Trump warns evangelicals of 'violence' if GOP loses in the midterms

[Hayabusa Rider]

What is the difference? Take a minute.

I think we may have this worked out.

 

[cytg111]

I think we may have this worked out.

Yea .. getting caught up now...

 

[soulcougher73]

Why is it that ten, a hundred, or a thousand false or misleading statements from the right don’t turn a moderate person away from the right but a single mistake from the neutral media turns them away from the left?

I never said it didn't. It turns me away. But i've come to expect that from the right at this point.

If the OP did it intentionally then its a really crappy thing from a liberal to do. If its a mistake on CNN's side it's still bad how that could slip through, but one might also think maybe the left is attempting to start playing the same game the right has been. Which could turn moderates away...from both parties. My 2 biggest pet peeves when it comes to politicians and news is lying/misleading and hypocrisy. So with that said i have zero love for the right lol

 

[Atreus21]

Why is it that ten, a hundred, or a thousand false or misleading statements from the right don’t turn a moderate person away from the right but a single mistake from the neutral media turns them away from the left?

I don't think people of either stripe are turned away from their respective parties by this sort of thing. People fall into the camp that most agrees with their worldview, and it takes something much more fundamental to realign them to something else.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think people of either stripe are turned away from their respective parties by this sort of thing. People fall into the camp that most agrees with their worldview, and it takes something much more fundamental to realign them to something else.

I think it generally works the other way - the groups define peoples' world view.

As a good example look at what percent of evangelical Christians thought personal morality was an important part of a president in say, 2014 as compared to today. Republicans told their followers that morality was no longer important so they jettisoned it.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Trump "warns of violence"...More like "Trump gives wink-nudge incitement to violence by his minions if Republicans lose the midterm elections"

 

[Stokely]

Not sure what the mis-reported stuff is about, did Trump not say this?
"They will overturn everything that we’ve done and they’ll do it quickly and violently. And violently. There’s violence. When you look at antifa, and you look at some of these groups, these are violent people.”

Because this is the type of shit we exactly DON'T need from our so-called "leader". Trump is the most divisive force in politics by a large margin. He's telling "his people" (in quotes because it's laughable that Trump has ANYTHING in common with Evangelicals other than being a lying hypocrite that wants the GOP to win) that if the other side wins, the terrorists on their side (Antifa) will be coming after them and their way of life.

How fucking ignorant would you have to be to actually believe that horseshit? And how much of a creep do you have to be to even say such a fucked-up thing that has no basis in reality?

 

[zinfamous]

Not sure what the mis-reported stuff is about, did Trump not say this?
"They will overturn everything that we’ve done and they’ll do it quickly and violently. And violently. There’s violence. When you look at antifa, and you look at some of these groups, these are violent people.”

Because this is the type of shit we exactly DON'T need from our so-called "leader". Trump is the most divisive force in politics by a large margin. He's telling "his people" (in quotes because it's laughable that Trump has ANYTHING in common with Evangelicals other than being a lying hypocrite that wants the GOP to win) that if the other side wins, the terrorists on their side (Antifa) will be coming after them and their way of life.

How fucking ignorant would you have to be to actually believe that horseshit? And how much of a creep do you have to be to even say such a fucked-up thing that has no basis in reality?

I mean, just look at his audience at this gathering.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I think it generally works the other way - the groups define peoples' world view.

As a good example look at what percent of evangelical Christians thought personal morality was an important part of a president in say, 2014 as compared to today. Republicans told their followers that morality was no longer important so they jettisoned it.

Many of his supporters are swayed by his open racism, misogyny and anti-intellectualism. For the religious zealots, it isn't that he's infallible but more specifically that he is God's chosen instrument. They can overlook all of his glaring flaws by observing that God has only flawed humans from among whom to anoint. The ones who worship him and not Him, most do think he's infallible.

 

[senseamp]

Evangelicals are amygdala thinkers and Trump knows how to hijack them.

 

[brycejones]

Post 68 we finally get atrw

Not sure what the mis-reported stuff is about, did Trump not say this?
"They will overturn everything that we’ve done and they’ll do it quickly and violently. And violently. There’s violence. When you look at antifa, and you look at some of these groups, these are violent people.”

Because this is the type of shit we exactly DON'T need from our so-called "leader". Trump is the most divisive force in politics by a large margin. He's telling "his people" (in quotes because it's laughable that Trump has ANYTHING in common with Evangelicals other than being a lying hypocrite that wants the GOP to win) that if the other side wins, the terrorists on their side (Antifa) will be coming after them and their way of life.

