hostility for Trump

[creslaw]

As my profile says, I live in Australia & not a US citizen, so I get rather mystified by the personal vitriol that is expressed towards President Trump. Of course it happens here too but basically we are just too busy playing cricket & football to get too worked up about our pollies.

The first US president I became aware of as a young teenager was Kennedy ... and yes I remember where I was when he was shot. So over the years I have taken a distant interest in US politics, becoming more aware of things in recent years through forums such as this. Unless I am beginning to 'disremember' there is not a time I can recall when there was such personal animus for a president.

I suppose everyone is aware of Trump's character flaws but I am surprised how often he is abused on a personal level by those Christians who dislike him ... which actually sounds like hate to me. In Australia there is a tendency to avoid attacks on a politician's character though there have been notable exceptions (eg Barnaby Joyce).

It seems those who engage in attacking Trump's character, rather than just objectively criticizing his policies, do so on the basis that it is "the truth". I'm not actually asking whether it is "the truth" that Trump is all the bad things people say, but whether as Christians we ought to adopt a different approach.

 

[devin553344]

I agree, I see a lot of non-christian hate towards Trump:

Psalm 15:1-3 King James Version (KJV)
15 Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?

2 He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.

3 He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.

 

[childeye 2]

It seems those who engage in attacking Trump's character, rather than just objectively criticizing his policies, do so on the basis that it is "the truth". I'm not actually asking whether it is "the truth" that Trump is all the bad things people say, but whether as Christians we ought to adopt a different approach.

It's unreasonable to attack people who point out the truth of someone's ungodly character, particularly when that person holds great power and their policies reflect that character. Perhaps you should ask yourself if it's true before calling it personal vitriol.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

As my profile says, I live in Australia & not a US citizen, so I get rather mystified by the personal vitriol that is expressed towards President Trump. Of course it happens here too but basically we are just too busy playing cricket & football to get too worked up about our pollies.

The first US president I became aware of as a young teenager was Kennedy ... and yes I remember where I was when he was shot. So over the years I have taken a distant interest in US politics, becoming more aware of things in recent years through forums such as this. Unless I am beginning to 'disremember' there is not a time I can recall when there was such personal animus for a president.

I suppose everyone is aware of Trump's character flaws but I am surprised how often he is abused on a personal level by those Christians who dislike him ... which actually sounds like hate to me. In Australia there is a tendency to avoid attacks on a politician's character though there have been notable exceptions (eg Barnaby Joyce).

It seems those who engage in attacking Trump's character, rather than just objectively criticizing his policies, do so on the basis that it is "the truth". I'm not actually asking whether it is "the truth" that Trump is all the bad things people say, but whether as Christians we ought to adopt a different approach.

I think it all has to do with politics. Many didn't expect him to win the election, and they have been trying to undermine him ever since. They are concentrating on his faults, and ignoring the overwhelming positive things he has been doing for the nation.

He is a businessman, and so has a different way of doing things than most politicians. He makes his decisions on the basis of what proves to be successful; and he is being successful. Therefore a lot of the opposition against him is just plain jealousy.

 

[bèlla]

I think some Christians feel justified to make unkind remarks because of his flaws. I suppose they apply different criteria to everyone else.

For some, he’s become an obsession. They spend endless time debating, arguing, and immersing themselves in all he does. I couldn’t imagine living like that (or with it for that matter).

 

[childeye 2]

I think it all has to do with politics. Many didn't expect him to win the election, and they have been trying to undermine him ever since. They are concentrating on his faults, and ignoring the overwhelming positive things he has been doing for the nation.

He is a businessman, and so has a different way of doing things than most politicians. He makes his decisions on the basis of what proves to be successful; and he is being successful. Therefore a lot of the opposition against him is just plain jealousy.

The carnal mind sees success and failure differently than the spiritual mind. Hence according to the spiritual mind the greatest is the one who serves the rest, while to the carnal mind the greatest is the one being served by the rest.

