[Purple Haize]

It’s saying ‘Here are my beliefs. This person in political office will be the best to let me practice them unhindered. “

How is this not a Christian case for Trump?

And we don't have compulsory voting in America. You don't have to choose. You don't have to vote. I see a vote as an endorsement, and if I can't endorse, I won't vote.

How IS this a Christian case for Trump? Where am I claiming he is some great leader for the Church? Some beacon of Christs love hope and mercy?
You’re right. You don’t have to vote. You can take the easy road out and not make a difficult decision. You wouldn’t be alone in that. It certainly doesn’t help you get any closer to whatever Panacea you have in your mind but you are certainly free to not vote.

[Purple Haize]

I'm saying Trump does not meet the bare minimum threshold of character to justify supporting him on policy. That's very different thank asking for a pastor for president. I think framing the concerns of those in the Never Trump camp as because of him being "loud and annoying" or "mean tweets" is absurdly dismissive. That's not actually reckoning with his behavior. He is, has been, and will be a danger to the Republic if he doesn't lose support this go around. And that's because of his character.

what legitimate presidential candidate (either party) in the past however long wouldn't literally do anything in support of their ego/power accumulation?

I think this question answers itself. What past candidate lied for months about election fraud with no evidence, conspired to create "fake electors" to overturn that election, and when that didn't work, whipped a crowd up into a frenzy that breached the capitol to try to stop the election from being certified? Just because his ego can't entertain the concept of losing. We're not talking about regular think-too-highly-of-himself politician, we're talking about dangerous personality disorder stuff.

What policies of his do you disagree with? That’s a better argument for not voting then the Jesus Juke you are attempting. I had policy disagreements with him. He didn’t fulfill some things I wish he would have. But given the other option in 2016 I’m pleased with what was accomplished. Based on the other option in 2020 I was hopeful for more of the same. Based on the results of the policies of the current Administration (most of which are simply undoing those of the last one) I think policy wise I’m on solid footing voting for Trump if he’s the nominee again

[Yacht Rock]

What makes you think that abstinence is the easy way out? One might say that due to your disdain for not-voting, if you ever were to make that decision, that would be the difficult decision for you personally and that, by voting for Trump, you are taking the easy way out.

Many of us don't let our general two-party system force us one way or another.

As far as Christianity, I'd say that Trump is far more dangerous to the church in America than the current president or the one in office prior to Trump.

With that, I'm out.

[stokesjokes]

Yup. I don't get the insinuation that voting the same way 80% of your peers did is "the hard choice." Reminds me of Kevin Durant calling joining the 73-win Warriors team "the hardest road."

I don't want to hash out policies that I disagree with Trump on because obviously that's not my main objection to him. It's not a Jesus juke to question the morality of supporting someone with such flagrant character defects. It was the standard position of the Christian right for 40 years until it would have actually cost them something.

It’s saying ‘Here are my beliefs. This person in political office will be the best to let me practice them unhindered. “

How is this not a Christian case for Trump?

And we don't have compulsory voting in America. You don't have to choose. You don't have to vote. I see a vote as an endorsement, and if I can't endorse, I won't vote.

How IS this a Christian case for Trump? Where am I claiming he is some great leader for the Church? Some beacon of Christs love hope and mercy?
You’re right. You don’t have to vote. You can take the easy road out and not make a difficult decision. You wouldn’t be alone in that. It certainly doesn’t help you get any closer to whatever Panacea you have in your mind but you are certainly free to not vote.

and on this^ it seems like you're interpreting me saying "a Christian case for Trump" as "a case for Trump as a Christian." I mean a Christian case for voting for Trump. What you're laying out is that you, as a Christian, value having your right to practice your beliefs uninhibited so you'd support any candidate that says they would protect that for you.

[Purple Haize]

The hard choice is voting for someone who doesn’t check all your boxes. The hard choice is saying this guy isn’t my 1st 2nd or 3rd choice but given the options he’s the better choice. If 80% of your friends feel that way and vote then sure it’s not a hard choice. For me it wasn’t a hard choice at all. It was super easy. He was by far the superior choice to either of his opponents
I as a Christian want to be able to live according to my beliefs. As a Citizen I don’t want my Religious beliefs forced on anyone else. Im not sure what you’re getting at. Im not saying voting for Trump is the Christian thing to do. Not say not voting for him is either.
And if you aren’t going to discuss policy then why are you discussing politics? Politics is about policy.

