The Deepening Crisis in Evangelical Christianity

[homersapien 11,385]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

 

On this one there is a subtle but important difference. Todd is talking about what some Trump supporters are looking at:
SUPPORTING what trump is DOING,
IGNORING what trump is SAYING.

I personally take offense and nausea at what the bastich SAYS. He has however DONE somethings that actually make it hard to criticize, at least on a few topics.

1) He got the kid home from N Korea, although he was a vegetable.
2) He has N Korea talking again, instead of posturing and going nowhere.
3) At least temporarily, the Economy and Wall Street is doing better. how long that will last is open to discussion.
OTOH...
4) His turning his back on the LGBTQ Community is unforgiveable. 
5) His attacks on Patriotism of others is just a joke. He never served in the military, etc. Disgracing McCain et al is also unforgiveable.

I guess my point is that some can support trump for a few things he DID, and ignore what he says. 
Today, what any politician SAYS should just be laughed at. There is so much hyperbole out there it is silly to waste too much time on it. 
trump is a human hyperbole manufacturing machine.

Startling Realization: If he werent President, trump would make a a very popular talking head on MSNBC or Fox. trump would make a great Crowder, RusHannity, Levin guest. 

 

Well you only listed two "accomplishments" so let's address them:

It's way too early to take pride in what Trump has done with N. Korea.  This will only become apparent in a few more years.

I agree generally that talking is preferable to escalating military tensions (as he is now doing with Iran) but let's not forget that all previous presidents refused to give  N.Korea the stature of direct talks without conditions.  It's not like Trump accomplished anything by initiating direct talks with no preconditions.  He simply broke with our traditional policy and gave Kim Jong Un exactly what he wanted - the prestige of appearing on stage with the US president. 

And the last I heard, Un was threatening to restart nuclear testing:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/politics/north-korea-statement-us-sk-military-exercises-intl/index.html

I suspect his long term goal is to require the US to pull out all military support from South Korea. I do know that Kim Jong Un represents the worst sort of tyrant than can be imagined - as bad as Pol Pot or Stalin. 

So the jury is still out on N. Korea.

Similarly, I question just how much credit Trump should receive regarding Wall Street and the Stock Market, which has continued more or less in a straight line graph since the beginning of Obama's term. 

His tax breaks were a huge windfall for them, but at what long term cost in debt?  Enacting huge tax cuts when the economy is already doing well is not good fiscal policy.   It only reduces future options of enacting tax cuts when they are really needed for a severe recession.  Meanwhile the debt continues to balloon which has similar long term implications.

And the stock market is not the general economy.  What has Trump done to address the inherent economic issues outside of the general economy such as wealth polarization? People working three jobs or struggling with student debt who are trying to better themselves?  The lack of retirement investment by most people? 

The economy may be booming if you work on Wall Street, but there are serious problems looming long term.  And as you allude, we are due for a recession, at least if one goes by the "yield curve" indicator.  

Bottom line, Trump's economic policies are all designed for the short term because that what benefits him.  That's exactly why he has been trying to strong arm the Fed lately. 

He couldn't care less about the long term. Just like he conducted his business, he wants to make a killing short term and leave his creditors with the tab.  But in this case, his creditors will be the American people.

[DKW 86 7,426]

57 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well you only listed two "accomplishments" but let's address them.

It's way too early to take pride in what Trump has done with N. Korea.  This will only become apparent in a few more years.

I agree generally that talking is preferable to escalating military tensions (as he is now doing with Iran) but let's not forget that all previous presidents refused to give  N.Korea the stature of direct talks without conditions.  It's not like Trump accomplished anything by initiating direct talks with no preconditions.  He simply broke with our traditional policy and gave Kim Jong Un exactly what he wanted - the prestige of appearing on stage with the US president. 

And the last I heard, Un was threatening to restart nuclear testing:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/politics/north-korea-statement-us-sk-military-exercises-intl/index.html

I suspect his long term goal is to require the US to pull out all military support from South Korea. I do know that Kim Jong Un represents the worst sort of tyrant than can be imagined - as bad as Pol Pot or Stalin.  So the jury is still out on N. Korea.

Similarly, I question just how much credit Trump should receive regarding Wall Street and the Stock Market, which has continued more or less in a straight line graph since the beginning of Obama's term. 

His tax breaks were a huge windfall for them, but at what long term cost in debt?  Enacting huge tax cuts when the economy is already doing well is not good fiscal policy.   It only reduces future options of enacting tax cuts when they are really needed for a severe recession.  Meanwhile the debt continues to balloon which has similar long term implications.