How fucking ignorant would you have to be to actually believe that horseshit? And how much of a creep do you have to be to even say such a fucked-up thing that has no basis in reality?

I heard an evangelical leader on NPR this morning state there is no moral difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump so they support Trump because he will give them the policies they want.

 

[DigDog]

Almost identical to the pre-vote speech the various Berlusconi employees had to recite.

 

[dainthomas]

Holy Cow OP. You've got a set on you my friend.

What you quoted in your OP:



What was actually in the link from CNN:



You care to explain that discrepancy? No wonder people think I'm crazy for bringing up antifa. They relied on your post, not your link.

They're obviously not very fine people like his racist base who has killed actual people (not just hurt conservative feelings).

 

[Atreus21]

I think it generally works the other way - the groups define peoples' world view.

As a good example look at what percent of evangelical Christians thought personal morality was an important part of a president in say, 2014 as compared to today. Republicans told their followers that morality was no longer important so they jettisoned it.

Whereas under Obama and the Democrats they perceived a growing animosity to religious liberty, as illustrated in the Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, and Masterpiece Cakeshop cases, all of which intended to force Christians to support things to which they objected. And furthermore, when they objected, they were dismissed as motivated by bigotry. Anthony Kennedy nailed this contempt exactly:

"To describe a man’s faith as 'one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use' is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical — something insubstantial and even insincere."

One wonders whether progressives have any respect at all for religious convictions. It seems that when the progressive agenda comes up against any meaningful limit in enumerated constitutional rights, be it freedom of speech or religion, the exercise of those rights is derided as a mask for simple bigotry.

In that context, I can understand why evangelicals would support Trump over Clinton.

 

[dainthomas]

One wonders whether progressives have any respect at all for religious convictions. It seems that when the progressive agenda comes up against any meaningful limit in enumerated constitutional rights, be it freedom of speech or religion, the exercise of those rights is derided as a mask for simple bigotry.

In that context, I can understand why evangelicals would support Trump over Clinton.

If your religion says you're required to stone disobedient wives and children, the law says you're still not allowed to. Your "convictions" stop where they cause harm to other people. The end.

 

[fskimospy]

Whereas under Obama and the Democrats they perceived a growing animosity to religious liberty, as illustrated in the Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, and Masterpiece Cakeshop cases, all of which intended to force Christians to support things to which they objected. And furthermore, when they objected, they were dismissed as motivated by bigotry. Anthony Kennedy nailed this contempt exactly:

"To describe a man’s faith as 'one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use' is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical — something insubstantial and even insincere."

Right but we both know the ‘religious liberty’ argument was transparent nonsense and the Hobby Lobby decision comically transparent judicial activism.

The Obama stance was that laws which apply to everyone... apply to everyone. The right’s argument was that religious people should get to opt out of any laws they don’t like. Can you give a coherent legal reason using Hobby Lobby’s logic why a religious person can’t opt out of laws on taxation or murder? There is none.

One wonders whether progressives have any respect at all for religious convictions. It seems that when the progressive agenda comes up against any meaningful limit in enumerated constitutional rights, be it freedom of speech or religion, the exercise of those rights is derided as a mask for simple bigotry.

The government is not constraining your exercise of religion by having you serve gay people at your shop. It’s absurd. The government also isn’t infringing on your freedom of speech when someone tells you that you’re a bigot. That’s just not how the constitution works.

In that context, I can understand why evangelicals would support Trump over Clinton.

Evangelicals most certainly could have said that they chose to support a profoundly immoral man because he would implement their preferred policies but that’s not what they said. They used to say morality mattered in a president and now they don’t.

I think we both know the US evangelical political community is filled with immoral hypocrites. If there’s one good thing that has come out of this it’s that no one will ever take their claims to morality seriously ever again. They have destroyed their own legitimacy and it’s great!

 

[Jhhnn]

Post 68 we finally get atrw


I heard an evangelical leader on NPR this morning state there is no moral difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump so they support Trump because he will give them the policies they want.

Evangelical leaders are scammers just like Trump in a different milieu.

