Reasons not to support Trump and the Republican Party

lordjeff · Apr 8, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
I give you credit for being logically consistent, which most "pro-life" advocates are not. If a fetus in the womb is exactly identical to a baby outside the womb, then one must indeed conclude that an abortion doctor is a murderer-for-hire, and the woman who paid the doctor to kill her baby is no different from somebody who hires a hit man to kill somebody. This makes both of them guilty of a capital crime. You are absolutely right. And you are fully entitled to your opinion, which then should guide your own personal actions if you should one day discover that your wife is pregnant by rape.

However, you should be aware that until at least 1973 the Southern Baptist Church did not agree with your position. In January of that year the Baptist Press ran an editorial praising Roe v Wade as being a victory for freedom of conscience and religious liberty. And prior to 1869 the Catholic Church did not consider abortion to be a crime. The claim that the Catholic Church has always agreed with the Hippocratic Oath (which does condemn abortion) is simply not true.

So, you are entitled to your opinion. But I, and the great majority of Americans, and even a majority of Christians who call themselves "pro-life" do not agree with you. Not even the Alabama legislature, which recently passed the strictest anti-abortion law so far, is fully in agreement with your position. Alabama House Bill 314 finds the doctor guilty of a felony, but does not criminalize the woman who hired the doctor. It seems that nobody is willing to go that far.

lordjeff · Apr 8, 2020

Again abortion is a tough issue. I do think Roe was erroneously decided & it has nothing to do with the Constitution. Remember it was a Supreme Court decided or made up law. Yes I'd call it a sin but i don't buy into this mythology that all these women end up in hell. If it weren't human cells in the first place, it would not be human. Unfortunately rape exists in civilization; we can't stop it so can we devise a middle of the road approach.

lordjeff · Apr 8, 2020

We're talking of charity here, then how about the issue of charities & can they be trusted or have they evolved into something that lost its original mission. We see this with disease charities. Would not we all want a cure for disease X or instead do we treat the effect & just send the money to the next patient but we lose track of the cure. You'd be surprised that in some charity jobs, the chief fundraiser gets a pretty big paycheck. And then again in recent years, the money off the top does not go to the cause it goes to a 6 figure income ceo or in recent practice it's going to pay the lobbyist they are going to hire to go goad Congress.

lordjeff · Apr 8, 2020

SimplyMe said:
To paraphrase a bit -- Where did Jesus or the Apostles command that the individual give their charitable responsibilities to the Church? Where is there any sort of command in the New Testament for a church-run welfare system?

Christs commands in the Bible were for individual Christians to give to the poor, not the Church. Yet we have no issue with acting as if the Church giving to the poor is in line with Christ's commands -- so why is the government, which is also not mentioned, not also allowable?

And, sure, the government taxes your pay; but we, as Americans, decide where that money goes -- maybe not as directly as you would like, but probably more directly than you get to decide how your Church spends the money they collect.

Last, this "dependence" thing is based on false understanding -- particularly since Welfare reform under Pres. Clinton. You realize there is a maximum amount of lifetime benefits that people can receive of 5 years (60 months) under the federal welfare program? I trust you also realize that there are various training programs to help those on welfare, and even before people need to go on welfare, to get trained for jobs and become self-sufficient?

Last, I don't recall Christ every telling us we should "judge" the poor, and not donate or help them if they aren't living the lives they should. In fact, it almost seems to be the opposite, with Christ telling us not to judge others and his ministry to the "sinners" (harlots and publicans) of his time (as viewed by the religious establishment).

This feels a lot like a strawman, talking about this "progressive wing" that all have identical viewpoints that you oppose. It is no different than Democrats strawmanning the "far right" or "alt right" of the Republican party. Nowhere do I see him say that we should always support Democrats -- in fact, in a post further down he clarifies he did not mean that.

Instead, I think this building of 'straw men' by both sides is a large part of the issue. We are to a point where we debate "politics" -- as in which party is more correct -- rather than the issues, and how we can come together as a country and fix the individual issues. Neither side is nearly as far apart as what the straw man position, built by the other side, would make it appear to be.

