No. of Recommendations: 13
Many Christians support Trump.

Why?

Christians believe in Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the Ten Commandments.

The Ten Commandments? The very same. (Actually, there are 613, but I digress…) Let us assume that these “Ten” that are commonly referred to are pretty important top nay believer.

A couple of them stand out as, maybe, problematic when it coms to supporting Trump. Two of them speak directly to, well, cheating on your wife and/or adultery. Trump, due to his love of publicity and high profile lifestyle, is a well documented cheater. He has cheated on all three of his wives, and has had highly public adulterous affairs. Ooops.

The righties say it doesn’t matter. Wait - these are TWO of the BIG RULES. Why does it not matter? Howe do you just brush off these offenses?

Another commandment talks about lying. Trump is one of the lyingest Presidents we have ever seen. His dishonesty is historic. Yet again, the righties claim some sort of immunity, even though, again, THIS IS ONE OF THE BIG RULES. DON’T LIE!

The only conclusion is that these rules are sort of optional - you know, just 'guidelines' (like etc Pirate Code). Well, you guys still have JC and the non-commandment parts of the bible.

How do you all sleep at night?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Why?"

He claims to be anti a woman's right to choose to end a pregnancy, and will not interfere with purported "Bible based" discrimination and intolerance.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Christians believe in Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the Ten Commandments."

And the Constitution, unlike god-less leftie progressives who intend to destroy it

Certainly, not Obama who derided half the population for 'clinging to their bibles'.......oh, those 'deplorables'...... who kicked Hillary's butt.

- --------



"Another commandment talks about lying."

Right...you can keep your doctor! You can keep your health plan. The average American family will save $2400/yr under ObamaKare!

- - -------

Shall we talk about 'adultery' in the White HOuse.....old Bill, the liar...."I didn't have sex with that woman' and the semen stained dress. Hmmm...in the Oval Office no less.

- ---

or maybe 'render unto Ceaser...etc...'....and tax cheat not-to-sharp Sharpton owning a million in back taxes and not paying it?

Or the Obama's stealing stuff from the WH on the way out? And got caught?


- ------

Don't be preaching when Dems live in glass houses.


- ------

How about almost President Al Gore?

"When co-anchor Katie Couric asked Al Gore on the May 24, 2006 Today show “What do you see happening in 15 to 20 years if nothing changes?...Even Manhattan would be in deep water”, he replied: “Yes, in fact the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater.”"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/06/26/rising-tid...

I've yet to see Manhattan 20 feet underwater! or the Arctic ice free and the beaches open for tourists there.

How about you?

Now, talking about lying........I think you better examine your own house first.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Why?"

He claims to be anti a woman's right to choose to end a pregnancy, and will not interfere with purported "Bible based" discrimination and intolerance.

Yet he blatantly and routinely violates several commandments. I thought they were really important. Apparently, I was misinformed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you thought Trump "Christians" had problems with the Ten Commandments, just think for a moment about the Beatitudes!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
He claims to be anti a woman's right to choose to end a pregnancy, and will not interfere with purported "Bible based" discrimination and intolerance.

Except....the God of the Old Testament routinely killed young children both directly and indirectly (through directions issued to others). If they were expendable, they why not a fetus?

Also, they conveniently forget that the same Old Testament included mention of abortion and gave instructions on how they were to be done.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 19
"Christians believe in Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the Ten Commandments."

And the Constitution, unlike god-less leftie progressives who intend to destroy it

All Americans believe in the Constitution. Christians have these additional beliefs. And I would not paint all left leaning folk with the "god-less' label, although I am fine with that. I know a good number of believers who find Trump abhorrent to their moral and religious beliefs. I just don't see how anyone religious would not feel that way.



"Another commandment talks about lying."

Right...you can keep your doctor! You can keep your health plan. The average American family will save $2400/yr under ObamaKare!

So you have one from Obama, from years ago. Done that mean it is OK for Trump to lie every day? Is that how it works?

Shall we talk about 'adultery' in the White HOuse.....old Bill, the liar...."I didn't have sex with that woman' and the semen stained dress. Hmmm...in the Oval Office no less.

I see the pattern here. So, the rules no longer apply if someone else violates them. Do I have that right?



Don't be preaching when Dems live in glass houses.

I'm not preaching. I'm wondering aloud how those who DO preach can so easily set aside their beliefs in exchange for power. WWJD.



Now, talking about lying........I think you better examine your own house first.

No. I'm still asking about those who so loudly proclaim their "beliefs" when they clearly do not believe them. See, I would not support Trump, as he is someone who lies constantly. Personally, I think honesty is very important, and reflects on ones character. My belief there just happens to coincide with what Christians SAY they believe, and yet so many them support a known liar and cheater. I'm trying to figure out how that works, if what they SAY they believe is in such contract to what they DO. If I were a believer and thought that adultery was this huge 'sin', I would not be able to support Trump, a serial cheater. You get the idea.

I'm not the one who is lying. They are. To themselves, and/or to their god.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well, apparently the fact that a Democrat did something against scripture forevermore exempts a Republican from compliance with that scripture too. No wonder there's so much adultery, porn, and divorce in some religious areas of this country,
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well, apparently the fact that a Democrat did something against scripture forevermore exempts a Republican from compliance with that scripture too. No wonder there's so much adultery, porn, and divorce in some religious areas of this country,

This explains a LOT. I just didn't understand how that worked. Now I get it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You both wrong.

“But I say, love yout neighbor as yourself”

Who is my neighbor, Lord?

“And there was a man from Samaria. . .”

He might as well have said, “There is a Palestinian” to a Jew.

Or

“And there was a homosexual from San Francisco” to a Southern Baptist.

Or

“And there was a conservative Christian” to liberal democrat.

or

“And there was an illegal alien.” to Trumper

I submit that there are no Christians who support Trump.

Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I submit that there are no Christians who support Trump.

But there are those who SAY they are Christians and support Trump.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Thou shalt not steal is one Trump violated thousands of times.

Trump U proven fraud in court, $25 million verdict.

Trump took condo downpayments from investors then never built the condo. Declared bankruptcy kept the money.

Hundreds of unpaid workers. “Sue me”

Using a fake charity to get donations he spends on himself

Liar, Thief, Adulterer,

and as far as No Other Gods Trump worships only himself.

As far as how he treats children- put em in cages.

No true compassionate Christian would support this evil.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Christians support Trump. WHY?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's easy....because they believe Trump is MORE honest then Hillary and the Democrats.

