Mystery Solved: Why Evangelicals Support Trump

[jc456]

Mystery Solved: Why Evangelicals Support Trump

it all boils down to more voting against people that want you marginalized and criminalized than for someone who doesn't live the way you live.

It's fair to say Donald J. Trump is not an evangelical. He's never been called one and has not called himself one. Technically, he's Presbyterian. As a New York liberal for most of his life, he had no conservative credibility prior to 2016. This conservative evangelical was very skeptical of him, and did not support him in the 2016 primary. I initially thought his candidacy was Seinfeldian — about nothing.

Trump has been strongly pro-life, strongly pro-American, strongly pro-Israel, strongly pro-capitalism, and he has pushed back against the freedom-robbing regulatory state. He cut taxes and he left evangelicals alone. He didn't sue the nuns. He doesn't want our guns.

Voting for Trump is not "trading Christian values for political power." It's voting in self-defense against the radical, evangelical-hating left and hoping for the best - and getting more than expected.

The resadon is most of them are not Christians at all. Just a pack of bigoted, racist assholes who want to legislate their fake religion.

dude, you got problems

 

[bendog]

when the demofks don't want your vote. It's truly amazing, they don't want 45 % of voters voting for them.

Evangelical aren’t 45% of the vote. They’re only 20% of the population and they’re being sold the lie that liberals are out to destroy their way of life by dishonest pastors out to install a conservative Christian theocracy.

You need to watch The Family on Netflix

BAKE THAT ******* CAKE PEASANT.

I'm very leery of getting food from someone angry at me.

 

[martybegan]

when the demofks don't want your vote. It's truly amazing, they don't want 45 % of voters voting for them.

Evangelical aren’t 45% of the vote. They’re only 20% of the population and they’re being sold the lie that liberals are out to destroy their way of life by dishonest pastors out to install a conservative Christian theocracy.

You need to watch The Family on Netflix

BAKE THAT ******* CAKE PEASANT.

I'm very leery of getting food from someone angry at me.

The food is just the vehicle for the action, the action is forced acceptance of a lifestyle some people find sinful.

Not just tolerance, acceptance.

 

[MisterBeale]

So it seems that 'Evangelicals' are guided more by they're political views than by their 'Christian' beliefs.

Some excuse for a religion!

BTW - If they lived in a 'freedom robbing' state they wouldn't be either voting or practicing their 'religion' freely.

so how does not backing a party that kills babies avoiding their religion? explain for us.

Not supporting Trump does not mean that they have to support the Democrats.

BTW - Do you really believe that Trump has never paid for an abortion? Really????

I agree with your post.

But honestly?

I don't think you read the full article.

That isn't what this is about.

This is about a voting block protecting their interests. If they have no representation, no one to protect their interests, they will continually be shafted.

I am sure that is good for YOUR POV, but, is it good for theirs?

I understand why they back Republicans in general, but Trump is beyond the pail morally. Supporting a guy that's so clearly immoral isn't going to lead to good things.

Besides it's pretty obvious that Trump doesn't believe most of the things he promises...he'll say anything to get elected.

Do you really believe that he's anti-abortion or do you think that he's only pretending?

I think they care more that even if he is sinful, he isn't pushing his sins on them, or asking them to accept or validate those sins.

I remember when the feminists were outraged at Billy using an intern for his pleasures in the oval office, yet they still supported him, b/c he was their best bet for pushing their issues. It is the same thing.

Different interest groups over look personal failings for larger political issues when it comes to national politics.

 

[jc456]

so how does not backing a party that kills babies avoiding their religion? explain for us.

Not supporting Trump does not mean that they have to support the Democrats.

BTW - Do you really believe that Trump has never paid for an abortion? Really????

I agree with your post.

But honestly?

I don't think you read the full article.

That isn't what this is about.

This is about a voting block protecting their interests. If they have no representation, no one to protect their interests, they will continually be shafted.

I am sure that is good for YOUR POV, but, is it good for theirs?

I understand why they back Republicans in general, but Trump is beyond the pail morally. Supporting a guy that's so clearly immoral isn't going to lead to good things.

