Trump is going to wreck the GOP for a generation

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

And like Brad said, he certainly hasn't apologized.

 

As if that matters? What a moot point. You’d still s*** on him even if he did apologize.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

29 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Well for starters, this assumes that there is one primary objective view of what “Christians look like to the world at large in the situation.” It also assumes that you can substantiate what that view is. Need I go on pointing out the other flaws?

Play lawyer all you want. Keep believing your cleverness means things are ok.  The seed we’ve sown with this will be one painful harvest in the future. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

19 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Pro tip: never formulate opinions based on a single opinion.

Poor Van. Yo bro, this is far from a whitelash against a black pres. This was a vote against likely the most corrupt candidate of our time. 

Come to grips with that and all will make sense. 

(admittedly I am not dealing with Nostradamus) 

Don't need a pro tip.  Just thought his take was interesting.  Nothing more.

[homersapien 11,447]

13 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

As if that matters? What a moot point. You’d still s*** on him even if he did apologize.

Yes it matters.  It just confirms his claim of not agreeing with it a lie.  Unlike most politicians, he won't even apologize for being misconstrued.

There's no way Trump would apologize for anything.  It's just not his nature to admit a mistake.  And in this case, it wasn't a mistake. It was deliberate.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Play lawyer all you want. Keep believing your cleverness means things are ok.  The seed we’ve sown with this will be one painful harvest in the future. 

How am I “playing lawyer” ? I’m sorry that I raise tough points.

[homersapien 11,447]

21 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How am I “playing lawyer” ? I’m sorry that I raise tough points.

Well, ostensibly, Titan's remark has a substantial nexus to your style.  As for raising tough points, you'll need to substantiate that view.

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How am I “playing lawyer” ? I’m sorry that I raise tough points.

You mostly gnat-strain, play semantics games,  and "just ask questions" til people just get sick of talking to you.  Keep blithely thinking it's all good.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

 

Quote

 

Evangelicals Are Supporting Trump Out of Fear, Not Faith

Evan Vucci—AP

IDEAS

French is a TIME columnist. A lawyer and senior fellow at the National Review Institute, he is a best-selling author whose next book will be The Great American Divorce.

On June 21, the writer E. Jean Carroll came forward with a vivid and disturbing claim that Donald Trump raped her in a department store in the 1990s. She is the 22nd woman to allege that Trump committed acts of sexual misconduct. These claims are more extensive and more corroborated than the accusations against Bill Clinton.Trump Denies Sexual Assault Allegations by E. Jean Carroll 

It’s worth contrasting Trump, who denied Carroll’s claim (as well as his other accusers’), with Clinton because his scandals helped spur the Southern Baptist Convention in 1998 to issue its seminal “Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials.” That document’s key statement was ominous and unequivocal: “Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”

The relentless drumbeat of claims against Trump–combined with the clear moral declarations of the past–have caused millions of Americans to look at their evangelical fellow citizens and ask, simply: Why? Why have you abandoned your previous commitment to political character to embrace Donald Trump?

Part of the explanation is undeniably basic partisanship and ambition. White evangelicals are largely Republican, and they’re generally going to vote for Republicans. And proximity to power has always had its attractions for religious charlatans of all stripes. But I’d suggest the real reason for the breadth and depth of evangelical support is deeper and–perversely–even more destructive to its religious witness.

That reason is fear.

Talk to engaged evangelicals, and fear is all too often a dominant theme of their political life. The church is under siege from a hostile culture. Religious institutions are under legal attack from progressives. The left wants nuns to facilitate access to abortifacients and contraceptives, it wants Christian adoption agencies to compromise their conscience or close, and it even casts into doubt the tax exemptions of religious education institutions if they adhere to traditional Christian sexual ethics.

These issues are legally important, and there are reasons for evangelicals to be concerned. But there is no reason for evangelicals to abandon long-held principles to behave like any other political-interest group.

