The Last Temptation

[homersapien 11,362]

How evangelicals, once culturally confident, became an anxious minority seeking political protection from the least traditionally religious president in living memory.

 

(excerpt)

........It is remarkable to hear religious leaders defend profanity, ridicule, and cruelty as hallmarks of authenticity and dismiss decency as a dead language. Whatever Trump’s policy legacy ends up being, his presidency has been a disaster in the realm of norms. It has coarsened our culture, given permission for bullying, complicated the moral formation of children, undermined standards of public integrity, and encouraged cynicism about the political enterprise. Falwell, Graham, and others are providing religious cover for moral squalor—winking at trashy behavior and encouraging the unraveling of social restraints. Instead of defending their convictions, they are providing preemptive absolution for their political favorites. And this, even by purely political standards, undermines the causes they embrace. Turning a blind eye to the exploitation of women certainly doesn’t help in making pro-life arguments. It materially undermines the movement, which must ultimately change not only the composition of the courts but the views of the public. Having given politics pride of place, these evangelical leaders have ceased to be moral leaders in any meaningful sense.

But setting matters of decency aside, evangelicals are risking their faith’s reputation on matters of race. Trump has, after all, attributed Kenyan citizenship to Obama, stereotyped Mexican migrants as murderers and rapists, claimed unfair treatment in federal court based on a judge’s Mexican heritage, attempted an unconstitutional Muslim ban, equivocated on the Charlottesville protests, claimed (according to The New York Times) that Nigerians would never “go back to their huts” after seeing America, and dismissed Haitian and African immigrants as undesirable compared with Norwegians.

For some of Trump’s political allies, racist language and arguments are part of his appeal. For evangelical leaders, they should be sources of anguish. Given America’s history of slavery and segregation, racial prejudice is a special category of moral wrong. Fighting racism galvanized the religious conscience of 19th-century evangelicals and 20th-century African American civil-rights activists. Perpetuating racism indicted many white Christians in the South and elsewhere as hypocrites. Americans who are wrong on this issue do not understand the nature of their country. Christians who are wrong on this issue do not understand the most-basic requirements of their faith.

Here is the uncomfortable reality: I do not believe that most evangelicals are racist. But every strong Trump supporter has decided that racism is not a moral disqualification in the president of the United States. And that is something more than a political compromise. It is a revelation of moral priorities.

If utilitarian calculations are to be applied, they need to be fully applied. For a package of political benefits, these evangelical leaders have associated the Christian faith with racism and nativism. They have associated the Christian faith with misogyny and the mocking of the disabled. They have associated the Christian faith with lawlessness, corruption, and routine deception. They have associated the Christian faith with moral confusion about the surpassing evils of white supremacy and neo-Nazism. The world is full of tragic choices and compromises. But for this man? For this cause?......

 

Read the full piece at https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-last-temptation?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[triangletiger 1,599]

There is, sadly, much truth in that article.  I guess my only question is who should these evangelical leaders be supporting instead?

[Mid Atlantic Tiger 150]

1 hour ago, triangletiger said:

 who should these evangelical leaders be supporting instead?

Why not do as our Rector and not offer up a word in that regard, but just continue to preach the Gospel...oh yes, the Gospel runs contrary to each party, but especially the Republican Party.

[jj3jordan 2,050]

On 7/6/2019 at 11:40 AM, homersapien said:

How evangelicals, once culturally confident, became an anxious minority seeking political protection from the least traditionally religious president in living memory.

 

(excerpt)

........It is remarkable to hear religious leaders defend profanity, ridicule, and cruelty as hallmarks of authenticity and dismiss decency as a dead language. Whatever Trump’s policy legacy ends up being, his presidency has been a disaster in the realm of norms. It has coarsened our culture, given permission for bullying, complicated the moral formation of children, undermined standards of public integrity, and encouraged cynicism about the political enterprise. Falwell, Graham, and others are providing religious cover for moral squalor—winking at trashy behavior and encouraging the unraveling of social restraints. Instead of defending their convictions, they are providing preemptive absolution for their political favorites. And this, even by purely political standards, undermines the causes they embrace. Turning a blind eye to the exploitation of women certainly doesn’t help in making pro-life arguments. It materially undermines the movement, which must ultimately change not only the composition of the courts but the views of the public. Having given politics pride of place, these evangelical leaders have ceased to be moral leaders in any meaningful sense.

But setting matters of decency aside, evangelicals are risking their faith’s reputation on matters of race. Trump has, after all, attributed Kenyan citizenship to Obama, stereotyped Mexican migrants as murderers and rapists, claimed unfair treatment in federal court based on a judge’s Mexican heritage, attempted an unconstitutional Muslim ban, equivocated on the Charlottesville protests, claimed (according to The New York Times) that Nigerians would never “go back to their huts” after seeing America, and dismissed Haitian and African immigrants as undesirable compared with Norwegians.

