Why do Christians support Donald Trump?

[Dave-W]

The White House is not a business.

And that EXACTLY is the rub. The US electorate voted in a businessman, not a politician. And a 70 year old one at that; who has been doing shady business deals for half a century.

Do we REALLY think that he is going to change?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Hillary Clinton was 68 in 3016 IIRC. Age is irreelvant. The difference is experience. Only people who have been politicans for years can truly be good at the nation's most important job.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

There is a highly influential conservative think-tank and lobbying group colloquially known as "The Family". This group espouses some very interesting doctrines. One of them is that God anoints imperfect men for His purposes. The Family essentially teaches that virtue is utterly unnecessary for Christians to support a leader. If you see someone trotting out David as an example, there's a good chance that they have heard some Family-originated talking points. The Family loves citing David as a "flawed man" who did God's work in the long run and thus is honored as a holy King.

This sort of doctrine goes a long way explaining how many Christians have no moral qualms supporting Trump. No matter what he does, it gets excused as an acceptable "flaw" in someone who has been "anointed".

 

[grasping the after wind]

Hillary Clinton was 68 in 3016 IIRC. Age is irreelvant. The difference is experience. Only people who have been politicans for years can truly be good at the nation's most important job.

Doing something very poorly for as long time is not my idea of experience and the peter principle was reached on HRC at First Lady. Merely being a politician is hardly good training for running the Executive Branch of government. Blaming the Russians or some vast right wing conspiracy for one's own failings is not something that makes others confident in one's ability to be a good administrator or manger of others. As far as I am concerned, the longer someone has been a politician the less likely that person is to be in touch with those he/she purports to represent and the more likely that person is to be not only incompetent but corrupt.

 

[grasping the after wind]

There is a highly influential conservative think-tank and lobbying group colloquially known as "The Family". This group espouses some very interesting doctrines. One of them is that God anoints imperfect men for His purposes. The Family essentially teaches that virtue is utterly unnecessary for Christians to support a leader. If you see someone trotting out David as an example, there's a good chance that they have heard some Family-originated talking points. The Family loves citing David as a "flawed man" who did God's work in the long run and thus is honored as a holy King.

This sort of doctrine goes a long way explaining how many Christians have no moral qualms supporting Trump. No matter what he does, it gets excused as an acceptable "flaw" in someone who has been "anointed".

I don't know anyone that considers Trump to be "anointed" . He was elected not anointed. I would advise that if one wants to know why someone does something, that rather than thinking one can read other people's minds or assuming that some shadowy group has some insidious, all powerful influence over them, just listen to what they tell you when they tell you why they do what they do.

 

[Redwingfan9]

In 2016 many voters did not support either candidate and voted for Donald Trump just to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House. When I asked people why they like Trump, that was the most common reason they gave me.

Three years later we have seen the disaster Trump's administration has been from January 20, 2017 to now. If you like Trump, what are your reasons for this at face value? My confusion is I read about him and see a man who does not know how to lead a nation, but instead only cares about money (which God hates) and absolute power (which only God has) from my POV.

Please avoid discussing the "He is not a Democrat" and "I hate Hillary Clinton" arguments. This question is strictly about Trump, not the entire Republican Party platform.

I'm a #nevertrump conservative who didn't vote for him in 2016 and won't vote for him in 2020. That said, Christians who support him fall into two camps. One supports his judicial nominees because they're fairly conservative and pro-life. Another group supports his allegedly America first trade policies. These folks tend to be working class Christians.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

I don't know anyone that considers Trump to be "anointed" . He was elected not anointed. I would advise that if one wants to know why someone does something, that rather than thinking one can read other people's minds or assuming that some shadowy group has some insidious, all powerful influence over them, just listen to what they tell you when they tell you why they do what they do.

Uncanny Trump and King Cyrus (Day 3) | The Jim Bakker Show

The Trump Prophecy (2018) - IMDb

 

[GodLovesCats]

Doing something very poorly for as long time is not my idea of experience and the peter principle was reached on HRC at First Lady. Merely being a politician is hardly good training for running the Executive Branch of government. Blaming the Russians or some vast right wing conspiracy for one's own failings is not something that makes others confident in one's ability to be a good administrator or manger of others. As far as I am concerned, the longer someone has been a politician the less likely that person is to be in touch with those he/she purports to represent and the more likely that person is to be not only incompetent but corrupt.

Hillary Clinton was also a Senator before she was the Secretary of State. Despite the Benghazi tragedy the fact that she held that position four years should tell you she knows a lot more about foreign policies and the world than Donald Trump. During two debates against Trump, she admitted deleting state emails was a mistake and said she would never do that again. If you owned a company you would want someone who knows a lot about the specialty and is willing to accept terrible mistakes like4 she did. Donald Trump does not even admit he could be wrong about anything and is always afraid of letting the cat out of the bag. In business, you would never want that kind of person to be your manager. So why want that kind of person to be the U.S. President?

