Wednesday, November 08, 2017

The Price of Evangelical Support for Trump

Here. 

42 comments:

Crude said...

So, instead of reaching out to Hollywood from a position of consistent moral strength, instead of being able to say, “Life can be different–we can show you,” Evangelical Trump cheerleaders are left, at best reading, to offer the milquetoast defense of their former enemies

Hahahahaha.

I assure you... I freaking assure you... not a single Trump supporter, evangelical or not, has failed to unleash with full fury in the direction of Hollywood. And it has been stinging.

What a stupid article.

"By voting for this person, I and other people who dislike Trump shall now personally question your consistency on moral issues, because a crude comment over a decade ago is equivalent to some filth merchant jacking off into a potted plant and making a starlet watch."

You know the difference between the pre-Trump and post-Trump world? Many more religious people would now stop him at "personally question" and say, "I don't want to hear it, you deceitful cuck." Rude, perhaps, but utterly deserving. We heard these lectures during the primaries, and we ignored them, and we are *glad* that we did. Come what may.

Even better: the left-wing religious who, *once again*, sold out their souls and voted for Hillary - who went all-in on Planned Parenthood's person of the century, and all her foulness and more... they did it all, only to lose in the end. They sold out harder and faster than ever before, they exposed themselves to the world as either deluded or shameless... and still lost.

Meanwhile, Trump has been turning out to be a beautifully pro-life president. Among other things.

But oh, according to this 'jobber, evangelicals can't lecture Weinstein with as much consistency as they'd hope?

We don't need this jackass' judgment, thanks. They can go preach Christ to Hollywood. And we can laugh at them as they inevitably fail, are mocked, or water down Christianity to such pulp that their own 'consistency' is clear.

Also, heya Victor, hope you're doing well.

Legion of Logic said...

That article was garbage. If moral failings were a reason to not vote for someone, no Christian would ever vote and then we'd have a progressive nightmare of a country.

While I didn't vote for Trump, it was because I found him untrustworthy and unpredictable. That's still better than Hillary Clinton, also untrustworthy and predictable in that I know for a fact she would pursue policies I'm against. Had I been forced to vote for one of them, it would have been Trump.

That's what we vote for - someone who will (we hope) enact our preferred policies. We aren't searching for an apostle or prophet. The left doesn't have a moral leg to stand on in supporting Hillary Clinton. If that seems outrageous, do some research on her, and don't use CNN or Huffington Post for your info so you might learn some things about her. It's not pretty.

Chad Handley said...

" a crude comment over a decade ago is equivalent to some filth merchant jacking off into a potted plant and making a starlet watch"

I think the equivalence is not between Trump's comment and Weinstein's acts, but between Trump's acts and Weinstein's acts. Read for yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Donald Trump has been accused of sexual assault, harassment, and/or misconduct by some 18 women. Several women allege that he actually attempted to grab their genitals in the manner he so eloquently described in the infamous interview.

There is ample evidence, much of it testified to prior to 2016, that Trump is every bit as vile as Weinstein in this area.

Chad Handley said...

"Had I been forced to vote for one of them, it would have been Trump."

You didn't have to vote for either. There were plenty of Conservative candidates even more adamantly and consistently pro-choice than Trump and Evangelicals choose Trump instead. I'm sort of sick of Evangelicals pretending they voted for Trump only to thwart Hilary. Donald Trump got the Republican nomination on the back of Evangelical support. There were men and women who were politically viable options who were clearly had better Christian bona fides to Trump and yet American Evangelicals CHOSE Trump over more morally defensible options.

Trump was not forced on Evangelicals as the only alternative to Hilary. Trump is, apparently, exactly the kind of man they wanted.

Crude said...

Chad,

I don't bother speaking with the intentionally and unapologetically dishonest. You, gent, are a liar and a fraud. We've established that in the past. So kindly blow.

I will correct one thing:

There is ample evidence, much of it testified to prior to 2016, that Trump is every bit as vile as Weinstein in this area.

Then if Weinstein ends up getting sued to oblivion successfully - while the charges against Trump, mysteriously, never landed - I guess that's a checkmark in the 'once again, you're full of shit' column.

To which I'll say, it looks like nothing's change since last we spoke.

By the by, you can now intentionally give someone AIDS now in California, and it's a mere misdemeanor. I hope your celebration party over that was a freaking delight.