For some of Trump’s political allies, racist language and arguments are part of his appeal. For evangelical leaders, they should be sources of anguish. Given America’s history of slavery and segregation, racial prejudice is a special category of moral wrong. Fighting racism galvanized the religious conscience of 19th-century evangelicals and 20th-century African American civil-rights activists. Perpetuating racism indicted many white Christians in the South and elsewhere as hypocrites. Americans who are wrong on this issue do not understand the nature of their country. Christians who are wrong on this issue do not understand the most-basic requirements of their faith.

Here is the uncomfortable reality: I do not believe that most evangelicals are racist. But every strong Trump supporter has decided that racism is not a moral disqualification in the president of the United States. And that is something more than a political compromise. It is a revelation of moral priorities.

If utilitarian calculations are to be applied, they need to be fully applied. For a package of political benefits, these evangelical leaders have associated the Christian faith with racism and nativism. They have associated the Christian faith with misogyny and the mocking of the disabled. They have associated the Christian faith with lawlessness, corruption, and routine deception. They have associated the Christian faith with moral confusion about the surpassing evils of white supremacy and neo-Nazism. The world is full of tragic choices and compromises. But for this man? For this cause?......

 

Read the full piece at https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-last-temptation?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Again, lots of hooey. He, and Homie, have completely misread evangelicals and Trump. Although their reading of Trump is mostly read from democrat talking points.  

Neither poster has any idea of what evangelicals think.

More boring trash talk.

[homersapien 11,362]

10 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Again, lots of hooey. He, and Homie, have completely misread evangelicals and Trump. Although their reading of Trump is mostly read from democrat talking points.  

Neither poster has any idea of what evangelicals think.

More boring trash talk.

Great rebuttal.

My "idea" of what evangelicals think is based on what they say and their actions.  It sure as hell doesn't comport with my "idea" of Jesus, which of course, is the point.  

That's not "hooey".  

"For a package of political benefits, these evangelical leaders have associated the Christian faith with racism and nativism. They have associated the Christian faith with misogyny and the mocking of the disabled. They have associated the Christian faith with lawlessness, corruption, and routine deception. They have associated the Christian faith with moral confusion about the surpassing evils of white supremacy and neo-Nazism. The world is full of tragic choices and compromises. But for this man? For this cause?......"

 

[jj3jordan 2,050]

Dude you don’t know what you are talking about. Trump is not a racist, never was, didn’t say the klan had fine people.  He did not mock anyone disabled (although your savior Obama did) and is not a misogynist.  Lawlessness? Where? In the democrat party! You are talking about trump and deception? Are you joking? That’s ALL the democrats do!  Moral confusion? You mean about sex and gender?  Get off us! We believe in two genders. No one is perfect morally especially Christians. And none have claimed it. No white supremacists or neo-Nazis are in our party or in Trump. All you are doing is name calling with the hope someone will believe you. You are a liar Homer. Spreading your lies won’t make it true. Give it up. Please.

[aubiefifty 16,755]

8 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Dude you don’t know what you are talking about. Trump is not a racist, never was, didn’t say the klan had fine people.  He did not mock anyone disabled (although your savior Obama did) and is not a misogynist.  Lawlessness? Where? In the democrat party! You are talking about trump and deception? Are you joking? That’s ALL the democrats do!  Moral confusion? You mean about sex and gender?  Get off us! We believe in two genders. No one is perfect morally especially Christians. And none have claimed it. No white supremacists or neo-Nazis are in our party or in Trump. All you are doing is name calling with the hope someone will believe you. You are a liar Homer. Spreading your lies won’t make it true. Give it up. Please.

i want what you are smoking dude. trump did make fun of the reporter by acting like a retarded person on national television. you can spin it anyway you want but it would be a lie.

[homersapien 11,362]

9 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Dude you don’t know what you are talking about. Trump is not a racist, never was, didn’t say the klan had fine people.  He did not mock anyone disabled (although your savior Obama did) and is not a misogynist.  Lawlessness? Where? In the democrat party! You are talking about trump and deception? Are you joking? That’s ALL the democrats do!  Moral confusion? You mean about sex and gender?  Get off us! We believe in two genders. No one is perfect morally especially Christians. And none have claimed it. No white supremacists or neo-Nazis are in our party or in Trump. All you are doing is name calling with the hope someone will believe you. You are a liar Homer. Spreading your lies won’t make it true. Give it up. Please.

 

You are making a fool of yourself.  Give it up.  Please

 

Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2019

Trump has repeatedly claimed he’s “the least racist person.” His history suggests otherwise.

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

 

Racial views of Donald Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Tru

 

 

 

 

[Mims44 1,867]

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

You are making a fool of yourself.  Give it up.  Please

 

Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2019

Trump has repeatedly claimed he’s “the least racist person.” His history suggests otherwise.

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

 

Racial views of Donald Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Tru

 

 

 

 

I really hate that you are making me seemingly defend Trump, Homie.

 

From that article... "On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly made explicitly racist and otherwise bigoted remarks, from calling Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists to proposing a ban on all Muslims entering the US to suggesting a judge should recuse himself from a case solely because of the judge’s Mexican heritage."

 

Mexico is a country, not a race. Muslims belong to a religion, not a race. He was not against a Hispanic judge because he was Hispanic, he was against him for being part of a group that promotes racial supremacy.

 

 

Don't you facepalm me , that was a poorly written article.

