Why Do Evangelicals Support Trump?

[Albion]

For clarity, this comment from you is in response to my comment that it is a fact Trump defended Neo Nazis.

Yes, it is.

I said he called them good, but what he actually said was that they were fine people who were just out trying to defend a statue glorifying a man who fought to keep slavery legal.

Nope. He did not say that.

He did, in fact, say that the neo-nazis at Charlottesville were fine people.

No, he did not.

Here's a clip of him doing that:

a clip of him NOT doing that, you mean.

Nah, you don't only have two options. That you would suggest this is another justification....

Okay, so you are saying that the Christian voter should sit out the election. I can accept that, although it's asking for people to do nothing when facing an important opportunity. The idea that they should vote for his opponent, however, is without merit.

 

[John Helpher]

a clip of him NOT doing that, you mean.

For clarity this is you saying that Trump did not say that Neo nazis were fine people.

If you have a look at 1:06 of that clip, you will see him saying there were fine people on both sides. One side was neo-nazis protesting the removal of a statue dedicated to glorifying a general who fought to preserve the right to own human beings as slaves.

The other side were counter protestors. Two sides: neo-nazis and counter protestors. Trump said there were fine people on both sides.

You are choosing to ignore that fact. That is, in itself, evidence that you are supporting immorality for political advantage, soemthing not consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

Why do professing Christians keep supporting a guy like this? Because they are also immoral.

 

[timothyu]

Why do Evangelicals support Trump? For the same reasons they supported Reagan and the Bushes. It's not about who but what.

 

[Albion]

For clarity this is you saying that Trump did not say that Neo nazis were fine people.

Stop with trying to make something be other than it is.

He condemned both Nazis and White Nationalists. By definition, that doesn't leave a possibility of any "good people" in either group.

And he said that there were good people on both sides -- of the issue, that is. And he described this in unmistakable terms.

 

[timothyu]

And he said that there were good people on both sides -- of the issue, that is. And he described this in unmistakable terms.

Agreed even though I m not a fan/supporter of either side. It's easy to misconstrue everything he and others say when people have lost the ability to converse face to face and now rely upon media to translate for them. Te media recently made a flap about something Mrs First Lady said, yet when you hear her say it in context there is nothing wrong. The same applies to either side of the fence. People no longer want to hear what is said but manipulate everything to suit their own platforms and seek out those who translate in a way they want toi hear.

As a result everything we hear comes from a third person platform.

 

[John Helpher]

that doesn't leave a possibility of any "good people"

And he said that there were good people on both sides

Think about what you're trying to justify right now. You say he condemned them, while at the same time he said they are good.

The contradiction comes because Trump, as is his habit, is trying to say two things at once. On the surface, he knows he needs to toe the respectability line, but he also wants the support he's getting from these Nazis.

This is the same kind of double-speak that Michael Cohen, (Trump's personal fixer who was responsible for paying off the various inappropriate content-stars and prostitutes Trump indulged in), described in his under-oath testimony before congress. He said that Trump speaks in code to disguise incriminating intent. An example of this is Trump's proclivity to say things like, "Many people say", followed by some kind of statement promoting voter suppression, witness intimidation, or personal immorality.

Remember the recent debate? He was asked to clearly denounce white supremacy and he stumbled through it until he finally put the issue back onto the moderator saying, "You tell me what you want me to say". Biden mentioned proud boys and in that moment of stress, Trump blurted out, "Proud boys stand back and stand by". Proud boys, as the name suggests, is a group of violent, militant racists who support Trump. Trump, when he was later questioned about his relationship to proud boys pretended that he didn't know who they were.

Why would he tell them to stand by if he didn't know who they were? It's an obvious lie. His clear reluctance to denounce these white supremacy groups is a clear indication to them that he really does support them. And, of course, that's exactly how the proud boys interpreted his call for them to stand by, they celebrated his support loud and clear moments after he called out to them.

This guy is a habitual liar who's been convicted of charity fraud and fraud in his "Trump University" scam where he was ordered to pay 26 million in damages as compensation for his fraud. He's had 3 wives, at least one of which he cheated on with a inappropriate content star whom he paid $130k to keep quiet about the adultery.

He's involved in multiple scandals and dozens of high-level officials around him have been prosecuted and convicted.

Why do you keep supporting him? Because you believe he will put money in your pocket, right? That's what "economy" means in this context. This is exactly Trump's ideology; transactional relationships. If you support him despite his blatant immorality, he promises to bring some benefit to you.

This would not a Christian do.

 

[Vanellus]

To answer your question, probably because he's not attacking them. That's a good start. For any politician really.