Bean
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
LOL. Virtually everything out of his mouth is a lie.
Seriously, he never stops with the lies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Matthew chapter 7 verse 16

"By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

This fruit, what is it.

Well Jesus said more about it, but Paul kinda nailed it down hard.

Paul wrote the Christians in Galatia. We call the letter "Galatians" it is in chapter 5 about verse 20.

. . . the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You ask why Christians support Trump.
But why does ANYONE but the super rich buddies he hands out money to hand over fist?

Blacks - he's a racist
Jews - he's antisemitic
Women - don't get me started. He's a disgusting pervert and woman hater.
Buddhist - every breath he takes is against Buddhist doctrine.
Middle class and poor - he wants to take your social security that you contributed to your whole life and give it to the rich. And he wants to take away your health care and insurance.
Democracy lovers - he is a dictator wannabe. If you like democracy, you should hate Trump. He loves the dictators of the world. Admires them. They kill their own families and citizens and he admires them. How can you justify this?

Anyone but super rich white men should the disgusting piece of crap.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I see him as the destroyer. The democrats are as evil as the Republicains. Support Trump? No.

Support the Democrats? No.

Sorry. It's all gotta go.

Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
LOL. Virtually everything out of his mouth is a lie.
Seriously, he never stops with the lies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

LOL Munchkin....I am definitely NO he. I am 100% female and proud of it.

Bean
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I see him as the destroyer. The democrats are as evil as the Republicains. Support Trump? No.

Support the Democrats? No.

Sorry. It's all gotta go.

Qazulight

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. Republicans and Democrats are BOTH corrupt, but for the time being we need to choose between the lessor of two evils.

Bean
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I agree. Republicans and Democrats are BOTH corrupt, but for the time being we need to choose between the lessor of two evils.

Bean,

Nope.

Choose the greater evil. Wreck the system quicker.

Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Wreck the system quicker.

And replace it with what?
This system is why there is a caravan headed here.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The PA Left appears to learn very slowly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
LOL. Virtually everything out of his mouth is a lie.
Seriously, he never stops with the lies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

LOL Munchkin....I am definitely NO he. I am 100% female and proud of it.


He was speaking of Trump, not you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Nope.

Choose the greater evil. Wreck the system quicker.


That's some seriously demented thinking, gazulight

It fits with anarchist thinking, but unfortunately it doesn't fit with today's realities.

The lives of billions depend upon the maintenance of some semblance of order and stability.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
LOL Munchkin....I am definitely NO he. I am 100% female and proud of it.

He was speaking of Trump, not you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks. My apology. He referred to me as a he in another post.

Bean
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's some seriously demented thinking, gazulight

It fits with anarchist thinking, but unfortunately it doesn't fit with today's realities.

The lives of billions depend upon the maintenance of some semblance of order and stability.


Not demeneted. Real. When both major parties are just puppets of the oligarchy, you have no choice. You must wreck the system.

Will it be nice? Well, history says, “Unlikely” The people in Russia were not better off after the collapse of the USSR. Yugoslovia was not better after the fall of its dictator, and Iraq os not better off after the fall of Saddam.

This doesn’t mean we lay about like sheep and continue to get sheared.

The system has to be wrecked. The vote for the least bad is last centuries strategy.

Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 22
"Christians believe in Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the Ten Commandments."

Here is the source of your confusion. Most white evangelical Christians really don't believe in these things. Not in their hearts-of-hearts. You may as well ask why hard core communists had no problem with the hypocrisy of senior party officials living in the lap of capitalist luxuries.

What these Christians really believe in is the rightness of strict hierarchical control of society by people like them. The Christian "beliefs" you mention are entirely incidental. If they had been born in a different place or time they'd be Muslim extremists, or communist extremists, or fascist extremists -- and they would find some way to use the associated set of "beliefs" to justify their embrace of hierarchical control by people like them.

Gordon66
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Christians support Trump. WHY?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's easy....because they believe Trump is MORE honest then Hillary and the Democrats.

You are right - that MUST be what they believe. But why? That is my question. How can they possibly come to such an erroneous conclusion? All evidence - and it is an enormous amount of evidence - shows Trump to be a prodigious teller of untruths, a liar of historic proportions, a conman, and a fraud. They have but to look and think.

How have they been so easily fooled into believing such obvious nonsense?

Trump is a deeply flawed, truly horrible human being for many reasons, but here I am only talking about his abject dishonesty. That alone should be enough for anyone claiming a religious view - heck, just an adequate moral compass - to understand that a liar like Trump is not to be trusted, and should never have been given any power. If you just consider the lies, he should be out, based on Christian beliefs.

So I still wonder how and why they have chosen to abandon those allegedly critical beliefs.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"What these Christians really believe in is the rightness of strict hierarchical control of society by people like them. The Christian "beliefs" you mention are entirely incidental. If they had been born in a different place or time they'd be Muslim extremists, or communist extremists, or fascist extremists -- and they would find some way to use the associated set of "beliefs" to justify their embrace of hierarchical control by people like them."

Gordon, I believe you have nailed it. They don't actually believe the things they pretend to believe and hide behind. (Again, I am talking about the right wing extremists here, not all Christians) They have enshrined what is the hidden right-wing mantra of the modern GOP: "I got mine. Screw you." And they happily use religion to support it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
So I still wonder how and why they have chosen to abandon those allegedly critical beliefs.

Because they haven't.

I know this is a bit of a rhetorical question you're asking, but Evangelicals realized - much more keenly than many progressives - that elections are a choice. They're not an expression of personal identity, they're not an endorsement of any specific policy or characteristic of the person you're voting for. They are a choice between the entirety of one candidate versus the entirety of another candidate.

They believe that Trump as President will advance Evangelical values more than Clinton would have. That decision rests, IMHO, almost entirely on the personnel choices that Trump has made (and which Evangelicals realistically expected he would make) - not on the personal characteristics of the candidate. Evangelicals accurately assessed that Trump would appoint conservatives - and particularly social conservatives - to high positions in government. Especially in the judiciary, but up and down the government. As an added bonus, Trump has been fairly consistent in implementing policies that are more in keeping with their views on sexual morality.

I'm sure that Evangelicals would vastly have preferred to have a pious man making all those appointments. But they didn't have that choice. They only had a choice between a sinner who would adopt policies they like, and a candidate who was a better person but who would adopt policies they find abhorrent. They chose the former.