[homersapien 11,362]

1 minute ago, Mims44 said:

I really hate that you are making me seemingly defend Trump, Homie.

 

From that article... "On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly made explicitly racist and otherwise bigoted remarks, from calling Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists to proposing a ban on all Muslims entering the US to suggesting a judge should recuse himself from a case solely because of the judge’s Mexican heritage."

 

Mexico is a country, not a race. Muslims belong to a religion, not a race. He was not against a Hispanic judge because he was Hispanic, he was against him for being part of a group that promotes racial supremacy.

Let's not get pendantic about terminology (which was covered anyway).

But you'll have to refresh my memory regarding the judge as "being part of a group that promotes racial supremacy".  Don't know what you are referring to there.

[Mims44 1,867]

Just now, homersapien said:

Let's not get pendantic about terminology (which was covered anyway).

But you'll have to refresh my memory regarding the judge as "being part of a group that promotes racial supremacy".  Don't know what you are referring to there.

I believe he was referring to the judge that was promoting or a member of La Raza. A group that has shown they hold very negative and racist beliefs towards black people, and arguably about white people too.

[homersapien 11,362]

18 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

I believe he was referring to the judge that was promoting or a member of La Raza. A group that has shown they hold very negative and racist beliefs towards black people, and arguably about white people too.

Actually, I think the issue was the judge was Hispanic.  So did politicians on both sides:

"On June 2, 2016, Trump told the Wall Street Journal that Curiel had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the litigation given that he is "of Mexican heritage" and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. (When Trump said in a separate interview that Curiel "is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican" in referfence to the group, PolitiFact National rated his statement Mostly False.) Trump told the journal the judge’s background was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. "I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest," Trump said."

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/

 

Regarding the California La Raza Lawyers Association:

"The group in question is the California La Raza Lawyers Association. It dates back to 1977. The group’s immediate past president, Joel Murillo, told us that it was formed in response to stereotyping coming from judges and lawyers.

"There were judges on the bench saying people with Spanish surnames were prone to be savages," Murillo said. "When we tried to integrate with the mainstream bar association, we were denied. We were marginalized. The only people who were willing to work with us were us."

Murillo says the days of stereotyping are over, and the group now focuses on the professional development of Latino lawyers and encouraging students to pursue a career in law. He called Trump’s description of the association as very strongly pro-Mexican a "misnomer." Murillo said most of the group’s recent work targets improving the quality of education for all students in California.

The group has not been involved in the immigration debate.

"The closest was when there were beatings by police and others that offended the constitutional rights of people," Murillo said. "We made suggestions of ways to ameliorate attacks on people with Spanish surnames."

Our search of the Nexis newspaper database found an episode in 2004 when the association wrote a letter calling for the cancellation of a popular Los Angeles reality television show in which illegal immigrants competed for the free services of an immigration lawyer to apply for a green card.

The show "functions as a magnet to encourage people to enter this country without documentation," the letter said.

The group’s bylaws state, "The purpose and goal of this association is to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state and the professional interests of the membership." That membership is now about half Latino, Murillo said, and in terms of party affiliation, "the lawyers who belong pretty much reflect the population." California is about 43 percent Democratic, 28 percent Republican and about 24 percent undeclared.

Murillo also noted that strictly speaking, the group is focused on the Latino community, a term that is much broader than people with family roots in Mexico.

The association’s website, last updated in 2013, describes a judicial committee that "seeks to increase the number of Latinos appointed to judgeships."

Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California Davis School of Law, told us the association is "seen as a pretty moderate group" that’s mainly focused on civil rights.

On the legal front, we found the group filed a 2012 friend of the court brief in support of Sergio Garcia, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico seeking admission to the State Bar of California. But the issue was broader than simple Hispanic solidarity. That brief was co-written by the Asian/Pacific Bar Association of Sacramento.

In 2002, the San Francisco chapter joined with nine other organizations to support an appeal on the grounds that racism tainted the jury selection process. The defendant, Stanley Williams, did not have a Spanish surname, and the other organizations included the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Los Angeles, the Asian Law Caucus and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

We asked Johnson if including "La Raza" in the group’s name carried a special meaning. He said the term is "sort of a product of its times" that emerged from the Chicano civil rights movement of the 1960s.

"The founders and presidents have not been remarkable, in a political sense," Johnson said.

The group is often confused with the National Council of La Raza, an advocacy group often criticized by conservatives. Aside from a similarity in their names, the only tie we found was a link to the National Council of La Raza on the lawyers association website. But that list of links also includes the National Latino Police Officers Association and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

The conservative website Redstate posted an op-ed rebuking Trump’s use of the California lawyers group as proof of Judge Curiel’s political motives. The writer, Leon Wolf, called the effort to disparage the association "dishonest."

"As far as I can tell, they appear to be a pretty garden variety special interest lawyers association," Wolf wrote. "Every state has these chapters for Hispanic lawyers, black lawyers, women lawyers, Mormon lawyers, Christian lawyers, Jewish lawyers -- you name it, there is a lawyer association for it in every state."