It's often been argued that the business of welfare be turned over to non-profits under the idea that people who work for churches or non-profits are more compassionate & not bureaucratic. Then too don't forget in Christ' admonition to the paralytic, he was speaking about his poverty of spirit. And this poverty of spirit does exist. We all tend to be more generous & courteous with a humble poor person vs a person who is giving the appearance that they are pulling a fast one on you. But part of the argument I make for the human spirit is it's very dehumanizing to create a system that arguably has poorly designed avenues to improve oneself & is designed to keep one between a rock & a hard place. One of the best waivers my state did came at the behest of an engineer who was afflicted with paralysis. He still had a brain & he could sit at the computer & read blueprints & draw but he required a lot of care & could only get a round in a wheelchair. So his problem was he could not get insurance & he wanted desperately to work & still get care. So in 1 legislative session, we designed the Working Disabled Waiver. This waiver broadened the income limit to $75000 a year & an asset limit to $8000. This man was the first grant. So this program was a win-win for society & the client. He is able to get his claims paid, still work & earn a decent pay check, still pay taxes into the system, & we keep him out of a nursing home.

lordjeff · Apr 8, 2020

Allandavid said:
How about not supporting someone so incredibly childish and vindictive...

Again we see a display of the utmost cowardice in the face of legitimately asked questions...

Please remove this stain....

What I'd have to ask in this clip: is why is everything Trump's responsibility? Supply lines really? Is he the purchasing officer for a hospital or is he the person who rolls the plastic hydrocarbons into the mold that then spits out the syringe & is he the metrologist that creates & checks all the measurements? Thru this whole pandemic these are all gotcha questions. Do you know where those gowns come from? Do you know which is the order of disinfectants that public hygienists use after the ICU room is cleared? Do you know what they are serving in the cafetaria today? By the way which computer language are they using in your school district to deliver the distance learning? The president does not occupy those roles. Gee if this was Obama they would be fawing all over him & all we would get is this: I just learned on the news; those docs & nurses & RTs-they are not responsible for any cures or good results it's the people who built the roads that get one to the hospital.

lordjeff · Apr 8, 2020

Notice in all these pandemic aid packages being allocated to the populate, personally I see it offers an insight of something our society must face & that is you cannot outsource your country on the cheap. I do worry about where the national debt is going because China holds a lot of it & we have congresspeople be/c it's an election year wants to look like Santa Claus. That's always their 1st concern-getting re-elected. They're treating just the effect. I think as a matter of national security that all industries & as many jobs as possible come back here (at least 90%). We're just printing money. If we can bring back those job roles, this will create opportunity here. In turn that will bring in withholding tax & FICA tax & eventually property tax. I'd like to see the day where HR officers are standing on some street with a sign we need people-please apply.

Allandavid · Apr 8, 2020

lordjeff said:
What I'd have to ask in this clip: is why is everything Trump's responsibility? Supply lines really? Is he the purchasing officer for a hospital or is he the person who rolls the plastic hydrocarbons into the mold that then spits out the syringe & is he the metrologist that creates & checks all the measurements? Thru this whole pandemic these are all gotcha questions. Do you know where those gowns come from? Do you know which is the order of disinfectants that public hygienists use after the ICU room is cleared? Do you know what they are serving in the cafetaria today? By the way which computer language are they using in your school district to deliver the distance learning? The president does not occupy those roles. Gee if this was Obama they would be fawing all over him & all we would get is this: I just learned on the news; those docs & nurses & RTs-they are not responsible for any cures or good results it's the people who built the roads that get one to the hospital.

So, where does the buck stop...?

Allandavid · Apr 8, 2020

lordjeff said:
What I'd have to ask in this clip: is why is everything Trump's responsibility? Supply lines really? Is he the purchasing officer for a hospital or is he the person who rolls the plastic hydrocarbons into the mold that then spits out the syringe & is he the metrologist that creates & checks all the measurements? Thru this whole pandemic these are all gotcha questions. Do you know where those gowns come from? Do you know which is the order of disinfectants that public hygienists use after the ICU room is cleared? Do you know what they are serving in the cafetaria today? By the way which computer language are they using in your school district to deliver the distance learning? The president does not occupy those roles. Gee if this was Obama they would be fawing all over him & all we would get is this: I just learned on the news; those docs & nurses & RTs-they are not responsible for any cures or good results it's the people who built the roads that get one to the hospital.

