Which Trump is certainly one of lol.
The American Constitution certainly was / is not geared toward the BLM crowd.
The American Republic was not meant to be a (according to your founding fathers) cushy, lukewarm, love and light, equal opportunity, welfare queen kind of nation.
The American constitution preambles that “all men were created equal” 
It was borrowed form the French Masonic motto:
Liberté, égalité, fraternité
and doesn’t mean what you think.
2 Likes
It appears–to me, at least–that (1) you have a severe distaste for “the Christian community,” irrespective of any outside factor; and that you are merely using this to sharpen that distaste; and (2) that you deeply wish that Christians (toward whom you apparently have a condescending view), in 2020, would vote for Joe Biden–or, at least, sit on their hands–and since neither seems likely, you are content to merely lash out at them.
That is not an especially civil (or even mature) response.
3 Likes
I don’t know what you mean by outside factor. I’m criticizing the Christian community for having been so upitty about morals and character during the Clinton presidency and completely abandoning them for Trump because he’s delivering the goods. And it’s an accurate and fair criticism…
Then let me, please, be clear.
It is my impression that you have a severe distaste for “the Christian community”; and that this is really not rooted in any hypocrisy on its part. (That merely provides a convenient excuse for your rhetorical battering of it.)
It is only “the Christian community” that you appear to find unsettling, due to its hypocrisy.
I have not, for instance, seen you be similarly upset by the hypocrisy of Joe Biden–as an example, he was first in favor of the Hyde Amendment; yet now he is against it (as his own party pushes him increasingly to the left; which is where he needed to reside, prior to his effectively sewing up the Democratic nomination).
Until you feel moved to criticize Joe Biden–and not just in some passing, perfunctory way, either–I will interpret you scathing criticism of “the Christian community” as something less than an entirely objective analysis…
2 Likes
Yes, you’ve continued to say that since the beginning of our conversation, despite me having centered my criticism on the evangelicals having made such a stink about Clinton’s lacking moral standards, while dismissing Trump’s, because he’s delivering the goods…
Aren’t evangelicals Christian-Zionist Israel-firsters?
They need to read Martin Luther.
(This reformer was a German. Not some black guy!)
1 Like
Yes, those who severely criticized then-President Clinton for his womanizing, but who give Donald Trump a free pass here, are being rather hypocritical.
I have said that before; and I will say it again:
They are being hypocritical. (At least, as regarding their morals.)
For some reason, you appear to think that I need to be convinced of this point.
But you seem to think–quite erroneously–that evangelicals place themselves above others, morally; and that they should, therefore, cast their votes based entirely upon the moral behavior of the candidates in question.
And that is wrong. Badly wrong.
Evangelicals–like all other Americans–cast their votes based upon a variety of issues. And if they feel that candidate X will adhere to policies that they prefer, and make federal-court appointments that they like, whereas candidate Y is not so likely to do those things, then they will vote for candidate X.
Now, in that, there is no hypocrisy.
The only hypocrisy comes in battering someone whose policies one does not like, for immoral behavior, while giving a pass to another person, whose policies one does like.
Well, not so much convinced, because the fact of it is a given. I just needed you to acknowledge it and now you have. And therefore I have nothing further to say on the matter other than given the SCOTUS ruling today, your earlier assertions in our conversation about the evangelicals being willing to swallow their character and moral argument to get the Supreme Court pics they want. It looks like they got screwed…
There is a vast difference between outcome and principles.
Sean Trende, in RealClearPolitics.com, puts it this way:
" [T]his may be counterintuitive to many, [but] this decision is fully consistent with conservative jurisprudence as it has developed over the past 50 years. While it does not deliver a conservative outcome, it is an example of smart lawyering delivering an exceedingly clever argument designed to appeal to the conservative justices.
"For years, conservative justices have worked to prohibit the court from attempting to divine congressional intent from statutes, and instead have focused on the statute’s text. This inhibits the liberal justices’ ability to broaden statutes’ reach based upon some broad principle enunciated by one or more legislators during the passage of the law. This practice is something that justices such as Brennan detested, recognizing that this would overall weaken the liberal project.
"Note that this stands in contrast to the conservative approach to constitutional interpretation, which focuses on the text and the intent of the Framers of our governing document and its amendments. An extreme example of this is 11th Amendment jurisprudence. The plain text of the amendment merely prevents states from being sued in federal court by a citizen of another state. It is clear from the context of the passage of that amendment, however, that it was intended to have a much broader reach. It is that understanding that conservatives emphasize when interpreting the amendment.
“Regardless, under contemporary conservative interpretive approaches, courts should look to the plain meaning of the statute, rather than trying to figure out what Congress really wanted to say. In this instance, that cuts against a conservative outcome. Everyone agrees that Congress did not intend to prohibit discrimination on the basis of transgender status or sexual orientation; an amendment to that effect likely would have received a handful of votes at best.”
Again: One can certainly make the case that this SCOTUS ruling was not in keeping with an outcome that will be likely to appeal to conservatives; but it was certainly based upon conservative principles of jurisprudence.
My point which should be glaringly obvious by now, is that the Christian Right who sat on a moral high horse during the Clinton years have prostituted themselves by swallowing Trump’s lack thereof in trade for judges, one of whom just took the court in a direction they aren’t happy with…
Just now?
Really?
Earlier in this thread, I said the following:
“There is certainly no paucity of hypocrites on both sides of the political spectrum.”
Apparently, however, you have blithely dismissed this…
Perhaps you think–oddly, I believe–that you have scored some points here.
But you just might wish to go back to an earlier post today, in this thread–the one that begins with the words, “There is a vast difference between outcome and principles.”
So the Supreme Court, today, actually reaffirmed conservative principles.
You seem to wish to consign evangelicals to a sort of religious ghetto, for lack of a better term–somewhere far outside the mainstream–and require them to vote accordingly, if they do not wish to “prostitute” themselves.
I seriously doubt that you would place such severe constraints upon non-evangelicals.
But you appear to think that evangelicals’ religious views should guide their vote-casting–in a way that it clearly does not for non-evangelicals.
1 Like