Instead, the evangelical church is called to be a source of light in a darkening world. It is not given the luxury of fear-based decisionmaking. Indeed, of all the groups in American life who believe they have the least to fear from American politics, Christians should top the list. The faithful should reject fear.

This is made plain to young Christians from the early days of Sunday school. There, many millions of young believers are taught the biblical verse: “For God gave us not a spirit of fear but of power and love and self-control.”

But in 2016, something snapped. I saw Christian men and women whom I’ve known and respected for years respond with raw fear at the very idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency. They believed she was going to place the church in mortal danger. The Christian writer Eric Metaxas wrote that if Hillary won, America’s chance to have a “Supreme Court that values the Constitution” will be “gone.” “Not for four years, not for eight,” he said, “but forever.”

That wasn’t faith speaking. They were the words of fearful men grasping at fading influence by clinging to a man whose daily life mocks the very values that Christians seek to advance.

But why? The American evangelical church isn’t so weak that it needs Trump’s version of secular salvation. The early persecuted church would be stunned at the modern American church’s immense political strength. It has become so strong that it exercises veto power over the political prospects of any Republican nominee.

Yet the church is acting as if it needs Trump to protect it. That’s not courageous. It’s repulsive. And so long as this fear continues, expect the church’s witness to degrade further. In seeking protection from its perceived enemies, the church has lost its way.

It’s time for evangelicals to exercise their political veto power. America’s conservative people of faith should seek a primary challenger to Trump and send a message to the GOP that it will not compromise any longer. And it should do so from a position of confidence–and faith.

Contact us at editors@time.com.

This appears in the July 08, 2019 issue of TIME.

https://time.com/5615617/why-evangelicals-support-trump/?fbclid=IwAR3q-cgdyHkRiWBI3btPgljwwkLZfD6RnXaXjd59a609zLi_KWepejUVkVI

 

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

8 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Don't need a pro tip.  Just thought his take was interesting.  Nothing more.

It's all good brother. While I can agree it was interesting, half the county disagrees with his interpretation. Again, all good. IIWII and Trump will have to deal with it.

Then there is Van.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

40 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

It's all good brother. While I can agree it was interesting, half the county disagrees with his interpretation. Again, all good. IIWII and Trump will have to deal with it.

Then there is Van.

How can half the country disagree with how one conservative black man was affected by Trump’s tweets?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

How can half the country disagree with how one conservative black man was affected by Trump’s tweets?

Whether the young man is conservative or not is irrelevant. He is speaking to comments made by Trump as racist. Half the county disagrees with that sentiment. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, ostensibly, Titan's remark has a substantial nexus to your style.  As for raising tough points, you'll need to substantiate that view.

 

Look no further than Titian’s responses. He literally cannot provide a coherent, meaningful response. He’s not incoherent, but I think his responses are in this case.

For the record, if anyone needs to come to Titan’s aid, it’s not you. Remember, the mentored isn’t suppose to help the mentor.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

54 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Whether the young man is conservative or not is irrelevant. He is speaking to comments made by Trump as racist. Half the county disagrees with that sentiment. 

The vast majority of that 'half' is white and has zero idea what constitutes a racist remark to a black person.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

You mostly gnat-strain, play semantics games,  and "just ask questions" til people just get sick of talking to you.  Keep blithely thinking it's all good.

Wrong. I’m not gnat-straining, playing semantics, and just asking questions. I’m chopping the legs off of your arguments and illustrating the lack of merit in your assertions. If you’re not for it, just say so and I will leave you alone in this forum. I’m not meaning to steal the thunder. But don’t try to create a facade.  I would suggest contemplating the validity of generalizations before expressing them.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

Wrong. I’m not gnat-straining, playing semantics, and just asking questions. I’m chopping the legs off of your arguments and illustrating the lack of merit in your assertions.

You ask questions that make the uninitiated think you sound smart.  They are meaningless questions meant to turn something that's rather simple into something seemingly complex.  It's not.  And I'm not here for it.

 

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

If you’re not for it, just say so and I will leave you alone in this forum. I’m not meaning to steal the thunder. But don’t try to create a facade.  I would suggest contemplating the validity of generalizations before expressing them.

