Would Jesus Support Republican or Democratic Values More?

[ElCodeMonkey]

I would argue that the Democratic policies focus on the well-being of the poor and the oppressed. As such, I believe Jesus would be more in favor of Democratic values than that of the Republicans which focus more on guns and military while being entirely calloused to the plight of the poor and tend toward discrimination of others not like them.

[Elijah John]

OK, let's start with the moral fiber of the President. I would say that Bill Clinton set the bar very low. And it seems Trump is certainly no better in that regard. The Dems used to say "move on, that's his personal life" You don't hear that too often from Democrats nowadays..

I wonder sometimes how serious Trump is when surrounding himself with Evangelical pastors. Yes, they support his policies, not his past mistakes. Fair enough. Trump is now pro-life, and seems to support religious freedom.

ON a personal note, Trump was my last choice among the Republicans. I don't like the way he "insulted his way" to the nomination and the Presidency. But a lot of fed up people saw in that aggression a transferable quality. Someone who would fight for them, and not be pushed around by the PC press or politicians.

I would rather have had Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jidal, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorena, Mike Huckabee or any of the other GOP contenders.

But compared to Hillary Clinton, my choice for Trump was a no-brainer.

But it is a shame that we can no longer look up to the President as an exemplar of good moral character.

Where do we draw the line? Well, it seems legality, not moral idealism. And in many ways, that diminished standard a shame.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

I'm not too aware of Clinton, really. All I know is he got some head by an intern. Not sure what led up to it nor the disposition between him and his wife. Personally, I think our current concepts (and especially past concepts) of sexuality and life-long partners might be a bit outdated. I haven't particularly explored that much, however, mostly because I've already situated myself in a typical nuclear family. So with this one failing of Clinton, I'm just not sure how closely that could possibly match Trump today. The man lies about nearly everything and denies facts right in front of his face such as global warming (might be more topic-related if you doubt global warming). He seems clearly racist, not simply border-protectant, and overall not very bright. He's a lot like a child without any masculine strength or maturity and sees women as nothing more than sex objects. I don't know Clinton very well, but my understanding was that he did a great service to our country and helped a lot with debt. One sexual encounter under who-knows-what circumstances is hardly worth comparing to a life-long and continual display of worthlessness. Anything worth debating among all that? .

[Elijah John]

He seems clearly racist, not simply border-protectant, and overall not very bright.

Ignorant at times, and not too articulate. But I don't think concluding "not very bright" necessarily follows. And even so, Trump has an abundance of common sense, and that resonates with a whole lotta folks. It got him elected.

OK, let's zero in on this for now. "Racist"? Yeah, that's the battle cry from the Left. They toss the accusation around and play the race card at the drop of a hat. Do you really think that actual, real racism is as pervasive as the Left makes it seem? If everyting is "racism" than nothing is racism. Such charges bandied about diminish and dilute the meaning of the word. . Charges of racism are very serious, and real racisim is an ugly thing. So charges should not be made lightly, agree?

So let's see if we can clear this up? I know the examples the Left uses, but I challenge yoiu to support your charge.

A comedian on the Greg Gutfeld show recently characterized the insanity of the Left as "white people screaming at other white people about their whiteness". There is often a core of truth in comedy, I think this guy nailed it.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]

I definitely do not agree with the left to their extent of racial charges. They often call me racist for being "blind" to "clearly" racist things which, to me, are not clearly race-related. The false accusations turn me off from their argument and obviously advances nothing from the side of the right. That said, I do believe racism exists and I think one would have to be silly to think it doesn't. How much it exists is an obvious followup question and is it worth doing anything about? Probably not too worth the debate here.

There are different types of racism such as intentional and obvious "Race X is bad" statements and unintentional (or biased) racism such as "feeling" less good about an applicant just because the name sounds foreign. This kind of bias has been shown for minorities and women in the workplace and for selecting musicians in orchestras. Once switching orchestra auditions to being 100% blind, it became a LOT more fair from what I understand. So that bias exists but maybe only in some people. The third type of "racism" is a type I do not like to call racism which is basically outcome statistics. More blacks in jail than whites = racism, for example. I think this is too shallow. It could be the case, but using that to build the argument is silly. More men are in jail as well and yet no one is crying foul for picking on men.

That said, I don't know if Trump is the first kind of racist. Maybe he is, but he obviously would not simply state it. It is interesting, from my left-wing propaganda sources, however, that the KKK who IS that type is very into supporting Trump. That might be just that, however: propaganda. They probably support candidates all the time and just because they pick Trump doesn't mean that Trump suddenly supports all their ideals. I got the impression it was more than that, but again, perhaps just propaganda.

But is Trump the second kind? Does he perhaps unintentionally hold racial bias? I think so. His language in discussing illegal immigrants from Mexico is quite charged. To say that Mexico is not sending their best, that they're sending rapists and drug dealers and whatever then to nonchalantly shrug and say "I suppose some are good people" is a recognition that what he was saying was highly racist-sounding and wanting to attempt, poorly, to eradicate that belief. But his own words betray him by his lack of conviction in the statement. He supposes that some Mexicans are maybe good people, but who is he to say if that's the case? So many terrible Mexicans how can he know? This is clearly racist, in my opinion. It overstates the proclivity of Mexicans to be bad people to a very large degree which is indeed racist.

[ElCodeMonkey]

This seemed oddly fitting for this discussion . While it doesn't add much for evidence, it is indeed the view that the right's actions tend to engender in the left based on what they fight for and uphold.

[youtube][/youtube]

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]

I definitely do not agree with the left to their extent of racial charges. They often call me racist for being "blind" to "clearly" racist things which, to me, are not clearly race-related. The false accusations turn me off from their argument and obviously advances nothing from the side of the right.

Like the comedian said, the insanity of the Left is characterized by "white people screaming at other white people about their whiteness" If a person denies that they are racist, the Left will be happy to "educate" you on the ways you are. You just are not aware or enlightened as they are, and one's denial is just proof of one's moral blindness, in their book.

That said, I do believe racism exists and I think one would have to be silly to think it doesn't. How much it exists is an obvious followup question and is it worth doing anything about? Probably not too worth the debate here.

Of course, real racism does exist. Still, though I do not see it as pervasive nor as institutionalized as it was in the 60s and earlier.

There are different types of racism such as intentional and obvious "Race X is bad" statements and unintentional (or biased) racism such as "feeling" less good about an applicant just because the name sounds foreign. This kind of bias has been shown for minorities and women in the workplace and for selecting musicians in orchestras. Once switching orchestra auditions to being 100% blind, it became a LOT more fair from what I understand. So that bias exists but maybe only in some people.

Perhaps, but when I watch the BSO or the Boston Pops, there seems to quite a mixed demographic in those orchestras. I think the idea of "feeling lest positive" about a given individual based on race or ethnicity is difficult to prove, and is very subjective. And even if one "feels" this way, as long as that feeling does not lead to actual discrimination, so what? Are we to police peoples feelings now?

The third type of "racism" is a type I do not like to call racism which is basically outcome statistics. More blacks in jail than whites = racism, for example. I think this is too shallow. It could be the case, but using that to build the argument is silly. More men are in jail as well and yet no one is crying foul for picking on men

Excellent point. Correlation should not be conflated with causation..

That said, I don't know if Trump is the first kind of racist. Maybe he is, but he obviously would not simply state it. It is interesting, from my left-wing propaganda sources, however, that the KKK who IS that type is very into supporting Trump. That might be just that, however: propaganda. They probably support candidates all the time and just because they pick Trump doesn't mean that Trump suddenly supports all their ideals. I got the impression it was more than that, but again, perhaps just propaganda.

I think so. Should we hold Obama responsible for the people who support him? Like the racist anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan. Of course not.

But is Trump the second kind? Does he perhaps unintentionally hold racial bias? I think so. His language in discussing illegal immigrants from Mexico is quite charged. To say that Mexico is not sending their best, that they're sending rapists and drug dealers and whatever then to nonchalantly shrug and say "I suppose some are good people" is a recognition that what he was saying was highly racist-sounding and wanting to attempt, poorly, to eradicate that belief.

No doubt there were actual rapists, drug dealers, murderers, gang member and even terrorists in the mix. But when Trump makes blanket statements, that is "Trump speak" (not to be confused with imaginary "dog whistles") for those of us who understand and support him. He was not saying that all or even most of the illegal immigrants are those things. But Trump's critics never want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But yes, Trump is his own worst enemy in giving them reason not to by his imprecision.

But his own words betray him by his lack of conviction in the statement. He supposes that some Mexicans are maybe good people, but who is he to say if that's the case? So many terrible Mexicans how can he know? This is clearly racist, in my opinion. It overstates the proclivity of Mexicans to be bad people to a very large degree which is indeed racist.

That's an interpretaion regarding his level of conviction. Did he really say those things? If so, yes, bias against Mexicans. But that is not racial bias and not linked to skin color or "brown people" as the Left likes to say. He may have said the same kind of thing if there was another (what he perceives as )high-crime nationality south of the Rio Grande. Say, for example, if Sweden was our neighbor, and there were many neo-Viking, nordic gangmembers infilitrating our country.

I thought you were going to bring up the so-called "birther" thing, Trump's critique of Colin Kaeperneck and the kneelers, and Charlotesville. There are good answers that cast Trump in a more benign light in those matters. If you'd like, we can cover those "examples". (Juan Williams from "the Five" uses them to "prove" Trump's "racism", rather unconvincingly).

If not, I'll take a look at that video and perhaps we can move on to "Jesus and culture", Dems vs. Republicans?