BTW, I don't see why you think that would be that tough a choice for many Evangelicals. I've known a few in my life, and they have regarded most people that aren't Evangelical as pretty sinful. They have internalized quite well that you have to deal with sinful, flawed, even bad people in the world (and that most people are) - you rarely only get to deal with the godly.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"They believe that Trump as President will advance Evangelical values more than Clinton would have. That decision rests, IMHO, almost entirely on the personnel choices that Trump has made (and which Evangelicals realistically expected he would make) - not on the personal characteristics of the candidate. Evangelicals accurately assessed that Trump would appoint conservatives - and particularly social conservatives - to high positions in government. Especially in the judiciary, but up and down the government. As an added bonus, Trump has been fairly consistent in implementing policies that are more in keeping with their views on sexual morality."

So you're really saying privately intolerant bigots elected an open intolerant bigot. OK

Of course, that is, if the Russians didn't elect Twitler. I'm still not convinced that they didn't.

PS: The times, they are a'changin. Here's hoping America won't get fooled again.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"So I still wonder how and why they have chosen to abandon those allegedly critical beliefs."

Because they haven't.

In my view, they surely have. But I get what you are saying. Ultimately, they chose to elect a morally corrupt liar, a serial cheater in both sexual morality and in business, in order to advance their policy agenda.

That is why I accuse them of abandoning their beliefs. By supporting someone whose life and values are so antithetical of those that they loudly preach, they have shown their true colors. They have been held up to the light, and, I believe, have been found to be transparent and lacking. Not to everyone, I'm sure, but for many observers this becomes a moment of revelation. They appear to be just like everyone else, out for themselves, eager and willing to set aside their loudly proclaimed values in exchange for short term gains.

In other words; "I got mine. Screw you."

They only had a choice between a sinner who would adopt policies they like, and a candidate who was a better person but who would adopt policies they find abhorrent. They chose the former.

Exactly right. As always, you make a very good case. This explanation for their behavior is probabaly quite accurate. I believe that it will cost them greatly in the long run. It makes me see them as hypocritical at best, and utterly dishonest and deceitful as a result. I am not the only one.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That is why I accuse them of abandoning their beliefs. By supporting someone whose life and values are so antithetical of those that they loudly preach, they have shown their true colors.

Why? They're not responsible for his life and values - they're only responsible for their vote. Their vote is a choice between two candidates - and unsurprisingly, they support the candidate whose positions line up more with their values, not weighting his personal life and personal values very highly.

That doesn't seem like abandoning their beliefs. In fact, it seems consistent with sticking to their beliefs. They're willing to put up with an individual they find odious, as long as it moves the nation more towards what they see as a better life for its citizens.

I think they are open to a charge of hypocrisy either way they went. After all, it would be hypocritical for them to support a Democrat (who opposes everything they believe in) just because they like that person better as a person.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
nigel:"In my view, they surely have. But I get what you are saying. Ultimately, they chose to elect a morally corrupt liar, a serial cheater in both sexual morality and in business, in order to advance their policy agenda."

Precisely. IT IS THEIR POLICY AGENDA that matters. Not who is doing it. And Hillary was no saint, with a trail of coverups for Bill's sexually abused trail of women spanning 30 years from the Governor of AR to the semen stained dress in the Oval Office. Plus a master liar -
we landed under sniper fire in Bosnia' - NOT!

- ------

nigel" They appear to be just like everyone else, out for themselves, eager and willing to set aside their loudly proclaimed values in exchange for short term gains."

Actually, no. Long term gains. A conservative Supreme Court. Religious values, not progressive atheistic values.

- - - ----

In most elections, you vote for the lesser objectionable candidate .........or , you vote 'against' the worst one for YOUR values.

Simple. Half the people voting in this election voted 'against Trump'. Not for the other candidate. Do they want MS-13 flooding the country? Not an issue. they are simply voting 'against Trump'. DO they want 'Medicare with all' paid for by doubling income taxes? Not an issue. They are voting against Trump. and so it goes.


t.




t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
”"So I still wonder how and why they have chosen to abandon those allegedly critical beliefs."

Because they haven't.

In my view, they surely have. But I get what you are saying. Ultimately, they chose to elect a morally corrupt liar, a serial cheater in both sexual morality and in business, in order to advance their policy agenda.

That is why I accuse them of abandoning their beliefs. By supporting someone whose life and values are so antithetical of those that they loudly preach, they have shown their true colors. They have been held up to the light, and, I believe, have been found to be transparent and lacking. Not to everyone, I'm sure, but for many observers this becomes a moment of revelation. They appear to be just like everyone else, out for themselves, eager and willing to set aside their loudly proclaimed values in exchange for short term gains.”


Let’s hold you up to the light. You are accusing them of abandoning their principals by supporting someone you find antithetical to all they believe in. How is Hillary any different? What other choice did they have? See, you don’t think! I am tired of your transparent partisan hackery.

We had no other choice. We didn’t show our true colors. As usual, we voted for the lesser of two evils. Hillary is no better than Trump. She is a corrupt liar and an enabler for a sexual predator. While we had to compromise our values to elect the lesser of two evils, you have no values we can see to compromise so you are safe sitting there in your keyboard cowboy command chair in your momma’s basement attacking people you will never understand.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think they are open to a charge of hypocrisy either way they went. After all, it would be hypocritical for them to support a Democrat (who opposes everything they believe in) just because they like that person better as a person.

Thats just it - the Dems don't oppose everything the religious extremists believe in. But for those few things where they dig in (abortion, gay marriage, etc), the Dems can't abandon the ideals of personal liberty that those beliefs would challenge, and therefore we are at an impasse. I'd argue that aside from those FEW things, the left is more representative of what the religious SAY is a moral life than the right. But, as you pointed out, what they say they believe is not sufficiently consequential to overcome their abhorrence of those few social realities that they find so deeply offensive.

So, their view is that the beliefs they have on these issues should be forced on everyone by government, and they are willing to promote and support someone immersed in a life of immorality and corruption in order to forward that agenda.

Seems counterproductive, and bound to fail. I still conclude that they are contemptible and dishonest.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I still conclude that they are contemptible and dishonest."

Ditto.

Ken

PS: I'll add despicable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Let’s hold you up to the light. You are accusing them of abandoning their principals by supporting someone you find antithetical to all they believe in. How is Hillary any different?

I don't see Hillary in the same light as you do at all. She is far different than Trump, and holds a moral highground over Trump in an enormous way (in my view).

What other choice did they have?

Any rational analysis of Trump's past reveals him to be a corrupt immoral liar, way more so than Hillary - or any other politician for that matter.

See, you don’t think! I am tired of your transparent partisan hackery.

