A question to and about the evangelical rights support of trump

If Oprah will lead them.....
the Democratic Party will make a pretty major shift by 2020......
especially if she chooses a V.P. candidate who really understands the astonishing potential in
improved Federal Reserve policy.

This guy is one of the best that I have heard so far on that topic.....

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1729521777377245

 

Well, one must understand that the establishment status quo, neoliberal economic policy and neocon foreign policy is so entrenched now that if you want to take it on, this would require an experienced politician like sanders, who understands what he is up against and knows how to work go fight it. Oprah, like trump does not have the experience. Sanders even talked about this when he was in the primaries. He knew it would take a bottom up endeavor, for as he said, no single person as president can change anything important, and that it requires a bottom up movement who will remain involved over the long haul.

Where trump screwed up, is not rallying his supporters to get involved enough, and like obama basically said, thanks, but I got it from here. Trump did not have the insider understanding of how DC works, in reality, nor did he understand it enough to appoint people who believed in his mission, and would not try to cut his throat behind his back. If indeed he actually planned on keeping his campaign promises. I think Oprah would run up against the same forces and they would eat her lunch. IMO, if Oprah tried to represent the common man, DC, both parties would do all of the dirty tricks to foil any such thing.

We need an insider as to how DC works, who is an honest politician, has integrity, and has principles which favor the 300 plus million of average americans, in negation of the establishment who represent only the elites and special interests with deep pockets. And who would that be? I cannot think of one single current politician who would meet these qualifications. Can you? Sanders is the closest, IMO, but he is just too old. I wish he were 20 years younger, for given that most americans agreed with much of his platform, things like Medicare of all, and that the greed of the top has destroyed the economic model which created the largest middle class in world history, and his hatred of what we call free trade but is just the newest scheme in creating greater disparity in income and wealth, this would help to insure his win.

 

I'm not surprised you can't see that it is.

 

Look, a straw man!

 

You play that Race card every time it suits you.

 

i understand your logic, however believe it is flawed, You say, you support Trump because he represents the morals you value. I challenge that idea and say you support Trump because you are culturally Republican, and he happened to be the GOP candidate. I have heard the same "Well I couldn't Vote for Hillary" excuse from my own religious family. I support the Christian Rights, freedom to vote for whomever the want, but i reject there claim to the moral High Ground. I reject it in full because of there lack of perspective,

Here lies my frustration, I grew up going to church. I was baptized and married in a church, I have heard all the stories ten times over and your explanation just doesn't make any sense. The ways in which you described how Evangelicals view Trump & Hillary's difference's make me very disappointed. As a Christian you are supposed to be taught to believe that everyone sins, everyone sins, and that God views all sin the same. As a Christian you are supposed to practice Humility, understanding that whatever wrongs you believe others have transgressed, in the eyes of God you are no better. These are important things to remember because if you truly believed them, then your previous comments should give you pause.

The way you so easily demonized Hillary and victimized Trump is very upsetting and, in my viewpoint, falls short of everything a Christian is supposed to be. It shows that you lack the ability to push aside the politically divisive word of man, and instead aloud yourself to indulge in the perverse opinions of men from fox news pedaling false prophecy's.

You participated in striping another person’s humanity away by suggesting Hillary was the right hand of the Devil, I by no means believe she is a perfect person as all Christians should believe. But what kind of crap are you trying to pull making it seem as if Trump is “Flawed but Holy”. Admit it, the Religious right is after power, they are terrified of losing influence. They blame Hollywood, violent video games, abortion and Gay marriage as the reason for America’s moral decay. They blame an ever-growing liberal left as why America needs saving, but what they fail to recognize every single day is there own failure’s.

