Religious Leader: I Don't Get Why Evangelicals Support Trump

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Because they did.  His character in virtually every way was disqualifying from leadership.  The only way you get around that is to basically ignore or seriously downplay that character mattered, and elevate other considerations to higher priority.

 

I didn't assume.  I know they did.  I paid attention during the 1992 elections.  I heard the reasoning from the horse's mouth.  Not that other issues weren't mentioned, but that one was key.  It's one of the reasons whether not he "inhaled" was even part of the mix.  And it was one of the reasons that Carville coined "(It's) the economy, stupid" as the theme of Clinton's campaign.  They didn't want to run on character issues and that theme crystallized the way they successfully framed Clinton vs. Bush to voters - focus on economic issues and avoid moral ones.

 

Yet I specifically told you there aren't really "objective" criteria and never have been for the most part.  I mean, sure there are some glaring things that would be, but mostly this requires some discernment, some mature thinking that goes beyond the surface level and looks at the details.  

How is it that I point out the exact opposite of "objective" and you still make this charge?

 

The false standard is that you keep pointing out that everyone will have some flaw, some sin, some behavior in their past, some way in which they aren't living by the Bible or whatever.  And yet, I never set up the idea that someone had to be pure, holy and blameless all the days of their life to be qualified.  You keep putting up "in light of Romans 1" type stuff, not me.

What if i said his character as a businessman is what this country needs and his ability as a negotiator qualifies him as  a leader? Can a Christian not let that outweigh his personal failures?

Can you seriously not see how opinionated your take on this is though? I admit that mine is too, but you're generalizing Christians who voted for Trump - and that is very problematic. 

You're trying to speak for others. How do you respond to the Christian that voted for Trump who disagree with you? You have absolutely no way to validate your generalization of Christian voters.  

I'm not arguing that what you've said isn't true regarding some Christians, but it shouldn't be generalized. 

Some Christians vote in light of biblical texts. Is that an issue? 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

What if i said his character as a businessman is what this country needs and his ability as a negotiator qualifies him as  a leader? Can a Christian not let that outweigh his personal failures?

I would say that you are confusing "character" with perceived "business acumen."  It would be like saying that Saban is a lying scumbag but you think his "coaching character" outweighs it.  It's wordplay.  What you're really saying is that character ultimately doesn't matter as much to you as your perception of his other skills or abilities.

 

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

Can you seriously not see how opinionated your take on this is though? I admit that mine is too, but you're generalizing Christians who voted for Trump - and that is very problematic. 

You're trying to speak for others. How do you respond to the Christian that voted for Trump who disagree with you? You have absolutely no way to validate your generalization of Christian voters.  

I respond to them just like I have responded to you.

 

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

I'm not arguing that what you've said isn't true regarding some Christians, but it shouldn't be generalized. 

Some Christians vote in light of biblical texts. Is that an issue? 

Of course not.  They will have a very tough time finding biblical support validating choosing a person of low to non-existent moral character when other options are available though.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

I would say that you are confusing "character" with perceived "business acumen."  It would be like saying that Saban is a lying scumbag but you think his "coaching character" outweighs it.  It's wordplay.  What you're really saying is that character ultimately doesn't matter as much to you as your perception of his other skills or abilities.

 

I respond to them just like I have responded to you.

 

Of course not.  They will have a very tough time finding biblical support validating choosing a person of low to non-existent moral character when other options are available though.

Character plays a role in success as a businessman and negotiator. 

So essentially, if the reasons they give for why they voted for Trump don't align with your perception of why they voted for him, you'd dispute their reasoning. Makes no sense. 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Character plays a role in success as a businessman and negotiator. 

You are stretching the bounds of character beyond it's ability to stay intact.  Character could play a role in those things for some businessmen.  It does not necessarily play in a role.  It is not intrinsic to success in business and negotiating.  You can be a totally ruthless a**hole with no character and be wildly successful.  Many have done it.

 

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So essentially, if the reasons they give for why they voted for Trump don't align with your perception of why they voted for him, you'd dispute their reasoning. Makes no sense. 

I would refer them back to the things we have discussed as to why their reasoning is not consistent, neither internally nor biblically.  Makes perfect sense.  If every opinion is valid simply for the fact that someone holds it, we shouldn't even debate things at all.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

You are stretching the bounds of character beyond it's ability to stay intact.  Character could play a role in those things for some businessmen.  It does not necessarily play in a role.  It is not intrinsic to success in business and negotiating.  You can be a totally ruthless a**hole with no character and be wildly successful.  Many have done it.

 

I would refer them back to the things we have discussed as to why their reasoning is not consistent, neither internally nor biblically.  Makes perfect sense.  If every opinion is valid simply for the fact that someone holds it, we shouldn't even debate things at all.  