OK.

We had no other choice.

Yes you did.

We didn’t show our true colors.

Yes, you did.

As usual, we voted for the lesser of two evils. Hillary is no better than Trump. She is a corrupt liar and an enabler for a sexual predator. While we had to compromise our values to elect the lesser of two evils, you have no values we can see to compromise so you are safe sitting there in your keyboard cowboy command chair in your momma’s basement attacking people you will never understand.

OK.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
But, as you pointed out, what they say they believe is not sufficiently consequential to overcome their abhorrence of those few social realities that they find so deeply offensive.

Again, I'm not sure why you keep thinking there's a conflict between what they say they believe and how they act by supporting Trump. When you vote for a candidate, you're not expressing approval of the way they live their personal lives. You're not expressing approval of everything they've ever done or ever said. You're not even necessarily expressing approval of all of their policy positions.

I think you're projecting a personal endorsement onto these voters that, quite frankly, is not something they share. I've known a few evangelicals over the years, and they are quite used to - and hardened to - the fact that most of their dealings in the world will be with people that are sinful and ungodly (in their eyes).

So, their view is that the beliefs they have on these issues should be forced on everyone by government, and they are willing to promote and support someone immersed in a life of immorality and corruption in order to forward that agenda.

No - their view is that the beliefs that they have on these issues underlie a just, moral, and godly society; and that given a choice between candidates that would further those goals and those who would oppose those goals, they will choose the former.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Again, I'm not sure why you keep thinking there's a conflict between what they say they believe and how they act by supporting Trump. When you vote for a candidate, you're not expressing approval of the way they live their personal lives.

That may be true for some. Not for me. Maybe that point of view helps explain.

Yes, the lesser of two evils I understand. But voting FOR someone who is the opposite of what I believe in many ways, in exchange for some progress on a few issues - even if I think them important - seems callously dishonest.



"So, their view is that the beliefs they have on these issues should be forced on everyone by government, and they are willing to promote and support someone immersed in a life of immorality and corruption in order to forward that agenda."

No - their view is that the beliefs that they have on these issues underlie a just, moral, and godly society; and that given a choice between candidates that would further those goals and those who would oppose those goals, they will choose the former.

I can't accept that. Ultimately what I said is more correct, in my view. Let me say it a different way. By promoting their beliefs on these issues, their goal is to force THEIR morals and THEIR god on all of society, and are willing to elect someone - anyone - who will further those goals. To me, that is blatantly dishonest. That they do so while holding their nose may not offend you, but I find it fairly horrific.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"By promoting their beliefs on these issues, their goal is to force THEIR morals and THEIR god on all of society"

Then we have many on the left forcing their morals and beliefs on others, forcing people to accept transgenderism, gay, lesbian, gay marriage, choosing to be male or female, allowing males who say they are females use female bathrooms, etc.

People do not have to accept these things as normal or acceptable, people are free to accept or not accept, yet the left Demand! society openly accept them, no exceptions, etc.

So when you talk about forcing, etc. please understand everyone is guilty of that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
By promoting their beliefs on these issues, their goal is to force THEIR morals and THEIR god on all of society, and are willing to elect someone - anyone - who will further those goals. To me, that is blatantly dishonest.

Why is that dishonest? All political participants are trying to get the government to adopt their conception of the Good - the laws, rules, regulations...and often the norms and values that they believe will make society better.

Evangelicals don't seem to be dishonest about this. They firmly believe that the rules that many progressives want to institute are bad, and they believe that the way that many (most) live their lives is bad. Bad for society, bad for their children, and bad for themselves. They think progressives are harming the country and harming themselves. They think their ideas about law, rules, norms and values are good, and that everyone (including progressives) would be better off if they followed the Evangelicals' preferred society.

They're pretty forthright about those beliefs, and vote for candidates who will implement those beliefs into law and personnel appointments.

You may disagree with their beliefs (I certainly do), and think they're wrong in thinking that both the country as a whole - and progressives specifically - would be better off if they followed their beliefs. But that doesn't seem dishonest.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
nigel:"So, their view is that the beliefs they have on these issues should be forced on everyone by government, and they are willing to promote and support someone immersed in a life of immorality and corruption in order to forward that agenda."

No more than forcing people to accept that "baby murder" is legal and approved and paid for by the government, that anyone can marry anyone for any reason when common sense tells us other than male/female marriage produces no long term benefit to society (ie, offspring and a continued human race), etc...

And of course, their view is that anyone supporting baby murder and other dem agenda items is supporting someone immersed in a life of immorality and corruption to foist their agenda upon all Americans. Like a Hillary. Or an Obama.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I don't see Hillary in the same light as you do at all. She is far different than Trump, and holds a moral highground over Trump in an enormous way (in my view)."

We've already established your view is skewed. You rarely know what you are talking about and you are a partisan. Again, both are liars. She is definitely corrupt, he probably is.

"Any rational analysis of Trump's past reveals him to be a corrupt immoral liar, way more so than Hillary - or any other politician for that matter."

Well, that certainly is your opinion. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't make it true.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 23
"By promoting their beliefs on these issues, their goal is to force THEIR morals and THEIR god on all of society"

Then we have many on the left forcing their morals and beliefs on others, forcing people to accept transgenderism, gay, lesbian, gay marriage, choosing to be male or female, allowing males who say they are females use female bathrooms, etc.

No one is forcing you to accept reality - it just IS. The left wants people to be free to live their lives as they see fit - NOT as those who refuse to accept reality want them to.

People do not have to accept these things as normal or acceptable, people are free to accept or not accept, yet the left Demand! society openly accept them, no exceptions, etc.

Right. They do not have to accept anything. But in this country, people are free. You can choose to believe how you want to believe, but you don't get to force others into that same belief.

So when you talk about forcing, etc. please understand everyone is guilty of that.

False. Here is what you have backwards;

The right wants to force a pregnant woman to carry her pregnancy to full term - regardless of how the woman feels about it, how it was conceived, whether she can afford to have a child, whether or not she feels that is the right decision or not, etc. They would force all women to live by that, by government mandate. In contrast, the left wants the woman to have personal liberty, to be in control of her own body, and to make her own decision for herself and her loved ones. That does NOT force anyone to do anything. One is government mandated, the other is personal liberty. The first forces everyone to adhere by the right's standards. The second does not force anyone to do anything they do not believe is right.