The Christian right has failed America because they have strayed far away from what the true nature of Christianity should be. You are supposed to be a leader, a shining light to other of how to act, how to be compassionate, how to be humble, how to be caring. A true Christian doesn’t stand outside of a Planned Parenthood, demonizing every woman that walk’s inside as a murderer. A true Christian understands that, thought they may disagree with abortion, the life and sole of the mother is just as important as the child’s. A true Christian strive’ s to understand the ultimate faults of all people and recognizes their own.

The Evangelicals voted for Trump because they bargained for power, the power of conservative leaning judge’s, the power of the executive, the power of the legislator. They praise Trumps achievements on abortion, moving the capital of Israel to Jerusalem. While in the same breath supporting or being silent on a whole host of other very unchristian things. I am not talking about his clearly VULGAR, PERMISCUOUS, UNCHRISTAIN way of life. I am talking about his lack of compassion toward’ s immigrants and DACA recipients. His EPA’s lack of concern for our planet, the only one god gave us. His constant and continual lying.

I doubt my word’s will resonate with anyone, if anything it will upset them, make them angry with me. However, I must say what I believe, the Christian Right made a deal with King Midas, he whispered in their ears like the snake whispered to Eve. Vote for me and I will give you everything you want the snake says, and against what they have been taught, against the word of god they take the fruit, and that is the biggest tragedy of all.


- Matthew 5:44–45, “I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good.”

- Matthew 19:24, "And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

 

I'm talking about the political active Christians. A lot of them are one issue voters. Especially when one is talking the religious right. It begins and stops with abortion and now, you can probably throw gay marriage into the fray. Adjectives and metaphors aside, when it comes to these hot button issues, Trump was the lesser of two evils.

In November of 2016, everyone to include Christians had to choose between Trump and Clinton. You sound as if you preferred Clinton. So be it. Not a problem, 48% of Americans did. That was your choice. Myself, I viewed both evil. I came to the conclusion that both Trump and Clinton would leave this nation far worst off once either one left office than when either on first entered it. I voted third party. 6% of us did, that is roughly 8 million people. The political active religious right, the exit polls called them born again, evangelicals, they overwhelmingly went for Trump. By an 80-16 margin with 4% doing as I did, voting third party.

You'd probably be surprised at the high number of evangelicals who think the Democratic Party is out to destroy their faith. They confirm this by the Democratic Party's stance on abortion, gay marriage, removing the ten commandments from public buildings, taking prayer out of the schools, and numerous other things. I think this is why evangelicals supported Trump and continue to do so.

 

"Opposition party"??

I'm not sure what you mean here.

The DP party is and always has been a party of leadership of the very center of what it means to be an American.

 

Go piss on someone elses leg. I belonged to a totally different democratic party. And books have been written on the changes to this party beginning with bill clinton. Perhaps you should read books to find out what happened as MSM sure will not tell you.

On war and peace, on slave labor globalism, on the military industrial national security complex, there is one party with two heads. No opposition party. Two parties both owned by big banking, corporations and the people that own these things. You don't know what your own party is, obviously.

 

Claiming that all you want is an opportunity to oppose is pathetic. That is dedication to perpetual loserdom.

The DP needs to be leading.

Yes, that includes that there are changes that are desirable.

But, we aren't going to get some OTHER party to improve and lead America.

... And, there is more difference than you are suggesting.

 

I get your point, and understand why evangelicals have this perspective. But personally i find it a bullshit cop out, its an excuse they tell them self's so they don't have to face the fact that they are no more holy or righteous than the dems and liberals they rail against. Its a cop out because like yourself you realized there are always more then 2 choice's, they aloud themselves to be influence by political sales men instead of the word of god. I'm going to be honest if you are a TRUE christian then you should be unconcerned with american politics and shouldn't vote. The reason most do is because they are not only Christians they American conservative Republicans. Most of them have made peace with this duality, but if they were to step back just for a minute they would notice that a large portion of the GOP platform is extremely unchristian. You cannot tell me that a free market capitalist morals and a Christians are the same. Capitalist prime motivator for anything is money, and remind me again what does the bible say about money? Something about it being, "the love of money is the root of all evil?" but yet they vote for a party that would have the poor and sick be forgotten in the streets because there is not monetary reason to support them. Then they vote against a party that believe's the government should do what Jesus commands and help the poor and sick, the only difference is the Dems don't market there views that way.

