Political Roundtable Part XXVII

[Pointgod]

fantastic.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/20/trump-criticizes-christian-evangelical-magazine-for-impeachment-stance.html

Someone needs to forward this to daoneandonly

To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?

That's poignant, no denying that. I know everyone on here will conveinently ignore the part about abortion being a great evil, and just cherry pick form the rest of it, but the paragraph as a whole should be taken to heart and discussed. Its an opinion piece of course, but its a very valid opinion where you can extrapolate a lot of truth.

You called me out speficially, weird considering you said I was not important enough for you to have an opinion about, but nonetheless, I never claimed to be a trump apologist or avid follower. I voted for the candidate of the 4 that once again had the higher moral makeup, its not my fault that was due to the other 3 being degenerates, blame the general public for that one.

Trump on every single criteria whether based on previous Conservative or Liberal standards is an absolute moral failure. You continuing to just make up some **** doesn’t change anything. The problem that Evangelicals like yourself will just continue to move goal posts. I remember I asked you where the line was to get Conservative judges and control women’s bodies. Would you support a President who was a murderer? Would you support Hitler if he was against abortion? You supported a man who persecutes religious people by banning Muslims from the country, you supported a man who is putting Christian children in cages. Evangelicals have sold their soul and the price came cheap.

[Pointgod]

Umm, I'm all aboard the Pence train, you havent and wont see me up in arms about the impeachment if it ultimately leads to Pence taking over, win, win, and win!

Literally nobody is "all aboard the Pence train" - there is absolutely zero groundswell for impeachment among evangelicals, aside from one op-ed. Any thoughts as to why that is?

I can only speak for myself, and I'd take Pence over Trump 10 times out of 10. I'm spitballing here, but perhaps many feel they owe Trump a little something for the policies he has put in place, maybe they feel cutting ties with him will ensure a Democratic win (which will result in a complete curb stomp and spit in the face of everything Christians stand for), or for not letting the likes of China bulldoze over us like previous admins. Speaking of which

you say choir boy like its a bad thing. What would be so bad about having a President that actually has some moral fiber to him, a President with some real scruples and integrity. I mean when was the last time we had that? Papa Bush maybe?

Americans had one and people couldn’t handle the fact that he was a black man.

[daoneandonly]

Someone needs to forward this to daoneandonly

That's poignant, no denying that. I know everyone on here will conveinently ignore the part about abortion being a great evil, and just cherry pick form the rest of it, but the paragraph as a whole should be taken to heart and discussed. Its an opinion piece of course, but its a very valid opinion where you can extrapolate a lot of truth.

You called me out speficially, weird considering you said I was not important enough for you to have an opinion about, but nonetheless, I never claimed to be a trump apologist or avid follower. I voted for the candidate of the 4 that once again had the higher moral makeup, its not my fault that was due to the other 3 being degenerates, blame the general public for that one.

Trump on every single criteria whether based on previous Conservative or Liberal standards is an absolute moral failure. You continuing to just make up some **** doesn’t change anything. The problem that Evangelicals like yourself will just continue to move goal posts. I remember I asked you where the line was to get Conservative judges and control women’s bodies. Would you support a President who was a murderer? Would you support Hitler if he was against abortion? You supported a man who persecutes religious people by banning Muslims from the country, you supported a man who is putting Christian children in cages. Evangelicals have sold their soul and the price came cheap.

No thats not the case at all. Evangelists didnt hand the nomination to Trump, but after he was indeed the nominee, what do you propose we do? Just boycott the election so Hillary could win and watch as the the Liberal agenda of eliminating all accountability (abortion, illegal immigration, criminal justice) once and for all. Trump was the only chocie in the general election, and as such we had no other choice.

[daoneandonly]

Literally nobody is "all aboard the Pence train" - there is absolutely zero groundswell for impeachment among evangelicals, aside from one op-ed. Any thoughts as to why that is?

I can only speak for myself, and I'd take Pence over Trump 10 times out of 10. I'm spitballing here, but perhaps many feel they owe Trump a little something for the policies he has put in place, maybe they feel cutting ties with him will ensure a Democratic win (which will result in a complete curb stomp and spit in the face of everything Christians stand for), or for not letting the likes of China bulldoze over us like previous admins. Speaking of which

you say choir boy like its a bad thing. What would be so bad about having a President that actually has some moral fiber to him, a President with some real scruples and integrity. I mean when was the last time we had that? Papa Bush maybe?

Americans had one and people couldn’t handle the fact that he was a black man.

Nah he was far far from it, hsi most liked tweet from way back when proved that alone. And he's only 1/2 black, pretty sure the other half is as white as the other guys at the table.

