George Will on Trump

[GannonFan]

Why would a party work so hard to keep one fringe group (Loony Religious) and cast out the Trumpers

White evangelical Christians accounted for 26 percent of those who voted in the last Presidential election even though it was a year in which they didn't turn out as well as they have in the past. They voted for Romney by 78 to 21 percent over Obama. A group that accounts for about a quarter of the vote is not a fringe group. It's a large and important constituency.

Republicans alienate them and they have no shot. None. As it was the fact that they didn't turn out in the last Presidential election may have cost the Republicans the win. The reason why that Party works so hard to keep that group in its corner is obvious. They'd be fools to alienate White Evangelical Christians to do something like, say, try to get atheists to vote for them when atheists account for 2 to 3 percent of the US population.

Don't discount the effect of Romney being a Mormon with his inability to get the evangelical vote in larger numbers. There's no love for Mormonism in the evangelical right and that certainly came to play as some people could never reconcile with his religion. Those folks are mighty picky over what they think is and isn't a proper religion.

[Chizzang]

White evangelical Christians accounted for 26 percent of those who voted in the last Presidential election even though it was a year in which they didn't turn out as well as they have in the past. They voted for Romney by 78 to 21 percent over Obama. A group that accounts for about a quarter of the vote is not a fringe group. It's a large and important constituency.

Republicans alienate them and they have no shot. None. As it was the fact that they didn't turn out in the last Presidential election may have cost the Republicans the win. The reason why that Party works so hard to keep that group in its corner is obvious. They'd be fools to alienate White Evangelical Christians to do something like, say, try to get atheists to vote for them when atheists account for 2 to 3 percent of the US population.

Don't discount the effect of Romney being a Mormon with his inability to get the evangelical vote in larger numbers. There's no love for Mormonism in the evangelical right and that certainly came to play as some people could never reconcile with his religion. Those folks are mighty picky over what they think is and isn't a proper religion.

one minute and twenty seconds of Mitt Romney Hilarity...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TApvveQk1wM[/youtube]

[kalm]

What you call the loony religious fringe might be becoming the mainstream. I don't think it has much to do with religion anyway. I think most of the Jesus freaks are supporting Huckabee and he doesn't have much support.

I was making an "example"
Non-relational in regards to what political parties will do to keep the fringe
Why would a party work so hard to keep one fringe group (Loony Religious) and cast out the Trumpers

Again, it's the bubble. People like Will expect a certain amount of decorum and process to the system. It's their world. It's what they cherish.

Trump blows that up. Yeegads!

And I'm still not convinced that is a bad thing.

[Chizzang]

I was making an "example"
Non-relational in regards to what political parties will do to keep the fringe
Why would a party work so hard to keep one fringe group (Loony Religious) and cast out the Trumpers

Again, it's the bubble. People like Will expect a certain amount of decorum and process to the system. It's their world. It's what they cherish.

Trump blows that up. Yeegads!

And I'm still not convinced that is a bad thing.

I can see that, the "decorum" thing... Mr. Will is a bit of a stuffed shirt
But I still can't figure out why anybody - any self respecting Republican wouldn't just love Trump
He's everything (and more) the Party has ever asked for

All that he lacks is substance
But when did that ever matter - Obama got elected with nothing
zero zippo zilch - in the substance department

[LeadBolt]

White evangelical Christians accounted for 26 percent of those who voted in the last Presidential election even though it was a year in which they didn't turn out as well as they have in the past. They voted for Romney by 78 to 21 percent over Obama. A group that accounts for about a quarter of the vote is not a fringe group. It's a large and important constituency.

Republicans alienate them and they have no shot. None. As it was the fact that they didn't turn out in the last Presidential election may have cost the Republicans the win. The reason why that Party works so hard to keep that group in its corner is obvious. They'd be fools to alienate White Evangelical Christians to do something like, say, try to get atheists to vote for them when atheists account for 2 to 3 percent of the US population.

Sure. But the Democrat Party is economically closer to Jesus than the Republican Party.

I don't believe the bolded part is correct. Jesus advocated sharing of material objects for the benefit of all, but he never advocated the taking of the material objects for re-distribution, but rather the voluntary sharing of material wealth. The Democrat party is economics is about the taking of assets from one to give to another.

Jesus is closer to Bush's "thousand points of light" voluntary sharing than Dem's confiscation through the tax code.

[JohnStOnge]

Jesus advocated sharing of material objects for the benefit of all, but he never advocated the taking of the material objects for re-distribution, but rather the voluntary sharing of material wealth.