 

Basically i feel the religious right is perverting there own christian beliefs in order to be Republicans

 

My voting for Trump as a christian had nothing to do with him having any moral high ground.

lol

 

I agree and that's what i said, the Christian right didn't vote for Trump because of his morality, they did it in spite of it. And.. as i said that is disappointing

 

What is pathetic is you refuse to address the specifics that I noted. That the DP moved away from representing the people it had represented beginning with FDR. The Common Man. Every heard of it? And I can tell you when the major move away from these people happened. 1990s. Books have been written about it, which obviously you never read. MSM will not educate you on this great move and change in the DP. Which is why you are oblivious to it, IMO.

 

You mentioned a couple of points that stop me from belonging to any political party. Now does the bible say governments should take care, help the sick and the poor or does the bible say you should. As an individual. I grew up in the 1950's when government didn't have most of these social programs outside of social security. People took care of other people back then, there were charities and churches who also were involved with the poor and the sick. Family looked after family, neighbors looked after neighbors, it was one big community affair. Today we expect government to fill the roll of the family, individual, neighbors etc. We pay taxes and thus our responsibility for the poor and sick end. We rely on government to do that.

Now you're right, the Republicans expect government to enforce their agenda and values while the Democrats expect government to do exactly the same thing for their agenda and values. Both want to use the force of government.

 

The DP has always been more on the side of working Americans than any other party for a long, long time.

I wish the DP were stronger so it could take stronger action.

All Americans need healthcare, wages commensurate with their contribution, a good education that extends beyond HS toward vocation and/or academic/STEM, methods for working Americans to change working conditions and related factors, equality of opportunity, etc.

These are ALL things the RP does NOT champion.

If you have a better party for those issues, let me know.

 

Yes they were on the side of working americans, and represented their economic interests, while the GOP represented the interests of big banking, corporations and the elites that own them. Which is fine, for we had the party of the People as an opposition to that. But apparently you were either not around in the 90s, or you didn't pay attention what happened to the DP, under clinton. Well, I did, since I had been a democrat all of my life until this point in time. They stopped being the party of the Common Man at that time. Books have been written on this, which you did not read. But I did not need a book to tell me what I was seeing in the 90s. It caused me to leave the DP. You think I left for just shi*ts and giggles?

Given neither party represents the average working american, there is no place for the average american to go. Unless they went 3rd party, which both parties have rigged out of ever winning an election. In their own self interests. And there were conversations last year among unions, given the DP is no longer an opposition party, that represents their traditional voters, the working middle class americans of creating a third party which would look like the DP before clinton.

The DP today is a party that represents the upper middle class, the professional class, big corporations and big banking. Of course they look out for the impoverished, but not as they once did. And they do this not from caring for the poor, but because they see this group of people as being needed in order to win elections. The group they refuse to represent are white working people. This was written about in the New Yorker magazine in 2016 during the primaries. In order to get away with not representing working class americans, they have used identity politics to divide working people, blacks, hispanics, whites, and tried to create conflict between the hispanics and whites, and the blacks and whites, in order to keep a working people coalition from arising again, for this would insure they would never win elections, but might get their voters siphoned off into a 3rd party candidate.

Trump won in part because of working people, primarily white working people who have not had a party to represent them since the 90s. The evidence that all working people have not been represented by either party for several decades is found in the Princeton Study which used congressional record as the evidence. That record showed, in spades who was represented over those decades, by both parties, and who was not. Guess who was not?