He never did any such thing and that is yet another lie people say about him. In the recording, and I certainly don't approve of it but it happens, Trump brags about how some women will allow famous people to get away with such behavior. He even said "they'll let you". When someone lets you do something there is consent. It's literally saying "they consent to it". A sexual advance on a woman with her full consent is not sexual assault by any definition. So to accuse him of sexual assault based on the recording is a lie.

You seem to be saying here that because Trump thinks it's ok for him to sexually assault women it's ok for him to do so.

 

[John Helpher]

Why do Evangelicals support Trump? For the same reasons they supported Reagan and the Bushes. It's not about who but what.

Okay, so what is the what? Can you elaborate?

 

[John Helpher]

You seem to be saying here that because Trump thinks it's ok for him to sexually assault women it's ok for him to do so.

Exactly. Hey, it's just locker room talk! But when you ask them if they speak like that, or if their pastors speak like that, or if their fathers, brothers, sons, or friends talk like that, they all say, "well, no, they don't talk like that!". They know what Trump said is not okay, either socially or morally, but they keep supporting him.

Why would they do that? Only for some benefit in exchange, and most of them will that benefit is the economy or, in other words, money. They will defend Trump's immorality so long as they continue to believe he will make them more wealthy. Sad.

 

[Vanellus]

I didn't see any answer yet about the meaning of the cryptic football comment made by timothyu

"let your yes be yes and your no be no" which enjoins plain speaking

 

[jgarden]

With a couple of exceptions, all of Hitler's inner circle was agnostic. The SS actively persecuted churches in occupied countries, usually coming in behind the army to clear out Jews and burn churches before the locals could come to grips with sudden military defeat. Both Hitler and Stalin were anti-christ, just in different forms. Much like Biden and Trump who have their own form of anti-christian different from the other.

The Great Scandal: Christianity’s Role in the Rise of the Nazis

..... According to standard biographies, the principal Nazi leaders were all born, baptized, and raised Christian. Most grew up in strict, pious households where tolerance and democratic values were disparaged. Nazi leaders of Catholic background included Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Joseph Goebbels.

Hitler did well in monastery school. He sang in the choir, found High Mass and other ceremonies intoxicating, and idolized priests. Impressed by their power, he at one time considered entering the priesthood.

Rudolf Hoess, who as commandant at Auschwitz-Birkinau pioneered the use of the Zyklon-B gas that killed half of all Holocaust victims, had strict Catholic parents. Hermann Goering had mixed Catholic-Protestant parentage, while Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Adolf Eichmann had Protestant backgrounds. Not one of the top Nazi leaders was raised in a liberal or atheistic family—no doubt, the parents of any of them would have found such views scandalous. Traditionalists would never think to deprive their offspring of the faith-based moral foundations that they would need to grow into ethical adults.

The Great Scandal: Christianity's Role in the Rise of the Nazis
****************************************************************************************************************************************
Although their personal opinions concerning Christianity remained largely unknown, none of the top Nazi leadership were reared in atheistic or even liberal households - all were born, baptized and raised in strict, conservative Christian families where Hitler at one time considered entering the Catholic priesthood!

Both Hitler and Stalin received his formal education in religious schools, sang in church choirs and Stalin would even enroll in a Russian Orthodox Seminary, in his native Georgia, for several years before abandoning the priesthood!

Unlike the Communists, however, becoming an atheist was never considered a prerequisite for becoming a good Nazi and none of the German leadership felt obliged to publicly renounce Christianity!

 

[HTacianas]

You seem to be saying here that because Trump thinks it's ok for him to sexually assault women it's ok for him to do so.

Actually what I'm saying is that when someone allows another person to do something it is done with consent. You seem to be claiming that any sort of contact is sexual assault provided they're on the wrong side of politics.

 

[Redwingfan9]

The Great Scandal: Christianity’s Role in the Rise of the Nazis

..... According to standard biographies, the principal Nazi leaders were all born, baptized, and raised Christian. Most grew up in strict, pious households where tolerance and democratic values were disparaged. Nazi leaders of Catholic background included Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Joseph Goebbels.

Hitler did well in monastery school. He sang in the choir, found High Mass and other ceremonies intoxicating, and idolized priests. Impressed by their power, he at one time considered entering the priesthood.

Rudolf Hoess, who as commandant at Auschwitz-Birkinau pioneered the use of the Zyklon-B gas that killed half of all Holocaust victims, had strict Catholic parents. Hermann Goering had mixed Catholic-Protestant parentage, while Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Adolf Eichmann had Protestant backgrounds. Not one of the top Nazi leaders was raised in a liberal or atheistic family—no doubt, the parents of any of them would have found such views scandalous. Traditionalists would never think to deprive their offspring of the faith-based moral foundations that they would need to grow into ethical adults.