Besides it's pretty obvious that Trump doesn't believe most of the things he promises...he'll say anything to get elected.

Do you really believe that he's anti-abortion or do you think that he's only pretending?

I think they care more that even if he is sinful, he isn't pushing his sins on them, or asking them to accept or validate those sins.

I remember when the feminists were outraged at Billy using an intern for his pleasures in the oval office, yet they still supported him, b/c he was their best bet for pushing their issues. It is the same thing.

Different interest groups over look personal failings for larger political issues when it comes to national politics.

now there you go writing common sense material. wow.

 

[bendog]

Not supporting Trump does not mean that they have to support the Democrats.

BTW - Do you really believe that Trump has never paid for an abortion? Really????

I agree with your post.

But honestly?

I don't think you read the full article.

That isn't what this is about.

This is about a voting block protecting their interests. If they have no representation, no one to protect their interests, they will continually be shafted.

I am sure that is good for YOUR POV, but, is it good for theirs?

I understand why they back Republicans in general, but Trump is beyond the pail morally. Supporting a guy that's so clearly immoral isn't going to lead to good things.

Besides it's pretty obvious that Trump doesn't believe most of the things he promises...he'll say anything to get elected.

Do you really believe that he's anti-abortion or do you think that he's only pretending?

I think they care more that even if he is sinful, he isn't pushing his sins on them, or asking them to accept or validate those sins.

I remember when the feminists were outraged at Billy using an intern for his pleasures in the oval office, yet they still supported him, b/c he was their best bet for pushing their issues. It is the same thing.

Different interest groups over look personal failings for larger political issues when it comes to national politics.

now there you go writing common sense material. wow.

the Fundy Christians have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect a Supreme Court that will reverse Roe. It really is that simple. Anything is tolerated so long as Trump gives them what they paid for.

Any potus will be impotent (-: in trying to stop STATES from forcing bakers to bake, or avoiding the reality of gay marriage. Oberkfell was probably unnecessary because once 20 or so states recognized gay marriage, the others would have no choice but to recognize the marriages for divorce, property division and childcare.

 

[martybegan]

I agree with your post.

But honestly?

I don't think you read the full article.

That isn't what this is about.

This is about a voting block protecting their interests. If they have no representation, no one to protect their interests, they will continually be shafted.

I am sure that is good for YOUR POV, but, is it good for theirs?

I understand why they back Republicans in general, but Trump is beyond the pail morally. Supporting a guy that's so clearly immoral isn't going to lead to good things.

Besides it's pretty obvious that Trump doesn't believe most of the things he promises...he'll say anything to get elected.

Do you really believe that he's anti-abortion or do you think that he's only pretending?

I think they care more that even if he is sinful, he isn't pushing his sins on them, or asking them to accept or validate those sins.

I remember when the feminists were outraged at Billy using an intern for his pleasures in the oval office, yet they still supported him, b/c he was their best bet for pushing their issues. It is the same thing.

Different interest groups over look personal failings for larger political issues when it comes to national politics.

now there you go writing common sense material. wow.

the Fundy Christians have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect a Supreme Court that will reverse Roe. It really is that simple. Anything is tolerated so long as Trump gives them what they paid for.

Any potus will be impotent (-: in trying to stop STATES from forcing bakers to bake, or avoiding the reality of gay marriage. Oberkfell was probably unnecessary because once 20 or so states recognized gay marriage, the others would have no choice but to recognize the marriages for divorce, property division and childcare.

The Court can stop the States from doing it, by defining the line between the right to commerce and the right to free exercise.

To me the line is at contracted services vs. point of sale services.

And what Obergfell should have done is allow States to not issue SSM licences if the so choose, but be forced to recognize SSM licenses from out of State, as they always had to do.

 

[jc456]

I agree with your post.

But honestly?

I don't think you read the full article.

That isn't what this is about.

This is about a voting block protecting their interests. If they have no representation, no one to protect their interests, they will continually be shafted.

I am sure that is good for YOUR POV, but, is it good for theirs?

I understand why they back Republicans in general, but Trump is beyond the pail morally. Supporting a guy that's so clearly immoral isn't going to lead to good things.