Our ruling

Trump said Curiel belonged to a group that is very strongly pro-Mexican. The California La Raza Lawyers Association does advance the interests of the Latino legal community and works on issues that matter in Latino communities more broadly. 

However, it has stayed on the sidelines in the immigration debate. The one exception is one letter from a dozen years ago which objected to a television show on the grounds that the program encouraged people to enter the country without documentation. The group’s rare court filings focus on civil rights in general.

Trump’s statement is accurate only in the sense that the association’s mission aims to support Latinos, but even that is flawed because he said the group was pro-Mexican and the Latino designation reaches a wider set of people. The claim ignores critical facts that would give a very different impression.

We rate this assertion Mostly False."

 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/07/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-casts-california-lawyers-group-stron/

 

[Mims44 1,867]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"The purpose and goal of this association is to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state and the professional interests of the membership."

Word

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Murillo also noted that strictly speaking, the group is focused on the Latino community, a term that is much broader than people with family roots in Mexico.

check'ed for that being pedantic about terminology thing you just spoke about.

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

We asked Johnson if including "La Raza" in the group’s name carried a special meaning. He said the term is "sort of a product of its times" that emerged from the Chicano civil rights movement of the 1960s.

A movement that included rampant racism against darker skinned people. An example of racism in Latino culture ...It's HuffPo which I believe you like/trust.

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Aside from a similarity in their names, the only tie we found was a link to the National Council of La Raza on the lawyers association website. But that list of links also includes the National Latino Police Officers Association and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

So before I condemn the KKK, I should make sure it's not the lawyer group named Ku Klux Klan, because they could be cool people.

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Trump’s statement is accurate only in the sense that the association’s mission aims to support Latinos, but even that is flawed because he said the group was pro-Mexican and the Latino designation reaches a wider set of people.

Check'ed again

[McLoofus 35,182]

2019, when we argue over whether POTUS is explicitly and technically racist, explicitly and technically xenophobic, explicitly and technically anti-Muslim, explicitly and technically anti-Mexican, explicitly and technically bigoted in other ways, or some combination thereof. Those are the options. Except for the dumbass who doesn't remember the below incident. Which would be covered under "explicitly and technically bigoted in other ways", because who has the time to list them all out? 

[toddc 13,194]

On 7/8/2019 at 9:38 PM, jj3jordan said:

Again, lots of hooey. He, and Homie, have completely misread evangelicals and Trump. Although their reading of Trump is mostly read from democrat talking points.  

Neither poster has any idea of what evangelicals think.

More boring trash talk.

Exactly! These people have no idea how evangelicals think or believe, much less their reasons for supporting conservative ideas! There are liberal churches and denominations that are way off on Biblical principals and that’s who they’re talking to.

[toddc 13,194]

36 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

2019, when we argue over whether POTUS is explicitly and technically racist, explicitly and technically xenophobic, explicitly and technically anti-Muslim, explicitly and technically anti-Mexican, explicitly and technically bigoted in other ways, or some combination thereof. Those are the options. Except for the dumbass who doesn't remember the below incident. Which would be covered under "explicitly and technically bigoted in other ways", because who has the time to list them all out? 

The True Story: Donald Trump Did Not Mock a Reporter’s Disability

This liberals media and Trump haters talking point is a flat out misrepresentation of what really happened. The still photo is a misrepresentation of what really happened

https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, toddc said:

The True Story: Donald Trump Did Not Mock a Reporter’s Disability

This liberals media and Trump haters talking point is a flat out misrepresentation of what really happened. The still photo is a misrepresentation of what really happened.

Fine.  Here's the actual video.  Now remember, Trump knew this guy was disabled.  They had met many times before.  To even do a hand movement close to this is beyond stupid on his part given the person he was referencing.

It's the old saying: are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?  I'll trust my eyes here.

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, toddc said:

The True Story: Donald Trump Did Not Mock a Reporter’s Disability

This liberals media and Trump haters talking point is a flat out misrepresentation of what really happened. The still photo is a misrepresentation of what really happened.

So tell us what really happened. 

Still photo?

Regardless of your interpretation of this story, is there any way in which this is acceptable behavior for the freaking President of the United States of America? Please answer that. Please tell me your interpretation of this behavior that makes it okay. Tell us why you think this is okay for our President to do. Tell us how this human being possesses dignity or respect befitting the highest office in this land. I'm anxious for you to answer these questions. 

Also, be sure to watch the entire video.

[toddc 13,194]

Trump explained what he was doing and the media and liberals totally dismiss his explanation on anything he says or does. He is the only person who truly knows what he said and did, but they will never believe his accounts because they hate him so much. Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well. As for acting presidential, I think it’s a breath of fresh air to not have another a pompous, elitist, and fake personality in the Oval Office!

[McLoofus 35,182]

10 minutes ago, toddc said:

Trump explained what he was doing and the media and liberals totally dismiss his explanation on anything he says or does. He is the only person who truly knows what he said and did, but they will never believe his accounts because they hate him so much. Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well. As for acting presidential, I think it’s a breath of fresh air to not have another a pompous, elitist, and fake personality in the Oval Office!

Wow. Thought a lot more of you than that, Todd. My mistake.