What does that myriad of questions have ANYTHING to do with the display of behaviour by Trump in that clip...!?

That display demonstrates only too clearly what Trump’s response is like whenever he gets a difficult or critical question. He either thrashes around for someone else to blame (the IGs, the hospitals, the states, Obama...), or he childishly attacks the person for asking the question.

He’s meant to be your LEADER, for Pete’s sake...!

Leaders have to be prepared to answer the tough questions!

iluvatar5150 · Apr 8, 2020

lordjeff said:
What I'd have to ask in this clip: is why is everything Trump's responsibility? Supply lines really? Is he the purchasing officer for a hospital or is he the person who rolls the plastic hydrocarbons into the mold that then spits out the syringe & is he the metrologist that creates & checks all the measurements? Thru this whole pandemic these are all gotcha questions. Do you know where those gowns come from? .

In an emergency, the president has the legal authority to commandeer private industry for the sake of shifting production towards those goods most urgently needed. The things you listed are all things that are (or ought to be) accounted for in disaster response plans - there are people whose job it is to know where the raw materials for the syringes come from or where the surgical gowns come from so that in the event of an emergency, disruptions can be quickly mitigated.

Foamhead · Apr 9, 2020

Sketcher said:
Where in the New Testament does it describe welfare as the state's responsibility?

I didn't say they're deadbeats, but the system incentivizes people to be deadbeats.

Promoting abstinence and limiting abortion on demand also promotes safety and equal rights. Also, limiting access to firearms does not.

There are no Biblical reasons to support the Democrats over the Republicans, with the possible exception of environmental protection.

The bible also doesn't say not to take a wiz on your neighbour's shoes, so what? What a meaningless distinction.

Some verses for you to conveniently ignore:

Leviticus 23:22
"'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God.'"

Deuteronomy 24:19
"When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings."

Leviticus 19:9 - 10
“When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God."

Here is a nice article on gleaning: Gleaning - Wikipedia

You and those who espouse arguments against these things know what the bible says, you simply can't admit you just don't want to.

Providing for the poor is a very clear biblical mandate and at no time does God specify or forbid any mechanism in which to do so. The bible also clearly says to respect the law, pay your taxes and obey governing authorities. The idea of "the state" is such a modern concept and not applicable to the bronze age when the bible was written, a very different time with forms of government we'd consider alien now.

Kentonio · Apr 9, 2020

Sketcher said:
Promoting abstinence and limiting abortion on demand also promotes safety and equal rights.

Do you want the least possible abortions to occur? If the answer to that is yes, then promoting abstinence as your main approach to stopping unwanted pregnancies is logically inconsistent. Abstinence might sound like a great solution but in reality it simply doesn't work, people's biological urges are stronger than their willpower in a vast number of cases. If you want to cut abortion then you should be promoting sex education and funding free contraceptive provision without moral constraints like parental consent. This might seem like it goes against your other beliefs, but if radically reducing abortion is your main goal then that's how you achieve it.

Provide those two things and then you can promote abstinence on top of that to your hearts content. Try and skip that step however and you're going to continue to have a massive unwanted pregnancy rate, and as history proves it doesn't matter how many laws you put in place, people will find ways to abort those pregnancies regardless, and in often horrible and wildly unsafe ways.

Allandavid · Apr 9, 2020

Trump: If under 100,000 Americans die from coronavirus we've done a good job

Disgraceful......this from the charlatan who promised that were “only 15 cases, soon down to zero...”

Mountainmanbob · Apr 9, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
Third, Donald Trump, with the complicity of Republican leadership, is encouraging American citizens to indulge in self-righteousness and the hate that flows from such self-righteousness.

He is encouraging Americans to hate everybody who isn’t as righteous as they are, in contrast to Jesus’ own command that we love even our enemies. Too many American Christians who profess to believe the Bible are perfectly OK with that hate.

