2020 Dems criticize religious voters

[GACfan]

Why does homosexuality get singled out ?

Because that's the one sexual sin that these conservatives aren't likely to commit themselves. I'm sure you've noticed that we don't see the moral outrage over the statistic that 68% of Christian men are addicted to inappropriate contentography (Shocker: Study Shows Most Christian Men Are Into inappropriate content) or the moral outrage over adultery. In fact, we have a Republican President who is a serial adulterer in his third marriage to his former mistress. He hasn't been condemned by these same conservatives for his adulterous and womanizing behavior. In fact, we're told by his loyal supporters that they voted for a President and not a Pastor or we're told that he shouldn't be judged for his sins or we're asked "Who is perfect?" and "Who among us is without sin?" or we see immediate deflections to former Presidents because of their adulterous behavior or deflections to some liberal politician for their immoral behavior.

 

[PloverWing]

OP is confusing religious people for 'people who oppose gay rights'.

Agreed. I'm very uncomfortable seeing "religious people" equated with "people who oppose gay rights". The wording of the NY Post's article badly misrepresents my Christian faith.

 

[JohnAshton]

I am Christian and do not oppose LGBTQ+ rights.

 

[GACfan]

I am Christian and do not oppose LGBTQ+ rights.

I'm also a Christian and I don't oppose LGBTQ+ rights either.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Not into that separation of church and state thing then? Prefer charlatans in government filling their pockets by taking advantage of gullible people at any time they can?

 

[Skreeper]

 

[iluvatar5150]

<snip>

Ya know... Everybody likes to complain about Google's AI and targeted advertising, but without them, we wouldn't have this gem:

Bravo, Google. Bravo.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

From Elizabeth Warren mocking religious males as incapable of finding a wife to Beto O’Rourke’s promise to strip tax benefits from religious institutions, or Cory Booker’s assertion that Catholics use religion to justify discrimination, you see the ugly face of militant secularism and coercion.

Only one of these (Warren's joke) would even be construed as attacking religious voters.

The others are just simply laying out policy prescriptions that remove some of the special treatment religion has been getting for 200+ years.

It is frightening that every one of the nine Democratic candidates who took part in the CNN event has signed up to extreme policies that attack religious liberty and radically redefine gender.

It seems like people like to conflate the removal of special treatment with "an attack against me".

Basically, it sounds like a subset of right wing Christians have developed "spoiled only child syndrome" over these past couple hundred years and have gotten used to being put on a societal pedestal, and being able to foist their moral preferences on every one else using the force of government, and because they now have to share, they're throwing a temper tantrum.

Just like if Timmy was an only child for 8 years and got the toys all to himself, then when his little brother comes along and mom says "Timmy, you can't have all the toys, you have to let your brother play with some of them", Timmy starts pouting and yelling "This isn't fair!!! You're mean!!! You never let me do anything!!"

Sorry, not being able to dictate where people have to go to the bathroom, who can get married, and establishments saying Happy Holidays isn't an attack on Christianity.

 

[Albion]

a) I don't remember Obama being all that vulgar, definitely nowhere near Trump's level, and so far as I'm aware he's only had one wife and never cheated on her, which is far more than Trump - the Christian Champion - can say.

b) That does nothing to erase my original point, that evangelicals voted for the sort of person they've previously condemned.

It seems to delight some people to be able to say that. But elections are a matter of choosing between the candidates that are on the ballot, not anyone from the general public. So what choice do you imagine Christians had when they went to vote in 2016?

Where was the saint listed on the ballot? Or could these voters possibly have chosen between two imperfect persons...and chose the one that pledged to help and respect the church and religious freedom? That doesn't seem craven or illogical to me.

 

[lasthero]

Where was the saint listed on the ballot? Or could these voters possibly have chosen between two imperfect persons...and chose the one that pledged to help and respect the church and religious freedom? That doesn't seem craven or illogical to me.

You’d almost have a point...except there was this thing called a ‘primary’, where there were plenty of people making the same promises, and Republican voters still went with Trump.

But honestly, I don’t blame Republicans or begrudge them their choice. They picked the guy who would do what they wanted him to do, and whether he cared about those values wasn’t all important. Fine. It’s a symbiotic relationship, I get it.

But my beef is with those who won’t admit that’s the case, who still deluded themselves in thinking they have some kind of moral high ground, and who keep bringing up the immorality of others when the man they picked is no better, and is in, fact, far worse.

If 2016 proved one thing, it's that the evangelical base doesn't actually want a person who embodies their values, they want a puppet who'll do what they want, who'll pay them lip service and make them happy. Whether or not that person actually cares about said values or follows them is irrelevant.

 

[Albion]

You’d almost have a point...except there was this thing called a ‘primary’, where there were plenty of people making the same promises, and Republican voters still went with Trump.

Are we suddenly speaking of "Republican" voters instead of "evangelical" voters?

In any case, there is much about the primary elections that keeps this from being a good comparison. Fewer voters participate, not every state even has a presidential primary, the voters have to keep in mind which of their choices has a chance of winning the nomination and then the election, etc.