[rtb72]

What makes you think that abstinence is the easy way out? One might say that due to your disdain for not-voting, if you ever were to make that decision, that would be the difficult decision for you personally and that, by voting for Trump, you are taking the easy way out.

Many of us don't let our general two-party system force us one way or another.

As far as Christianity, I'd say that Trump is far more dangerous to the church in America than the current president or the one in office prior to Trump.

With that, I'm out.

Throw out a "teaser" and then bug out? By all means...please elaborate. Obama v. Trump v. Biden and their influence on "The Church". I'm genuinely interested in how one has been "far more dangerous".

[stokesjokes]

The hard choice is voting for someone who doesn’t check all your boxes. The hard choice is saying this guy isn’t my 1st 2nd or 3rd choice but given the options he’s the better choice. If 80% of your friends feel that way and vote then sure it’s not a hard choice. For me it wasn’t a hard choice at all. It was super easy. He was by far the superior choice to either of his opponents
I as a Christian want to be able to live according to my beliefs. As a Citizen I don’t want my Religious beliefs forced on anyone else. Im not sure what you’re getting at. Im not saying voting for Trump is the Christian thing to do. Not say not voting for him is either.
And if you aren’t going to discuss policy then why are you discussing politics? Politics is about policy.

I think giving up control over the process and being ok with losing to preserve your principles is a hard choice as well. That’s informed by my faith- I’m called to be willing to lose everything to be faithful. That includes elections. We can disagree on what faithfulness looks like in application in politics, but that’s my point in suggesting that you are making a Christian case- your faith informs your political choices. How can it not?

And politics is about more than policy. It’s also about people. To believe it isn’t is naive. For me, character is as important as policy. So much of what a president does and deals with is beyond the scope of stated policy positions. For example, when you voted in 2016 were you thinking about the candidates’ positions on pandemics? Racial protests and riots? You have to trust that they have the character to deal with unexpected challenges. You also have to trust that they will have the character to actually follow through with the policy platforms they ran on.

[Purple Haize]

The hard choice is voting for someone who doesn’t check all your boxes. The hard choice is saying this guy isn’t my 1st 2nd or 3rd choice but given the options he’s the better choice. If 80% of your friends feel that way and vote then sure it’s not a hard choice. For me it wasn’t a hard choice at all. It was super easy. He was by far the superior choice to either of his opponents
I as a Christian want to be able to live according to my beliefs. As a Citizen I don’t want my Religious beliefs forced on anyone else. Im not sure what you’re getting at. Im not saying voting for Trump is the Christian thing to do. Not say not voting for him is either.
And if you aren’t going to discuss policy then why are you discussing politics? Politics is about policy.

I think giving up control over the process and being ok with losing to preserve your principles is a hard choice as well. That’s informed by my faith- I’m called to be willing to lose everything to be faithful. That includes elections. We can disagree on what faithfulness looks like in application in politics, but that’s my point in suggesting that you are making a Christian case- your faith informs your political choices. How can it not?

And politics is about more than policy. It’s also about people. To believe it isn’t is naive. For me, character is as important as policy. So much of what a president does and deals with is beyond the scope of stated policy positions. For example, when you voted in 2016 were you thinking about the candidates’ positions on pandemics? Racial protests and riots? You have to trust that they have the character to deal with unexpected challenges. You also have to trust that they will have the character to actually follow through with the policy platforms they ran on.

Not voting for a Politician isn’t “preserving your principles”. It’s abdicating your responsibility. I am still not seeing where im making any sort of Christian case into this. I want my non Christian friends to be able to be non Christians as well. I expect that they will vote for the person who most lines up with their beliefs. You are the one who keeps bringing a Christian Case into the discussion. I’ve stated already that voting doesn’t make you a Christian. What I am saying is if you don’t like the way things are but didn’t vote for the alternative that’s on you. If you didn’t vote at all, that’s a tacit agreement that what we have now is better than what we had before.