Trump says he's the greatest ever. When Trump says America first, and we will get Mexico to pay for the wall and shut out the poor seeking refuge here, and that he doesn't want to let in people from expletive nations, his words reveal everything about which mind he has. It's a shame so many cheer such folly.

Believe me, no spiritual person is jealous of Mr. Trump, and therefore no spiritual person would project such an insinuation onto others.

 

[creslaw]

I think it all has to do with politics. Many didn't expect him to win the election, and they have been trying to undermine him ever since. They are concentrating on his faults, and ignoring the overwhelming positive things he has been doing for the nation.

He is a businessman, and so has a different way of doing things than most politicians. He makes his decisions on the basis of what proves to be successful; and he is being successful. Therefore a lot of the opposition against him is just plain jealousy.

I think some take the position that Trump is bad for the nation therefore he can be removed by fair means or foul. I understand politicians taking that view, but not Christians.

 

[creslaw]

Trump says he's the greatest ever. When Trump says America first, and we will get Mexico to pay for the wall and shut out the poor seeking refuge here, and that he doesn't want to let in people from expletive nations, his words reveal everything about which mind he has. It's a shame so many cheer such folly.

You really can't see that you are casting yourself in the role of "mind reader" which means you are placing a derogatory interpretation on the words because of your personal dislike of the man. Have you even considered a different explanation?

 

[Tom 1]

Barnaby Joyce

What was the story with this guy?

 

[Tom 1]

I think some take the position that Trump is bad for the nation therefore he can be removed by fair means or foul. I understand politicians taking that view, but not Christians.

Actually the opposition party has been reluctant to try and 'remove' him, aware of the mess it will create, but he has kind of forced their hand through his openly corrupt behaviour.

 

[Not David]

Even though I disagree with some of his policies and personality, I get to dislike petty attacks against him more.

I just wish there could be some prominent Conservative who could stay strong for Social Conservatism.

 

[childeye 2]

You really can't see that you are casting yourself in the role of "mind reader" which means you are placing a derogatory interpretation on the words because of your personal dislike of the man. Have you even considered a different explanation?

I study semantics, propaganda, sophistry, and psychological manipulation. I've done so most all of my life. It's the sentiments being expressed behind the words that matter to me.

Hence I can tell you that what comes out of one's mouth reveals what's in the heart and mind. In this sense I indeed can see that I am reading someone's mind when I examine their words seeking to understand their meaning. And I am keenly aware of conjecture based on false premises.

For example, when you say definitively, "Which means" I am placing a derogatory interpretation on the words because of my personal dislike for the man, your reasoning is based on the premise that I can't see that I am casting myself as a mind reader. Since I have already admitted that I am reading someone's thoughts according to the sentiments they express in their words, then such a conclusion is invalid.

Moreover you state as definitive another unproven premise based on the invalid conclusion, which is that I place a derogatory interpretation on his words because I dislike the man, as if somehow I have a dislike of the man's words before he even said anything. That makes your sentiment an insinuation which isn't reasonable to be presented as definitive.

Finally, you ask if I have even considered a different explanation. Why should I not take him at his word when he says I will get Mexico to pay for the wall? It's not my interpretation that makes it derogatory to Trump, it's my belief that it's wrong to find a way to get someone else to pay for my stuff.

 

[Blade]

"by those Christians who dislike him ... which actually sounds like hate to me." Your not alone.. some of us notice it also. So.. still praying for him.. AND others

 

[creslaw]

I study semantics, propaganda, sophistry, and psychological manipulation. I've done so most all of my life. It's the sentiments being expressed behind the words that matter to me. Hence I can tell you that what comes out of one's mouth reveals what's in the heart and mind.

In this sense I indeed can see that I am reading someone's mind when I examine their words seeking to understand their meaning. And I am keenly aware of conjecture based on false premises.

For example, when you say definitively, "Which means" I am placing a derogatory interpretation on the words because of my personal dislike for the man, your reasoning is based on the premise that I can't see that I am casting myself as a mind reader. Since I have already admitted that I am reading someone's thoughts according to the sentiments they express in their words, then such a conclusion is invalid. Moreover you state as definitive another unproven premise, which is that I place a derogatory interpretation on his words because I dislike the man, as if somehow I have a dislike of the man's words before he even said anything.