As I have said elsewhere, if I made an upper-class income and didn’t care about anybody except myself, I could easily be a strong supporter of Donald Trump. But I do care about people besides myself (because the Bible commands Christians to do that), and therefore I cannot support the policies of a man, and a political party, that encourages what the Bible condemns.

(As to how I can support the Other Party, which also pushes that which God condemns. . .that’s simple. The Democratic Party platform will not force me to engage in immoral activities if I don’t want to; their platform is all about leaving other people alone to do what they want even if I don’t personally approve. I’m OK with that. As the Apostle Paul himself wrote: “What have I to do with judging those outside the Church? God will judge them.”

Oh, and Democrats aren’t Communists, despite 40 years of Republican propaganda to the contrary. Even Bill Gates, one of the Kings of Capitalism, said as much. Gates said that Democrats are just Capitalists who believe in a bigger social safety net than Republicans do.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I’m good with that.

From what I've seen, my friends and I would consider that to be a false statement.

But, I do understand that many wish to think that way in regards to President Trump.

Thoughts shared such as those (whice are getting pretty redundant) I think in the end will only gain Trump more votes in 2020.

We will see?

M-Bob

TLK Valentine · Apr 9, 2020

lordjeff said:
What I'd have to ask in this clip: is why is everything Trump's responsibility?

Because The Buck Stops Here.

You want leadership, you got it: and everything that goes with it... including responibility.

Evan Jellicoe · Apr 9, 2020

Mountainmanbob said:
(Responding to Evan Jellicoe, who wrote, "Third, Donald Trump, with the complicity of Republican leadership, is encouraging American citizens to indulge in self-righteousness and the hate that flows from such self-righteousness."

From what I've seen, my friends and I would consider that to be a false statement.

But, I do understand that many wish to think that way in regards to President Trump.

Thoughts shared such as those (which are getting pretty redundant) I think in the end will only gain Trump more votes in 2020.

We will see?

M-Bob

Yes, from reading a discussion in another thread I understand that many Trump supporters do not consider what I wrote to be true. However, once again putting on my English teacher cap, I want to look again at one often-cited statement by Trump:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I am imagining that I have this paragraph written on a whiteboard, and I am analyzing it grammatically in front of a class of high school seniors. Here are some things I would point out:

The sentence begins with what is called a “blanket statement.” When Mexico sends its people they are not sending their best. The implication in a blanket statement is “all, or at least the great majority.” Even his final statement, that "some" are (he assumes) good people, only serves to add emphasis to the idea that most are not good people. For comparison, consider a similar (hypothetical) sentence “When England sent its first colonists to the New World, England was not sending its best.” Imagine how a proud member of the Daughters of the American Revolution would react to that sentence. Or consider that if you simply replace “New World” with “Australia,” the sentence actually becomes a statement of fact rather than hypothetical. England was most emphatically not sending its “best” to Botany Bay. England was sending its exiled criminals to that penal colony.

Let’s continue with some more blanket statements: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” In each assertion, the word “they” implies either “all” or near enough to all as to make no practical difference. Again, consider a sentence that could be written by a Frenchman:

“When I see American tourists in Paris, I see arrogance. I see boorish, ill-mannered behavior. I see people who have no business being in France.”

Again, the blanket statement. The “ugly American” stereotype: all (or almost all) Americans are bad. The grammar of the sentence requires that interpretation. If the writer had meant “I occasionally see. . .” he would have used those words. Or he could have written “I sometimes see. . .” or “I often see. . .” or “I see far too often. . .” Grammatically, there are degrees of frequency that can be expressed in English (or, I imagine, any language.) The language that Trump used in that example was language that meant all or practically all. This is not a liberal bias speaking, this is an English teacher looking at the language structure. You might sincerely argue (mistakenly, but sincerely) "but that blanket statement is true!" But you cannot argue that the statement does not mean what it means.

Lewis Carroll, writing in Alice in Wonderland, included this delightful comment about language: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Obviously, I think Alice is the voice of reason here, but I do think that some of Trump's supporters almost seem to be on Humpty's side. Not all, and perhaps not even most. But definitely too many.

lordjeff · Apr 9, 2020

Foamhead said:
The bible also doesn't say not to take a wiz on your neighbour's shoes, so what? What a meaningless distinction.