The right wants to force everyone to adhere to their version of what sexuality means, regardless of how any one individual feels about it. We know that there are gay people, and transgendered people. The right would have us ignore that reality, and have the government mandate that those people be forced to accept that they cannot marry who they love. In contrast, the left believes that the individual should have the right to love and marry who they choose, and that the government has no place is that decision.

Don't believe in gay marriage? Fine. Don't marry someone of the same sex. No one will force you. Don't believe in abortion? Fine. Don't have one.

You have it wrong. Face it. The right wants to force everyone to adhere to their beliefs. The left is not guilty of that at all. Sorry. I know you want that to be true, but the reality differs.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"By promoting their beliefs on these issues, their goal is to force THEIR morals and THEIR god on all of society, and are willing to elect someone - anyone - who will further those goals. To me, that is blatantly dishonest."

Why is that dishonest?

Again, in my view, you support and vote for someone who aligns within your views, and represents what you believe to be the right way to live. Its used to be that respect for someone was a big factor in deciding leadership. That seems to be gone here. I know we differ on this, but hear me out; While loudly espousing a christ-like lifestyle, condemning all along those who they believe are not such, and simultaneously voting for and supporting someone who is CLEARLY not in any way 'christ-like' is, to me, fundamentally dishonest. Disingenuous. I can't find a more clear way to say it. I guess if it doesn't bother you, it would not seem so. But I can't understand how that is ok.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
nigel:"So, their view is that the beliefs they have on these issues should be forced on everyone by government, and they are willing to promote and support someone immersed in a life of immorality and corruption in order to forward that agenda."

No more than forcing people to accept that "baby murder" is legal and approved and paid for by the government, that anyone can marry anyone for any reason when common sense tells us other than male/female marriage produces no long term benefit to society (ie, offspring and a continued human race), etc...

Lets take these lies one at a time;

No more than forcing people to accept that "baby murder" is legal and approved and paid for by the government...

No babies are murdered.
Murder is not legal.
The government does not approve or pay for murders.

Be real. Abortion being legal does not force anyone to do anything. If you don't think it is right, then don't have one.

...that anyone can marry anyone for any reason when common sense tells us other than male/female marriage produces no long term benefit to society (ie, offspring and a continued human race), etc...

I didn't realize that marriage was only OK if you had children. Don't tell the government, but I have several sets of married friends who haven't had children, and have no intention of doing so. Shhhh! What an absurd defense of bigotry. Its one I haven't heard, though. You want to government to start deciding that, too? Doing you realize how ridiculous you sound?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I know we differ on this, but hear me out; While loudly espousing a christ-like lifestyle, condemning all along those who they believe are not such, and simultaneously voting for and supporting someone who is CLEARLY not in any way 'christ-like' is, to me, fundamentally dishonest. Disingenuous. I can't find a more clear way to say it. I guess if it doesn't bother you, it would not seem so. But I can't understand how that is ok.

You need to be more judgmental.

Seriously. Evangelicals simultaneously think everyone should be more christ-like and recognize that most everyone isn't very christ-like. They deal with that dichotomy all the time. The more judgmental you are, the more people in the world fail to live up to your standards (including yourself), the more you accept that living in the world requires dealing with people who you think are going to he!!.

There can be people you respect in certain matters, but don't think are particularly good people. Famously, Steve Jobs was apparently a raging jerk in interpersonal matters; but that doesn't stop people from admiring what he achieved as a CEO. For job interviews (to coin a phrase), while you might love it if all your employees were christ-like, you might not have that choice. And come to think of it, if Steve Jobs were running as a Democrat against (say) Mitt Romney, I imagine most progressives would vote for Jobs, even if Mitt were the nicer guy personally (which I suspect he is). Apart from the fact that Jobs is deceased, that is.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Abortion being legal does not force anyone to do anything. If you don't think it is right, then don't have one.

Many things are prohibited because they are wrong for anyone to do. In those cases, we don't give people a choice to simply refrain based on personal beliefs - we prohibit outright.

For example, we would never say, "if you don't think discrimination is right, don't discriminate - just don't force other people not to discriminate." We force other people not to discriminate in lots of contexts, whether they like it or not, because discrimination is bad and harms people.

Evangelicals believe abortions are bad and harm people, so they want to prevent everyone from doing it - just like we prevent everyone from engaging in discrimination in some contexts (like employment and housing).

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I don't see Hillary in the same light as you do at all. She is far different than Trump, and holds a moral highground over Trump in an enormous way (in my view)."

We've already established your view is skewed.

You haven't established anything. You have an opinion. So does everyone.

You rarely know what you are talking about and you are a partisan.

Say that while looking into a mirror.

Again, both are liars.

Of course. All politicians lie at some point. Trump just does it far better and more frequently than anyone else. His whole life is filled with lies.

She is definitely corrupt

Hilary is among the most investigated people on the planet, and has never yet been charged with anything.

he probably is.

He certainly is. There is a record. His life is filled with corruption. And stay tuned for more...

"Any rational analysis of Trump's past reveals him to be a corrupt immoral liar, way more so than Hillary - or any other politician for that matter."

Well, that certainly is your opinion. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't make it true.

No, just being true makes it true. It is factual.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Abortion being legal does not force anyone to do anything. If you don't think it is right, then don't have one."

Many things are prohibited because they are wrong for anyone to do. In those cases, we don't give people a choice to simply refrain based on personal beliefs - we prohibit outright.

Agreed. Abortion is not one of those things that we have chosen to prohibit. We did so, I believe, because we highly value personal liberty.

My point in this phrase is that the legality of abortion does not force anyone to take particular action, and anyone who believes it to be wrong has the freedom to choose NOT to have one. I would love to imagine world where abortions never happened. There has never been a time when that was true, though. But having the government force this issue is certainly not a good alternative.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You need to be more judgmental.

I'll have to contemplate that idea...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Except if you do not wish to participate. In which case you will have everything you own taken away.

Sorry. The left is guilty.

Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Except if you do not wish to participate. In which case you will have everything you own taken away.

Sorry. The left is guilty.


Of what? Can you explain?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
gazulight: Sorry. The left is guilty.

nigel: Of what? Can you explain?


Of not drinking the kool aid, obviously. Liberals need to try to be dumber. Don't question, just believe in the stories of FxNews and the right wing echo chamber. Trump's lies will save us if liberals would just stop pointing out the facts. That's why he has to tell so many. He has to compensate for so many liberals choosing to believe the truth instead of his lies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
nigel:"No babies are murdered.
Murder is not legal.
The government does not approve or pay for murders.

Be real. Abortion being legal does not force anyone to do anything. If you don't think it is right, then don't have one. "

-----


Actually, the government punishes murder of babies.