 

[redleghunter]

I can kind of understand where Never Trump conservatives (what's left of them, anyway) are coming from. Because respectability or something, idk.

But I don't think non-conservatives have any right to be surprised by President Trump's support, particularly from Christians. These people were told for at least twenty years that they should check their faith at the door, that we elect Presidents rather than pastors or priests. These types of Christians apparently came around to the opposition's way of thinking. So they did not vote for one any of the outspoken Christians in the 2016 primaries. Rather, they voted for the candidate who promised to have their collective back.

Speaking of which, I think it's obvious that these types of Christians are seeking a political bodyguard. These voters have had quite a lot of social change rammed down their throats in the past several years (or decades). They've made no secret of their concerns over "same-sex marriage", unchecked illegal immigration, drug epidemics and so forth. At each step of the way, they were told "you lost, deal with it", "nobody cares about you or your precious little religious freedom", "get over it", etc.

My question for the left is: What did you think would happen? Did you believe that there wouldn't be consequences for any of that? Were you expecting to never pay a price for that type of discourse?

A lot of Christians fear persecution in the future. You can dismiss that as unlikely as much as you want. But that's how a lot of them see it. They're expecting great difficulties in the years to come. Whether or not they're right about that was never the point. In good faith, that's how they see it. And just about the time their concerns were reaching a fever pitch, President Trump presented himself as someone who can move the needle on the issues they care about.

Worse (for the left), they've seen President Trump make genuine advancements on the pro-life cause, immigration and other issues. President Trump has largely validated their decision to vote for him. Do you honestly believe they're less likely to vote for him now than they were back in 2016? Ha!

Worst of all (maybe for all of us), these types of Christians believe that President Trump is shining a light on "the DC establishment", "the elite", "the deep state" or whatever you want to call it. They now see (or think they see) very little relevant difference between Democrats and Republicans. They think politics at this level is a game of touch football, where the two sides pretend to disagree in public but, behind closed doors, pat each other on the back for a job well done in ripping off the American people. Goings on since January 20, 2017 have done NOTHING to change their opinions. On the contrary, they've been reinforced.

Again, it doesn't matter if these Christians are factually right or factually wrong. This is what they believe. And now they see President Trump as a champion for their causes. It's hard to argue that he hasn't advanced their agenda in ways no previous Republican President has even attempted.

No less than the New York Times is admitting that President Trump's base is bigger now than it was even in 2016. If 2020 is a referendum on President Trump's first term, say hello to his second term.

 

[redleghunter]

People have to sort out which media sources are factual.

That's the problem and why people have to discern for themselves. Get actual transcripts of speeches, actual longwinded court rulings and actually check out the facts not using biased 'fact check' type sites which are supported by one side or the other.

Americans need to come to the realization that there is no such thing as a neutral media. Even beat reporting we have journalists injecting their views and interpretations. All of these news outlets are owned by huge corporations with a political agenda. The Amazon emperor Bezos owns the Washington Post. Bezos hates Trump's guts. So does Zucker and he owns CNN and has been caught on audio ordering his minions to keep plugging negatives for Trump. I turn on MSNBC I hear three talking points, then flip on CNN later I hear the same talking points. Then I scan the headlines of the NYTs and the WashPo same talking points. Preaching things that are opinion as fact. This is what's called journalistic manipulation using pseudo narratives. Float some ideas and opinions as 'fact' and see how the public consumes it. It's everywhere and on both sides. Information manipulation is what militaries over the globe use on those who they conquer or want to conquer. It started here in the US on a widescale after 9/11. Repeat 'a thing' enough no matter how true or false, people will start believing it in droves. That is if they keep the faith of those spouting the propaganda. Trump broke the wheel on that as a reform type candidate like Ross Perot. He called out the media and exposed them and took his message to the people in rallies and on social media. That's why he won the election.

As @thecolorsblend noted whether one sees it as good or bad depending on worldviews, Trump has actually done what he said he would do. That is very "un-Politician" of him. Usually politicians say things to get elected but never come through, at least Republicans. Trump as a businessmen knows if you don't accomplish the goals and objectives of your strategic plan, people will go to another business or firm, they will move their money. Regardless of his many personal faults he is a 'to do list' guy and is more interested in checking off the laundry list than he is in getting his sons jobs in Chinese firms and making money when he leaves office. He already has money. His children already have careers of their own. He is not beholden to the Potomac club where people make careers out of politics and government service. They expect 'return' on their investment. When an outsider whose only involvement in politics was donating money to candidates, came in and upset the apple cart and it went against the Potomac club rules, they decided he had to go. Ever since his inauguration the cry for impeachment has been sounded.

 

[Phil W]

Trump built his platform on issues that people felt strongly about and would resonate with the largest block of voters in the larger states. He still is the only logical choice for those people. It is a winning strategy.

Too bad there hasn't been any other republican who will stand up to him with a more civil modus-operandi.
Anyone with the same agenda, but no twitter feeding compulsion, or alienating responses, would clean-up in the next election.

