Messianism: Not just for Obamaphiles anymore!

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Maybe you are really bad at formulating your questions?

That was a straightforward response to your questions.  Keep in mind you are welcome to clarify them if I misunderstood, but I assume his post means you don't care to.

At least I responded, which is more that can be said about you.

I mean at this point it’s circular 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

On 6/9/2018 at 11:56 PM, AUFAN78 said:

Given the choice, I am not buying what you are selling.  

It's not really a choice and you aren't the market anyway.

Look, I said the Christians who supported the guy are the most clueless as to the effect it has had on those outside the church.  All you guys are doing is proving that to be spot on.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

He thinks that for a Christian to support Trump, they necessarily have to excuse or even celebrate sin - which is error.

Or just ignore.  Ignore it because their political commitments mean more to them.  So yes, excuse or ignore.  I wouldn't say most celebrate.  I least I hope they wouldn't.  Then again, some seem to celebrate the fact that his awful behavior and awful things he says gigs liberals.  Not sure that's a whole lot better.

 

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Just read his comments. Any other explanation simply “won’t be bought.” It has everything to do with the false generalizations people make of Christianity on the basis of imputing to others what some have said. Thus, my voting example is relevant to the matter. If there’s a problem, it is not Christianity - rather, it is imputing the words of a few to the whole. Only the one who is drawing the generalizations can control that. 

I am just telling you what your parsed support and rationalizations for said support come off to people who aren't Christians.  You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.  And it wasn't about supporting Hillary instead either.  It was about backing the fornicating, adulterous, vulgar, insulting, braying jackass enough to even get him the nomination in the first place.  The continued pom-pom waving for him only cements the disgust and, yes, has pushed them further away from the very thing they need most.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

And this doesn’t surprise me. “Hypocrisy” is a label constantly thrown at Christians for virtually everything under the sun. It’s nothing new, though it operates from a false notion that Christians are supposed to be flawless people.

Hypocrisy does not presume or require that one see anyone as "flawless."  It's rather simple.  You preach one thing and do another.  Or you preach one thing for your enemies then flip flop on it for your allies.  If the use of the word presupposes that they expect someone to be perfect the word ceases to have any meaning at all.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Or just ignore.  Ignore it because their political commitments mean more to them.  So yes, excuse or ignore.  I wouldn't say most celebrate.  I least I hope they wouldn't.  Then again, some seem to celebrate the fact that his awful behavior and awful things he says gigs liberals.  Not sure that's a whole lot better.

 

I am just telling you what your parsed support and rationalizations for said support come off to people who aren't Christians.  You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.  And it wasn't about supporting Hillary instead either.  It was about backing the fornicating, adulterous, vulgar, insulting, braying jackass enough to even get him the nomination in the first place.  The continued pom-pom waving for him only cements the disgust and, yes, has pushed them further away from the very thing they need most.

Thanks. Can’t control what others think, despite trying to explain one’s self. I do find it quite out of line for others to tell me the reasons I myself do or do not support a politician. It’s not even worth the inquiry on their part if they’ve already formulated their own answer.

For the “christian leaders” who think Trump is ‘God's man’ or who justify/excuse his personal flaws, or anyone’s personal flaws for that matter - I would question the authenticity of their ministry in the first place. If they truly teach that adulterous acts aren’t to be taken seriously, there’s probably other teachings that would be questionable as well; completely separate from political ones. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

38 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I initially voted for Cruz but there was no way he’d be able to muster enough support

I wouldn’t have agreed with Cruz’ politics but he is definitely a better human than Trump.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

20 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I wouldn’t have agreed with Cruz’ politics but he is definitely a better human than Trump.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

14 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not really a choice and you aren't the market anyway.

Look, I said the Christians who supported the guy are the most clueless as to the effect it has had on those outside the church.  All you guys are doing is proving that to be spot on.

Verily, verily.

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

The thread is about the contradiction between Christian values and the character and actions of Trump.

Regardless of "Trumps character"....he does express the desire to protect "Christian values" 

We are all working hard to find the misery you guys continue to broadcast

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

All Christians should’ve just sat out this election.

There’s the logic, folks. How impressive!

[homersapien 11,373]

4 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

I wouldn’t have agreed with Cruz’ politics but he is definitely a better human than Trump.

Maybe, but it's a photo finish.  

