Op Ed by Will Hurd, Republican, On Trump

[oxmixmudd]

Sadly it is many of your fellow brothers in Christ that put Trump into power in the first place. And they are keeping him there by defending his behaviour, despite the growing evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

You need to understand that the choices in 2016 were abysmal for the most part. One could vote for Hillary which was a vote for so many policies many evangelicals are against, or Trump who represents pretty much everything the Bible actually records Jesus Christ as preaching against.

But discounting that very difficult rock and a hard place choice that is mostly going to boil down to a vote against what one feels is the worse of the two evils, what I have never understood is how so many evangelicals could feel this was a good choice, that they could actually get behind the man and be for what he stands for when - as I said - what he stands for on a fundamental level is so much of what Christ preached against. I'm talking about during the election and after it. He IS the rich man that drags people into court. He IS the fellow that abuses the weak, that takes from the poor, that hits back 10 times for 1 perceived wrong and so on.

And yet here we are. Many evangelicals are actually happy the man is in office and will defend almost anything he does, no matter how low it goes, no matter how contrary what he does is to the scripture they claim to revere as the Holy word of God.

It is just as confusing to me an evangelical myself as it is to you an atheist.Which I tend to think means it boils down to something else, something that is not at all derived from a religious point of view or strong moral underpinnig, and something that in many ways is directly contrary to it.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

That you even think that Obama felt the need to be subservient to our ally Japan tells us more about you than anything else. You're a bit of a dope, MM!

You don't have many options here, Jimmy: either Obama was internally expressing subservience to the emperor of Japan, or it was an embarrassing mistake. Although the latter explanation is a bit of a hard sell when he appeared to have a hinged waist whenever he greeted another head of state. This was also the same time he embarrassingly accused America of being "arrogant".

[Terraceth]

You need to understand that the choices in 2016 were abysmal for the most part. One could vote for Hillary which was a vote for so many policies many evangelicals are against, or Trump who represents pretty much everything the Bible actually records Jesus Christ as preaching against.

But discounting that very difficult rock and a hard place choice that is mostly going to boil down to a vote against what one feels is the worse of the two evils, what I have never understood is how so many evangelicals could feel this was a good choice, that they could actually get behind the man and be for what he stands for when - as I said - what he stands for on a fundamental level is so much of what Christ preached against. I'm talking about during the election and after it. He IS the rich man that drags people into court. He IS the fellow that abuses the weak, that takes from the poor, that hits back 10 times for 1 perceived wrong and so on.

And yet here we are. Many evangelicals are actually happy the man is in office and will defend almost anything he does, no matter how low it goes, no matter how contrary what he does is to the scripture they claim to revere as the Holy word of God.

It is just as confusing to me an evangelical myself as it is to you an atheist.Which I tend to think means it boils down to something else, something that is not at all derived from a religious point of view or strong moral underpinnig, and something that in many ways is directly contrary to it.


Jim

I mean, I think Trump's kind of a dolt and has done a lot of things in his personal life that are sketchy at best, think there's at least a possibility of collusion (though I think a lot of people are rushing to judgment--I will wait until the investigation concludes before making a final one). But he's done at least some good stuff, although admittedly the stuff he's done I approve of has all been stuff I expect the other Republican nominees would've done also.

We're probably going to see an unusually strong primary for a re-election. Was Grant the last time a president tried to run for re-election but lost his party's primary?

[rogue06]

You need to understand that the choices in 2016 were abysmal for the most part. One could vote for Hillary which was a vote for so many policies many evangelicals are against, or Trump who represents pretty much everything the Bible actually records Jesus Christ as preaching against.

Hillary also represented pretty much everything the Bible actually records Jesus Christ as preaching against.

[rogue06]

You don't have many options here, Jimmy: either Obama was internally expressing subservience to the emperor of Japan, or it was an embarrassing mistake. Although the latter explanation is a bit of a hard sell when he appeared to have a hinged waist whenever he greeted another head of state. This was also the same time he embarrassingly accused America of being "arrogant".