Note to self: Todd finds "grab her by the *****" to be "a breath of fresh air". 

I'd say that article in the OP has y'all pegged pretty good. 

[aubiefifty 16,755]

not sure we all watched the same thing. i saw it live and he did make fun of him. as for the ted cruz thing i would bet my house he was calling cruz a retard as well. and you folks keep bringing up trump derangement crap. lol  the only one deranged is trump. he MAKES FUN OF PEOPLE ON A REGULAR BASIS. he dissed mccain. the gold star family who's son died saving his platoon. and trump is one lying piece of crap and yet when he does you guys shower and bath in his bullcrap.

 

latimes.com

A quick guide to the people and groups Donald Trump has insulted

Kurtis Lee

6-8 minutes

The tiff between Donald Trump and Pope Francis on Thursday was the latest example of what's become a persistent theme of Trump's presidential campaign: caustic battles over religion, immigration or sexuality that animate his supporters and capture headlines.

When Trump first began campaigning, his comments baffled political observers, but as his lead in the polls only increased, it has become clear that his backers see his unapologetic, brash style as a strength, no matter whom he goes after.

In no particular order: Trump has called Iowans “dumb” for backing Ben Carson, has complained that any number of television anchors treated him badly and has repeatedly mocked rival candidate Jeb Bush as “low-energy,” a preferred insult of Trump’s.

More gravely, Trump has also labeled Mexicans "rapists" and drug runners; has dismissed the war record of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was held captive in Vietnam for several years; and has called to ban Muslims from entering the country.

So what has Trump said exactly?

Iowans

As his poll numbers began to lag in Iowa last fall, he offered choice words for voters in the state, which kicked off primary season Feb. 1.

"How stupid are the people of Iowa?" he said at a local event.

Trump finished second to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the state's caucuses.

Jeb Bush

The former Florida governor has become a relentless target for Trump, who calls him "low-energy" on the campaign trail and in debates. Trump has even gone after Bush's family -- in particular, former President George W. Bush, whom he recently blamed for failing to keep America safe from the Sept. 11 attacks.

Funny that Jeb(!) didn't want help from his family in his failed campaign and didn't even want to use his last name.Then mommy, now brother!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2016

Ted Cruz

The Texas senator is Trump's main rival for the party's nomination. In recent weeks, Trump has questioned Cruz's citizenship (he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father) and has assailed him repeatedly as a "nasty" person who will "lie" to capture the nomination.

Bill and Hillary Clinton

They used to be family friends -- but no longer. Hillary Clinton said Trump had a "penchant for sexism," and after former President Clinton hit the campaign trail on her behalf, Trump pounced.

If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2015

Hillary Clinton has announced that she is letting her husband out to campaign but HE'S DEMONSTRATED A PENCHANT FOR SEXISM, so inappropriate!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 27, 2015

The media

I hear that dopey political pundit, Lawrence O'Donnell, one of the dumber people on television, is about to lose his show-no ratings?Too bad

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 25, 2015

Women

After the first Republican presidential debate in August, Trump took aim at Megyn Kelly, the Fox News anchor who co-moderated the gathering. The billionaire businessman felt that her questions about misogynistic comments he'd made in the past were unfair.

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," he said in a CNN interview after the debate. "Blood coming out of her wherever."

Re Megyn Kelly quote: "you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever" (NOSE). Just got on w/thought

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 8, 2015

He also has gone after Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who exited the race after a disappointing showing in New Hampshire, disparaging her appearance.

"Look at that face!" he told a Rolling Stone reporter aboard his private plane when Fiorina appeared on a television screen. "Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?

Mexicans

During his campaign launch in June, Trump labeled Mexicans "rapists" and drug runners -- statements he has not backed down from.

Muslims

In the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist attacks, carried out by individuals who indicated they were inspired by Islamic State, Trump called to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

The proposal was condemned by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Donald Trump is unhinged. His "policy" proposals are not serious.

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) December 7, 2015

He defended the proposal and has remained committed to it in an effort, he says, to protect Americans.

Sen. John McCain

In comments at an Iowa forum, he mocked McCain, who spent more than five years as a prisoner in North Vietnam.

“He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured, OK? I hate to tell you. He's a war hero because he was captured, OK? And I believe — perhaps he's a war hero. But right now, he's said some very bad things about a lot of people,” Trump said.

Pundits predicted his campaign would quickly end after he criticized McCain. Not even close.

The disabled

While on the campaign trail, Trump cited a Washington Post article from days after 9/11 to undergird his claim that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated the attacks. But when the reporter, Serge F. Kovaleski, who now works for the New York Times, corrected Trump, he took aim. At a rally he flailed his arms and mocked Kovaleski, who suffers from a chronic condition that limits the movement of his arms.

The pope

Trump took on Pope Francis on Thursday, complaining that the pontiff's criticism of Trump's proposal to build a border wall was "really not very nice." And in typical Trump fashion, he went well beyond explaining how insulted he was, also claiming that Islamic State, or ISIS, wanted to attack the Vatican and warning, middle-school-style, that Francis would be sorry that he ever trusted in politicians other than Trump.