Besides it's pretty obvious that Trump doesn't believe most of the things he promises...he'll say anything to get elected.

Do you really believe that he's anti-abortion or do you think that he's only pretending?

I think they care more that even if he is sinful, he isn't pushing his sins on them, or asking them to accept or validate those sins.

I remember when the feminists were outraged at Billy using an intern for his pleasures in the oval office, yet they still supported him, b/c he was their best bet for pushing their issues. It is the same thing.

Different interest groups over look personal failings for larger political issues when it comes to national politics.

now there you go writing common sense material. wow.

the Fundy Christians have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect a Supreme Court that will reverse Roe. It really is that simple. Anything is tolerated so long as Trump gives them what they paid for.

Any potus will be impotent (-: in trying to stop STATES from forcing bakers to bake, or avoiding the reality of gay marriage. Oberkfell was probably unnecessary because once 20 or so states recognized gay marriage, the others would have no choice but to recognize the marriages for divorce, property division and childcare.

Roe reversed Roe

 

[badger2]

In #27, we thank Ding for helping us to see how George Washington used (or didn't use) his brain.

 

[Lysistrata]

Yet God is not in the constitution, and Washington was not a regular church goer, Jefferson an avowed Deist, and Adams, curiously converted to Unitarianism that even back then didn't hold with God directing events or even necessarily in Jesus being divine.

We were founded as a Christian nation. One nation UNDER GOD.

It wasn't called "The Age of Enlightenment " for nothing. Our founders were influenced by the humanist philosophers of the day, Locke, Paine, and Voltaire. They considered themselves modern thinkers... enlightened men. The constitution reflects this. The fundamentalists weren't given a seat at the table.

There were plenty of deeply religious men as part of the founding fathers, Quakers among them.

The Quakers would never have signed on to the crap we see from the evangelicals. You need to check out Quaker (Society of Friends) history.

They wouldn't have signed on themselves, but remember their core view was to each person finding their way to God.

Why would they condemn evangelicals their method of finding God?

This "method of finding God" has involved, among other things, violence and enslavement and mistreatment of others, interference with and domination of other people, and supreme arrogance. Quakers do not try to horn in on anyone else's choices as to "find" god, or not, and how to do it. They are respectful. One of their "core views," probably their single "core view" is to find "that of God" in all others and approach with humility.

Did you know that, among other things, the sexes were treated equally in the Quaker faith, the Quakers were one of the few respected by Native Peoples for their honesty and friendship, they played a large role in the Underground Railroad, and approached hitler as to how much it would take to ransom the Jews away from his murder machine?

 

[martybegan]

We were founded as a Christian nation. One nation UNDER GOD.

It wasn't called "The Age of Enlightenment " for nothing. Our founders were influenced by the humanist philosophers of the day, Locke, Paine, and Voltaire. They considered themselves modern thinkers... enlightened men. The constitution reflects this. The fundamentalists weren't given a seat at the table.

There were plenty of deeply religious men as part of the founding fathers, Quakers among them.

The Quakers would never have signed on to the crap we see from the evangelicals. You need to check out Quaker (Society of Friends) history.

They wouldn't have signed on themselves, but remember their core view was to each person finding their way to God.

Why would they condemn evangelicals their method of finding God?

This "method of finding God" has involved, among other things, violence and enslavement and mistreatment of others, interference with and domination of other people, and supreme arrogance. Quakers do not try to horn in on anyone else's choices as to "find" god, or not, and how to do it. They are respectful. One of their "core views," probably their single "core view" is to find "that of God" in all others and approach with humility.

Did you know that, among other things, the sexes were treated equally in the Quaker faith, the Quakers were one of the few respected by Native Peoples for their honesty and friendship, they played a large role in the Underground Railroad, and approached hitler as to how much it would take to ransom the Jews away from his murder machine?

People have done that without Religion, just ask the victims of Communism.

People like you would try to force Quakers to admit SSM into their churches if they didn't want it, so your admiration of them is quite comical.

 

[badger2]

Jefferson's "wall of separation" was forged from what was already learned from the European experience. Atheism was secreting from xianity perhaps as early as 1641.