Joe Hinman said...

the deceived psuedo Christian defense of Trump over Hillary is just saying I know this beast fellow is evil but you should see that whore of Babylon, now that is evil. God knows I do't rally follow beast he;s just the leer of two evils. They are just selling out the gospels temporarily because God didn;t give us a better choice,

Tie for hymn now'

Life ends at birth, life ends at ends at birth
Money defines human worth

Talon said...

here is ample evidence, much of it testified to prior to 2016, that Trump is every bit as vile as Weinstein in this area.

Then if Weinstein ends up getting sued to oblivion successfully - while the charges against Trump, mysteriously, never landed - I guess that's a checkmark in the 'once again, you're full of shit' column.


This is utter nonsense, Weinstein being sued or charged while Trump isn't sued/charged is NOT evidence Handley or even Trump's accusers are full of shit. This so obviously false it's laughable you'd even suggest it.

It's proven interesting how otherwise intelligent people can excusee voting for a morally questionable character like Trump by bleating, "We aren't electing a religious leader. We're electing a President!" What about 3 marriages, marital affairs, multiple business bankruptcies/failures, frivolous threats of lawsuits (most of which were dropped/hot air), class action lawsuits in 2 states (against Trump University), allegations of sexual harassment, allegations of spousal abuse, Mafia connections, shady business partner and Russian money launderer Felix Sater (Bayrock), Leninist advisor Steve Bannon (The Devil is awesome! So dark, much power! Wow!) and oligarch backer Robert Mercer (who stills owes the IRS 6 billion dollars) made Trump seem a moral, trustworthy and downright "Christian" choice? Trump's thin skin? The reflexive lies? The absurdly grandiose promises (70ft border wall)? The pathological narcissism?

When Trump promised to drain the swamp did they realize he intended to fill the Whitehouse with it? If Mueller discovers Trump was involved in a Quid Pro Quo deal with Russia to weaken or repeal Magnitsky Act and weaken NATO will he still be the evangelical's patriotic champion? Will they all genuinely insist it was worth electing a crooked, mostly feckless, possibly traitorous sleaze to make liberals cry?

Evangelicals can keep digging and double, even triple down, rationalizing a bad choice with Hillary's e-mails and appeals to an anti-abortion stance neither he, his family, nor SC nominee Neil Gorsuch actually seem to hold, it won't be the moral high ground they occupy but some place a Hell of a lot warmer.

Talon said...

Re: my previous comment excuse*(typo)

http://prolifeprofiles.com/donald-trump-pro-life-profile#so-called-states-rights - outline Trump's comments and recent stance on abortion

Joe Hinman said...

It i so ludicrous to try and pin all the evil of Trump on that one comment as tough that's the only stupid thing he's ever said. He says stuff that stupid and vile all the the time, he always has.

The comparison between Weinstein is misleading, He is not representative of the resistance or of Hilary support even though he was one. Most people in the remittance are feminist and wanted to bring him down fora long time and they are happy he's being brought down.

I am still mystified by the big hate for Hillary, I still think it's really about the audacity of a woman who dared to seek power and play the game like men do.

grodrigues said...

"I am still mystified by the big hate for Hillary"

I am not an American; I care *very* little for politics. With this caveat:

Life is suffering, and can be rightdown brutal, with very few occasions for real joy. I could name a couple, say Benfica winning the football championship (do not use the word "soccer" around me). And Trump winning the elections. A TV celebrity, a real estate mogul known for some, at the very least, morally dubious practices; a rude, vulgar braggart, with a ridiculous orange hair, a thick NY accent and speaking mannerisms, running against the democratic party, the republican party, the mainstream media, the liberal elites, the academia, the leftist shills and shites, won the Election against a crooked, corrupt, lying, conniving abortion witch. Blessed American people, all the deplorables and the hillbillies, that gave the middle finger and a giant f-you to her and her crooked posse of Podestas and Weiners (there is a vulgar joke around here somewhere), who knew instinctively that if they were going to be screwed over and over again, at least Trump could actually build a casino or two and get some real paying jobs. Not to mention the abysmal difference in the actual polices the two proposed -- but as I said, I care very little about politics. And he is damned *entertaining*. Or as the magnificent Oscar Wilde put it: "It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious." And we all know where Trump and Hillary fall on this divide.

There is no great mistery here, just a very deep ignorance of human nature as it exists in the concrete, actual world.

Legion of Logic said...

Chad: "You didn't have to vote for either."

Indeed, which is why I did not. Neither was acceptable to me.

Legion of Logic said...