 

[homersapien 11,373]

51 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Regardless of "Trumps character"....he does express the desire to protect "Christian values" 

We are all working hard to find the misery you guys continue to broadcast

He "expresses" whatever he thinks will play well to his base.  You are still blind to what Trump is.  

And I - for one -  am not "broadcasting misery".  In fact, I am set personally regardless of what Trump does, well,  short of a nuclear war.  But I can appreciate the misery he is visiting on some and I damn well appreciate the long term damage he's doing to our country.

I am totally mystified as how "you guys" fail to see it.  But it's fascinating, even if in a frightening way.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

He "expresses" whatever he thinks will play well to his base.  You are still blind to what Trump is.  

And I - for one -  am not "broadcasting misery".  In fact, I am set personally regardless of what Trump does, well,  short of a nuclear war.  But I can appreciate the misery he is visiting on some and I damn well appreciate the long term damage he's doing to our country.

I am totally mystified as how "you guys" fail to see it.  But it's fascinating, even if in a frightening way.

I do hope your party maintains its obsession with Trump. That way, he'll likely still be your president after his first term. 

In 2016, congressional Democrats were given a gift: the election of Donald Trump. Trump’s approval ratings had never crossed 51 percent; they’d consistently hovered in the low 40s. His personal popularity had always been low, and he had an obvious penchant for jumping on political land mines with both feet. All Democrats had to do was sound reasonable, and they’d probably take back the House of Representatives in sweeping fashion.

Oh well.

The latest polls show that the generic ballot lead for Democrats has dropped from a nearly insurmountable 13 points in December to about three points today. According to a new CBS News/YouGov tracking poll, the odds on a Democratic House takeover are now about 50/50. On average since 1865, the party in power has lost 32 House seats and two Senate seats in midterm elections; Democrats need just 24 seats to flip the House this year. Yet they’re still falling short.

Why?

Because Democrats can’t hem themselves in on two topics: Trump and policy.

Democrats had a massive opportunity when Trump was elected. As an ideological nonconformist and a reactionary personality, Trump seems particularly susceptible to praise and flattery. Imagine if Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) had strolled into the Oval Office during the first week of Trump’s presidency, sidled up to Trump, and told him that they’d love to impose indelible change on America by granting everyone comprehensive health care. There’s a decent shot that with the help of then–White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, Trump would have gone full Bernie Sanders. That isn’t complete speculation — in September 2017, Trump went over the heads of congressional Republicans in favor of working with Schumer and Pelosi to avoid a government shutdown.

But instead of playing nice with Trump, while stoking the flames of anti-Trump ire with their base, Democrats promised a deus ex machina: Trump would flame out, retire, be impeached, be prosecuted by Robert Mueller for Russian collusion, and all the rest. Trump wasn’t merely a bad guy — he was the worst guy, a buffoonish Hitler clad in the armor of cruel conservatism.

But there’s a problem: Trump hasn’t flamed out. Mueller so far hasn’t come up with credible evidence of Russian collusion, and even the high hopes surrounding porn star Stormy Daniels have gone flaccid. Trump himself seems alternatively irked by his office and trollishly empowered by it, but never willing to walk away. That’s dispiriting to the Democratic base, which spends each morning fuming over the latest Trumpian twitterstorm, thrilling to the extremist musings of kooks such as Maxine Waters (D., Calif.).

All of which means that Democrats have been forced to turn to the second prong of their 2018 attack: policy.

But on policy, the Democratic record looks even worse. Trump’s rhetoric continues to fuel feelings of unmoored chaos, but the markets continue to soar, the job market grows, and we’re not in the middle of any serious foreign-policy crisis. In 2016, CNN Moneywarned, “A Trump win would sink stocks.” Nope. Pelosi warned that Trump’s tax cuts were mere “crumbs” that would amount to nothing. Nope. Hollywood celebrities warned about the significant possibility of global thermonuclear war. Nope. Democrats promised a dystopian hellscape. Instead, they got an economy so good that the New York Timesran a piece headlined “We Ran Out of Words to Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are.”

Democrats have therefore had to fall back on their font of ideas: a 76-year-old socialist loonbag from Vermont, the ideological leader of their party. Bernie Sanders has spent the last few months gallivanting around stirring up the populist revolution for $15 minimum wage. His most recent target: Disney, a corporation that leans to the left and employs some 200,000 Americans. Sanders’s preferred policy prescriptions have already been embraced by Seattle, which is busily alienating its major businesses ranging from Amazon to Microsoft, and California, which continues to look more like Mad Max than Vermont.