There was a reason his entire trip was aptly characterized as an "apology tour." And in addition to calling America arrogant in the same breath he also said we were "dismissive, even derisive." Now while some (especially starlight) might agree with that assessment, for a U.S. president to go on foreign soil and say these things...

[Tassman]

Hillary also represented pretty much everything the Bible actually records Jesus Christ as preaching against.

The "also" is telling.

[NorrinRadd]

The "also" is telling.

I'm not sure it's "telling" the story you're hearing.

Trekkie presented a Scylla and Charybdis choice between a "vote for so many policies many evangelicals are against" and a vote for a person who "represents pretty much everything the Bible actually records Jesus Christ as preaching against."

Rogue opined that Jesus Christ, not just "many evangelicals," would oppose Hil, whether because of her personal character or because of her favored policies.

[NorrinRadd]

You need to understand that the choices in 2016 were abysmal for the most part. One could vote for Hillary which was a vote for so many policies many evangelicals are against, or Trump who represents pretty much everything the Bible actually records Jesus Christ as preaching against.

I would like, if possible, an honest answer from the atheists here:

What do you think an evangelical should have done? We saw these choices:

-- The morally unacceptable choice to vote for a brutish, boastful, bullying billionaire.

-- The morally unacceptable choice to vote for a lying, scheming, ardent defender of abortion on demand.

-- The morally unacceptable choice to abstain from voting.

-- The morally unacceptable choice to vote third-party, equivalent in practical terms to abstaining.

Convince me that any of you really have any interest in really addressing this. I think you probably understand our choice, but don't care. You enjoy pretending you have some sort of moral high ground.

But discounting that very difficult rock and a hard place choice that is mostly going to boil down to a vote against what one feels is the worse of the two evils, what I have never understood is how so many evangelicals could feel this was a good choice, that they could actually get behind the man and be for what he stands for when - as I said - what he stands for on a fundamental level is so much of what Christ preached against. I'm talking about during the election and after it. He IS the rich man that drags people into court. He IS the fellow that abuses the weak, that takes from the poor, that hits back 10 times for 1 perceived wrong and so on.

And yet here we are. Many evangelicals are actually happy the man is in office and will defend almost anything he does, no matter how low it goes, no matter how contrary what he does is to the scripture they claim to revere as the Holy word of God.

It is just as confusing to me an evangelical myself as it is to you an atheist.Which I tend to think means it boils down to something else, something that is not at all derived from a religious point of view or strong moral underpinnig, and something that in many ways is directly contrary to it.


Jim

I'm happy he is in office. My family -- moderate-to-liberal Lutherans -- are not thrilled. My friends -- Evangelicals (including Pentecostals and Charismatics) and Catholics are delighted; most of them like him more than I do. I think all of the other Republicans candidates were probably "better people," but I don't think any would have accomplished as much. And I like most of what he has accomplished.

I frankly don't care about his past, at least not while he is in office. If he committed *crimes*, I hope he gets caught, and, when his term expires, prosecuted and convicted.

I don't enjoy his boasting; in contrast to El Rushbo's, it does not usually come across to me as mostly tongue-in-cheek.

I don't enjoy his thin skin and defensiveness. I don't enjoy his huge but fragile ego. I'm fine with the fact that he never "turns the other cheek," but I don't like the fact that he returns sevenfold, nor that he "punches down."

And honestly, I do enjoy the fact that he pokes and tweaks people. He has caused many people to go so far around the bend and over the edge that they have essentially ripped off their fake faces like the mutants in Beneath the Planet of the Apes and revealed their true disfigured selves. This is a great service!

[Starlight]

I would like, if possible, an honest answer from the atheists here:

What do you think an evangelical should have done? We saw these choices:

-- The morally unacceptable choice to vote for a brutish, boastful, bullying billionaire.

-- The morally unacceptable choice to vote for a lying, scheming, ardent defender of abortion on demand.

I'm with you thus far. I was pretty clear in the lead-up to the election that I advocated voting for neither one.

-- The morally unacceptable choice to abstain from voting.

-- The morally unacceptable choice to vote third-party, equivalent in practical terms to abstaining.