Talon: "If Mueller discovers Trump was involved in a Quid Pro Quo deal with Russia to weaken or repeal Magnitsky Act and weaken NATO will he still be the evangelical's patriotic champion?"

And if no such evidence is discovered, will the left stop talking about Russian collusion as if it was a fact? Hmm.

Legion of Logic said...

Joe: "still think it's really about the audacity of a woman who dared to seek power and play the game like men do."

This is perhaps the biggest hurdle to the left understanding conservatives. Leftists seem to think that conservatives aren't progressives due to some form of bigotry, when in fact there was precisely zero reason for a conservative to vote for any politician with the policies Hillary advocated. And yet the left blames sexism, as though if only Hillary had been Harry we would have voted against our own interests to put another Clinton in office.

I've spoken with many Trump supporters as to why and how they could support him during the primaries especially, given that he was an obvious liar and not exactly a reliable conservative, and not once was "Women belong in the kitchen!!!" given as the reason. Trump beat the rest of the field because conservatives are sick of Republicans, simple as that, but they are still opposed to progressive policies. And Trump beat Hillary for a host of reasons, but I firmly believe any sexism was canceled out by people who voted for Hillary BECAUSE she was a woman - and yes, these people proudly announced themselves. Just look at demographic statistics of the last several elections and you'll see that the male/female, black/white divides are remarkably consistent all the way back into the 90s, with two exceptions - Obama's first election when he swept the board, and the '96 election where Perot siphoned votes. Otherwise the major indicator of how a particular demographic would vote statstically was whether the candidate was a Democrat or Republican, and Hillary was no different. Sexism had nothing to do with it.

ficino4ml said...

One of the outcomes of toxic systems - you'd think they were designed this way - is abuse of the less powerful by the more powerful AND enabling/cover ups by other equally or more powerful figures. Right-wing Christianity manifests this syndrome as do many corporations and other institutions.

Legion of Logic said...

"Right-wing Christianity manifests this syndrome as do many corporations and other institutions."

Indeed, the Democrats excel at this very thing. Quite sad to watch people get taken advantage of like that.

Out of curiosity, does anyone here actually think that Hillary Clinton is a candidate a Christian could happily support without a serious conflict of interest? And can anyone name a Republican candidate from 2016 that the left would not have criticized Christians for choosing? Not talking about compared to Trump, just in of themselves.

Joe Hinman said...

And if no such evidence is discovered, will the left stop talking about Russian collusion as if it was a fact? Hmm.

No! why should we? we know enough now to see that he did not win the election! He may not have openly decided to tea up with Russia but he clearly benefited from what they did in ways that altered the out come. He fell into a crack that should not have been there,he won one state by the skin of his teeth that happened to allow the electoral vote to favor the choice the people did not accept.

the American people voted for Hillary,the electoral vote did not reflect and never reflects the will of the people. It reflect only a constrict created by 18th century pundits a a failsafe against the kind of man Trump it didn't even do it' job,

read the Federalist Papers





Joe Hinman said...

at the very least he has no mandate why should I give him one? 13,000 people a year will die becauseof his stupidity deregulation of coal burnish pollution--that is proven) you can explain it all to then in heaven.

Joe Hinman said...

Out of curiosity, does anyone here actually think that Hillary Clinton is a candidate a Christian could happily support without a serious conflict of interest? And can anyone name a Republican candidate from 2016 that the left would not have criticized Christians for choosing? Not talking about compared to Trump, just in of themselves

LL when are you going to lay on me some provable data to show what she did this is bother pizza thing? All I get is "its so obvious: well ant obvious to me, give me something I can take to the ballot box,,

Joe Hinman said...

LL "And Trump beat Hillary for a host of reasons,..."

In the lala land of evangelical fantasy time, in reality he did not beat her at all,the American people voted against him, he intimidated voters in North Carolina that it did not offset Michigan, and they stole Florida again.

black turn out in Florida and NC were way down, the did have fear squads roaming Hispanic neighborhoods in fort worth initiated Spanish voters,

Hugo Pelland said...

Wow, so much BS from both the article and the comments here... but the worst must be:
- Still talking about Hillary 1 year after the election instead of assessing the disaster of the current POTUS administration.
- Still claiming there was 'nothing there ' in the Russia-related scandals after actual indictments happened.
- Calling soccer footbal on an American-owned blog (j/k)

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger Legion of Logic said...
Joe: "still think it's really about the audacity of a woman who dared to seek power and play the game like men do."