 

[bendog]

I understand why they back Republicans in general, but Trump is beyond the pail morally. Supporting a guy that's so clearly immoral isn't going to lead to good things.

Besides it's pretty obvious that Trump doesn't believe most of the things he promises...he'll say anything to get elected.

Do you really believe that he's anti-abortion or do you think that he's only pretending?

I think they care more that even if he is sinful, he isn't pushing his sins on them, or asking them to accept or validate those sins.

I remember when the feminists were outraged at Billy using an intern for his pleasures in the oval office, yet they still supported him, b/c he was their best bet for pushing their issues. It is the same thing.

Different interest groups over look personal failings for larger political issues when it comes to national politics.

now there you go writing common sense material. wow.

the Fundy Christians have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect a Supreme Court that will reverse Roe. It really is that simple. Anything is tolerated so long as Trump gives them what they paid for.

Any potus will be impotent (-: in trying to stop STATES from forcing bakers to bake, or avoiding the reality of gay marriage. Oberkfell was probably unnecessary because once 20 or so states recognized gay marriage, the others would have no choice but to recognize the marriages for divorce, property division and childcare.

The Court can stop the States from doing it, by defining the line between the right to commerce and the right to free exercise.

To me the line is at contracted services vs. point of sale services.

And what Obergfell should have done is allow States to not issue SSM licences if the so choose, but be forced to recognize SSM licenses from out of State, as they always had to do.

The scotus has already found state public accomodations laws are OK. The SC gutted colo's by finding the state didn't give enough "respect" to the baker. Meanwhile the baker can be bankrupted. And colo can do it again any damn time it wants to.

 

[Hum Dinger]

So it seems that 'Evangelicals' are guided more by they're political views than by their 'Christian' beliefs.

Some excuse for a religion!

BTW - If they lived in a 'freedom robbing' state they wouldn't be either voting or practicing their 'religion' freely.

it's called self preservation.

When you demonize people, it tends to make them not trust you.

I don't 'demonize' Evangelicals. I just take objection to them calling themselves 'Christians'. From what I've seen of them they worship 'greed'.

They are antithetic to Christianity. They mock Christianity.

If they'd just admit that they were the church of greed it would be understandable that they support Trump.

Actions speak louder than words!

 

[Hum Dinger]

So it seems that 'Evangelicals' are guided more by they're political views than by their 'Christian' beliefs.

Some excuse for a religion!

BTW - If they lived in a 'freedom robbing' state they wouldn't be either voting or practicing their 'religion' freely.

so how does not backing a party that kills babies avoiding their religion? explain for us.

Not supporting Trump does not mean that they have to support the Democrats.

BTW - Do you really believe that Trump has never paid for an abortion? Really????

I agree with your post.

But honestly?

I don't think you read the full article.

That isn't what this is about.

This is about a voting block protecting their interests. If they have no representation, no one to protect their interests, they will continually be shafted.

I am sure that is good for YOUR POV, but, is it good for theirs?

I understand why they back Republicans in general, but Trump is beyond the pail morally. Supporting a guy that's so clearly immoral isn't going to lead to good things.

Besides it's pretty obvious that Trump doesn't believe most of the things he promises...he'll say anything to get elected.

Do you really believe that he's anti-abortion or do you think that he's only pretending?

I think they care more that even if he is sinful, he isn't pushing his sins on them, or asking them to accept or validate those sins.

By voting for him they ARE validating his 'sins'.

 

[jc456]

so how does not backing a party that kills babies avoiding their religion? explain for us.

Not supporting Trump does not mean that they have to support the Democrats.

BTW - Do you really believe that Trump has never paid for an abortion? Really????

I agree with your post.

But honestly?

I don't think you read the full article.

That isn't what this is about.

This is about a voting block protecting their interests. If they have no representation, no one to protect their interests, they will continually be shafted.

I am sure that is good for YOUR POV, but, is it good for theirs?

I understand why they back Republicans in general, but Trump is beyond the pail morally. Supporting a guy that's so clearly immoral isn't going to lead to good things.

Besides it's pretty obvious that Trump doesn't believe most of the things he promises...he'll say anything to get elected.