Couldn’t disagree more. Politics is about Policy. Jimmy Carter had great character. Ronald Reagan was not as close to him in character. To think a Politician, especially one running for President, is someone who isn’t driven by ego is naive. You say you don’t want to talk about Policy then that’s what you want to do. Yes, I’d rather have the COVID policies that Trump wanted than Biden has. I’d rather have Trumps picks for judges than Bidens Yes I’d rather have Trumps policy on protests and riots than the opposition Party had. The list goes on. Policy after Policy I come down on the side of Trump. Yes, there will be the unexpected but you can’t plan for that, it why it’s called unexpected.
For 2024 you’ll have a few Republican Candidates to chose from and maybe more than 1 Democrat to chose from for POTUS in the Primary. That’s your chance to get out and advocate. Don’t want Trump? Great. Go advocate for one of his opponents in the Primary. But if Trump wins the Primary and you sit home, it’s just a tacit approval to the status quo.

[stokesjokes]

You seem to have a peculiar view of what a "Christian case" means and I'm not sure why it's so important to you to make the distinctions you're trying to make. A Christian case doesn't mean voting makes you a Christian or that you want to force your beliefs on others. I think every Christian has to ask themselves why, as a Christian, should I support this candidate. If you can't answer that question, you shouldn't support. You keep revealing your answer of why, as a Christian, you could justify supporting Trump and then you say it's not a Christian case for supporting Trump.

And I reject the idea that not supporting the R candidate means I'm approving the status quo. My support is my support. If I vote D I'm supporting the status quo. If I don't pick either, I'm not supporting either. I don't have a responsibility to choose the lesser of two evils. I have a responsibility not to choose evil. I also have to recognize the implications of my support that go beyond policy platforms. If a candidate can't demonstrate the bare minimum of character it would be against my conscience to support them. I believe God honors that choice and I leave the outcome to Him.

You're misunderstanding my point on policies. You didn't know what Trump's COVID policies were when you voted for him, you didn't know how he would handle protests and riots, that's on judgment of his character. You may think he handled those things well. His character also led him to extorting other countries for political gain, creating the conditions for January 6th, and stealing classified documents. I also think his character is revealed in how he treats people, which has emboldened many others to act similarly. You have to reckon with those things as part of your endorsement as well.

[Purple Haize]

You seem to have a peculiar view of what a "Christian case" means and I'm not sure why it's so important to you to make the distinctions you're trying to make. A Christian case doesn't mean voting makes you a Christian or that you want to force your beliefs on others. I think every Christian has to ask themselves why, as a Christian, should I support this candidate. If you can't answer that question, you shouldn't support. You keep revealing your answer of why, as a Christian, you could justify supporting Trump and then you say it's not a Christian case for supporting Trump.

And I reject the idea that not supporting the R candidate means I'm approving the status quo. My support is my support. If I vote D I'm supporting the status quo. If I don't pick either, I'm not supporting either. I don't have a responsibility to choose the lesser of two evils. I have a responsibility not to choose evil. I also have to recognize the implications of my support that go beyond policy platforms. If a candidate can't demonstrate the bare minimum of character it would be against my conscience to support them. I believe God honors that choice and I leave the outcome to Him.

You're misunderstanding my point on policies. You didn't know what Trump's COVID policies were when you voted for him, you didn't know how he would handle protests and riots, that's on judgment of his character. You may think he handled those things well. His character also led him to extorting other countries for political gain, creating the conditions for January 6th, and stealing classified documents. I also think his character is revealed in how he treats people, which has emboldened many others to act similarly. You have to reckon with those things as part of your endorsement as well.