Character is not necessary in those things? Says who? What if I say it is? But you get to decide that character does necessarily play a role in president, or rather voting for a president. Not that i disagree about character informing voters to some extent, but your logic has continually been inconsistent. Could you be a ruthless a**hole and still be wildly successful as a President? Why or why not? If that's the case then would character even matter? 

A Christian's own reasoning about why they voted for Trump is not consistent, but your reasoning for them is? Meanwhile you can throw out random verses from Proverbs, while offering no exegesis, and still be biblically consistent?

My whole point: the validity of a Christian's - or anyone for that matter - reason for voting for a specific candidate is in the eye of the beholder. Your generalization is truly absurd. 

It's a shame you feel you can speak on behalf of others, even if they were to tell you that what you're saying is false as it pertains to them. 

This is my final response to you on this thread. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

Character is not necessary in those things? Says who? What if I say it is? 

You'd be wrong. 

As I said, character *could* play a role in one's success as a businessman.  But many ruthless, underhanded, complete jerks lacking in character have been wildly successful in business.  Some would even tell you it's precisely why they were successful.

 

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

But you get to decide that character does necessarily play a role in president, or rather voting for a president. Not that i disagree about character informing voters to some extent, but your logic has continually been inconsistent. Could you be a ruthless a**hole and still be wildly successful as a President? Why or why not? If that's the case then would character even matter? 

Because as Christians we don't measure success only by external, tangible things.  And I'd hope we are smart enough to know that there are many facets of being a President where no amount of business acumen, foreign policy or military experience or political chops are the key element needed in the moment.  But being a person of character, integrity, honesty and morality would.

 

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

A Christian's own reasoning about why they voted for Trump is not consistent, but your reasoning for them is? Meanwhile you can throw out random verses from Proverbs, while offering no exegesis, and still be biblically consistent?

My whole point: the validity of a Christian's - or anyone for that matter - reason for voting for a specific candidate is in the eye of the beholder. Your generalization is truly absurd. 

It's a shame you feel you can speak on behalf of others, even if they were to tell you that what you're saying is false as it pertains to them. 

This is my final response to you on this thread. 

Good, because you aren't making any sense and I'm tired of indulging you as if you are.

[homersapien 11,354]

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

That's the crux of all of this. GOP voters seem to have, by and large, gone off the deep end nationwide. There's a reason "primaried" is now a verb. 

It's fascinating. 

It seems to me that it's a result of a lot of pent up frustration in the 'what used to be the middle class'.  What's ironic is who they've chosen as their political savior.

I almost look forward to watching this play out.

[homersapien 11,354]

Geez Nola, what a rhetorical tar baby you are. 

I don't always agree with Titan but you can expect a well-reasoned argument from him.  Being such a newbie you obviously didn't know that. 

He really schooled you.  

 

[DKW 86 7,411]

This is not a finished piece imho, but...

I am working on an idea about being a man, a mensch. So far it is working into an anagram around MICE.

M= Morals
I= Integrity
C= Character
E= Ethics

While I dont think you have to perfect, Lord knows I am not, if you dont have a "high success rate" in these four areas, what are you really being? 

WJC was a very successful President, but looking back at this point, 20 years later, he is really starting to fall apart. He has probably gutted one political party of any moral high ground for some time to come and now has gotten the other party to climb into the gutter with him. 

WJC wasnt the first. I really think this is the "Chickens of Chappaquidick coming home to roost." This is just me thinking this out, I am not looking for validation on the ideas, just sharing them in the group. What do we want to be remembered for? What do you want to be remembered for?

What is going on your headstone?

Donald Trump, a long long time ago decided to be remembered for being a businessman with multiple bankruptcies and a complete douche. No one wants their kids to turn out to be DJT, or WJC for that matter. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

Geez Nola, what a rhetorical tar baby you are. 

I don't always agree with Titan but you can expect a well-reasoned argument from him.  Being such a newbie you obviously didn't know that. 

He really schooled you.  

 

???? I stand by my statement. TT does not speak on behalf of evangelical Christians who voted for Trump. But in his mind, he is the arbiter of truth.

For example, if the evangelical says they voted for Trump because of any OTHER reason(s) than one that TT assumes, the evangelical is the one that has flawed reasoning. Fundamentally makes zero sense.  

 

And being such a newbie - are you implying that I'm facing some sort of intellectual giant that I should caution in conversing with? He didn't provide a well reasoned argument. An evangelical vote for Trump by no means necessitates the notion that one didn't consider or either disregarded his moral failures. For many, the considerations were extremely deeper than just Trump's personal mistakes.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

Geez Nola, what a rhetorical tar baby you are. 