I'm all for engaging genuine questions.  You seldom ask them, even if you do so in an intelligent sounding manner to people who don't know better.

Keep thinking it's all fine and the damage hasn't been done.  But don't waste my time in your inane rabbit trails.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I'm going to do this anyway, Nola.  

Look, I really don't think it's that complicated.  The general public has a decent idea of what Christians stand for, or at least what they say they stand for.  We sure as hell talk about it enough.  We talked about it ad nauseam for 8 years of the Clinton Presidency.  We talked about it enough as we told everyone how Obama's Christianity was false (and for the record, I do disagree with much of what Barack Obama sees as authentic, orthodox Christian faith).  We've told them over and over how the liberals are ruining this country with their sexual immorality, no fault divorce, profanity-laced and vulgar entertainment, and other immoral behavior.

They also know what we claim and what our supposed Savior teaches about loving your neighbor and blessing those who persecute you.  And when they take all that yapping we've done over the last few decades (at least), and pair it with what they do know about the things the Bible teaches, and then they look at Trump's behavior and how we respond to it - ignoring it, minimizing it, excusing it, cheering it on all for the sake of political power - it utterly cuts the legs off of any witness we have to this culture right at the knees.  And the ones old enough to be able to compare it to how many of the same people acting toward Clinton's similar behavior get especially disgusted.

So spare me the questions about whether they really have a unified view of what Christianity is or whether I can dig up market research to show it.  They may not be theologians.  They may get a lot wrong about Christian doctrine and what the Bible teaches.  But they know what we have brow-beaten into them since the Moral Majority arose in the late 70s.  They know what we've told them and after watching this Trump stuff - they justifiably think we're full of s***.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

14 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The vast majority of that 'half' is white and has zero idea what constitutes a racist remark to a black person.

The vast majority of the other half is white as well and have no idea what constitutes a racist remark to a person of color. But that group plays identity politics purely for political reasons and I'm no fan of insincere pandering.

[I_M4_AU 7,992]

13 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The vast majority of that 'half' is white and has zero idea what constitutes a racist remark to a black person.

This post is in direct disagreement with what you posted to me about AOC being anti Semitic concerning her concentration camp rhetoric.  You posted that *ism* is designed to shut down conversation and that many Jews didn’t see her remarks as anti Semitic. Most of America has no idea what constitutes an anti Semitic remark and you defended AOC.

So which is it?  Was AOC’s statement anti Semitic?  Is there any black person that thinks Trump is not racist?  Dr. Ben Carson doesn’t think he’s racist. Does that negate this man’s statement or is it just a difference of opinion?  By the way, is the *Betsy Ross* flag racists because Colin Kaepernick things so?

What in the he!! Is the left’s definition of racism?  It’s a rhetorical question, I believe I know.

ETA:  AOC believes Pelosi is racist.  Harris believes Biden is racist.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

This post is in direct disagreement with what you posted to me about AOC being anti Semitic concerning her concentration camp rhetoric.  You posted that *ism* is designed to shut down conversation and that many Jews didn’t see her remarks as anti Semitic. Most of America has no idea what constitutes an anti Semitic remark and you defended AOC.

So which is it?  Was AOC’s statement anti Semitic?  Is there any black person that thinks Trump is not racist?  Dr. Ben Carson doesn’t think he’s racist. Does that negate this man’s statement or is it just a difference of opinion?  By the way, is the *Betsy Ross* flag racists because Colin Kaepernick things so?

What in the he!! Is the left’s definition of racism?  It’s a rhetorical question, I believe I know.

ETA:  AOC believes Pelosi is racist.  Harris believes Biden is racist.

I never said *every* instance of an “ism” is merely a way to shut down the discussion. I said that frequently it is. But other times, it’s accurate. Everything else you said above flows from this false understanding of what I said. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

The vast majority of the other half is white as well and have no idea what constitutes a racist remark to a person of color. But that group plays identity politics purely for political reasons and I'm no fan of insincere pandering.