If you shoot a pregnant women, and kill both the woman and baby, you will be charged with TWO murders. Not one. If the baby dies, but the woman survives, you'll be charged with murder and stand trial.

-----

Now if a doctor murders the baby.....well, the government winks. Liberals want the doctor to be paid for killing the baby.

- -----

In both cases, a baby is killed.

- ----

and you don't see a difference?

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"My point in this phrase is that the legality of abortion does not force anyone to take particular action, and anyone who believes it to be wrong has the freedom to choose NOT to have one. I would love to imagine world where abortions never happened. "

Actually, it does. People who work in hospitals and other facilities might object to having to work in such situations.

People who make medical equipment might object if devices are used to kill.

And, if the government were to pay for it, people could easily object THEIR tax money is killing babies.

---


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"My point in this phrase is that the legality of abortion does not force anyone to take particular action, and anyone who believes it to be wrong has the freedom to choose NOT to have one. I would love to imagine world where abortions never happened. "

Actually, it does. People who work in hospitals and other facilities might object to having to work in such situations.

No, it does not. People might object to a lot of things, but no one is forced to work there.

People who make medical equipment might object if devices are used to kill.

They are free to do something else. No one is forcing them.

And, if the government were to pay for it, people could easily object THEIR tax money is killing babies.

No babies are being killed, and the government does not pay for abortions.

Anything else?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
nigel:"No babies are murdered.
Murder is not legal.
The government does not approve or pay for murders.

Be real. Abortion being legal does not force anyone to do anything. If you don't think it is right, then don't have one. "

-----


Actually, the government punishes murder of babies.

If you shoot a pregnant women, and kill both the woman and baby, you will be charged with TWO murders. Not one. If the baby dies, but the woman survives, you'll be charged with murder and stand trial.

-----

Now if a doctor murders the baby.....well, the government winks. Liberals want the doctor to be paid for killing the baby.

- -----

In both cases, a baby is killed.

- ----

and you don't see a difference?





Of course I see a difference. Why?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
See wedding cake baker.

It happens.

Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's easy....because they believe Trump is MORE honest then Hillary and the Democrats.

You are right - that MUST be what they believe. But why? That is my question. How can they possibly come to such an erroneous conclusion? All evidence - and it is an enormous amount of evidence - shows Trump to be a prodigious teller of untruths, a liar of historic proportions, a conman, and a fraud. They have but to look and think.

How have they been so easily fooled into believing such obvious nonsense?

Trump is a deeply flawed, truly horrible human being for many reasons, but here I am only talking about his abject dishonesty. That alone should be enough for anyone claiming a religious view - heck, just an adequate moral compass - to understand that a liar like Trump is not to be trusted, and should never have been given any power. If you just consider the lies, he should be out, based on Christian beliefs.

So I still wonder how and why they have chosen to abandon those allegedly critical beliefs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was a tough call. We didn't like Hillary....lol....but we really didn't like Trump either.

We KNEW that Hillary would mean more of the same, and we didn't like the direction the Country was going in.

I thought of Trump as my nuclear option. I honestly thought he would self implode within the first 90 days, but to my surprise he didn't.

I can assure you NOBODY voted for Trump for his morals.

Bean
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Bean:"I can assure you NOBODY voted for Trump for his morals."

Exactly

And half the country didn't vote for Chillary because of her morals and policies. Open borders, abortion on demand, higher taxes, more taxes and even more taxes, keeping the Paris Accord which gives an unelected UN style 'court' of 3rd world magistrates determining US energy policy and carbon reduction mandates, more weenies and queenies on welfare, strangling the economy, being buddy buddy with Putin (the old phony 'reset' button that wasn't labeled right), her extortion and cover-ups for sex maniac and serial abuser Bill, her blatant lies about things like landing under sniper fire in Bosnia (I'm sure that ticked off more than a few veterans and folks serving in the military), and all the other phony stuff about her including her whine and whine, while she stabbed Bernie in the back during the primaries. Oh, and don't forget idiotic things like Scooby - ........

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We KNEW that Hillary would mean more of the same, and we didn't like the direction the Country was going in.

But the country was going in a pretty good direction. Trump is now bragging about what started under Obama.

I thought of Trump as my nuclear option. I honestly thought he would self implode within the first 90 days, but to my surprise he didn't.

I wonder what it is you wanted to happen then...?

I can assure you NOBODY voted for Trump for his morals.

Yet many of those who insist that they have some sort of moral high-ground voted for and still support him. As I have been told, apparently that is not a problem for many of you - voting in opposition of your beliefs.

Still trying to wrap my mind around how that works. I couldn't do that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Still trying to wrap my mind around how that works. I couldn't do that.

Could you vote for someone who was personally against abortion and thought it was sinful; but as an elected official fully supported a woman's right to choose, advocated for strong abortion rights laws and appointed liberal justices?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Still trying to wrap my mind around how that works. I couldn't do that.

Could you vote for someone who was personally against abortion and thought it was sinful; but as an elected official fully supported a woman's right to choose, advocated for strong abortion rights laws and appointed liberal justices?

Absolutely, yes. But that is quite different than what we've been talking about. Again, to me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Absolutely, yes. But that is quite different than what we've been talking about. Again, to me.

But why is it different?

You don't require your politicians to personally subscribe to the values they are advocating. You care about their public positions more than their personal lives. Given a choice, no doubt you might prefer a candidate who lived their positions. After all, you'd have a little more confidence that they'll stick to those policy positions if their personal actions match up. But if you don't have that choice, the policy positions will dominate.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Absolutely, yes. But that is quite different than what we've been talking about. Again, to me."

But why is it different?

You don't require your politicians to personally subscribe to the values they are advocating. You care about their public positions more than their personal lives. Given a choice, no doubt you might prefer a candidate who lived their positions. After all, you'd have a little more confidence that they'll stick to those policy positions if their personal actions match up. But if you don't have that choice, the policy positions will dominate.


You are describing someone who would separate their personal beliefs from policy decisions, thus taking seriously the role of truly representing his/her constituents. I am assuming that is why they would vote counter to their personal beliefs. That position would speak to their character in a positive way.

What I am talking about is someone whose ethics, character, and moral fiber is obviously in opposition to what the supporters espouse and say (loudly) that they believe. I guess I am not explaining it well, but let me say it again another way; To your point, I could understand voting for someone who says that they personally object to abortion, but believe that decision should be personal. I would totally understand that. I'd have a harder time with someone who said they were wholly against abortion, and wanted to enforce policy to that end, but then had or supported someone in their family having one. Or, generally, someone who acted immorally, but was loudly judgmental about others who do similar immoral things. Those behaviors also speaks to character, but not in a positive way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Or, generally, someone who acted immorally, but was loudly judgmental about others who do similar immoral things.