Do you really believe that he's anti-abortion or do you think that he's only pretending?

I think they care more that even if he is sinful, he isn't pushing his sins on them, or asking them to accept or validate those sins.

By voting for him they ARE validating his 'sins'.

who is without sin?

 

[martybegan]

I think they care more that even if he is sinful, he isn't pushing his sins on them, or asking them to accept or validate those sins.

I remember when the feminists were outraged at Billy using an intern for his pleasures in the oval office, yet they still supported him, b/c he was their best bet for pushing their issues. It is the same thing.

Different interest groups over look personal failings for larger political issues when it comes to national politics.

now there you go writing common sense material. wow.

the Fundy Christians have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect a Supreme Court that will reverse Roe. It really is that simple. Anything is tolerated so long as Trump gives them what they paid for.

Any potus will be impotent (-: in trying to stop STATES from forcing bakers to bake, or avoiding the reality of gay marriage. Oberkfell was probably unnecessary because once 20 or so states recognized gay marriage, the others would have no choice but to recognize the marriages for divorce, property division and childcare.

The Court can stop the States from doing it, by defining the line between the right to commerce and the right to free exercise.

To me the line is at contracted services vs. point of sale services.

And what Obergfell should have done is allow States to not issue SSM licences if the so choose, but be forced to recognize SSM licenses from out of State, as they always had to do.

The scotus has already found state public accomodations laws are OK. The SC gutted colo's by finding the state didn't give enough "respect" to the baker. Meanwhile the baker can be bankrupted. And colo can do it again any damn time it wants to.

PA laws are OK, but they have to take into account free exercise, which the Colorado Board didn't do.

This will get back to the SC to be clarified.

 

[martybegan]

So it seems that 'Evangelicals' are guided more by they're political views than by their 'Christian' beliefs.

Some excuse for a religion!

BTW - If they lived in a 'freedom robbing' state they wouldn't be either voting or practicing their 'religion' freely.

it's called self preservation.

When you demonize people, it tends to make them not trust you.

I don't 'demonize' Evangelicals. I just take objection to them calling themselves 'Christians'. From what I've seen of them they worship 'greed'.

They are antithetic to Christianity. They mock Christianity.

If they'd just admit that they were the church of greed it would be understandable that they support Trump.

Actions speak louder than words!

A jaded view from a jaded person with an agenda.

 

[jc456]

So it seems that 'Evangelicals' are guided more by they're political views than by their 'Christian' beliefs.

Some excuse for a religion!

BTW - If they lived in a 'freedom robbing' state they wouldn't be either voting or practicing their 'religion' freely.

it's called self preservation.

When you demonize people, it tends to make them not trust you.

I don't 'demonize' Evangelicals. I just take objection to them calling themselves 'Christians'. From what I've seen of them they worship 'greed'.

They are antithetic to Christianity. They mock Christianity.

If they'd just admit that they were the church of greed it would be understandable that they support Trump.

Actions speak louder than words!

when did you become god exactly? hmmmmmm it isn't your decision what they call themselves. are you them? you fks are strange fks.

 

[martybegan]

so how does not backing a party that kills babies avoiding their religion? explain for us.

Not supporting Trump does not mean that they have to support the Democrats.

BTW - Do you really believe that Trump has never paid for an abortion? Really????

I agree with your post.

But honestly?

I don't think you read the full article.

That isn't what this is about.

This is about a voting block protecting their interests. If they have no representation, no one to protect their interests, they will continually be shafted.

I am sure that is good for YOUR POV, but, is it good for theirs?

I understand why they back Republicans in general, but Trump is beyond the pail morally. Supporting a guy that's so clearly immoral isn't going to lead to good things.

Besides it's pretty obvious that Trump doesn't believe most of the things he promises...he'll say anything to get elected.

Do you really believe that he's anti-abortion or do you think that he's only pretending?

I think they care more that even if he is sinful, he isn't pushing his sins on them, or asking them to accept or validate those sins.

By voting for him they ARE validating his 'sins'.

Nope. Sorry, but voting for someone does not mean you agree with how they live their lives. Most of the time it means either you agree with their politics, or you detest the politics of their opponent.