guys can’t see it. It’s very simple.

The evangelicals have two simple choices, and they’ve clearly made it.

#1: The first option is to go for the candidate, regardless of party, that’s most reflective of having great character, ethics, all the areas that an honest Christian would have. I don’t think you could call Hill a better person than Trump, but she does carry herself better and at least appears to be a little better. But in terms of Policy, they very much oppose her on almost everything. 

#2: The second option would be a 180 flip of #1. That would be choosing Trump that has a lot of immoral baggage, and doesn’t have the best bedside manner (there’s a great joke to be made there, but I’ll stay on point). But he does have policies that they support, particularly abortion, Supreme Court picks, pro 2nd amendment, anti-socialism, border control, fights out of control entitlements, pro law and order, funding the military properly, etc. 

So what do they do? Pick the perceived better Dem human being, but sell out on their Christian values regarding policy?  or Sell out on their highly important values of being a moral human being with Trump, but also getting policies that they absolutely love. 

Clearly, a sellout on character values on Trump is a small price to pay to get great policies and court picks that will have huge long lasting impacts years after Trump is gone and dead. So they make the obvious and only choice they could make with a brain. And they rationalize that he’s older and more of a family man now and has changed some. And they think he has at least has some belief in God. They pray for him and ask God to guide him because he’s all they have as a powerful advocate for their way of life into the future. And the old “God sometimes works in mysterious ways” saying is no doubt stated a lot. 

But also very importantly, they wouldn’t just swap Trump with a generic moral a Republican if they could. They very much see his charisma and ability to excite people in a crowd (evangelicals love that shit), fight the good fight backbone, his energy, and honesty on fulfilling campaign promises to be HUGE. What good is a ‘moral’ Mitt Romney in there if he flip flops on issues and/or doesn’t get anything done? No, they’re very much impressed with this man to further their agenda as much of a flawed man that he is. And it’s the only logical and prudent move that they have, as strange as it might be. 

I don't believe that Hillary is seen as morally superior to Trump.  She was the female half of Bill Clinton who evangelicals hated, career politician and corrupt to the core.  Evangelicals couldn't wait to vote against her and I think the turnout had as much to do with hating her as it had to do with liking Trump.  Another Clinton in the white house?  Oh hell no.

Every voting group is drawn to charismatic candidates.  Its not unique to evangelicals.

       

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

LOL, you just don’t know your history. A lot of the animosity towards Romney with his flip flopping has occurred since he lost that election and now. And his refusal to go after Obama and be tough on him really hurt his support post election. The fact that he thought he could win by being a perfect gentleman was delusional and killed his high standing in the GOP. He knew he could never run for president again because the entire GOP was done with him, and they still are. 

Sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

The problem is that a political win is a Pyrrhic victory if you sell out your values to achieve it. The entire point of the Christian faith is to put God's will above your own will, and to love others as you love yourself. That's it, the two greatest commandments as stated by Jesus himself. If you betray these two, these most important principles, for some sort of partisan political victory, what the eff was the point in the first place?

Unless the point has no connection to your Christian faith. Which is what a lot of people have been suspecting all along with the American Evangelical movement. And as someone who grew up respecting a lot of men who went to Promise Keepers conferences, I hate to admit that it appears those suspicions were correct at least to a large degree.

Dude, in 2016 they were faced with the reality that they were going to have to compromise their values voting for either candidate. They couldn’t avoid it. So the question becomes: Which one would be worse than the other? 

There really wasn’t a classy candidate with a lot of character between Trump and Hill. But obviously, if they voted for Hillary, the Supreme Court would’ve become solid left for decades destroying their chances to over turn R vs W, the 2nd amendment would be in jeopardy, there would essentially be an open border bringing in 2-3 million immigrants per year that would eventually vote Dem, and that would be enough to make some once  red GOP states into blue, thus making it extremely hard for a Republican to ever win the presidency ever again. 

Now THAT would easily be the biggest betrayal of their Christian values impacting a span of approximately 40 years and longer......even the future of the country forever. Comparing that to compromising their values on Trump’s character of past deeds, his immature whining tweets, etc. That is such small potatoes compared to the future of the country being on the line, and it’s really silly to even debate about it. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worth clarifying that we're talking about a consistent, continued sycophant level support by evangelicals. They're arguably his most ardent supporters, apologists and defenders. So the people talking about binary choices, the worse of two evils, pragmatism, etc are confused, disingenuous or didn't read the source material in the op.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

Dude, in 2016 they were faced with the reality that they were going to have to compromise their values voting for either candidate. They couldn’t avoid it. So the question becomes: Which one would be worse than the other? 

There really wasn’t a classy candidate with a lot of character between Trump and Hill. But obviously, if they voted for Hillary, the Supreme Court would’ve become solid left for decades destroying their chances to over turn R vs W, the 2nd amendment would be in jeopardy, there would essentially be an open border bringing in 2-3 million immigrants per year that would eventually vote Dem, and that would be enough to make some once  red GOP states into blue, thus making it extremely hard for a Republican to ever win the presidency ever again. 

Now THAT would easily be the biggest betrayal of their Christian values impacting a span of approximately 40 years and longer......even the future of the country forever. Comparing that to compromising their values on Trump’s 

I avoided it

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...