Reasons not to support Trump and the Republican Party

Evan Jellicoe · Apr 9, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
Thank you for acknowledging that the statement is disrespectful. That was my point.

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.)

Evan Jellicoe · Apr 9, 2020

This "post" was forced by a software quirk. If anybody knows how to make it go away (not just the content, but the entire thing), please let me know. Can a moderator do that?

Albion · Apr 9, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
Thank you for acknowledging that the statement is disrespectful. That was my point.

Oh. Okay then. If that was your point, I can accept it quite easily, even though I don't think being critical of Mexico under the circumstances is much to stew about.

BUT there is no question about all of us having heard die-hard enemies of Trump recite, time and time again, the litany which says his speech included specifically racist wording and showed hate.

Neither of those is true.

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.

There ISN'T ANY evidence in the speech. It's all speculation on the part of the opposition.

And it wasn't even very original. They decided what to call Trump long before he gave those remarks and simply carried it out on this occasion.

Pommer · Apr 9, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
This "post" was forced by a forum software quirk. If anybody can tell me how to completely delete a draft, please let me know.

Edit it down to a “.”, save.

Evan Jellicoe · Apr 9, 2020

Albion said:
There ISN'T ANY evidence in the speech. It's all speculation on the part of the opposition.

Interesting; I just pointed the evidence out to you, in some detail. You didn't call it unconvincing or unpersuasive. You didn't call it weak. You didn't acknowledge it at all. You simply ignored it and said "There isn't any.".

I will grant that Trump's statement was not "racist" if you define "racism" as something that only applies to blacks. Generally speaking, Mexicans aren't black. And that was why I called it an "ethnic slur," which it most emphatically was.

Even my elderly aunt, who supports Trump almost without reservation, admits that he is insulting and childish at times, and she wishes he weren't. Her defense of him is "nobody's perfect." But she doesn't deny what most everybody else can clearly see.

iluvatar5150 · Apr 9, 2020

Albion said:
There ISN'T ANY evidence in the speech. It's all speculation on the part of the opposition.

I was going to quote @Evan Jellicoe's post and make some sort of quip about how long it would take the TrumpFans to gaslight the rest of us with some sort of claim that he didn't say anything hateful there, but it looks like you've beaten me to it.

iluvatar5150 · Apr 9, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
Interesting; I just pointed the evidence out to you, in some detail. You didn't call it unconvincing or unpersuasive. You didn't call it weak. You didn't acknowledge it at all. You simply ignored it and said "There isn't any.".

I will grant that the statement was not "racist" if you define "racism" as something that only applies to blacks. Generally speaking, Mexicans aren't black. And that was why I called it an "ethnic slur," which it most emphatically was.

Even my elderly aunt, who supports Trump almost without reservation, admits that he is insulting and childish at times, and she wishes he weren't. Her defense of him is "nobody's perfect." But she doesn't deny what most everybody else can clearly see.

Being a True TrumpFan seems to require not just an agreement with right-wing political views, but also a degree of comfort with certain forms of psychological manipulation.

rjs330 · Apr 9, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
First, let me establish that doing something because “It’s what the Bible says Christians should do” is a great idea in theory, but has often been twisted into a mockery of actual Biblical teaching. The best historical example of that, of course, is the whole thing with slavery in Colonial days and Jim Crow laws between the 1870s and the 1960s. A whole lot of Christians supported those things, and they were dead wrong.

Now let’s look at where Donald Trump and the current Republican platform are also dead wrong.