But honestly, I don’t blame Republicans or begrudge them their choice. They picked the guy who would do what they wanted him to do, and whether he cared about those values wasn’t all important. Fine. It’s a symbiotic relationship, I get it.

But my beef is with those who won’t admit that’s the case, who still deluded themselves in thinking they have some kind of moral high ground, and who keep bringing up the immorality of others when the man they picked is no better.

I think that's only because they so often have this defective and somewhat insulting argument thrown at them by people, most of whom appear not to be particularly interested in religion themselves but have set themselves up as judges of someone else's belief system. It's not a question they are asked, you know; it's an accusation.

 

[lasthero]

Are we suddenly speaking of "Republican" voters instead of "evangelical" voters?

Is it possible for any Republican to win the nomination without the evangelical base? I don't think so.

In any case, there is much about the primary elections that keeps this from being a good comparison. Fewer voters participate,

And Trump won by an overwhelming majority of those few votes. Let's not pretend that the result would've been different if more people and states had the chance to vote. There's absolutely no reason to think that.

the voters have to keep in mind which of their choices has a chance of winning the nomination and then the election, etc.

True, but it nullifies your first point. Republican voters DID have a choice. It wasn't just Trump or Hillary, they had a bevy of choices, and they still picked Trump.

Also, please explain to me how only Donald could've beaten her. Before and after the election, I've heard nothing but how much of a criminal she was, how bad she'd be for the country, how unpopular she was (despite winning the popular vote, but whatever) Why was Don the Con your only hope in defeating Big, Bad Hillary?

I think that's only because they so often have this defective and somewhat insulting argument thrown at them by people, most of whom appear not to be particularly interested in religion themselves but have set themselves up as judges of someone else's belief system. It's not a question they are asked, you know; it's an accusation.

Oh, I'm sorry, doesn't being judged for your belief system bother you? Man, that must suck. Join the club, we have t-shirts. Literally.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It seems to delight some people to be able to say that. But elections are a matter of choosing between the candidates that are on the ballot, not anyone from the general public. So what choice do you imagine Christians had when they went to vote in 2016?

Where was the saint listed on the ballot? Or could these voters possibly have chosen between two imperfect persons...and chose the one that pledged to help and respect the church and religious freedom? That doesn't seem craven or illogical to me.

As pointed out already, there were the primaries wherein evangelicals could've chosen from roughly a dozen better candidates. But let's move beyond that - I can forgive people for voting for Trump in 2016. Even I didn't think he would be as bad as he's been, and I didn't vote for him.

My bigger issue is with the way so many people have continued fawning over him since then. I didn't know my last mayor was a crook when I voted for her (in fact, I voted for her partly because her main opponent was a convicted crook). But now that I know, I don't run around defending her, lying about her opponents, in order to justify my vote. No, I just shrug my shoulders, acknowledge that she was worse than I anticipated and hope for better next time. Why can't American evangelicals do that with Trump?

 

[JohnAshton]

It seems to delight some people to be able to say that. But elections are a matter of choosing between the candidates that are on the ballot, not anyone from the general public. So what choice do you imagine Christians had when they went to vote in 2016?

Where was the saint listed on the ballot? Or could these voters possibly have chosen between two imperfect persons...and chose the one that pledged to help and respect the church and religious freedom? That doesn't seem craven or illogical to me.

You could have voted for anyone other than Trump.

He simply was not better.

And let's not forget that in the primaries many candidates were better than Trump.

 

[Albion]

Is it possible for any Republican to win the nomination without the evangelical base? I don't think so.

Let's not try to "win" this "argument" by relying upon a bunch of speculations or guesses.

And Trump won by an overwhelming majority of those few votes.

And much of that owes to the fact that by the time of the late primaries, some in the bigger states, he was just about the only man left standing It was no longer a field of 17 candidates. And the delegates necessary for the nomination had already been won by him.

Also, please explain to me how only Donald could've beaten her.

He was the only Republican on the general election ballot, of course. We cannot mix the analysis of the primaries with the analysis of the general election, which is where we started this discussion.

 

[JohnAshton]

Yes, the failure that resulted in DJT being the general candidate began in the failure of the primaries to produce a better candidate.

 

[durangodawood]

...My bigger issue is with the way so many people have continued fawning over him since then....

You dont understand that these days, and especially on the right - with massive propaganda reinforcement - your voting choice isnt just something you do. Its who you are.

The slightest expression of regret threatens one's very identity anymore.

 

[Albion]

That's what people on the other side of the political fence imagine to be the case, all right. I have noticed that if a person is generally on the other side, however, the forces playing upon him to conform are even stronger.

 

[Hank77]

And much of that owes to the fact that by the time of the late primaries, some in the bigger states, he was just about the only man left standing It was no longer a field of 17 candidates. And the delegates necessary for the nomination had already been won by him.

And how did he win those delegates? The delegates in my state voted for Ted Cruz.

 

[durangodawood]

That's what people on the other side of the political fence imagine to be the case, all right. I have noticed that if a person is generally on the other side, however, the forces playing upon him to conform are even stronger.

Maybe.

I will admit that Trump presents a test to the conscience of the right such as the left has not had to contend with... not even during the Clinton BJ era.