So, when you have such evidence as presented by Princeton, this evidence blows holes in your detached from reality beliefs about the DP. The DP is owned by big banking, MNCs, and the elites that own these entities, just like the GOP is. It is one party when it comes to this, but with two heads. It is not the party of the People anymore. And if MSM had real journalists more people would understand what happened to the DP. And I think this is why you are clueless as to what the DP became. I have spent over 50 years of my 75 year old existence watching both parties. And any old democrat who did not notice the changes in the DP, was a dead democrat. Books have been written by democrats, in regards to this change. You apparently did not get the memo? I can give you the author and title of one of these books if you wish to educate yourself in regards to this modern DP. But I sense, you really do not want to be informed of the truth, for your beliefs, while not based upon reality, are entrenched and your mind is closed. Caught in the tribalism paradigm.

 

Suggesting that legislation at that time represents DP policy is just plain silly.

It's you who appear clueless about the 1990's. Remember Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House during that period, and successfully rallied congress behind his "Republican Revolution".

Also, look at who the RP chooses for leadership. They are freely sprinkled with those from Goldman Sachs. Suggesting it's the DP that is the party of big banking is just a monumental blunder on your part.


You have to be a little better than that when you decide to build a critique of this nature.

 

Then the democratic policy which represented and looked out for the Common Man in the time of FDR was just silly! What in the hell are you saying here? That policy agreed upon by democrats which shows they reversed what that party stood for, is just silly? Man, you know nothing of the democratic party nor its history beginning with FDR. Nothing. That much is clear. A party is defined by its policy, not its words, for words are cheap, and only action, policy has relevance. And their policies and those they agree with in regards to GOP policy is all that matters. Actions will always reveal the truth. And it has been revealed and you seem to have just ignored it.

 

You still haven't pointed to one single issue, choosing instead to suggest that whatever happened in America must surely be because of DP policy - a ridiculous conjecture.

Plus, you were talking about the 1990's and then switched times. That's not a legitimate debate tactic. And, the issues have changed since FDR, too. Do you remember anything of note that might have been occurring during FDR's terms?

You are totally failing here.

 

Your last sentence is correct, both parties expect the government to enforce there agenda's. I was simply saying the Democrats agenda is more Christian than the Republicans, because tho the bible doesn't specifically say the government should take care of the poor and sick, but i would argue that through the force of government that is precisely what liberals are attempting to do. The fact that the GOP free market approach has failed at taking care of the poor and sick, is the reason liberals advocate our position in the first place. Perhaps your life experience in the 1950's was pleasant however i feel that points to a fatal flaw in your reasoning. I doubt very much if you were to ask African American's how the 1950's were for them, or women who felt chastised by a live restricted to the home they would paint a very different picture. In fact it was exactly the "not so perfect world" of 1950's that lead to the culture wars, and civil rights movement of the 1960's.

 

I may be wrong here since I was under the impression that the bible taught us to take care of thy neighbor. That it was basically an individual's responsibility, not government. I don't remember Jesus going around telling the Roman's it was their responsibility to take care of the poor. The Roman's representing government. That it each individual's responsibility. I don't classify myself as a christian, but some of this stuff I remember from a kid.

All these social programs, is it possible that today instead of people taking care of people, neighbor taking care of neighbor we now pay our taxes and taking care of others is no longer my individual responsibility. That responsibility has been taken over by government. That we have washed our hands clean of helping others expecting government to do so.

 

Jesus stayed pretty focused on individuals, not on designing systems of government.

I do not believe anyone can consider what government does as freeing us from the responsibility of helping those in need. We still have plenty of need to go around. Plus, the coverage our government can give is not perfect. For example, it can't identify every instance of need, even just of the types of need the government is chartered to provide. Plus, we keep government solutions at a minimum - not at a level that could be described as ending need.

So, there are plenty of holes in the safetynet - people who individual citizens can help.

Plus, the size of the problems we face is large enough that it requires the organization of government to even approach the problem. So, I believe we do have a moral and possibly even religious responsibility to keep our government programs capable of helping those who need help.