 

 

Trash talk forum

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

29 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Trash talk forum

What is a  Tar Baby?

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

Geez Nola, what a rhetorical tar baby you are. 

I don't always agree with Titan but you can expect a well-reasoned argument from him.  Being such a newbie you obviously didn't know that. 

He really schooled you.  

 

What is a tar baby? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

What is a  Tar Baby?

Waiting for Homer to tell us

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Waiting for Homer to tell us

Crazy thread. Why would any evangelical support fill in the blank politician. President Trumps support comes from him not being a politician. BTW, Ted Kennedy, etc.....man of high morals, a real icon and lion.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

20 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Crazy thread. Why would any evangelical support fill in the blank politician. President Trumps support comes from him not being a politician. BTW, Ted Kennedy, etc.....man of high morals, a real icon and lion.

I was very taken back that TT would essentially say, "This is why you, evangelical, voted for [Trump]." --- No it's not. I voted for him because I felt like his policies would most effectively counter the damage from the previous eight years more so than other candidate's policies would. It doesn't mean I'm voting for his mistakes. I've considered those mistakes, just like I've considered the Christian bakers who are under attack; and the Christian photographers. I've contemplated that real people are losing business that they had labored years to build and their way of life is being destroyed. I've considered that the former administration, including HRC, wanted to force Christians to fund the abortion industry. I've considered that HRC informed an audience that Christians would have to change their beliefs on some issues. I also considered that its ok to vote in self-defense. I wanted to do my part in putting the brakes on the relentless assault of Christian values. I wanted to ensure that religious freedom executive action was taken, as Trump in fact did this year.

I'm not even begging people to agree with the above. I just won't sit back and be told that I downplayed Trump's mistakes because that's not true. However, there are other considerations that I, and many others, give just as much weight. If someone is baffled that a Christian could vote for Trump, then be baffled, but don't artificially generalize specific people. After all, it's specific people that make up the group being wrongly generalized. There is no objective internal reason the Christian voter has in how they go about considering candidates. 

[homersapien 11,354]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

What is a tar baby? 

Actually, it was a rhetorical tar baby.

It's someone who picks out a given point in an argument then misapplies it to spin an arcane diversion from the intended point which requires a corrective response, after which the process is repeated to launch another arcane diversion, ad infinitum.

Like a tar baby, the more you engage, the further down the rabbit hole of sophistry you descend.

(The tar baby is from the Uncle Remus stories.)

 

[homersapien 11,354]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I was very taken back that TT would essentially say, "This is why you, evangelical, voted for [Trump]." --- No it's not. I voted for him because I felt like his policies would most effectively counter the damage from the previous eight years more so than other candidate's policies would. It doesn't mean I'm voting for his mistakes. I've considered those mistakes, just like I've considered the Christian bakers who are under attack; and the Christian photographers. I've contemplated that real people are losing business that they had labored years to build and their way of life is being destroyed. I've considered that the former administration, including HRC, wanted to force Christians to fund the abortion industry. I've considered that HRC informed an audience that Christians would have to change their beliefs on some issues. I also considered that its ok to vote in self-defense. I wanted to do my part in putting the brakes on the relentless assault of Christian values. I wanted to ensure that religious freedom executive action was taken, as Trump in fact did this year.

I'm not even begging people to agree with the above. I just won't sit back and be told that I downplayed Trump's mistakes because that's not true. However, there are other considerations that I, and many others, give just as much weight. If someone is baffled that a Christian could vote for Trump, then be baffled, but don't artificially generalize specific people. After all, it's specific people that make up the group being wrongly generalized. There is no objective internal reason the Christian voter has in how they go about considering candidates. 

Trump is no more Christian than Howard Stern.  You are being played.

The guy you want is Mike Pence.  If you had an political acumen (there's that word again Salty! ), you'd be trying to dump Trump and put him in office. 

The Evangelicals are shooting their cause in the foot by supporting Trump. They've exposed themselves for the hypocrites they are.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Trump is no more Christian than Howard Stern.  You are being played.

The guy you want is Mike Pence.  If you had an political acumen (there's that word again Salty! ), you'd be trying to dump Trump and put him in office.  The Evangelicals are shooting their cause in the foot by supporting Trump.

You're entitled to think that, though I disagree (as usual) with everything that you said.

My point is that I didn't downplay Trump's mistakes in making the decision whether or not to vote for him. Rather, it was one of many considerations. 

 

[AUDub 11,131]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

(The tar baby is from the Uncle Remus stories.)

Thought everyone knew of Br'er Rabbit. Oh well. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

Someone here is a big fan of The Apprentice, I can see.