This is perhaps the biggest hurdle to the left understanding conservatives. Leftists seem to think that conservatives aren't progressives due to some form of bigotry, when in fact there was precisely zero reason for a conservative to vote for any politician with the policies Hillary advocated. And yet the left blames sexism, as though if only Hillary had been Harry we would have voted against our own interests to put another Clinton in office.

No that is nonsense. I understand conservatives very well. By that I do not mean "I understand how stupid they are." No I undertaker their view point as they understand it and I can respect that.My niece who I grew up with is a right wing conservative intellectual and of great integrity. That does not make Hillary the Whore of Babylon, that is not a failing Hillary that you have a conservative view,so far all you have told me is that you hate her because she has a different vied,

I've spoken with many Trump supporters as to why and how they could support him during the primaries especially, given that he was an obvious liar and not exactly a reliable conservative, and not once was "Women belong in the kitchen!!!" given as the reason. Trump beat the rest of the field because conservatives are sick of Republicans, simple as that, but they are still opposed to progressive policies.

therefore Hillary is the whore of Babylon.


And Trump beat Hillary for a host of reasons, but I firmly believe any sexism was canceled out by people who voted for Hillary BECAUSE she was a woman - and yes, these people proudly announced themselves.

sexism is their motive for demonizing her.


Just look at demographic statistics of the last several elections and you'll see that the male/female, black/white divides are remarkably consistent all the way back into the 90s, with two exceptions - Obama's first election when he swept the board, and the '96 election where Perot siphoned votes. Otherwise the major indicator of how a particular demographic would vote statstically was whether the candidate was a Democrat or Republican, and Hillary was no different. Sexism had nothing to do with it.

I have voted against a lot of people without chanting lock her up

Joe Hinman said...

Hugo Pelland said...
Wow, so much BS from both the article and the comments here... but the worst must be:
- Still talking about Hillary 1 year after the election instead of assessing the disaster of the current POTUS administration.
- Still claiming there was 'nothing there ' in the Russia-related scandals after actual indictments happened.
- Calling soccer footbal on an American-owned blog (j/k)

ROTFLOL!! boravo Hugo!

grodrigues said...

"- Calling soccer footbal on an American-owned blog (j/k)"

Americans managed to take a perfect gentleman's game (rugby) and turn it into a ridiculous game with ridiculous rules, where ridiculous grown man wear ridiculous costumes. No wonder they cannot appreciate the fine subtleties of *football* and must stoop use an extremely ugly word, "soccer", to name it.

(runs for cover)

Chad Handley said...

"To which I'll say, it looks like nothing's change since last we spoke."

Right back at you. You continue to be one of the most vile, hateful, and where the interaction of religion and conservative politics is concerned, irrational people I've ever engaged with.

As another poster pointed out, even if it were true that Trump had never been successfully sued, that wouldn't make him innocent. Lots of serial abusers/rapists/harassers manage to use their power and position to avoid punishment for their crimes. Weinstein did this for 30 years. Ditto Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, etc.

But in fact Trump has been successfully sued for sexual misconduct. He has avoided the worst of it the same way Weinstein has, by settling with his accusers for undisclosed amounts of money.

So, again, no one is trying to make out an equivalence, the situations just are equivalent. Either it's fine to grab people by their genitals as long as you can buy their silence or it's not. For most people it's an easy choice, for Trump supporters, even the supposedly Christian ones, apparently not.

Chad Handley said...

"Indeed, which is why I did not. Neither was acceptable to me."

My point was not about you personally. It was that there were plenty of Christian, pro-life candidates to choose from, and out of the pile, Evangelicals chose Trump. They chose him even though, from his previous comments, they had no reason to trust his pro-life stance at the time. As Talon said, they were willing to roll the dice on not just the fate of the Republic and by extension the world, but also on the lives of the unborn, so they could pick the candidate that angered liberals the most.

I think the article is spot on correct that this alone is sufficient for most Americans to never pay attention to Evangelicals on any subject of personal morality ever again. They sold their witness for a little power. Not to protect the unborn, since there were safer pro-life picks available. They sold their witness for power. Happily.

Chad Handley said...

"Out of curiosity, does anyone here actually think that Hillary Clinton is a candidate a Christian could happily support without a serious conflict of interest?"

I think it's impossible to vote for any candidate without a serious conflict of interest. But there's conflict of interest and then there's voting for an amoral, openly racist, sexually abusive, traitorous lunatic. A man utterly unfit in every respect for any elected office, much less the highest political office in the world.