First, while it is true that the Bible encourages personal freedom and self-sufficiency, it does not teach us to do so at the expense of the poor. Throughout history, mankind in general has always despised its own poor, but both Old and New Testament strongly teach God’s people to provide a safety net for the poor. That’s a literal, simple, plain-sense-of-the-language interpretation of the Bible, not a “liberal” interpretation. Too many of the rich in ancient Israel ignored what the prophets said, and too many Christians today do the same thing, both by ignoring the commands and, even worse, by explaining them away to make it seem that the Bible doesn’t really say what it says. So you have sincere Christians—decent people, on the whole, in their private actions—actually believing that the Bible commands individuals to be like the Good Samaritan by helping those in need, while it commands civil government to do as the priest and the Levite did. (They are the ones who walked on past the injured man in the parable. According to some Christian school textbooks, government has no business dispensing private “charity.” The Christians who teach that believe that all government welfare—unemployment benefits, food stamps, free school lunches, Social Security and Medicare, everything—is anti-Christian. This is ridiculous on the face of it, and the reasoning that “explains away” the lesson of the Good Samaritan is every bit as bad as the reasoning that explained away Revelation 7:9 and the whole book of Philemon and allowed “good Christians” to purchase human beings that had been kidnapped from their homeland and transported across the ocean to become beasts of burden, and to terrorize free blacks after the Civil War in order to “keep them in their place.”

Second, while it is true that the Bible teaches high standards of personal morality and conduct, it does not teach us to impose God’s standards on unwilling individuals by force. There is a story that Charlemagne once marched a defeated army into a river and baptized 3000 new “converts” on the spot. That might have made sense militarily and politically from Charlemagne’s standpoint, but it was a complete perversion of what the Bible actually teaches about personal conversion. Likewise today, the whole idea of electing certain lawmakers so that they will pass “moral” laws completely flies in the face of the Biblical teaching of freedom of conscience. Laws enforcing private morality do nothing to actually improve private morality, because righteousness does not come by law, but only by faith. It cannot be imposed by force. Ergo, the whole “moral majority” political movement goes completely against what the Bible actually teaches.

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.

You know this is a double minded post right? In one breath you claim the Bible teaches that government has the right to force people to give.

Then you claim the Bible does not teach that they should force people to have certain morals. Isn't giving to your fellow man a moral?

So, which is it? Does the Bible teach the government should force people to follow Biblical admonishments or not? Or is it only the liberal or socialistic values that matter?

Allandavid · Apr 9, 2020

lordjeff said:
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.

And what if you are a NATIONAL LEADER during a NATIONAL CRISIS...?!?

Speedwell · Apr 9, 2020

rjs330 said:
You know this is a double minded post right? In one breath you claim the Bible teaches that government has the right to force people to give.

The government has the power (derived from "we the people") to collect taxes and spend the money as our elected representatives determine. Some of that money will be spent in ways you and I don't particularly approve of. The Bible says we should pay our taxes anyway.

Then you claim the Bible does not teach that they should force people to have certain morals.

It doesn't. There is nothing in the Bible which instructs us to impose religious law on a secular population. Of course, if you've got the votes and your proposals pass constitution muster, then go for it.

rjs330 · 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.

Clearly God wants us to help the poor. But God never told you to go to your neighbor and demand he give to the poor and then tell him how much he had to give.

And if you use the Bible as authorization to do that then we also can use the Bible to demand we enforce the ten commandments.

Pommer · Apr 9, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
Interesting; I just pointed the evidence out to you, in some detail. You didn't call it unconvincing or unpersuasive. You didn't call it weak. You didn't acknowledge it at all. You simply ignored it and said "There isn't any.".

I will grant that Trump's statement was not "racist" if you define "racism" as something that only applies to blacks. Generally speaking, Mexicans aren't black. And that was why I called it an "ethnic slur," which it most emphatically was.

Even my elderly aunt, who supports Trump almost without reservation, admits that he is insulting and childish at times, and she wishes he weren't. Her defense of him is "nobody's perfect." But she doesn't deny what most everybody else can clearly see.

Understand the @Albion tends to be rather polemical; it’s “his guy” and therefore will defend him until he cannot type anymore.
Also reasoning with him takes a great deal of patience yet he is worthy of engaging, just don’t expect to sway him...much.

Evan Jellicoe · Apr 9, 2020

rjs330 said:
You know this is a double minded post right? In one breath you claim the Bible teaches that government has the right to force people to give.
Then you claim the Bible does not teach that they should force people to have certain morals. Isn't giving to your fellow man a moral?
So, which is it? Does the Bible teach the government should force people to follow Biblical admonishments or not? Or is it only the liberal or socialistic values that matter?