[gtn130]

maybe they feel cutting ties with him will ensure a Democratic win (which will result in a complete curb stomp and spit in the face of everything Christians stand for)

I dunno, man, maybe if you can't win elections by espousing evangelical values, you shouldn't feel entitled to setting the sociopolitical agenda for the entire country?

not letting the likes of China bulldoze over us like previous admins.

What good has come from Trump's China policy?

you say choir boy like its a bad thing.

I say "choir boy" because most religious figures in politics are completely FOS performance artists.

What would be so bad about having a President that actually has some moral fiber to him, a President with some real scruples and integrity. I mean when was the last time we had that? Papa Bush maybe?

I'm not going to argue with you over which Presidents were moral, but maybe you should campaign for Pence if you believe the stuff you're saying instead of defending Trump or bothsidesing everything at every turn.

[TheBabyMaker]

Some folks think Obama was/is Black, OK.

[queridiculo]

Umm, I'm all aboard the Pence train, you havent and wont see me up in arms about the impeachment if it ultimately leads to Pence taking over, win, win, and win!

Literally nobody is "all aboard the Pence train" - there is absolutely zero groundswell for impeachment among evangelicals, aside from one op-ed. Any thoughts as to why that is?

Single issue voting, or as the one and only **** face would call it, baby killing.

[daoneandonly]

Damn right, one issue Trumps all, oh pun so intended

[Pointgod]

That's poignant, no denying that. I know everyone on here will conveinently ignore the part about abortion being a great evil, and just cherry pick form the rest of it, but the paragraph as a whole should be taken to heart and discussed. Its an opinion piece of course, but its a very valid opinion where you can extrapolate a lot of truth.

You called me out speficially, weird considering you said I was not important enough for you to have an opinion about, but nonetheless, I never claimed to be a trump apologist or avid follower. I voted for the candidate of the 4 that once again had the higher moral makeup, its not my fault that was due to the other 3 being degenerates, blame the general public for that one.

Trump on every single criteria whether based on previous Conservative or Liberal standards is an absolute moral failure. You continuing to just make up some **** doesn’t change anything. The problem that Evangelicals like yourself will just continue to move goal posts. I remember I asked you where the line was to get Conservative judges and control women’s bodies. Would you support a President who was a murderer? Would you support Hitler if he was against abortion? You supported a man who persecutes religious people by banning Muslims from the country, you supported a man who is putting Christian children in cages. Evangelicals have sold their soul and the price came cheap.

No thats not the case at all. Evangelists didnt hand the nomination to Trump, but after he was indeed the nominee, what do you propose we do? Just boycott the election so Hillary could win and watch as the the Liberal agenda of eliminating all accountability (abortion, illegal immigration, criminal justice) once and for all. Trump was the only chocie in the general election, and as such we had no other choice.

Yes! Sit out or leave the top of the ticket empty. You can’t on one hand claim some moral superiority then full throatedly support Trump. At least you finally admit that Evangelicals sold their souls and admitted that power>religion. 4 years of Hillary Clinton would in no way affect how Christians practice their religion. This is 100% propaganda and bull.

Don’t give me this crap about you had no choice.

[pancakes3]

it's like freaking beetlejuice or candyman. say his name x number of times and he WILL appear.

[daoneandonly]

Trump on every single criteria whether based on previous Conservative or Liberal standards is an absolute moral failure. You continuing to just make up some **** doesn’t change anything. The problem that Evangelicals like yourself will just continue to move goal posts. I remember I asked you where the line was to get Conservative judges and control women’s bodies. Would you support a President who was a murderer? Would you support Hitler if he was against abortion? You supported a man who persecutes religious people by banning Muslims from the country, you supported a man who is putting Christian children in cages. Evangelicals have sold their soul and the price came cheap.

No thats not the case at all. Evangelists didnt hand the nomination to Trump, but after he was indeed the nominee, what do you propose we do? Just boycott the election so Hillary could win and watch as the the Liberal agenda of eliminating all accountability (abortion, illegal immigration, criminal justice) once and for all. Trump was the only chocie in the general election, and as such we had no other choice.

Yes! Sit out or leave the top of the ticket empty. You can’t on one hand claim some moral superiority then full throatedly support Trump. At least you finally admit that Evangelicals sold their souls and admitted that power>religion. 4 years of Hillary Clinton would in no way affect how Christians practice their religion. This is 100% propaganda and bull.

Don’t give me this crap about you had no choice.

Bull dookie.