I tend to value life everywhere, so I think electing a president who once asked, in his first national security briefing, "why can't we just use nuclear weapons? I mean we have them, why can't we just use them?" endangers the lives of everyone on the planet.

"And can anyone name a Republican candidate from 2016 that the left would not have criticized Christians for choosing? Not talking about compared to Trump, just in of themselves."

First of all, "compared to Trump" is literally the entire point. Secondly, to answer your question: everyone but Trump. It would be hard for liberals to say it was Unchristian or hypocritical to choose any of the candidates on offer except Trump, and yet Evangelicals chose Trump.

Jake Elwood XVI said...

G Rodrigues

Down under we have inherited so many English games, and maybe invented one of our own. Cricket is still the pinnacle of English Civilisation. And if you want violence then there is the Rugby codes, the variation depends on your schooling.

Soccer does not satisfy. Its barbarity is in its mundanity.

Here is a great article by the late Steven H Webb https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2009/03/how-soccer-is-ruining-america

grodrigues said...

"Soccer does not satisfy. Its barbarity is in its mundanity."

Philistines all. No one that has seen individual geniuses like Di Stefano or Pele, or the great teams like the Di Stefano's Real Madrid, the 78 Argentina of Ardilles, the Brazil of 1982 (what a team! Zico, Falcão, Sócrates, etc.), or Cruyft's foootball-making machine can spout such blasphemous idiocies. You link to Steven Webb? Pffft. And I direct you to one of the top literary geniuses of the 20th Centh, Vladimir Nabokov, and his memoir "Speak, Memory." Check mate.

Starhopper said...

And can anyone name a Republican candidate from 2016 that the left would not have criticized Christians for choosing?

I can name two: Jeb Bush and John Kasich.

Starhopper said...

grodrigues,

I also enjoy football - perhaps from having lived in Europe for almost 10 years (I'm still a Liverpool fan), but I do wish they'd figure out a way to make scoring a bit easier. How about using a bigger net for the goal? Or maybe do away with the goalie position altogether? The game would be a lot more satisfying with higher scores and less draws.

oozzielionel said...

Sounds like American football.

bmiller said...

No wonder they cannot appreciate the fine subtleties of *football* and must stoop use an extremely ugly word, "soccer", to name it.

Now that you think about it the word does sounds like something a violent misogynist would say. :-)

Joe Hinman said...

Starhopper said...
And can anyone name a Republican candidate from 2016 that the left would not have criticized Christians for choosing?

I can name two: Jeb Bush and John Kasich.

It' true we did not know how based bad could be,Is still say I would feel relativity ok with MacCain ,but criticism is part of political. Trump should be impeached

Starhopper said...

I would feel relativity ok with McCain

McCain wasn't running in 2016.

But let's forget individuals for a minute. Christianity should NEVER be used to either support or oppose any particular politician. A Christian can of course be for or against this or that candidate, but he should not make his stance a litmus test for whether or not a person is a "good Christian".

That's not what the Faith is all about.

Joe Hinman said...

Starhopper said...
I would feel relativity ok with McCain

McCain wasn't running in 2016.

I know they were all clowns, Bush and Graham best of bad lot,

But let's forget individuals for a minute. Christianity should NEVER be used to either support or oppose any particular politician. A Christian can of course be for or against this or that candidate, but he should not make his stance a litmus test for whether or not a person is a "good Christian".

That's not what the Faith is all about.

agree completely but that; what the evangelicals have drone, their equation GOP = God party because they are against abortion is just a political excuse,

We can say: I find this or that policy more in keeping with the principles of the Gospel but even that has to be used responsibly,

Joe Hinman said...

my answer to the irritating atheist "God did it"

Atheists Hide in The Gaps

Joe Hinman said...

I wrote a new blog post on this, based upon new book on Washington; farewell adders

Metacrock's blog

Miguel said...

Hinman,

I asked you a question in the other thread, the one mentioning your blog

Starhopper said...

Heard this on the radio this morning:

"The Christian right has traded its birthright for a bowl of Trump."

Me, I'm holding out for Jacob's lentil stew.

Joe Hinman said...

Miguel said...
Hinman,

I asked you a question in the other thread, the one mentioning your blog

>>OK thanks

Joe Hinman said...

Starhopper said...
Heard this on the radio this morning:

"The Christian right has traded its birthright for a bowl of Trump."

Me, I'm holding out for Jacob's lentil stew.

>>LOL ;-)

Dave Duffy said...

Reminds me of the price the mainline churches paid for support of Modernity.