Perhaps - but is that Donald Trump? I don't see him condemning people who cheat on their wives or engage in sharp business practices as being bad people. He's a loathsome gluttonous narcissist; but as gross as those faults are, he's certainly not out there saying that no one else should be allowed to also be a loathsome gluttonous narcissist - just that they're too weak to do it right.

I suspect that most people if they had to choose between someone who was a bad character, but who had policies and would appoint personnel that they thought would be good for the country, versus someone of good character who would pursue terrible policies and appoint bad personnel, would probably choose the former. They're not voting for ax murderers, mind you - but would prefer a cad who makes the country better than a choir boy who makes the country worse.

How about you? If I give you a magic box with two buttons, one of which makes Bill Clinton president in 2020, and the other puts a personally honest but hardline Republican in the position, which do you push?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
albaby:"How about you? If I give you a magic box with two buttons, one of which makes Bill Clinton president in 2020, and the other puts a personally honest but hardline Republican in the position, which do you push?"

-----

Given a choice between an ax-murder , corrupt, serial rapist. racist democrat with policies that will hurt the USA, and an honest but hardline Republican....


I suspect that 99% of the folks on this board would vote for the D.

And I suspect that near 50% of the country would vote for the D.

It's politics, nothing but politics and party first. And it's not who they are voting for, but who they are voting against.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's politics, nothing but politics and party first. And it's not who they are voting for, but who they are voting against.

And what about hardcore Republicans?

Given a choice for President between a personally honest but deeply progressive leader, like Nancy Pelosi, or a personally problematic but somewhat conservative Republican (like Trump), who would they vote for?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Albaby:"Given a choice for President between a personally honest but deeply progressive leader, like Nancy Pelosi, or a personally problematic but somewhat conservative Republican (like Trump), who would they vote for?"

First of all, Pelosi is up there with the Clinton Crime Family for corruption. She and hubby are worth at least 25 million and they didn't get there through honest deals. Pelosi did sweetheart deals getting her hubby's companies fat deals through political wrangling, wheeling and dealing, under the table stuff. She's a raving left winger that even her own party is having indigestion over.

Right now, she is having trouble getting 218 votes from her own party members to become Speaker of the House........

That said, of course hardcore Republicans would vote against Pelosi and her ultra left winger progressive agenda and select the somewhat flawed Trump like candidate.

Who would want to be a socialist paradise like Venezuela?


t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That said, of course hardcore Republicans would vote against Pelosi and her ultra left winger progressive agenda and select the somewhat flawed Trump like candidate.

So why the crack about party first? You'd vote against an "ultra left winger" even if they were the more personally virtuous candidate, because you disagree with their policies - both their personal policies and the policies of the political alliance they would vote with. That's what most voters do. That's not "party first" - it's recognizing that a candidate's policy platform and political affiliations are what shape what they will do in office, almost certainly to a greater degree than their personal virtue.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Albaby:"So why the crack about party first? You'd vote against an "ultra left winger" even if they were the more personally virtuous candidate,"


Of course! Between that candidate (Pelosi) represents what the majority of the D party wants - simply because she wins in the primary system, and what they will then push as their agenda. It's the 'narrative' that the D party would use to get her elected, if she became THEIR CANDIDATE OF CHOICE.

Hillary ran against the 'deplorables' , the rural vote, gun owners, and that cost her.

Gun owners usually didn't vote for her BECAUSE of her gun policies

Rural voters rejected her because of her pandering to 'the elites'.

- -------



Albaby:" because you disagree with their policies - both their personal policies and the policies of the political alliance they would vote with."

Of course, of course. And no one who makes it to President, other than maybe a Romney, doesn't have a closet full of skeletons along the way.

I'm sure that if we investigated the high school and college hi-jinks of Congress people and put them to a grilling like the dems did on Kavanaugh, half would resign before we got to them and their past.

- ------



Albaby:"That's not "party first" - it's recognizing that a candidate's policy platform and political affiliations are what shape what they will do in office, almost certainly to a greater degree than their personal virtue."

Clinton was a serial sex abuser. He got elected. Dems managed to white wash that...and 'white water' that.......

Nixon turned out to be a crook.....

Obama's past surfaced, but most of it magically disappeared along with all the transcripts and videos of the Rev wrights sermons that Obama sat through for 20years....... and people still voted a pot smoking cocaine dealer into the Presidency without a single transcript to prove he actually attended a class at Columbia or Harvard......

So....folks vote for the 'message' of the party they like.....and a charismatic character helps win elections.......like a Trump with 'America First'...... Hillary was 'More of the Same' stagnant economy.......

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Or, generally, someone who acted immorally, but was loudly judgmental about others who do similar immoral things."

Perhaps - but is that Donald Trump?

No, I am talking about those who voted for and continue to support Trump. You pulled out the last part of what I was saying, but read it in its full context;

"I could understand voting for someone who says that they personally object to abortion, but believe that decision should be personal. I would totally understand that. I'd have a harder time with someone who said they were wholly against abortion, and wanted to enforce policy to that end, but then had or supported someone in their family having one. Or, generally, someone who acted immorally, but was loudly judgmental about others who do similar immoral things. Those behaviors also speaks to character, but not in a positive way."



I suspect that most people if they had to choose between someone who was a bad character, but who had policies and would appoint personnel that they thought would be good for the country, versus someone of good character who would pursue terrible policies and appoint bad personnel, would probably choose the former.

Agreed, but we rarely know what they will do ahead of time. Thats part of the reason for the character assessment being so important, in my mind. If we have someone who, in fact, is a bad character, how do we know that he would pursue policies that are good for the country?



How about you? If I give you a magic box with two buttons, one of which makes Bill Clinton president in 2020, and the other puts a personally honest but hardline Republican in the position, which do you push?

Thats not a good question for your premise. I think Clinton was a very good President.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If we have someone who, in fact, is a bad character, how do we know that he would pursue policies that are good for the country?

Because 90% (if not more) of the policies they would pursue are bounded by what political coalition they're part of. A Democratic or progressive will pursue one set of policies and appoint one type of personnel, and a Republican or conservative will pursue other policies and appoint other types of personnel. There's wiggle room at the edges, and definitely lots of discretion in choosing which specific issues to emphasize (ie. Obama chose health care over climate or immigration) - but the policy set is mostly fixed.