No. I keep revealing why I can make a decision. You are the one who keeps bringing Christianity into it. I say ‘beliefs’ Yes, mine are Christian but not everyone else’s are, so it’s a Universal.
You don’t have to support the R Candidate because you don’t know who it is. You also don’t know who the D candidate is either. But if the D candidate is the same one and you chose not to vote for his replacement then you are tacitly agreeing that what we have now is better than the alternative
No one new anything about COVID. You are looking back in hindsight to pass judgement. Most politicians treat people poorly. There are exceptions to be sure. But it you can’t help them you don’t matter. I know a lot of jerks who are really good at their jobs and I would have no problem hiring them to do it. Trump has a huge ego. No surprise to anyone. How he treats people is no surprise. Yes, it does have to be factored into the equation. But it’s naive to assume that Presidents and politicians are all nice wonderful people driven purely by selfless motives

[RubberMallet]

I'm saying Trump does not meet the bare minimum threshold of character to justify supporting him on policy. That's very different thank asking for a pastor for president. I think framing the concerns of those in the Never Trump camp as because of him being "loud and annoying" or "mean tweets" is absurdly dismissive. That's not actually reckoning with his behavior. He is, has been, and will be a danger to the Republic if he doesn't lose support this go around. And that's because of his character.

what legitimate presidential candidate (either party) in the past however long wouldn't literally do anything in support of their ego/power accumulation?

I think this question answers itself. What past candidate lied for months about election fraud with no evidence, conspired to create "fake electors" to overturn that election, and when that didn't work, whipped a crowd up into a frenzy that breached the capitol to try to stop the election from being certified? Just because his ego can't entertain the concept of losing. We're not talking about regular think-too-highly-of-himself politician, we're talking about dangerous personality disorder stuff.

before I even posted that I was like, I bet this guy brings up jan 6th. Sorry I'm unable to have a serious conversation with you

[stokesjokes]

But it’s naive to assume that Presidents and politicians are all nice wonderful people driven purely by selfless motives

Who is assuming this? I've repeatedly talked about bare minimums, not some unrealistic ideal

[stokesjokes]

I'm saying Trump does not meet the bare minimum threshold of character to justify supporting him on policy. That's very different thank asking for a pastor for president. I think framing the concerns of those in the Never Trump camp as because of him being "loud and annoying" or "mean tweets" is absurdly dismissive. That's not actually reckoning with his behavior. He is, has been, and will be a danger to the Republic if he doesn't lose support this go around. And that's because of his character.

what legitimate presidential candidate (either party) in the past however long wouldn't literally do anything in support of their ego/power accumulation?

I think this question answers itself. What past candidate lied for months about election fraud with no evidence, conspired to create "fake electors" to overturn that election, and when that didn't work, whipped a crowd up into a frenzy that breached the capitol to try to stop the election from being certified? Just because his ego can't entertain the concept of losing. We're not talking about regular think-too-highly-of-himself politician, we're talking about dangerous personality disorder stuff.

before I even posted that I was like, I bet this guy brings up jan 6th. Sorry I'm unable to have a serious conversation with you

Yikes. If you're unable to have a serious conversation, don't be so quick to assume you're the serious one.

[Purple Haize]

But it’s naive to assume that Presidents and politicians are all nice wonderful people driven purely by selfless motives

Who is assuming this? I've repeatedly talked about bare minimums, not some unrealistic ideal

You’ve talked in vague generalities with nothing specific. You don’t like Trump. That’s apparently your bare minimum

[stokesjokes]

What are you expecting? Me to tell you how many marriages a candidate can have? Yes, I'm saying Trump is below the bare minimum for me. Do you have a bare minimum standard?

[Purple Haize]

What are you expecting? Me to tell you how many marriages a candidate can have? Yes, I'm saying Trump is below the bare minimum for me. Do you have a bare minimum standard?

You are the one stating he doesn’t meet YOUR standard. But won’t say what that standard is. I expect my candidate to be flawed. Some a lot more than others. The number of wives they had/have is irrelevant to me. But apparently not to you

[paradox]

What are you expecting? Me to tell you how many marriages a candidate can have? Yes, I'm saying Trump is below the bare minimum for me. Do you have a bare minimum standard?

If most of us on here and gonna be honest with ourselves, we have to concede that we got played by Trump. Maybe this will play on a little longer for some. But, GOP likely moving past DT.

Stokes, on the other hand, though well-intentioned, appears to be someone who is being played by the Left.

[willflop]

John lost his head over the "marriage" issue.

