Christianity Today Op Ed

[Mountain Man]

The evidence quite clearly shows he did commit them.

No, it doesn't. Even Chuck Schumer has admitted as much with his calls for more testimony and discovery in the interest of uncovering all the facts. If the evidence is "overwhelming", like Democrats and their ilk keep insisting, then why the need for more evidence?

[Mountain Man]

I think part of it is his unfamiliarity with the (less) finer points and attributes of the English language.

Nah, Chuck's English is excellent. He's just passive aggressive and not nearly as clever as he thinks he is.

[Cow Poke]

We have a good deal more than that here. And yet the followers of Trump hold onto blind faith there is some explanation for what happened other than the obvious one, or they play the technicality game, knowing he's guilty as sin but also knowing he seems to be getting away with it and he's good for them personally

This, of course, does not represent my view. Just wanted to point that out.

[One Bad Pig]

Always quite telling when you only adress one sentence and leave out important context. Here is the entire context. Feel free to adress what I actually wrote:

"Nope, I did not miss that. That was why I wrote: "It is not the words that are wrong but the application of them in which it is logically implied that if you are not a supporter of Trump, you are dishonest, a democrat or completely wrong." You seem to think that if I use words like "them" then I am doing what I blame others for doing. I have no problem with the use of those words. It is the "US vs. Them" logic that is the problem. The idea that if you find fault with Trump and think he should be removed, you must be one of "them", the Democrats. They (and yes I use that word and have explained why) do not leave room for them to be Republicans and Christians who honestly believe it as actually the best both for the Rebublican Party and for Christian testimony if Trump is removed.

Look at this sentence: "For Christianity Today to side with the Democrat Party in a totally partisan attack on the President of the United States is unfathomable." You see what happens? It is not that after Christianity Today has joined the critics that it is no longer "totally partisan". It is rather that in joining the attack (which in itself is a loaded word) they have become partisan. The idea that some could be in for a "totally partisan attack" while others honestly believe he should be removed is left out since it remains "a totally partisan attack" even after CT have joined and given their reasons for doing so."

If one is using "them" to castigate the group so referenced, how is that not "us vs. them"?

Not all attacks on President Trump are partisan; this one, however, manifestly is.

[JimL]

Hey, trump is even succeeding in driving a wedge between christians now. Interesting how the wealthy low life frauds like Falwell Jr and Franlin Graham are the ones supporting Trump.

[mikewhitney]

Hey, trump is even succeeding in driving a wedge between christians now. Interesting how the wealthy low life frauds like Falwell Jr and Franlin Graham are the ones supporting Trump.

CT just had a bad editorial. I'm not sure why that is interpreted as causing a split.

[Charles]

If one is using "them" to castigate the group so referenced, how is that not "us vs. them"?

I am not using "them" to castigate anyone. My use of "them" is explained in the text and I see no reason to continue to state the rather obvious. I am not even talking about a group, but about how Trump and Graham talked in two particular instances. Their statements clearly show they follow an us vs. them logic. I gave you several examples of this in Graham's text.

Not all attacks on President Trump are partisan; this one, however, manifestly is.

So, you are saying that CT are partisan? One cannot honestly disagree with you on this case?

[seanD]

There seems to be a significant leap between garden variety opposition to Trump (i.e. Sparko just labeled Mark Galli with the term) and the desire to commit physical assaults. Which is it? Is this an umbrella term that can cover all who oppose Trump, or does it refer to those with rage that leads to physical violence or personal harassment?

Rogue makes a good point here. He's pointing out a visible condition of irrational thinking -- TDS. In his example, he's pointing out how irrational TDS folks can get to the point of physical attacks. In the case here, it's a form of how anti-Trump folks irrationally view facts about the impeachment, the example I gave earlier, different from the rest of the populace, as shown in the shifting polls, who are looking at the same facts and don't suffer from TDS.

[Cow Poke]

CT just had a bad editorial. I'm not sure why that is interpreted as causing a split.

I keep thinking this (CT) is about me (CP).

[Charles]

I keep thinking this (CT) is about me (CP).

Perhaps that's why Trump called it ET.

[JimL]

I keep thinking this (CT) is about me (CP).

It is!

[Cow Poke]

Perhaps that's why Trump called it ET.

Could very well be, who knows?

[NorrinRadd]

Actualy, the term was coined by psychiatrist and political commentator Charles Krauthammer, who defined it as:

"a Trump-induced "general hysteria" among the chattering classes, producing an "inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and ... signs of psychic pathology" in the President's behavior"

He fashioned it after the previous "Bush Derangement Syndrome" which he also coined.

And IIRC, Charles was not a fan of Trump (though not nearly a never-Trumper, unlike his good friend and possible TDS victim, George Will).

[mikewhitney]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...removal-088362

US Evangelicals are already being equated with the moral standards exhibited by Trump.

This is not a problem about Christians. It is a problem of the mainstream media. We can pray that the MSM will behave itself, but we don't have much control over what they say.

[Cow Poke]

And IIRC, Charles was not a fan of Trump (though not nearly a never-Trumper, unlike his good friend and possible TDS victim, George Will).

Charles was an open and frequent critic of Trump, yes.