The difference is, one side generally believes a black person when they say something is racist. Not every time, but most of the time. The other virtually never believes them. 

[I_M4_AU 7,992]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I never said *every* instance of an “ism” is merely a way to shut down the discussion. I said that frequently it is. But other times, it’s accurate. Everything else you said above flows from this false understanding of what I said. 

I never said *every* either, I just would like to know the difference in each of the situations I mentioned above.  Why would you believe a black man’s perspective and not a Jew’s perspective?  I can guess you next response; something about whataboutism.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Good thread ...

If Democrats were smart they would forget the progressive nirvana platform and just run against the “send her back” nativisms and on restoring the moral fabric of our country.  They’d win coast to coast in a landslide.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm going to do this anyway, Nola.  

Look, I really don't think it's that complicated.  The general public has a decent idea of what Christians stand for, or at least what they say they stand for.  We sure as hell talk about it enough.  We talked about it ad nauseam for 8 years of the Clinton Presidency.  We talked about it enough as we told everyone how Obama's Christianity was false (and for the record, I do disagree with much of what Barack Obama sees as authentic, orthodox Christian faith).  We've told them over and over how the liberals are ruining this country with their sexual immorality, no fault divorce, profanity-laced and vulgar entertainment, and other immoral behavior.

They also know what we claim and what our supposed Savior teaches about loving your neighbor and blessing those who persecute you.  And when they take all that yapping we've done over the last few decades (at least), and pair it with what they do know about the things the Bible teaches, and then they look at Trump's behavior and how we respond to it - ignoring it, minimizing it, excusing it, cheering it on all for the sake of political power - it utterly cuts the legs off of any witness we have to this culture right at the knees.  And the ones old enough to be able to compare it to how many of the same people acting toward Clinton's similar behavior get especially disgusted.

So spare me the questions about whether they really have a unified view of what Christianity is or whether I can dig up market research to show it.  They may not be theologians.  They may get a lot wrong about Christian doctrine and what the Bible teaches.  But they know what we have brow-beaten into them since the Moral Majority arose in the late 70s.  They know what we've told them and after watching this Trump stuff - they justifiably think we're full of s***.

Hi, I'm Brad and I'm example A of the kind of person Titan is referring to here.

Although I would argue that I know a little more about Christian doctrine than many other non-believers and believers as well.

[toddc 13,194]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This post is in direct disagreement with what you posted to me about AOC being anti Semitic concerning her concentration camp rhetoric.  You posted that *ism* is designed to shut down conversation and that many Jews didn’t see her remarks as anti Semitic. Most of America has no idea what constitutes an anti Semitic remark and you defended AOC.

So which is it?  Was AOC’s statement anti Semitic?  Is there any black person that thinks Trump is not racist?  Dr. Ben Carson doesn’t think he’s racist. Does that negate this man’s statement or is it just a difference of opinion?  By the way, is the *Betsy Ross* flag racists because Colin Kaepernick things so?

What in the he!! Is the left’s definition of racism?  It’s a rhetorical question, I believe I know.

ETA:  AOC believes Pelosi is racist.  Harris believes Biden is racist.

Don’t forget the Lion King movie, there’s some left guy saying it’s racist!

[TitanTiger 20,510]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I never said *every* either, I just would like to know the difference in each of the situations I mentioned above.  Why would you believe a black man’s perspective and not a Jew’s perspective?  I can guess you next response; something about whataboutism.

I would say that in general, it's because Jews don't own the word "concentration camp" and thus get to dictate its usage.  And there have been very large Jewish protests against the detention centers, calling them "concentration camps" as well as employing anti-Holocaust rhetoric such as "Never Again."  It doesn't appear to me that the majority of Jews consider the use of the term to be anti-Semitic even if a minority do.

But "go back to Africa/you own country/where you came from" is a long standing and well-known racist trope.  Most black people are familiar with that rhetoric.  Even conservative blacks who voted for Trump are pointing out that it's racially offensive.