 

[redleghunter]

No less than the New York Times is admitting that President Trump's base is bigger now than it was even in 2016.

As you mentioned it is because many who stopped voting 20 or so years ago saw someone make promises to change things and he actually did so. That's why the "Beltway" is up in arms. Someone who does not know 'the way of things' is in large and in charge. They hate it, they want their 'return' on their 'investment' in 20-30 years of government service. They made 'sacrifices' others more established told them they had to do to make their way up the ladder, and now there is a President who does not care about what is 'due' them, but a guy who is trying to do and is doing what he said he was going to do.

Now Obama said things and did them too. Difference is he did so as joining the Potomac club.

 

[redleghunter]

The Republican platform would be accomplished by someone else in that party. Why do you think Trump, who actually has many opponents on the right because of his behavior in office, is the best to do it?

By behavior in office do you mean the combative and sometimes strong language he uses in Tweets and giving campaign speeches?

 

[redleghunter]

The way a lot of President Trump's supporters see it, career politicians have had decades to advance a conservative agenda. Largely, they have failed. And it's beginning to look to a lot of voters that they simply threw the fight.

President Trump's opposition from the right is considered an endorsement, of sorts. The types of politicians who oppose him (e.g., the Mitt Romneys of the world) are the kind who have made a cottage industry of running for office. As President Trump has said, "All talk, no action". Of course they oppose President Trump. He's either delivering or trying to deliver on his campaign promises. And I suppose there's just no room for that sort of thing in electoral politics.

Case in point....Defunding Planned Parenthood. Again whether or not one agrees with this, such has been a hallmark cry on GOP platforms and soap boxes since George W Bush. The excuse is "we can never get it to pass in a Democratic Party Senate or Senate filibuster. AKA "we tried."

Trump comes in and using the power of the executive branch tells HHS to enact regulations changing Title X grants. He knew Planned Parenthood would not comply and thus they voluntarily withdrew. He did in a few minutes what Republicans in the White House, House and Senate failed to do over the past 20 years.

 

[redleghunter]

Before 2016 I did not even know Donald Trump was considering a presidential run. During the Republican primaries, my first impression that Trump is not an honest man was his claim he knows more about ISIS than the generals who are fighting it. Even if he was just delusional, that was not a good way to win more voters because it snowballed from there.

Yes that was quite a claim he made. I cringed when he said that actually serving under some of the generals he was referring to. Yet when in office whether he took advice from others or those generals, he did endorse an aggressive campaign to defeat ISIS.

 

[redleghunter]

Indeed. He is a shrewd businessman. And then everyone blasts him for not acting like a politician. (which he is NOT)

I remember reading back in 2017 just after he took office that some wiccans and black witches started casting spells designed to remove him from office. Apparently they are still at it. I have to wonder why THEY of all people are so bent on removing him.

Witch hunt: Occult Trump opponents plan Halloween spell to bind him

The occult involved in politics is nothing new....as you know.

 

[redleghunter]

The White House is not a business.

Tell that to Joe Biden.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Hillary Clinton was also a Senator before she was the Secretary of State. Despite the Benghazi tragedy the fact that she held that position four years should tell you she knows a lot more about foreign policies and the world than Donald Trump. During two debates against Trump, she admitted deleting state emails was a mistake and said she would never do that again. If you owned a company you would want someone who knows a lot about the specialty and is willing to accept terrible mistakes like4 she did. Donald Trump does not even admit he could be wrong about anything and is always afraid of letting the cat out of the bag. In business, you would never want that kind of person to be your manager. So why want that kind of person to be the U.S. President?

Being a Senator means nothing in terms of being an administrator and , face it, the position was a gift not something she earned. It is not like she did anything but move to a state that she never lived in before in order to accept that gift from the NY State Democratic Party. Unless one thinks she earned it by being a loyal wife to Bill and that this was payback for that. Being a terrible Secretary of State is a good reason not to allow someone to be President. Of course that was and remains my opinion of how she conducted herself as Secretary of State. As I never approved of the Obama administration's foreign policy initiatives I should be expected to not have approved of her carrying them out but the way she did so added to my view that she was not competent.

I voted for Trump because I preferred the things he said he would do to the things Hillary said she would do. I was not enamored with either of them on a personal level but personality is a bad reason to vote for someone despite the fact that so many people do that. As I do not see either as paragons of virtue, character was not an issue separating them. I did not trust either of them in the least. Trump has proven to be more of a promise keeper than I would ever have imagined.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Too bad there hasn't been any other republican who will stand up to him with a more civil modus-operandi.

Anyone with the same agenda, but no twitter feeding compulsion, or alienating responses, would clean-up in the next election.

This is exactly my point! Why do people like DONALD TRUMP instead of a Republican who always tells the truth when he needs to, never even thinks about breaking laws, and has no interest in living a pivate life life his job is a for-profit company? Trump does not check off any of those three criteria.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Tell that to Joe Bidens.

Joe Biden did his job as the VP. Not once did he behave the way Donald Trump does in office.