 

[brycejones]

Whereas under Obama and the Democrats they perceived a growing animosity to religious liberty, as illustrated in the Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, and Masterpiece Cakeshop cases, all of which intended to force Christians to support things to which they objected. And furthermore, when they objected, they were dismissed as motivated by bigotry. Anthony Kennedy nailed this contempt exactly:

"To describe a man’s faith as 'one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use' is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical — something insubstantial and even insincere."

One wonders whether progressives have any respect at all for religious convictions. It seems that when the progressive agenda comes up against any meaningful limit in enumerated constitutional rights, be it freedom of speech or religion, the exercise of those rights is derided as a mask for simple bigotry.

In that context, I can understand why evangelicals would support Trump over Clinton.

You are free to climb down from the cross of your own making anytime.

 

[fskimospy]

Evangelical leaders are scammers just like Trump in a different milieu.

Absolutely. Look at how they turned on Jeff Sessions, a guy who never found a white Christian nationalist position he didn’t like.

Jerry Falwell Jr., supposed voice of morality, wants Jeff Sessions to be fired because he is not obstructing federal criminal investigations into the president. Yes, the morality policy are mad that the president isn’t getting to commit crimes without consequence.

Petty grifters taking advantage of often poor people. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Petty grifters taking advantage of often poor people. They should be ashamed of themselves.

I agree and this is one of the primary reasons that I have difficulty supporting organized religion today. I can promise you that Jesus is not pleased by the activities he sees today and its something that he warned would happen to church with time. Remember they started out with Ananias and Sapphira mismanaging the church and we can see today that its come a full circle.

 

[ElFenix]

i'm still trying to figure out exactly where in church 'Hobby Lobby, Inc.' sits each sunday.

 

[thilanliyan]

You're saying what he explicitly said is less likely to indicate his meaning than something he didn't say at all?

Does it make sense to you? You think Antifa would riot if Trump LOSES?

 

[fskimospy]

i'm still trying to figure out exactly where in church 'Hobby Lobby, Inc.' sits each sunday.

I always love the reasoning how corporations like Hobby Lobby are essentially one and the same with their owners when it comes to religion but entirely separate from them when it comes to financial liabilities.

Gee, who could have possibly guessed.

 

[Atreus21]

Right but we both know the ‘religious liberty’ argument was transparent nonsense and the Hobby Lobby decision comically transparent judicial activism.

Well no we don't. I don't call every SCOTUS decision I disagree with judicial activism. The religious objection to contraception is that far from liberating women, it makes men view them chiefly as vehicles for pleasure. Furthermore contraception is cheap and abundant. Whether I substantially agree with that or not, it's not transparent nonsense to me.

The Obama stance was that laws which apply to everyone... apply to everyone. The right’s argument was that religious people should get to opt out of any laws they don’t like. Can you give a coherent legal reason using Hobby Lobby’s logic why a religious person can’t opt out of laws on taxation or murder? There is none.

Certainly I can. Because of the standard set forth in the RFRA. If there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest than blatantly disregarding religious principles, it must take it. In the case of murder and taxation, there aren't any I can think of.

The government is not constraining your exercise of religion by having you serve gay people at your shop. It’s absurd.

Yes it is absurd, and that's not what masterpiece cakeshop was about. They'd served gays before.

The government also isn’t infringing on your freedom of speech when someone tells you that you’re a bigot. That’s just not how the constitution works.

If the government tells me what I must say and what ideas I must support or face a penalty, that's plainly infringing my freedom of speech.

Evangelicals most certainly could have said that they chose to support a profoundly immoral man because he would implement their preferred policies but that’s not what they said. They used to say morality mattered in a president and now they don’t.

It does matter, but it's not the only consideration. With the left's regression further into Marxism, and its concomitant disdain for religion, evangelicals took stock of their situation and voted accordingly.

I think we both know the US evangelical political community is filled with immoral hypocrites. If there’s one good thing that has come out of this it’s that no one will ever take their claims to morality seriously ever again. They have destroyed their own legitimacy and it’s great!

You mean to tell me that, before Trump, their claims to being moral and whatever else were taken seriously by the left? Please.

 

[1prophet]

I think it generally works the other way - the groups define peoples' world view.

As a good example look at what percent of evangelical Christians thought personal morality was an important part of a president in say, 2014 as compared to today. Republicans told their followers that morality was no longer important so they jettisoned it.

What else would you expect from the great falling away that defines the prosperity gospel Laodicean church which trusts in its riches and societal stature before everything else, including the very religion they claim to represent.