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."
"Caesar" (civil government) has authority on earth to deal with earthly matters, such as taxation, national defense, the material welfare of citizens, and so on. Government exercises material (including financial) authority over those within its geographical bounds, whether the individual desires it or not.

The Church has authority over the spiritual welfare of those who voluntarily associate with the Church. Once upon a time the Church in Europe exercised authority over all within its geographical boundaries, but not today in America. Freedom of conscience (and the freedom to do privately anything that does not harm another person) is assumed in America today (though that freedom is inconsistently applied).

Albion · Apr 9, 2020

Pommer said:
Understand the @Albion tends to be rather polemical; it’s “his guy” and therefore will defend him until he cannot type anymore.

But only on the basis of the facts.

And by the way, the main reason that he and a handful of others defend our system of government and the duly-elected president of the Republic is because there are five times as many people here who enjoy making ugly cracks about both, often with no intention of actually discussing anything. It's just a matter of fairness.

Evan Jellicoe · Apr 9, 2020

rjs330 said:
Clearly God wants us to help the poor. But God never told you to go to your neighbor and demand he give to the poor and then tell him how much he had to give. And if you use the Bible as authorization to do that then we also can use the Bible to demand we enforce the ten commandments.

Correct. God permits government to do that, not me personally. And I always caution people to be slow to use the argument that "The Bible never authorized government to distribute charity." It also never explicitly authorized any people to form a constitutional republic. Every form of government recognized in the Bible is a monarchy of some sort. Kings. Emperors. Pharaohs. Even Moses. Yet here we are, with an elected government. And nothing prevents our going back to a Kingdom except for the fact that we don't want to.

Silence does not equal prohibition. Permission does not equal obligation.

Fantine · Apr 9, 2020

My state is completely red. In 2016 I think Trump got between 65 and 70% of the vote.

So in my case if I were a hard core Bernie fan I could vote for a minor party and it wouldn't matter. But if I lived in a swing state where my voting third party could possibly help a callous self-serving incompetent get reelected, I would camp out the night before to save our country.

Albion · Apr 9, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
Interesting; I just pointed the evidence out to you, in some detail.

You may think so, but that wasn't evidence of the things his detractors have alleged so famously.

lordjeff · 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).

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.

Trump is simply illustrating the real thing. The American people are not a bunch of altruists. The press would like us to be that way but then Pravda is not what it used to be.

Evan Jellicoe · Apr 9, 2020

Albion said:
Interesting; I just pointed the evidence out to you, in some detail.

You may think so, but that wasn't evidence of the things his detractors have alleged so famously.

Hmmm. . .I think you may be talking right past me. I don't know which statements by "detractors" you are talking about. This began with you replying to me writing "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." I wasn't quoting or referring to any other detractors; that is my opinion, arrived at on my own.

I chose to respond to your reply by analyzing one lone example, that famous quote about Mexicans, to show grammatically that it was an insulting blanket condemnation of Mexico and Mexicans. As such, it is one example of Trump's pattern of being derogatory to non-American nations and people (and, in fact, anybody whom he does not like).

Now you are saying that I didn't prove what others among Trump's detractors are saying. I didn't claim to; I claimed only that I was presenting evidence to support what I said.

I take fact, and truth, seriously. If I say something that you can show is factually incorrect, I will retract it. If I draw a conclusion from actual facts and you disagree with my reasoning, show me, with sound reasoning, why you disagree and I will at least respect you for playing by the rules of logic; I may even change my mind if you show me something that is logically persuasive. It is only people who make claims and assertions and then brush off or ignore rebuttals whom I do not respect.

Albion · Apr 9, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
Now you are saying that I didn't prove what others among Trump's detractors are saying. I didn't claim to; I claimed only that I was presenting evidence to support what I said.

Very well, but I already answered that what you were complaining about--him allegedly being disrespectful towards the nation of Mexico--didn't bother me. In fact, it isn't particularly interesting to me.

But the outrageous claims of many notable politicians and commentators deserve a challenge, not only because they are vicious allegations but because these people made them up out of thin air.

I hope this reply finally sets things straight for you.

Reasons not to support Trump and the Republican Party

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Similar threads