Some verses for you to conveniently ignore:

Leviticus 23:22
"'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God.'"

Deuteronomy 24:19
"When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings."

Leviticus 19:9 - 10
“When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God."

Here is a nice article on gleaning: Gleaning - Wikipedia

You and those who espouse arguments against these things know what the bible says, you simply can't admit you just don't want to.

Providing for the poor is a very clear biblical mandate and at no time does God specify or forbid any mechanism in which to do so. The bible also clearly says to respect the law, pay your taxes and obey governing authorities. The idea of "the state" is such a modern concept and not applicable to the bronze age when the bible was written, a very different time with forms of government we'd consider alien now.

But we have already seen some industries switch over-mainly the auto producers switcher over to the hygiene stuff. But if a company is not outfitted for such-you can't commandeer it. God forbid if Trump ordered say P&W to stop working on aircraft engines & instead making gloves, he would have still been attacked by the media.

Albion · Apr 9, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

(the above was a quote from Donald Trump)

The sentence begins with what is called a “blanket statement.” When Mexico sends its people they are not sending their best. The implication in a blanket statement is “all, or at least the great majority.” Even his final statement, that "some" are (he assumes) good people, only serves to add emphasis to the idea that most are not good people.

You can parce this statement until the proverbial cows come home and the most you can say with any fairness is that it was disrespectful of Mexico (assuming, of course, that Mexico deserved better).

No matter how long it is labored over, it is not possible to find either hate or racism in it, however.

YET THAT is exactly what the opponents of Trump have claimed relentlessly. Never the valid accusation I described above, but those two which are simply inventions.

lordjeff · Apr 9, 2020

Allandavid said:
So, where does the buck stop...?

I'd say if you are in a specific job-the assembly line worker, the supervisor, the CEO, each has an individual responsibility. E.g. in LA there were a bunch of workers who did not go into work in the nursing home b/c they may have lacked PPE. Ok fine-do you have a union steward. You don't just not call in. If you call in you at least can't be fired for cause. Now they just set up the situation to be fired for cause.

lordjeff · Apr 9, 2020

Albion said:
You can parce this statement until the proverbial cows come home and the most you can say with any fairness is that it was disrespectful of Mexico (which assuming, of course, that Mexico deserved better).

No matter how long it is labored over, it is not possible to find either hate or racism in it, however.

AND THAT is exactly what the opponents of Trump have claimed relentlessly. Never the valid accusation I described above, but those two which are simply inventions.

I think most Americans are smart enough to know from the sheer history of the border that a lot of people coming over are related to the drug lords, human trafficking, or trying to get on the dole, etc.

Evan Jellicoe · Apr 9, 2020

Albion said:
(the above was a quote from Donald Trump)

You can parce this statement until the proverbial cows come home and the most you can say with any fairness is that it was disrespectful of Mexico (assuming, of course, that Mexico deserved better).

Thank you for acknowledging that the statement is disrespectful. That was my point.

No matter how long it is labored over, it is not possible to find either hate or racism in it, however.

I will grant that it might not be possible to prove, using this one sample statement and nothing else, that Trump is fomenting hate and racism. It only provides supporting evidence. The proof would only come after compiling an adequate list of other quotes by Trump, and looking at the actual statistics describing the increase in hate crimes since Trump began campaigning. I will treat that as a separate project. But, going back to the paragraph in question, let's look at "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. . ."
Why would he say "They're not sending you."? And why would he repeat it?? Understood literally, it is a nonsense statement. Yet he emphasized it by saying it twice. Why? On reflection, it becomes clear that what he is communicating is really "They are not sending people like you." That is, those Mexicans are not like you Americans. Then he goes on to say exactly how they are different. Again, I am analyzing this as a grammarian, not as a liberal, and I find, as a grammarian, that it is indeed an ethnic slur. I have also found reasonable evidence that it is an untrue slur. (Again, I will make that a separate project.)

Reasons not to support Trump and the Republican Party

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I like water

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Goat Whisperer

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads