Donald Trump has exposed 'evangelical' voters

[Danmark]

I was raised as an evangelical. I WAS an evangelical. It is clear that Trump is not an authentic evangelical; he knows next to nothing about the Bible and has lived and continues to live and promote a lifestyle that is antithetical to evangelical Christianity.
Yet he is doing very well, better than any other Republican candidate, among evangelicals.

My conclusion is that evangelicals care much more about secular politics than about true Christian values. Has Trump support among 'evangelicals' exposed the fact the 'evangelical voting block' is not based on Christian values, but on secular political values?

[tugofwarstrum]

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/reich/art ... 878309.php
Ive been reluctant to use the f word to describe Donald Trump because its especially harsh, and its too often used carelessly.
But Trump has finally reached a point where parallels between his presidential campaign and the fascists of the first half of the 20th century " lurid figures such as Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Oswald Mosley and Francisco Franco " are too evident to overlook.
_ Robert Reich

Excellent article! And right on the money. It is if millions of Americans are completely ignorant of the fascist nationalism that rose in the 1930's and culminated in the tragedy of WWII.

Trump is following in the fascist nationalistic tradition of Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, and yes, Adolf Hitler. As I've said before, I agree with Reich that one should only reluctantly, sparingly use such comparisons, but with Trump they fit to a 'T.'

You and Reich are calling Stalin a fascist? He killed people for less than that. Pardon the pun, but it is a bit ironic that Reich is criticizing authoritarian socialism.

Stalin was a fascist dictator draped in communist garb. It is the unrepentant nationalism and the demagogic appeal to fears and hatred, to nationalistic bigotry and hatred of the 'other' religion that they have in common. The outrages of the left and the right often mirror each other. 'Left' and 'right' lose their meaning when authoritarianism becomes extreme. Forget the labels, look at the common tactics, the common appeal and rhetoric.

and here I think you showed exactly why Trump is doing so well. He appeals to a large crowd of hateful, bigoted, racist crowd. not only that he's all over the place that he matches the attention span of the common american. there's a reason why our commercials are full of colors and usually are fast paced, people have short attention spans.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 82 by Danmark]

Moderator Comment
The mod team has decided that comparing people to Hitler is still forbidden, even politicians who open themselves up for such comparison. As allowing one instance would open up floodgates.

Apologies to Danmark, the previous warning has been downgraded to a comment.

Please review our Rules.


Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[help3434]

I do find it puzzling. I would have thought that Ted Cruz would have been the dream candidate for "moral majority" evangelicals, but Trump has managed to overshadow him. Maybe it is because evangelicals tend to be more of a xenophobic demographic even if that is not explicitly part of their religion. Or maybe they are not as Laissez Faire in economic issues as I thought.

[help3434]

.

So what does Michael Bloomberg have on Trump? He's the only person that Trump hasn't bad-mouthed. Is it because being ten times wealthier and having a cleaner record, he might be scared lest Bloomberg enter the race if Hillary falters? Obviously Bloomberg is not happy with the likes of Trump OR Sanders in the pilot seat. Of course Bloomberg IS the establishment but I think it wise at this juncture to go with the devil you know rather than with the devil you don't know.

So one New York billionaire semi-fascist is scared of another New York billionaire semi-fascist? It is starting to get a bit late in the game for a new person to throw their hat in the ring.

[Danmark]

I do find it puzzling. I would have thought that Ted Cruz would have been the dream candidate for "moral majority" evangelicals, but Trump has managed to overshadow him. Maybe it is because evangelicals tend to be more of a xenophobic demographic even if that is not explicitly part of their religion. Or maybe they are not as Laissez Faire in economic issues as I thought.

It is very interesting. One would think that as a whole Christians would not be xenophobic; that their evangelical outreach, their history with foreign missions, and the 'Great Commandment' to go and preach to all the world, open their hearts, minds and eyes to others. Yet so many embrace Trump who is Xenophobe #1.

[marco]

"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel," Pope Francis told journalists who asked his opinion on Trump's proposals to halt illegal immigration.

Trump immediately fired back, calling Francis' comments "disgraceful."

I'd guess that Roman Catholics who vote for Trump may have some internal conflict.

Not really, Danmark. Francis is speaking from his rather soft and impractical heart and not ex cathedra. There is a possibility that many of the European "refugees" are going to be our future bombers. The majority are able bodied young men. It is of course wrong to say that ALL Muslims are terrorists; but it is correct to say all terrorists are Muslims (as far as the present brand of terrorism is concerned). Trump - as I understand from a distance - simply suggested that you need time to assess the situation; who is good and who is bad. That is eminently sensible. In tolerant Britain our chief export has become terrorists. We are belatedly trying to close doors. So Donald has a point.

[Goat]

"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel," Pope Francis told journalists who asked his opinion on Trump's proposals to halt illegal immigration.

Trump immediately fired back, calling Francis' comments "disgraceful."

I'd guess that Roman Catholics who vote for Trump may have some internal conflict.

Not really, Danmark. Francis is speaking from his rather soft and impractical heart and not ex cathedra. There is a possibility that many of the European "refugees" are going to be our future bombers. The majority are able bodied young men. It is of course wrong to say that ALL Muslims are terrorists; but it is correct to say all terrorists are Muslims (as far as the present brand of terrorism is concerned). Trump - as I understand from a distance - simply suggested that you need time to assess the situation; who is good and who is bad. That is eminently sensible. In tolerant Britain our chief export has become terrorists. We are belatedly trying to close doors. So Donald has a point.

Betweeen 1980 and 2005, out of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, only 6% were from Muslims.

[marco]

"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel," Pope Francis told journalists who asked his opinion on Trump's proposals to halt illegal immigration.

Trump immediately fired back, calling Francis' comments "disgraceful."

I'd guess that Roman Catholics who vote for Trump may have some internal conflict.

Not really, Danmark. Francis is speaking from his rather soft and impractical heart and not ex cathedra. There is a possibility that many of the European "refugees" are going to be our future bombers. The majority are able bodied young men. It is of course wrong to say that ALL Muslims are terrorists; but it is correct to say all terrorists are Muslims (as far as the present brand of terrorism is concerned). Trump - as I understand from a distance - simply suggested that you need time to assess the situation; who is good and who is bad. That is eminently sensible. In tolerant Britain our chief export has become terrorists. We are belatedly trying to close doors. So Donald has a point.

Betweeen 1980 and 2005, out of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, only 6% were from Muslims.

You are not of course looking at the magnitude of the various attacks. There was one very notable attack during that period, was there not? I said that for us it is too late to close the doors; you are telling me that in the USA there is still an insignificant threat, for whatever reason. Do you suppose that Europe is hated and America is loved? Or is it possible Trump is right in suggesting you don't want what Europe has, so take precautions now. Once upon a time we would have believed that attacks in Britain were out of the question.

I think we start measuring threats from around 2000. In 1980 terror had a different face. Attacks in Paris and Brussels would have been unheard of. It is true Britain had the IRA threat.

[Elijah John]

"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel," Pope Francis told journalists who asked his opinion on Trump's proposals to halt illegal immigration.

Trump immediately fired back, calling Francis' comments "disgraceful."

I'd guess that Roman Catholics who vote for Trump may have some internal conflict.

Not really, Danmark. Francis is speaking from his rather soft and impractical heart and not ex cathedra. There is a possibility that many of the European "refugees" are going to be our future bombers. The majority are able bodied young men. It is of course wrong to say that ALL Muslims are terrorists; but it is correct to say all terrorists are Muslims (as far as the present brand of terrorism is concerned). Trump - as I understand from a distance - simply suggested that you need time to assess the situation; who is good and who is bad. That is eminently sensible. In tolerant Britain our chief export has become terrorists. We are belatedly trying to close doors. So Donald has a point.

Betweeen 1980 and 2005, out of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, only 6% were from Muslims.

I question that statistic. What or who accounts for the other 94%? And anyone who follows my posts on these boards knows I am an Abrahamic harmony kind of guy, and not knee-jerk "anti-Muslim". But that very low statistic makes me wonder how you (or your source) defines "terrorism".

[Danmark]

Francis is speaking from his rather soft and impractical heart and not ex cathedra. There is a possibility that many of the European "refugees" are going to be our future bombers. The majority are able bodied young men. It is of course wrong to say that ALL Muslims are terrorists; but it is correct to say all terrorists are Muslims (as far as the present brand of terrorism is concerned). Trump - as I understand from a distance - simply suggested that you need time to assess the situation; who is good and who is bad. That is eminently sensible. In tolerant Britain our chief export has become terrorists. We are belatedly trying to close doors. So Donald has a point.

Allow me to gently make a few points:

1. Whether or not the Pope speaks ex cathedra, his words are influential, especially for Catholics.
2. It is NOT correct to say "all terrorists are Muslims" even with your qualification, unless you actually mean the tautological "all Muslim terrorists are Muslims."
3. "Donald Trump has a point?" So did Hitler. And the point they both made is the same: People of certain religious faiths, and people from certain countries should be banned.