And the stock market is not the general economy.  What has Trump done to address the inherent economic issues outside of the general economy such as wealth polarization? People working three jobs or struggling with student debt who are trying to better themselves?  The lack of retirement investment by most people? 

The economy may be booming if you work on Wall Street, but there are serious problems looming long term.  And as you allude, we are due for a recession, at least if one goes by the "yield curve" indicator.  

Bottom line, Trump's economic policies are all designed for the short term because that what benefits him.  That's exactly why he has been trying to strong arm the Fed lately. 

He couldn't care less about the long term. Just like he conducted his business, he wants to make a killing short term and leave his creditors with the tab.  But in this case, his creditors will be the American people.

Baically agree to all that.

I just listed the TWO that most Trump Supporters do...

[toddc 13,194]

On 7/20/2019 at 12:10 PM, homersapien said:

Funny how so many of these roots are tied to the South and racism, huh?)

Which the majority of started in the Democratic Party!

The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.

Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!

Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.

Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.

Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.

[McLoofus 35,182]

On 7/20/2019 at 10:50 AM, triangletiger said:

I guess my question would be is this a condemnation on Trump or a condemnation on where we are as a society?  Conditions in our society (i.e., polarization and bunkering  into different political and ideological factions and an unwillingness to consider an opposing point of view) had to be just so in order for Trump’s ‘weaponization of his shortcomings’ to be seen as a positive attribute.  And, while I do think that plenty of blame can be heaped upon Trump for pouring gasoline on the fire, the problems we have existed before he ever came on the scene.  Trump’s election as POTUS is a symptom of our problem as a society, not the problem itself.

I've opined your last sentence many times and pretty much verbatim.

Yes, it's a reflection of where politics is now. But it's also a reflection of something much more sinister, which is exactly what this thread is about. The GOP's platform has become as much about nationalism and bigotry as it is about anything else. And trump's base has become emboldened so that these qualities are no longer being kept in check, but are being openly flaunted and celebrated. At a minimum, people like Todd are more than willing to accept these qualities in our nation's highest office as long as our tax dollars don't go to health care instead of- well, he didn't say what he'd prefer his tax dollars to go to. Anyway, he literally said that programs like Medicare for all would destroy our nation. He, along with millions of other Americans,  will gladly take the bigoted ***** grabber. That is why we are in a precarious position. 

As for how politics got here, we can thank Mitch McConnell. Not for all of it, of course, but if there is a central agent in all of this that is still busy ruining our country and who needs to have his ass thrown in jail for high treason, it's that sorry sabotaging piece of s*** first. 

[triangletiger 1,599]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

I've opined your last sentence many times and pretty much verbatim.

Yes, it's a reflection of where politics is now. But it's also a reflection of something much more sinister, which is exactly what this thread is about. The GOP's platform has become as much about nationalism and bigotry as it is about anything else. And trump's base has become emboldened so that this qualities are no longer being kept in check, but are being openly flaunted and celebrated. At a minimum, people like Todd are more than willing to accept these qualities in our nation's highest office as long as our tax dollars don't go to health care instead of- well, he didn't say what he'd prefer his tax dollars to go to. Anyway, he literally said that programs like Medicare for all would destroy our nation. He, along with millions of other Americans,  will gladly take the bigoted ***** grabber. That is why we are in a precarious position. 

As for how politics got here, we can thank Mitch McConnell. Not for all of it, of course, but if there is a central agent in all of this that is still busy ruining our country and who needs to have his ass thrown in jail for high treason, it's that sorry sabotaging piece of s*** first. 

One podcast I listened to a few months ago blamed Newt Gingrich (and Rush Limbaugh) for the polarization we are experiencing now. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

One podcast I listened to a few months ago blamed Newt Gingrich (and Rush Limbaugh) for the polarization we are experiencing now. 

Fair. And, to that end, Clinton gets a lot of blame with the Telecommunications Act. Might end up being his only lasting legacy, and it's not a good one.  

Perhaps McConnell has just succeeded in furthering their efforts. But succeed he has. 

[homersapien 11,385]

14 hours ago, toddc said:

Which the majority of started in the Democratic Party!

The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.

Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!

Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.

Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.

Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.

You got everything right but the last one.  Obviously.

There was most definitely a "switch" between parties when all of those southern Democrats switched to the Republican party. 

History clearly shows that.  That is exactly why the "solid South" is now "solid" for the Republicans instead of the Democrats.  Any political scientist will tell you that (as if you really needed a political scientist to recognize it.)

To argue otherwise is well, to make you your own ridiculous interpretation of that switch, as you did above.