4 years of Clinton puts 2 more liberals in the SCOTUS, essentially making abortion clinics and access to get them as common as Starbucks, but cheaper. 4 years of Clinton means amnesty for all illegal immigrants, we Christians have a thing about abiding by the laws the government puts forth. 4 years of Clinton would have put more criminals on the streets, putting good citizens in greater danger.

[Pointgod]

No thats not the case at all. Evangelists didnt hand the nomination to Trump, but after he was indeed the nominee, what do you propose we do? Just boycott the election so Hillary could win and watch as the the Liberal agenda of eliminating all accountability (abortion, illegal immigration, criminal justice) once and for all. Trump was the only chocie in the general election, and as such we had no other choice.

Yes! Sit out or leave the top of the ticket empty. You can’t on one hand claim some moral superiority then full throatedly support Trump. At least you finally admit that Evangelicals sold their souls and admitted that power>religion. 4 years of Hillary Clinton would in no way affect how Christians practice their religion. This is 100% propaganda and bull.

Don’t give me this crap about you had no choice.

Bull dookie.

4 years of Clinton puts 2 more liberals in the SCOTUS, essentially making abortion clinics and access to get them as common as Starbucks, but cheaper. 4 years of Clinton means amnesty for all illegal immigrants, we Christians have a thing about abiding by the laws the government puts forth. 4 years of Clinton would have put more criminals on the streets, putting good citizens in greater danger.

Then why are you trying to overturn Roe vs Wade? Everything you wrote is ridiculously silly and honestly pretty **** stupid. If you said that outside of your Conservative bubble you’d be laughed at thoroughly.

[Pointgod]

also realize that ain't nobody gonna change no minds re: trump. it's almost 2020. if you're not on board the nevertrump train, then BYE.

it's not like Da1's sitting there stroking his beard thinking "man, i really want to vote Dem but here they go again, impeaching people. but for this impeachment, i was going to really give it a principled look and weigh the pros and cons of each candidate."

and Da1's one of the guys who can admit that Trump is bad. just not as bad as Warren/Sanders/Clinton. There are real sycophants out there who think he's the messiah.

if you want to hit "independents" you have to make it real clear to them re: their wallets.

1) You won't have insurance deducted from your wages with M4A so even if taxes increase, you end up with more money in your pocket.
2) Taxes will only go up for Corps and mega wealth. If you're a 200k guy, your taxes will not go up.
3) Corps are straight up STEALING YOUR MONEY. The dow jones has quadrupled since the 2008 recession. has your paycheck?
4) Student debt isn't about lazy kids not living up to their obligations but rather a broken system where you need money to make money.

and of course hitting trump back with concise, (leading) unweasle-able soundbytes.
"Oh really? We're respected? What about the EU leaders laughing at you?"
"Oh really, we're safe? How's NK going for you?"
"What toilets? What water regs? When did the regs go in effect? 1995 you say? People have been flushing 10-15x for 25 years now? And you're just now bringing it up?"
"We know Russia interfered with the election. What are you doing about it?"

I’m with you on everything except for the M4A policy. Democrats need to absolutely change the messaging on this because although what you’ve said is true, it’s a political land mine. M4A will is 1000% better than the current system, it will also reduce costs in the long run but as long as people think they’ll lose their private insurance it’s a loser.

[dobrojim]

Words fail. Amazing, and not in a good way.

[pancakes3]

also realize that ain't nobody gonna change no minds re: trump. it's almost 2020. if you're not on board the nevertrump train, then BYE.

it's not like Da1's sitting there stroking his beard thinking "man, i really want to vote Dem but here they go again, impeaching people. but for this impeachment, i was going to really give it a principled look and weigh the pros and cons of each candidate."

and Da1's one of the guys who can admit that Trump is bad. just not as bad as Warren/Sanders/Clinton. There are real sycophants out there who think he's the messiah.

if you want to hit "independents" you have to make it real clear to them re: their wallets.

1) You won't have insurance deducted from your wages with M4A so even if taxes increase, you end up with more money in your pocket.
2) Taxes will only go up for Corps and mega wealth. If you're a 200k guy, your taxes will not go up.
3) Corps are straight up STEALING YOUR MONEY. The dow jones has quadrupled since the 2008 recession. has your paycheck?
4) Student debt isn't about lazy kids not living up to their obligations but rather a broken system where you need money to make money.

and of course hitting trump back with concise, (leading) unweasle-able soundbytes.
"Oh really? We're respected? What about the EU leaders laughing at you?"
"Oh really, we're safe? How's NK going for you?"
"What toilets? What water regs? When did the regs go in effect? 1995 you say? People have been flushing 10-15x for 25 years now? And you're just now bringing it up?"
"We know Russia interfered with the election. What are you doing about it?"