"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president because this would not have happened," Trump said in his statement. "ISIS would have been eradicated, unlike what is happening now with our all-talk, no-action politicians."

Follow @kurtisalee on Twitter for political news.

hey i can get the really long version if you would like. one names over 650 cases. and the fact you people give him a pass only speaks to the kind of people many of you trump fans are.  let me know if ya want the long version.

[aubiefifty 16,755]

newrepublic.com

How Donald Trump Hijacked the Religious Right

By Sarah Posner

16-20 minutes

Back in August 2015, when Donald Trump’s presidential ambitions were widely considered a joke, Russell Moore was worried. A prominent leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, Moore knew that some of the faithful were falling for Trump, a philandering, biblically illiterate candidate from New York City whose lifestyle and views embodied everything the religious right professed to abhor. The month before, a Washington Post poll had found that Trump was already being backed by more white evangelicals than any other Republican candidate.

Moore, a boyish-looking pastor from Mississippi, had positioned himself as the face of the “new” religious right: a bigger-hearted, diversity-oriented version that was squarely opposed to Trump’s “us versus them” rhetoric. Speaking to a gathering of religion reporters in a hotel ballroom in Philadelphia, Moore said that his “first priority” was to combat the “demonizing” and “depersonalizing” of immigrants—people, he pointed out, who were “created in the image of God.” Only by refocusing on such true “gospel” values, Moore believed, could evangelicals appeal to young people who had been fleeing the church in droves, and expand its outreach to African Americans and Latinos. Evangelicals needed to do more than win elections—their larger duty was to win souls. Moore, in short, wanted the Christian right to reclaim the moral high ground—and Trump, in his estimation, was about as low as you could get.

“The church of Jesus Christ ought to be the last people to fall for hucksters and demagogues,” Moore wrote in Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel, a book he had just published at the time. “But too often we do.”

As Trump continued gaining ground in the polls, Moore began to realize that the campaign represented nothing short of a battle for the soul of the Christian right. By backing Trump, white evangelicals were playing into the hands of a new, alt-right version of Christianity—a sprawling coalition of white nationalists, old-school Confederates, neo-Nazis, Islamophobes, and social-media propagandists who viewed the religious right, first and foremost, as a vehicle for white supremacy. The election, Moore warned in a New York Times op-ed last May, “has cast light on the darkness of pent-up nativism and bigotry all over the country.” Those who were criticizing Trump, he added, “have faced threats and intimidation from the ‘alt-right’ of white supremacists and nativists who hide behind avatars on social media.”

Trump, true to form, wasted no time in striking back against Moore. “Truly a terrible representative of Evangelicals and all of the good they stand for,” he tweeted a few days later. “A nasty guy with no heart!”

In the end, conservative Christians backed Trump in record numbers. He won 81 per- cent of the white evangelical vote—a higher share than George W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney. As a result, the religious right—which for decades has grounded its political appeal in moral “values” such as “life” and “family” and “religious freedom”—has effectively become a subsidiary of the alt-right, yoked to Trump’s white nationalist agenda. Evangelicals have traded Ronald Reagan’s gospel-inspired depiction of America as a “shining city on a hill” for Trump’s dark vision of “American carnage.” And in doing so, they have returned the religious right to its own origins—as a movement founded to maintain the South’s segregationist “way of life.”

“The overwhelming support for Trump heralds the religious right coming full circle to embrace its roots in racism,” says Randall Balmer, a historian of American religion at Dartmouth College. “The breakthrough of the 2016 election lies in the fact that the religious right, in its support for a thrice-married, self-confessed sexual predator, finally dispensed with the fiction that it was concerned about abortion or ‘family values.’ ”

For more than a generation, the Christian right has sought to portray itself as a movement motivated principally by opposition to abortion and the defense of sexual purity against the forces of secularism. According to its own creation myth, evangelicals rose up and began to organize in opposition to Roe v. Wade, motivated by their duty to protect “the unborn.” Albert Mohler, a prominent Southern Baptist theologian, described Roe as “the catalyst for the moral revolution within evangelicalism”—the moment that spurred the coalition with conservative Catholics that still undergirds the religious right.

In fact, it wasn’t abortion that sparked the creation of the religious right. The movement was actually galvanized in the 1970s and early ’80s, when the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University and other conservative Christian schools that refused to admit nonwhites. It was the government’s actions against segregated schools, not the legalization of abortion, that “enraged the Christian community,” Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich has acknowledged.

By openly embracing the racism of the alt-right, Trump effectively played to the religious right’s own roots in white supremacy. Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and the alt-right’s most visible spokesman, argued during the campaign that GOP voters aren’t really motivated by Christian values, as they profess, but rather by deep racial anxieties. “Trump has shown the hand of the GOP,” Spencer told me in September. “The GOP is a white person’s populist party.”

Until now, the alt-right has presented itself largely as an irreligious movement; Spencer, its outsize figurehead, is an avowed atheist. But with Trump as president, the alt-right sees an opening for its own religious revival. “A new type of Alt Right Christian will become a force in the Religious Right,” Spencer tweeted on the morning after the election, “and we’re going to work with them.”