So perhaps policy isn’t the big winner Democrats are looking for, either.

 

 

Which means that Democrats have only two strategies left: wait for Trump to implode or wait for his policies to implode. Both are possible — Trump is the most volatile president in modern American history, and economic downturns are rarely foreseeable. But for the moment, Democrats are in real trouble.

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

41 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Maybe, but it's a photo finish.  

 

Kinda hard to respect a man who kisses the rear of a man who insulted his wife.

[homersapien 11,373]

20 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I do hope your party maintains its obsession with Trump. That way, he'll likely still be your president after his first term. 

In 2016, congressional Democrats were given a gift: the election of Donald Trump. Trump’s approval ratings had never crossed 51 percent; they’d consistently hovered in the low 40s. His personal popularity had always been low, and he had an obvious penchant for jumping on political land mines with both feet. All Democrats had to do was sound reasonable, and they’d probably take back the House of Representatives in sweeping fashion.

Oh well.

The latest polls show that the generic ballot lead for Democrats has dropped from a nearly insurmountable 13 points in December to about three points today. According to a new CBS News/YouGov tracking poll, the odds on a Democratic House takeover are now about 50/50. On average since 1865, the party in power has lost 32 House seats and two Senate seats in midterm elections; Democrats need just 24 seats to flip the House this year. Yet they’re still falling short.

Why?

Because Democrats can’t hem themselves in on two topics: Trump and policy.

Democrats had a massive opportunity when Trump was elected. As an ideological nonconformist and a reactionary personality, Trump seems particularly susceptible to praise and flattery. Imagine if Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) had strolled into the Oval Office during the first week of Trump’s presidency, sidled up to Trump, and told him that they’d love to impose indelible change on America by granting everyone comprehensive health care. There’s a decent shot that with the help of then–White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, Trump would have gone full Bernie Sanders. That isn’t complete speculation — in September 2017, Trump went over the heads of congressional Republicans in favor of working with Schumer and Pelosi to avoid a government shutdown.

But instead of playing nice with Trump, while stoking the flames of anti-Trump ire with their base, Democrats promised a deus ex machina: Trump would flame out, retire, be impeached, be prosecuted by Robert Mueller for Russian collusion, and all the rest. Trump wasn’t merely a bad guy — he was the worst guy, a buffoonish Hitler clad in the armor of cruel conservatism.

But there’s a problem: Trump hasn’t flamed out. Mueller so far hasn’t come up with credible evidence of Russian collusion, and even the high hopes surrounding porn star Stormy Daniels have gone flaccid. Trump himself seems alternatively irked by his office and trollishly empowered by it, but never willing to walk away. That’s dispiriting to the Democratic base, which spends each morning fuming over the latest Trumpian twitterstorm, thrilling to the extremist musings of kooks such as Maxine Waters (D., Calif.).

All of which means that Democrats have been forced to turn to the second prong of their 2018 attack: policy.

But on policy, the Democratic record looks even worse. Trump’s rhetoric continues to fuel feelings of unmoored chaos, but the markets continue to soar, the job market grows, and we’re not in the middle of any serious foreign-policy crisis. In 2016, CNN Moneywarned, “A Trump win would sink stocks.” Nope. Pelosi warned that Trump’s tax cuts were mere “crumbs” that would amount to nothing. Nope. Hollywood celebrities warned about the significant possibility of global thermonuclear war. Nope. Democrats promised a dystopian hellscape. Instead, they got an economy so good that the New York Timesran a piece headlined “We Ran Out of Words to Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are.”

Democrats have therefore had to fall back on their font of ideas: a 76-year-old socialist loonbag from Vermont, the ideological leader of their party. Bernie Sanders has spent the last few months gallivanting around stirring up the populist revolution for $15 minimum wage. His most recent target: Disney, a corporation that leans to the left and employs some 200,000 Americans. Sanders’s preferred policy prescriptions have already been embraced by Seattle, which is busily alienating its major businesses ranging from Amazon to Microsoft, and California, which continues to look more like Mad Max than Vermont.

So perhaps policy isn’t the big winner Democrats are looking for, either.

 

 

Which means that Democrats have only two strategies left: wait for Trump to implode or wait for his policies to implode. Both are possible — Trump is the most volatile president in modern American history, and economic downturns are rarely foreseeable. But for the moment, Democrats are in real trouble.

 

What do you mean by my party, paleface?