[ElCodeMonkey]

Perhaps, but when I watch the BSO or the Boston Pops, there seems to quite a mixed demographic in those orchestras. I think the idea of "feeling lest positive" about a given individual based on race or ethnicity is difficult to prove, and is very subjective. And even if one "feels" this way, as long as that feeling does not lead to actual discrimination, so what? Are we to police peoples feelings now?

There's a mix now, yes, because they moved to blind auditions. The racism was indeed real until then. Studies have also been done where identical resumes except in name were sent out to a bunch of different companies and the "white" name got a lot more response than the "black" name. People may not be aware of the prejudice but it appears to be there. This makes things harder for black people for nothing other than their skin color or perceived color based upon name. It may not be intentional racism but this is what is being called "systemic" racism. The "system" seems to be in such a state as to make it harder based upon race. It's not particularly anyone's "fault" per se, but that doesn't change the fact that skin color is having a negative effect for some.

No doubt there were actual rapists, drug dealers, murderers, gang member and even terrorists in the mix. But when Trump makes blanket statements, that is "Trump speak" (not to be confused with imaginary "dog whistles") for those of us who understand and support him. He was not saying that all or even most of the illegal immigrants are those things. But Trump's critics never want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But yes, Trump is his own worst enemy in giving them reason not to by his imprecision.

...

That's an interpretaion regarding his level of conviction. Did he really say those things? If so, yes, bias against Mexicans. But that is not racial bias and not linked to skin color or "brown people" as the Left likes to say. He may have said the same kind of thing if there was another (what he perceives as )high-crime nationality south of the Rio Grande. Say, for example, if Sweden was our neighbor, and there were many neo-Viking, nordic gangmembers infilitrating our country.

I was going to argue that the statistics are not on his side. And if that's the case, then it is mere racism that would lead him to such a false conclusion even if it was not his own racism but that of those around him. And yet, upon looking up the statistics, I find an article which seems entirely misleading from the left. I feel like I must be misunderstanding since they're using the chart to indicate LESS crime by illegal immigrants, but it quite clearly shows MORE crime. Not by volume, but by percentage. The article focuses on volume instead. Texas has a 6.1% illegal immigration percent (no clue how they get this figure) and yet they account for nearly half the homicides?? Another article shows that crime has been going down since 1980 while immigration has been going up but that doesn't mean that our own decline of crime is not overcoming their uptic. I can't find any better evidence from the left. Interesting...

I thought you were going to bring up the so-called "birther" thing, Trump's critique of Colin Kaeperneck and the kneelers, and Charlotesville. There are good answers that cast Trump in a more benign light in those matters. If you'd like, we can cover those "examples".

That's a good point. Why was Trump leading the charge against Obama? He hadn't done that for any previous candidate did he?

[Elijah John]

I thought you were going to bring up the so-called "birther" thing, Trump's critique of Colin Kaeperneck and the kneelers, and Charlotesville. There are good answers that cast Trump in a more benign light in those matters. If you'd like, we can cover those "examples".

That's a good point. Why was Trump leading the charge against Obama? He hadn't done that for any previous candidate did he?

Because the other candidates were not raised in Indonesia and Kenya. So to raise the question of where Obama was born is not "racist" but reasonable. It had nothing to with Obama's race. Trump also questioned the eligibility of Ted Cruz to run for President, as Cruz was actually born in Canada. Ted Cruz is not black, but he was a competitor.

Did you want to address the other examples, or do you agree they are not good examples of Trump's alleged "racisim".

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 18 by Elijah John]

That's a fairly good point. Probable cause. But didn't he continue to push even after Obama won and even after he showed his birth certificate?

Also, I found these quotes. Granted, it's one person claiming them and I don't know if there's evidence that they're true yet. I have no reason to doubt them, and I have suspicion (though not evidence) to believe them.

In 2016, Cohen was attending one of Trump’s campaign rallies and observed that his crowds were full of white people. Trump’s reply: “That’s because black people are too stupid to vote for me.�

After Nelson Mandela’s death in 2013, Trump said to Cohen: “Name one country run by a black person that’s not a shithole,� adding, “Name one city.�

On a trip in the 2000s, when Cohen and Trump shared a car during a ride through a tough neighborhood in Chicago, Trump looked around him and said, “Only the blacks could live like this.�

During the heated finale of The Apprentice in 2004, which pitted Bill Rancic and Kwame Jackson against each other, Trump told Cohen why he couldn’t pick Jackson, “There’s no way I can let this black f-g win.�

[ElCodeMonkey]

Turns out that it was not per 100,000 population, but per 100,000 subpopulation. Which means that immigrants are far less likely to commit crime and ESPECIALLY when they're legal. So if anything, letting them in will HELP our rates rather than hurt them. So Trump could still have been mislead by other people and thus not racist himself, but racism would have to have played a part in creating the lie to begin with