To alt-right Christians, Trump’s appeal isn’t based on the kind of social-issue litmus tests long favored by the religious right. According to Brad Griffin, a white supremacist activist in Alabama, “the average evangelical, not-too-religious Southerner who’s sort of a populist” was drawn to Trump primarily “because they like the attitude.” Besides, he adds, many on the Christian right don’t necessarily describe themselves as “evangelical” for theological reasons; it’s more “a tribal marker for a lot of these people.”

Before the election, Griffin worried that white evangelicals would find his “Southern nationalist” views problematic. But Trump’s decisive victory over Russell Moore reassured him. “It seems like evangelicals really didn’t follow Moore’s lead at all,” Griffin says. “All these pastors and whatnot went in there and said Trump’s a racist, a bigot, and a fascist and all this, and their followers didn’t listen to them.”

There is no way of knowing how many Americans consider themselves to be alt-right Christians—the term is so new, even those who agree with Spencer and Griffin probably wouldn’t use it to describe themselves. But there is plenty of evidence that white evangelical voters are more receptive than nonevangelicals to the ideas that drive the alt-right. According to an exit poll of Republican voters in the South Carolina primary, evangelicals were much more likely to support banning Muslims from the United States, creating a database of Muslim citizens, and flying the Confederate flag at the state capitol. Thirty-eight percent of evangelicals told pollsters that they wished the South had won the Civil War—more than twice the number of nonevangelicals who held that view.

That’s why white evangelicals were the key to Trump’s victory—they provided the numbers that the alt-right lacks. Steve Bannon, Trump’s most influential strategist, knows that the nationalist coalition alone isn’t big enough “to ever compete against the progressive left”—which is why he made a point of winning over the religious right. If conservative Catholics and evangelicals “just want to focus on reading the Bible and being good Christians,” Bannon told me last July, “there’s no chance we could ever get this country back on track again.” The alt-right supplied Trump with his agenda; the Christian right supplied him with his votes.

For alt-right Christians, Russell Moore is the embodiment of where the religious right went wrong—by refusing to openly embrace racism. Throughout his youth, Griffin says, he felt alienated by Christians like Moore who were intent on “condemning racism.” He was only drawn back into Christianity when he married the daughter of Gordon Baum, a far-right Lutheran leader who co-founded the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “a virulently racist group.” Griffin says he joined the CCC, as well as the white nationalist League of the South, because both groups embody the elements he views as integral to his faith: They are “pro-white, pro-Christian, pro-South.”

Moore has become a popular target among alt-right Christians. The white supremacist and popular alt-right radio show host James Edwards, himself a Southern Baptist, regularly disparages Moore on his program, calling him a “cuck-Christian.” In June, after the Southern Baptist Convention banned displays of the Confederate flag, Edwards hosted Nathanael Strickland, proprietor of the Faith and Heritage blog. In a recent post, Strickland had argued that white Southerners “have faced a widespread and determined assault on our heritage, symbols, monuments, graves, and identity by secular and governmental forces,” and likened such supposed attacks to what Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf: that Germans faced “cultural extermination and ethnic cleansing.” Edwards seconded that analysis, declaring the Confederate flag “a Christian flag,” and arguing that to attack it “is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of Lord Jesus Christ in his divine role in Southern history, culture, and life.”

Strickland recently told me that alt-right Christians see “racial differences” as “real, biological, and positive,” a view he insists is “merely a reaffirmation of traditional historical Christianity.” He argues that many on the alt-right who consider themselves atheists or pagans only lost their faith in Christianity “due to the antiwhite hatred and Marxist dogma held by the modern church.”

Strickland considers himself a “kinist,” part of the new white supremacist movement that, according to the Anti-Defamation League, “uses the Bible as one of the main texts for its beliefs,” offering a powerful validation to white supremacists for their racism and anti-Semitism. Strickland sees kinism as a successor to Christian Reconstructionism, a theocratic movement dating back to the 1960s that played a key role in the rise of Christian homeschooling. The movement’s primary goal was to implement biblical law—including public stonings—in every facet of American life.

After Trump’s victory, Edwards ferociously attacked the president-elect’s critics, Bible in hand. “The Bible says, ‘There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth,’ and I want there to be that,” he said on his show. “Now is the time for retribution, and I want them to suffer. I want them to feel the righteous anger of a good and decent people. I want Trump to drive them into the sea.” He called on the “degenerates, perverts, and freaks,” and other “criminals who shilled for Hillary” to “make good on your promise to leave the country.” He added: “They can take Russell Moore with them on the way. That’s for sure. Good riddance. Please leave.”

Alt-right Christians like Edwards see their movement as part of a global battle for ethnic nationalism. Days before the election, neo-Nazis assembled at a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to show their support for Trump. Matthew Heimbach, an alt-right Christian leader who founded the Traditionalist Worker Party, told the crowd they were in a worldwide struggle for the preservation of “ethnic, cultural, and religious integrity,” a battle that has been joined by “nationalists around the world that are fighting the same enemy.” That enemy, Heimbach said, is made up of “Jewish oligarchs and the capitalists and the bankers” who “want to enslave the entire world.” He ticked off some of the movement’s international allies: President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, who has overseen a Hitler-inspired campaign of extrajudicial killings, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who has displaced and slaughtered millions of his own citizens. To Heimbach, Assad “is fighting to defend his people against the globalist hydra of Saudi Arabia, of the terrorist state of Israel, and United States interests.”