Indeed. The Democratic Party approach is to abdicate your own "responsibility" for seeing to it that the poor are taken care of and let the government do it. For most people who vote Democrat it's "make the rich people do it." It's not personal charity at all. Frankly, most people who vote Democrat are looking at being on receiving end of the charity anyway.

When it comes to actual personal engagement people who vote Republican tend to be more charitable than people who vote Democrat. The idea that the Democratic Party is the noble Party of Charity is absurd. It's primarily the Party of "Take from the Rich so I can have it."

[Ivytalk]

Again, it's the bubble. People like Will expect a certain amount of decorum and process to the system. It's their world. It's what they cherish.

Trump blows that up. Yeegads!

And I'm still not convinced that is a bad thing.

I can see that, the "decorum" thing... Mr. Will is a bit of a stuffed shirt
But I still can't figure out why anybody - any self respecting Republican wouldn't just love Trump
He's everything (and more) the Party has ever asked for

All that he lacks is substance
But when did that ever matter - Obama got elected with nothing
zero zippo zilch - in the substance department

He's everything the GOP has ever asked for? Well, he is self- financed, or so he says. Beyond that, with his high negatives, Trump would be a disaster in a general election. Still waiting for his policy statements on the economy, foreign policy, etc.

[OL FU]

I can see that, the "decorum" thing... Mr. Will is a bit of a stuffed shirt
But I still can't figure out why anybody - any self respecting Republican wouldn't just love Trump
He's everything (and more) the Party has ever asked for

All that he lacks is substance
But when did that ever matter - Obama got elected with nothing
zero zippo zilch - in the substance department

He's everything the GOP has ever asked for? Well, he is self- financed, or so he says. Beyond that, with his high negatives, Trump would be a disaster in a general election. Still waiting for his policy statements on the economy, foreign policy, etc.

Chizzang has bought into the hounddawg disruptive posting syndrome

[kalm]

Jesus advocated sharing of material objects for the benefit of all, but he never advocated the taking of the material objects for re-distribution, but rather the voluntary sharing of material wealth.

Indeed. The Democratic Party approach is to abdicate your own "responsibility" for seeing to it that the poor are taken care of and let the government do it. For most people who vote Democrat it's "make the rich people do it." It's not personal charity at all. Frankly, most people who vote Democrat are looking at being on receiving end of the charity anyway.

When it comes to actual personal engagement people who vote Republican tend to be more charitable than people who vote Democrat. The idea that the Democratic Party is the noble Party of Charity is absurd. It's primarily the Party of "Take from the Rich so I can have it."

Conks...

U.S. Constitution: yeah strict constructionism!!!

The teachings of Jesus Christ: full of nuance and open to interpretation.

[LeadBolt]

There's not a whole lot of nuance in seeing the difference between Christianity's personal responsibility of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and redistributionist policy of enforcing a code upon taking from some to give to others.

I support some re-distribution and progressive taxation, but limiting the potential of the successful will never raise the standard of living for the poor. That's the fallacy of "income equality". That is not to be confused with providing a safety net for less fortunate in society, which is very different.

Wealth is not a zero sum game. Encouraging the creation of wealth enlarges the pie and allows all to benefit according to their ability to do so. Encouraging all to be generous toward those less fortunate and all to strive to do better is what historically made this nation great.

[JohnStOnge]

The teachings of Jesus Christ: full of nuance and open to interpretation.

The Jesus character never said to make OTHER people take care of the poor. It was YOU take care of the poor.

If you can find something in the Gospels where Jesus is telling his disciples to go forth and force other people take care of the poor let me know

[Chizzang]

The teachings of Jesus Christ: full of nuance and open to interpretation.

The Jesus character never said to make OTHER people take care of the poor. It was YOU take care of the poor.

If you can find something in the Gospels where Jesus is telling his disciples to go forth and force other people take care of the poor let me know

So do you want to discuss all things things Jesus DIDN'T say that the loony Right attributes to the gospel..?



Because its absolutely embarrassing the lack of Biblical knowledge displayed by Christians

[kalm]

The teachings of Jesus Christ: full of nuance and open to interpretation.

The Jesus character never said to make OTHER people take care of the poor. It was YOU take care of the poor.

If you can find something in the Gospels where Jesus is telling his disciples to go forth and force other people take care of the poor let me know

So was Jesus an anarchist?

[GannonFan]

The Jesus character never said to make OTHER people take care of the poor. It was YOU take care of the poor.

If you can find something in the Gospels where Jesus is telling his disciples to go forth and force other people take care of the poor let me know

So was Jesus an anarchist?

Of course he wasn't, how could he be with the "pay unto Caesar what is Caeser's" comment?