Um, seriously? I find it hard to take you seriously when you say things like this.

I'm not much of a fan of abstaining from voting, personally, given the option to vote for a 3rd party exists. Voting for a 3rd party usefully sends a clear signal to the politicians that your vote was definitely available, but that they failed to reach the bar for obtaining it.

My whole life I've voted 3rd party, but I live in a country where there are 5-7 political parties and my vote has always "counted" in the sense that the party I voted for achieved representation but I've never voted for either of the big-2 parties here. I do have some sympathy with people who say "well things are different in the US, there are only 2 viable parties, so voting 3rd party is pointless here", but my response tends to be "well, with that attitude 3rd parties are never going to be viable, and I think you're morally obliged to recruit other people to vote 3rd party until they become viable, or change your voting system (e.g. Maine is introducing Ranked Choice Voting) to make them viable, but the UK has the same voting system as you currently and they have 9 parties so there's no excuse for you idiots not having more parties.".

But if you really, really, hate all the 3rd parties, then abstain from voting. That's a much better option than voting for either evil candidate.

You enjoy pretending you have some sort of moral high ground.

It's true I do, and it's also true that I'm not pretending.

He has caused many people to go so far around the bend and over the edge that they have essentially ripped off their fake faces like the mutants in Beneath the Planet of the Apes and revealed their true disfigured selves. This is a great service!

That was one reason prior to his presidency I was saying I'd be fine as him as US President, because Obama put a genial face on the US on the international stage which dulled the rest of the world's objections to the awfulness of US foreign policy, but now the mask is off... the world actually sees America for the utter disfigured mutant monster that it is. In that regard, Trump has done the world a service.

[rogue06]

The "also" is telling.

I've repeatedly said that this was by far the worst two candidates that we had to pick from.

[rogue06]

I'm not sure it's "telling" the story you're hearing.

Trekkie presented a Scylla and Charybdis choice between a "vote for so many policies many evangelicals are against" and a vote for a person who "represents pretty much everything the Bible actually records Jesus Christ as preaching against."

Rogue opined that Jesus Christ, not just "many evangelicals," would oppose Hil, whether because of her personal character or because of her favored policies.

Since in the end she was seen as the worst is the reason they picked him over her. Neither was a choice many and maybe even most from either side was happy with.

[Sparko]

The deep bow from the waist is only for servants.

Here is an illustration showing the three types of bows

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29042[/ATTACH]

The first is typical among equals. Here is someone and his superior (on the right if you can't tell) bowing to each other

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29043[/ATTACH]

But Obama went even deeper than the servant's bow, between 50 and 60 degrees

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29044[/ATTACH]

To tell the truth, I think the whole controversy about Obama's bows was just as dumb as the recent controversy about Trump and the Queen. Obama wasn't being subservient on purpose, and Trump wasn't being rude on purpose. Both presidents were dealing with cultures they were not familiar with. When the press makes such a big deal about things like this, they are just being petty.

[JimL]

You don't have many options here, Jimmy: either Obama was internally expressing subservience to the emperor of Japan, or it was an embarrassing mistake. Although the latter explanation is a bit of a hard sell when he appeared to have a hinged waist whenever he greeted another head of state. This was also the same time he embarrassingly accused America of being "arrogant".

No, no subservience there, MM, it was simply a customary sign of respect which you and your ilk are two brainwashed to recognize. When you take up issues like this MM, it only goes to expose your biased idiocy.

[JimL]

Since in the end she was seen as the worst is the reason they picked him over her. Neither was a choice many and maybe even most from either side was happy with.

Well, you might have made that argument in the past, but he's been president for a year and a half now and his favorability polls amongst republicans hasn't budged, if anything they've gone up slightly. They approve of his performance. Apparently, like you here on tweb, they just don't like to admit to it openly.

[Mountain Man]

No, no subservience there, MM, it was simply a customary sign of respect which you and your ilk are two brainwashed to recognize. When you take up issues like this MM, it only goes to expose your biased idiocy.

OK, so you're going with "Obama made a colossal cultural gaffe". Fair enough.