[stokesjokes]

Ok, let me start here: the candidate shouldn't be a malignant narcissist. The candidate shouldn't lie constantly. The candidate should show a bare minimum of respect to others. Maybe not make fun of disabled or dead people. Maybe not have credible sexual assault allegations. Shouldn't be grabbing people by the p*ssy or leering at underage beauty contest contestants. Shouldn't encourage violence or make veiled threats all the time.

How am I doing so far?

[stokesjokes]

What are you expecting? Me to tell you how many marriages a candidate can have? Yes, I'm saying Trump is below the bare minimum for me. Do you have a bare minimum standard?

If most of us on here and gonna be honest with ourselves, we have to concede that we got played by Trump. Maybe this will play on a little longer for some. But, GOP likely moving past DT.

Stokes, on the other hand, though well-intentioned, appears to be someone who is being played by the Left.

Honest question, what makes you think I'm being played by the left?

[paradox]

Talking points mostly

[stokesjokes]

It's January 6th, isn't it

[RubberMallet]

I'm saying Trump does not meet the bare minimum threshold of character to justify supporting him on policy. That's very different thank asking for a pastor for president. I think framing the concerns of those in the Never Trump camp as because of him being "loud and annoying" or "mean tweets" is absurdly dismissive. That's not actually reckoning with his behavior. He is, has been, and will be a danger to the Republic if he doesn't lose support this go around. And that's because of his character.
I think this question answers itself. What past candidate lied for months about election fraud with no evidence, conspired to create "fake electors" to overturn that election, and when that didn't work, whipped a crowd up into a frenzy that breached the capitol to try to stop the election from being certified? Just because his ego can't entertain the concept of losing. We're not talking about regular think-too-highly-of-himself politician, we're talking about dangerous personality disorder stuff.

before I even posted that I was like, I bet this guy brings up jan 6th. Sorry I'm unable to have a serious conversation with you

Yikes. If you're unable to have a serious conversation, don't be so quick to assume you're the serious one.

yeah ok jan 6 guy i'm not the serious one. got it. good luck to you

[Humble_Opinion]

I don't want to hash out policies that I disagree with Trump on because obviously that's not my main objection to him. It's not a Jesus juke to question the morality of supporting someone with such flagrant character defects. It was the standard position of the Christian right for 40 years until it would have actually cost them something.

This is hilarious to me, as all men have character defects. It's hard for me to tell what side of the aisle you typically vote for, because you won't discuss policies. In the game of politics (policy), you're basing your decision on character and morality. That's fine, but when you do so while invoking the name of Christ IMHO you are mixing oil and water. But I'll play your game.

Considering the past 22 years of presidential elections, I think you would be hard pressed to make a case based solely on the character of the candidates if you actually sat down and measured them in the way you are Trump. What you don't like about Trump is that he is so "flagrant". He's in your face. It was talked about all the time in media, and whether it was positively or negatively spun, it was always there. He lied. He cheated at times. He was boastful and narcissistic. He was... all of it. Now tell me about GWB. I supported him myself, but I've now come to the conclusion based on evidence that he was either lied to/used as a tool, or he lied himself knowing that the reasons he stated for going to war in Iraq were not totally true. Thousands of our own men died in that war and countless more were maimed. We spent trillions and got nothing in return. However, because he played the game and put on a good face while on camera and hid his character flaws better - you were more comfortable with him maybe? How about Obama? A REAL Narcissist. The guy couldn't give a speech without making it all about himself. He lied on camera hundreds of times and about very real policies that affected tens of millions. He drone-striked the h*** out of the world, even taking out American citizens. What's more - he used the office to enrich himself and JB (the Big guy) clearly did the same. However, because he was a smooth talker, and he played the right cards at the right times and had the friendliest media of any president in history - you maybe were/are okay with it? Then we have HRC. Good Lord - where do you start with her? No chance a serious person could say she is Trump's moral superior and the same goes for Biden.

All that to say, I don't think you're being consistent in your judgments here. To be a successful candidate for president these days, you are not going to be a paragon of virtue. I think your problem with Trump isn't his immorality, but rather his style. My response to you is that at least I know Trump and his defects because he makes them readily apparent. He's a known quantity. The individuals I consider to be a greater threat to instability are the two-faced politicians.

[stokesjokes]

If it helps you understand, I didn't vote for any of the people you listed