I’m with you on everything except for the M4A policy. Democrats need to absolutely change the messaging on this because although what you’ve said is true, it’s a political land mine. M4A will is 1000% better than the current system, it will also reduce costs in the long run but as long as people think they’ll lose their private insurance it’s a loser.

on one hand i get the argument that people are hurr durr taxes...

on the other, if you can't grasp a 2-step, compound thought, there's really no reasoning with you to begin with.

[dobrojim]

As a purely political matter as well as arguably a practical one, transitioning
to a fully public system from a private one might be better accomplished
by initially allowing the 2 to compete against each other. I'll be the first to admit
that I'm not well read as far as what subject matter experts say about this.
And I am biased towards a fully public system. On its face it just seems
like M4A, if imposed across the board, isn't going to sell well enough as
a proposal to create the political force necessary to make it happen.
If you don't get elected, neither is going to happen. All that said, the Dems biggest
advantage overall may be that the GOP, led by DJT's compulsive hatred
of all things Obama, continues to fight against broadly popular notions
that health care is a right (and that ACA is a complete failure).
That's not selling at all.

[dckingsfan]

Now will you be so kind as to do the same for the liberals in yesterday's debate who taked about ripping a baby away from a mother's arms at the border with such outrage, but in the same breath have no problem with dismembering a baby in the womb if the mother sees fit?

To this I would ask you to respond with remedy. And I have pointed out the absurdity of another war using the industrial prison complex to lock folks up.

I have already pointed out that abortion rates are falling quickly with what we are doing - they would fall even faster if the right would get on board.

So, what is your answer?

Quickly is subjective, and not zero, cero, nada, zip, whatever verbiage describes it as not being a thing, which is where it should be. The remedy is what i said, to make it illegal. You make it illegal, and those numbers clearly exponentially decrease

Actually not - abortion has been going on a long-time (try 1000s of years). Then take a look at modern history, we are at the lowest level.

So, you would make it illegal, incarcerate (probably millions) and abortion rates (for those not incarcerated won't go down, especially with RU486). Then what? You are telling me your plan will immediately take abortions to zero. You are lying to yourself.

Your only answer is no answer - still. Those evil liberals are actually reducing abortion rates - better not vote for them...

[dckingsfan]

As a purely political matter as well as arguably a practical one, transitioning to a fully public system from a private one might be better accomplished by initially allowing the 2 to compete against each other. I'll be the first to admit
that I'm not well read as far as what subject matter experts say about this.And I am biased towards a fully public system. On its face it just seems like M4A, if imposed across the board, isn't going to sell well enough as a proposal to create the political force necessary to make it happen.

If you don't get elected, neither is going to happen. All that said, the Dems biggest advantage overall may be that the GOP, led by DJT's compulsive hatred of all things Obama, continues to fight against broadly popular notions that health care is a right (and that ACA is a complete failure).

That's not selling at all.

This - look how long it took Canada to transition. I think we are slightly bigger than they are...

And look at the polls - Medicare for those that want it is way outpolling M4A right now.

[Zonkerbl]

I have a friend I just visited in Ohio who is a pastor at a Presbyterian church in my socialist home town. She was a Unitarian Universalist before because she's married to a woman and wouldn't have been allowed to be a pastor, but the Presbyterian church recently decided to allow gay marriages and gay pastors, so she jumped in feet first, with great enthusiasm.

Problem is, her flock is small and shrinking. Despite the huge number of super liberal churches in urban areas, the perception of religion is dictated by Fox News, so instead of joining a liberal church and banding together to do good, liberals just reject religion altogether, which I think is a shame. Community building is important, particularly when facing something is apocalyptically evil as the billionaire puppeteers behind Fox News and their toadies, Evangelical Christians.

Non-evil churches DO NOT PARTICIPATE in politics, and so the evil ones get to dictate the narrative - firing up the hate and fear of their tribe, and turning otherwise religion-friendly liberals off, driving a stake in our ability to organize. Say what you will about Buttigieg, but I believe part of his appeal is that he gives liberal Christians a voice.

What I suggested to her is that we set up a national, good news cable news channel that does nothing but report on the good works that are done by liberal churches. Nothing political, just focus on religious charitable work in urban areas. And showcase things like gay marriage ceremonies, Muslim-Jewish "exchange programs," where the Muslims visit the Temple ceremonies and vice versa, and other unexpected, non-traditional things that churches and mosques and temples and etc. are doing.

[dobrojim]

FWIW, I attend a Quaker meeting. As a religious org, we do not participate in
'partisan' politics and I think it would be fair for us to lose our religious tax
exemption if we did. But we absolutely advocate for causes that we believe in.