The Great Scandal: Christianity's Role in the Rise of the Nazis
****************************************************************************************************************************************
Although their personal opinions concerning Christianity remained largely unknown, none of the top Nazi leadership were reared in atheistic or even liberal households - all were born, baptized and raised in strict, conservative Christian families where Hitler at one time considered entering the Catholic priesthood!

Both Hitler and Stalin received his formal education in religious schools, sang in church choirs and Stalin would even enroll in a Russian Orthodox Seminary, in his native Georgia, for several years before abandoning the priesthood!

Unlike the Communists, however, becoming an atheist was never considered a prerequisite for becoming a good Nazi and none of the German leadership felt obliged to publicly renounce Christianity!

The problem is that the German church had abandoned Biblical Christianity a century before. To say that the National Socialist hierarchy was Christian because many had been raised in seemingly pious homes does not mean they're Christians. As we know, faith is a personal matter. Almost none of the upper end National Socialists were devout Christians. Almost none attended church. The SS actively destroyed churches in occupied counties, the Gestapo persecuted churches in Germany that did not tow the party line. The Confessing Church was persecuted and nearly destroyed.

While National Socialism did not require a renouncing of faith, it nevertheless was anti-christian. An inordinate number of Hitler's inner circle were believers in the occult. Most wanted religion in Germany to return to historic paganism, which was viewed as superior to Jewish and weak Christianity.

 

[Vanellus]

Actually what I'm saying is that when someone allows another person to do something it is done with consent. You seem to be claiming that any sort of contact is sexual assault provided they're on the wrong side of politics.

Not "any sort of contact" just the kind of sexual assault Trump described in his own words.

Consent is determined by asking the person "did you consent to that?".

 

[John Helpher]

Actually what I'm saying is that when someone allows another person to do something

If someone smacks you in the face, you didn't allow them to do it. What you do afterward is independent of whether or not the action was consented to before it happened. Do you really not see the difference there? And, if you don't, that's genuinely concerning.

Can you see how what you're really doing is trying to justify Trump assaulting women? Yes, he said, "they let you do it", but how could he know that ahead of time? If he doesn't discuss it or get consent, how does he know they would be okay with it? Obviously, his comment about them letting him get away with it is from the perspective of a man who believes that money is enough to make anyone okay with anything he does. That is evidence of a man consumed by greed.

He genuinely seems to believe these woman are okay with him assaulting them because he's rich and famous. This conforms with his overall psychological fingerprint of narcissistic behavior.

That you continue to justify him strongly indicates that you identify with these same narcissistic tendencies.

 

[HTacianas]

If someone smacks you in the face, you didn't allow them to do it. What you do afterward is independent of whether or not the action was consented to before it happened. Do you really not see the difference there? And, if you don't, that's genuinely concerning.

Can you see how what you're really doing is trying to justify Trump assaulting women? Yes, he said, "they let you do it", but how could he know that ahead of time? If he doesn't discuss it or get consent, how does he know they would be okay with it? Obviously, his comment about them letting him get away with it is from the perspective of a man who believes that money is enough to make anyone okay with anything he does. That is evidence of a man consumed by greed.

He genuinely seems to believe these woman are okay with him assaulting them because he's rich and famous. This conforms with his overall psychological fingerprint of narcissistic behavior.

That you continue to justify him strongly indicates that you identify with these same narcissistic tendencies.

I am not justifying anything. You are however denying reality. And it's getting a little weird.

 

[John Helpher]

I am not justifying anything.

You suggested that the women allowed Trump to grab them. Here is what you said:

Actually what I'm saying is that when someone allows another person to do something it is done with consent.

But, they did not allow him to do so. They did not give him consent. He grabbed them on the understanding that they would be okay with it because he's rich and powerful. He did not even seem to consider that they may not be okay with a stranger grabbing their genitals.

That's what makes the situation so egregious; he doesn't recognize any wrong doing, and you are justifying him in that disregard.

 

[creslaw]

That's what makes the situation so egregious; he doesn't recognize any wrong doing, and you are justifying him in that disregard.

Did you google “I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize” .

 

[creslaw]

Actually what I'm saying is that when someone allows another person to do something it is done with consent. You seem to be claiming that any sort of contact is sexual assault provided they're on the wrong side of politics.

Even when Trump said he was wrong they still ignore it ... a bit like the way he said white supremacy is wrong and they come back with "It feels sometimes you are hesitant to do so". As you said, it's a matter of the "wrong" side of politics.

It is rather pathetic some people claim those who vote for Trump condone his character flaws. I'm not sure whether that claim is duplicity or irrationality.

 

[creslaw]

Not "any sort of contact" just the kind of sexual assault Trump described in his own words.

Consent is determined by asking the person "did you consent to that?".

Actually, it is still abuse when a subordinate consents to sexual intimacy with an employer ... as in the case of President Clinton.