Perhaps you should save this for when I mention the Democrats.  I certainly didn't in the post this response was directed at. 

Except for being laughably transparent, this would have been a decent attempt at obfuscation. 

Try something else.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What do you mean by my party, paleface?

Perhaps you should save this for when I mention the Democrats.  I certainly didn't in the post this response was directed at. 

Except for being laughably transparent, this would have been a decent attempt at obfuscation. 

Try something else.

Paleface? You will never be able to one-up me with the labels, so quit trying, halfwit. I’m so young, yet so advanced.

I know you didn’t mention Democrats (you are one). Your constant complaining about Trump spurred my comment. It’s valid. Keep on keepin’ on. Whine baby whine.

[homersapien 11,373]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You will never be able to one-up me with the labels, so quit trying, halfwit.

I know you didn’t mention Democrats (you are one). Your constant complaining about Trump spurred my comment. It’s valid. Keep on keepin’ on. Whine baby whine.

Your losing your cool. 

That's not a good thing for someone who hopes to be a lawyer, especially in a trial or stressful situation.

Are you stressed?  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Your losing your cool. 

That's not a good thing for someone who hopes to be a lawyer, especially in a trial or stressful situation.

Are you stressed?  

How did you gather that? I’m cooler than the other side of the pillow. But I appreciate all of the deep career advice. I’m sure it will pay off. You’re just overflowing with wisdom and intelligence. 

Luckily there’s no name-calling in Court.

[homersapien 11,373]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How did you gather that? I’m cooler than the other side of the pillow. But I appreciate all of the deep career advice. I’m sure it will pay off. You’re just overflowing with wisdom and intelligence. 

Luckily there’s no name-calling in Court.

Lucky for you I suppose.  

You seem a little sensitive, "halfwit".  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Lucky for you I suppose.  

You seem a little sensitive, "halfwit".  

How so? I mention your whining, throw in an article about liberals, and now you want a pissing contest. Nice deflection.

I think the comment set you off. I can read you like a book, son. When I realllllyyyyyy get under your skin, you start “lawyer jokes” and then insert laughing emojies to your own comments. 

Are you sure you’re really as old as you say you are?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Kinda hard to respect a man who kisses the rear of a man who insulted his wife.

Not when you choose to focus on things that actually matter, like policy and whatnot. All y’all do is whine and bitch about irrelevant stuff that has no bearing on democracy. 

“You insulted my wife, so I hope my party fails.” Sounds about stupid.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

26 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Not when you choose to focus on things that actually matter, like policy and whatnot. All y’all do is whine and bitch about irrelevant stuff that has no bearing on democracy. 

“You insulted my wife, so I hope my party fails.” Sounds about stupid.

Alright, let’s focus on policy. The pro life party is throwing immigrant children that they’ve stolen from their parents in cages and taking healthcare away from American children by defunding CHIP so wealthy corporations can get a tax cut. Trump’s  policies suck. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

22 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Put me on the ignore list then.

I’m not going to smile and happy dance while immigrant children are ripped from their mothers and thrown in cages. I’m not going to praise a party who gives massive tax cuts to wealthy corporations while cutting CHIP funding that provides healthcare for children. I’m not going to be proud of a president who attacks the free press and the justice department. So if my anger at these issues offends you, then by all means feel free to not respond to me. 

If I'm not mistaken it was the Obama administration the put the kids in cages (see another thread here). Your anger issues don't offend me at all. I'm not the one who has to live with them. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

14 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

If I'm not mistaken it was the Obama administration the put the kids in cages (see another thread here). Your anger issues don't offend me at all. I'm not the one who has to live with them. 

But what would you expect of the "pro-abortion" party?  They don't value children anyway, right?  But the GOP and our "pro-life" president should operate at a higher moral level should they not?

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

15 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

If I'm not mistaken it was the Obama administration the put the kids in cages (see another thread here). Your anger issues don't offend me at all. I'm not the one who has to live with them. 

Yes, and nowhere will you find me defending it under his administration. It was wrong then and is wrong now. But you excuse it by deflecting to Obama. And it’s really cute how you like to throw out that I have anger issues. It’s a tactic you use to make yourself feel better about supporting such an atrocious president. Let me insult Elle and characterize her as an irrational angry person to deflect from the fact that the man I support just left the G7 because he didn’t get his way and is angry tweeting about it. I’m sure that works in convincing people that your views are credible.