If you think the Democratic platform would be good for the country, there is almost zero chance that you would think a Republican candidate's policies would be better for the country than any Democrat's - regardless of their personal virtues.

That's not a good question for your premise. I think Clinton was a very good President.

That's why I picked him. He might have been a good President, but he was personally a bit of a cad. At a minimum, he cheated on his wife with his intern - which, BTW, is not just a shameful personal betrayal but also not great in terms of sexual power dynamics, either. And he had more than one accusation of outright sexual assault.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"If we have someone who, in fact, is a bad character, how do we know that he would pursue policies that are good for the country?"

Because 90% (if not more) of the policies they would pursue are bounded by what political coalition they're part of.

My tendency is to be wary of untrustworthy people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My tendency is to be wary of untrustworthy people.

But you would pick Clinton, who cheated on his wife at least once?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
:But you would pick Clinton, who cheated on his wife at least once:

And lied about it....and was impeached over it........ hardly a resounding plus on his resume'.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"My tendency is to be wary of untrustworthy people."

But you would pick Clinton, who cheated on his wife at least once?

That would depend on the other choice. But I would say that Clintons' failings did not make him untrustworthy to me, only to his wife. As I said, he was a good President - but I would not want him marrying into my family.

Someone like Trump, on the other hand, I would not trust at all in any arena. He has cheated multiple vies, business partners, clients, employees, small contractors, and US taxpayers.

This is the lesser of two evils example.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Multiple wives.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That would depend on the other choice. But I would say that Clintons' failings did not make him untrustworthy to me, only to his wife. As I said, he was a good President - but I would not want him marrying into my family.

Someone like Trump, on the other hand, I would not trust at all in any arena. He has cheated multiple wives, business partners, clients, employees, small contractors, and US taxpayers.


But would Clinton's failings lead you to support a virtuous, but deeply conservative, Republican candidate for President?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"That would depend on the other choice. But I would say that Clintons' failings did not make him untrustworthy to me, only to his wife. As I said, he was a good President - but I would not want him marrying into my family."

"Someone like Trump, on the other hand, I would not trust at all in any arena. He has cheated multiple wives, business partners, clients, employees, small contractors, and US taxpayers."

But would Clinton's failings lead you to support a virtuous, but deeply conservative, Republican candidate for President?

No, primarily because those failings are personal, and have zero effect on how he performs as POTUS. In contrast, someone who is dishonest and loathesome in broad areas of their lives? Very different.

As an aside, I also fault the christian right for their vehement attacks on Hillary Clinton (back then) when numerous talking heads called for her to leave Bill, etc. In reality, she (they) did exactly what most christian religions teach - stay in your marriage, fight to keep your marriage together, etc.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In contrast, someone who is dishonest and loathesome in broad areas of their lives? Very different.

Okay - imagine that the Democrats nominate someone who is dishonest and loathsome in broad areas of their lives, but is a staunch progressive. They're running against a virtuous conservative Republican - someone who is honest and true, but believes fully in everything that Mike Pence or Ted Cruz believes about how the country should be run and who should be appointed to various positions.

Who do you pick?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"In contrast, someone who is dishonest and loathesome in broad areas of their lives? Very different."

Okay - imagine that the Democrats nominate someone who is dishonest and loathsome in broad areas of their lives, but is a staunch progressive. They're running against a virtuous conservative Republican - someone who is honest and true, but believes fully in everything that Mike Pence or Ted Cruz believes about how the country should be run and who should be appointed to various positions.

Who do you pick?


You put me in a very theoretical place - no politician is 100% honest and true. I would hate having those as my only choices, but I have to say I would tend toward the more honest candidate. An untrustworthy 'staunch progessive' is still untrustworthy at then of the day.

But I'd be pretty depressed about it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You put me in a very theoretical place - no politician is 100% honest and true. I would hate having those as my only choices, but I have to say I would tend toward the more honest candidate. An untrustworthy 'staunch progressive' is still untrustworthy at then of the day.

But I'd be pretty depressed about it.


I bet. But that's the situation that most Evangelicals found themselves in. A candidate who was loathsome individually but who would be good for the country (in their eyes), against a candidate who rejected everything they believe is good and necessary for the nation.

The difference is that they thought that HRC was also personally loathsome....which made the choice a no-brainer for them.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
A candidate who was loathsome individually but who would be good for the country (in their eyes), against a candidate who rejected everything they believe is good and necessary for the nation.

The difference is that they thought that HRC was also personally loathsome....which made the choice a no-brainer for them.


I get it. Again, I challenge the notion that Hillary or any Dem rejects 'everything they believe is good'. I think it comes down to a few issues, religiously based. I understand the thought process a little better (you are always admirably patient), but I haven't changed my assessment. Their willingness to elect someone so opposite of their stated beliefs is, to me, very dishonest.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Who do you pick? Bill Clinton vs the run of the mill intolerant bigotted Rightie who hates gays more than he even loves his "2d Amendment Rights"?

What wasted thread.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
"The difference is that they thought that HRC was also personally loathsome....which made the choice a no-brainer for them."

Yes. Those who voted for Twitler and refused to vote for HRC had/have no brains. I agree.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Its pretty hard to hug a pig without getting some mud on you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Abortion being legal does not force anyone to do anything. If you don't think it is right, then don't have one.

Anti gun? Don't buy one.

I am too pro-science to be for abortion.

VQ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Given a choice for President between a personally honest but deeply progressive leader, like Nancy Pelosi,>>>

LOL thats funny!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
“Abortion being legal does not force anyone to do anything. If you don't think it is right, then don't have one.”

Anti gun? Don't buy one.

That might be a rational comparison if one abortion would cause a roomful of abortions.

I am too pro-science to be for abortion.

??? What does being pro-science have to do with it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
What a silly thread. Christians support Trump because the alternative was voting for Satan in 2016.
And likely will be in 2020.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Absolutely, yes. But that is quite different than what we've been talking about. Again, to me.

But why is it different?

You don't require your politicians to personally subscribe to the values they are advocating. You care about their public positions more than their personal lives. Given a choice, no doubt you might prefer a candidate who lived their positions. After all, you'd have a little more confidence that they'll stick to those policy positions if their personal actions match up. But if you don't have that choice, the policy positions will dominate.

Albaby

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was a tough one, but I had to give Albaby a rec. As much as I hate to admit it, that's true.

Bean
Print the post Back To Top