Finally, you ask if I have even considered a different explanation. Why should I not take him at his word when he says I will get Mexico to pay for the wall? It's not my interpretation that makes it derogatory to Trump, it's my belief that it's wrong to find a way to get someone else to pay for my stuff.

Sorry, that mind reading stuff just doesn't fly. Your views are based on the information you receive, and it is important to be aware that all sources are biased. Unless you consider a range of explanations in any situation you are simply acting out your own bias.

Don't get hung up on "pay for the wall", there are a range of ways that can be accomplished. More important is the control of the border, which both sides support, and the rate of immigration intake & refugee intake, and both side believes in limits. When you start to cry 'racism' because of differences in policy, that is a personal attack.

 

[creslaw]

Actually the opposition party has been reluctant to try and 'remove' him, aware of the mess it will create, but he has kind of forced their hand through his openly corrupt behaviour.

"openly corrupt behaviour" is a personal attack ... it is not an objective criticism of the actions.

 

[childeye 2]

Sorry, that mind reading stuff just doesn't fly. Your views are based on the information you receive, and it is important to be aware that all sources are biased.

What you call mind reading stuff is simply listening to what Donald Trump says, and while my views are of his words, there are no other sources.

Don't get hung up on "pay for the wall", there are a range of ways that can be accomplished.

The only thing I'm hung up on is loving others as I would want to be loved. Getting others to pay for my stuff is simply in violation of that.

More important is the control of the border, which both sides support, and the rate of immigration intake & refugee intake, and both side believes in limits. When you start to cry 'racism' because of differences in policy, that is a personal attack.

I don't cry racism because of differences of policy, I simply point out that not wanting to let in people from expletive countries is discrimination according to country of origin. That's classic racism. I don't care what both sides want, I care about other people who are suffering. I care what God wants.

 

[childeye 2]

"openly corrupt behaviour" is a personal attack ... it is not an objective criticism of the actions.

Objectively speaking, it's not reasonable to blame the nose for the stink.

 

[Tom 1]

"openly corrupt behaviour" is a personal attack ... it is not an objective criticism of the actions.

I don't see it that way - there are enough examples of corrupt behaviour that can quite easily be looked into, there's no mystery about it.

 

[creslaw]

What you call mind reading stuff is simply listening to what Donald Trump says, and while my views are of his words, there are no other sources.

The only thing I'm hung up on is loving others as I would want to be loved. Getting others to pay for my stuff is simply in violation of that.

I don't cry racism because of differences of policy, I simply point out that not wanting to let in people from expletive countries is discrimination according to country of origin. That's classic racism. I don't care what both sides want, I care about other people who are suffering.

If you understood how immigration & refugee intakes work you would have more insight. Immigrants are assessed according to criteria and there are caps. Every sensible politician on both sides knows that. Most countries assess applicants according to the needs of the country accepting the immigrants because there are always more applicants than places. Refugees are assessed by the UN according to their personal safety. Selecting & screening immigrants & refugees is not racist, it is universal policy and varies from country to country.

It seems you are offended because the president said "s...hole countries" instead of dysfunctional countries or some other word to describe the conditions in some countries ... ok, but don't try to make it a slur against the people in those countries ... that is just looking for racism because of your bias.

It is not dissimilar to taking the words "there are good people on both sides" and spinning it into a racist comment without taking the time to examine the whole context and what was actually being said.

Calling someone you dislike a racist is a personal attack. Disagreeing with the policy on immigrants, refugees & asylum seekers does not mean you have to stoop to that level.

 

[creslaw]

I don't see it that way - there are enough examples of corrupt behaviour that can quite easily be looked into, there's no mystery about it.

Your attitude is what my OP was addressing - because you think something is true because of the sources you have used, you then think you have the right to accuse a person of corrupt behaviour. It's really no difference to calling people names and I am suggesting Christians can do better than that.