Heimbach, who made headlines last March for shoving a Black Lives Matter protester at a Trump rally, also draws inspiration from the far-right Russian writer Alexandr Dugin, whose book, The Fourth Political Theory, he considers “suggested reading” for all Traditionalist Worker Party members. Dugin’s writings reinforced Heimbach’s belief, he says, that “we must reject the failed and flawed concepts of democracy, capitalism, equality of ability, and multiculturalism.” To alt-right Christians like Heimbach, democracy itself is a failed and flawed concept.

Some, in fact, believe that Trump does not go far enough in defending the faith. Strickland, for example, views Trump as merely a “civic nationalist,” not a full-blown racial and ethnic nationalist like those on the alt-right. “There are four legs supporting the table of civilization,” he says. “Blood, religion, culture, and language. Civic nationalists only acknowledge the last three of those.” In Strickland’s view, the alt-right must now become Trump’s “loyal opposition,” prodding the president even further to the right. “The alt-right’s job in the coming months and years will be to solidify nationalism’s place in the Republican Party and push the importance of the fourth leg—blood.”

With the religious right now at the service of the alt-right, conservative evangelicals who opposed Trump find themselves at odds with the movement they helped to build. Reverend Rob Schenck was one of the leaders of the religious right’s war on abortion, famously getting arrested in 1992 at a women’s health clinic while carrying “Baby Tia,” a preserved fetus he claimed had been aborted. Through his organization, Faith and Action, Schenck has long provided spiritual counsel to top Washington officials, including Supreme Court justices and members of Congress like Mike Pence. Trump, he says, has no spiritual side whatsoever. “He has no facility in the language of faith,” Schenck told me in November, a week after the election. “At all. It’s not natural to him. It’s not even known to him. It’s alien.”

Two days before we spoke, Trump had announced his selection of Steve Bannon as his chief White House strategist. To Schenck, the religious right’s support for the appointment was another “screaming alarm to American evangelicals that we must do some very deep soul-searching.”

But such soul-searching does not appear to be forthcoming. So far, President Trump has drawn little but praise from religious right leaders. From his first days in office, he moved swiftly to shore up their support. He quickly brought back George W. Bush’s “global gag rule,” signing an executive order that bars federally funded groups not only from providing abortions to pregnant women, but from even discussing abortion as an option. And his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court thrilled even Russell Moore, who hailed the selection of “a brilliant and articulate defender of Constitutional originalism.” Trump’s strategy makes sense: He’ll keep evangelicals happy and unified by moving some of their key priorities forward—and use their support to push for what is ultimately an alt-right agenda.

Schenck fears that “Trump and his gang” have exposed an evangelical culture “that doesn’t know itself.” Sitting in his Capitol Hill townhouse, Schenck picks up his copy of Ethics, by the anti-Nazi theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer, he says, argued that because Jesus was a “man for others,” Christians are called “not to hold the other in contempt, or to be afraid of the other, or contemptuous of the other.” Yet when Schenck visited evangelical churches during the Obama years, he lost count of how many times he was asked, quite earnestly: “Is the president the Antichrist?”

Schenck still holds out hope, as does Moore, that a new generation of evangelicals will ultimately reject what Trump and the alt-right represent. “I do think something is going to emerge out of this catastrophe,” he says. “It’s going to help us to define what is true evangelical religion and what is not.”

But for now, he concedes, the religious right has forfeited its moral standing by aligning itself with the alt-right’s gospel of white supremacy. “Evangelicals are a tool of Donald Trump,” Schenck says. “This could be the undoing of American evangelicalism. We could just become a political operation in the guise of a church.”

This article was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

51 minutes ago, toddc said:

Trump explained what he was doing and the media and liberals totally dismiss his explanation on anything he says or does. He is the only person who truly knows what he said and did, but they will never believe his accounts because they hate him so much. Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well. As for acting presidential, I think it’s a breath of fresh air to not have another a pompous, elitist, and fake personality in the Oval Office!

So theoretically, I could go grab your wife's breasts and then say "That's not what I was trying to do" and you'd be ok with it because it's my explanation and, as you said, I'm the only one who could truly know my intentions?

I'm guessing you would call BS.  That's what we're doing here.  

[toddc 13,194]

26 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So theoretically, I could go grab your wife's breasts and then say "That's not what I was trying to do" and you'd be ok with it because it's my explanation and, as you said, I'm the only one who could truly know my intentions?

I'm guessing you would call BS.  That's what we're doing here.  

Not sure why you take what I said about the OP and in your twisted way made it about something I’ve not addressed! Typical 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

18 minutes ago, toddc said:

Not sure why you take what I said about the OP and in your twisted way made it about something I’ve not addressed! Typical 

I literally addressed a quote from you about believing Trump's explanation by giving an example of how doing that is dangerous versus what you see.  The fact that you don't understand that shows that your intellect is too infantile to participate in the serious forum.