Vote for President

[Ignatius J]

NATO as a unit would be f*cking ridiculously powerful if it decided to act. And extrapolating it's response to the Ukraine to NATO countries like the Baltics that actually have American/NATO forces and hardware? Think however you want but that's not a great comparison.

It actually is because it is a recent event. NATO didn't do a damn thing. And they sure don't have a finger on the pulse of the domestic terror threats in Europe.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ignatius J]

Perhaps you should educate yourself. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, hence the lack of action.

Perhaps you should as well. NATO was formed to combat Russia's sphere of influence and expansion in eastern European countries like we saw in Ukraine.

 

[Ignatius J]

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/
If you have 2 patients in a row that don't go apneic after 150mcgs of fentanyl, do you assume none of them will?

Very bad analogy. Crime has been dropping steadily since Clinton. The last two years have seen an uptick in crime and violence accross the globe. It is probably a myriad of factors, but nevertheless, it appears to be on the rise again in the US.

http://time.com/4329688/murder-rate-u-s-cities-increase-2016/

 

[deleted162650]

#FeelTheJohnson

If that's not his official campaign slogan it really needs to be.

 

[deepstate2016]

Perhaps you should as well. NATO was formed to combat Russia's sphere of influence and expansion in eastern European countries like we saw in Ukraine.

Yes it was, NATO members are OBLIGATED to come to each other's aid. We are not obligated to come to non NATO members. In such cases we act in accordance to our needs.

Russia needs Ukraine to be pro russian or at worst strictly neutral. Look at a map. There are physical barriers between Ukraine and the Ural mountains. For a country that has been invaded from the west on average every 50 years this is an issue.

For us it us nice if Ukraine is in our camp but not essential. Not worth fighting over, or spilling any blood.

So what would you do? How do you teach the Russians a lesson over something they consider a core strategic need? You think anything short of the threat of general war would?

An example is what would we do if either Canada or mexico were associated with a hostile power? I tell you what we would do. We would what we did in Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Panama.

It has nothing to do with good or evil and everything to do with strategic needs.

 

[Ignatius J]

Yes it was, NATO members are OBLIGATED to come to each other's aid. We are not obligated to come to non NATO members. In such cases we act in accordance to our needs.

Russia needs Ukraine to be pro russian or at worst strictly neutral. Look at a map. There are physical barriers between Ukraine and the Ural mountains. For a country that has been invaded from the west on average every 50 years this is an issue.

For us it us nice if Ukraine is in our camp but not essential. Not worth fighting over, or spilling any blood.

So what would you do? How do you teach the Russians a lesson over something they consider a core strategic need? You think anything short of the threat of general war would?

An example is what would we do if either Canada or mexico were associated with a hostile power? I tell you what we would do. We would what we did in Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Panama.

It has nothing to do with good or evil and everything to do with strategic needs.

You are confusing our obligations with the design of NATO. Anyways, we have ventured away from the original topic that was how NATO continues to take advantage of the US and has not held up their end of the bargain.

As an aside, below you will see a link to an article about NATO failures in Ukraine.

http://www.dw.com/en/ex-general-nato-has-failed-blatantly-in-ukraine/a-17895454

 

[Ignatius J]

The DNC collusion with the national media:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...eleases-democratic-national-committee-emails/

 

[Ignatius J]

The DNC collusion with the national media:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...eleases-democratic-national-committee-emails/

Apparently Twitter is being accused of conspiring to cover up this whole Wikileaks story. Not surprising:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/twitter-accused-of-suppressing-dnc-wikileaks-story/article/2597460

 

[deepstate2016]

No I am not confusing the design with our obligations. The design of NATO creates the obligation. I know one thing for sure, hinting to the Russians that we may no support our allies is a sure way to to have a conflict.


And really you should read the article. He was quite clear that NATO members had needs in the Ukraine while NATO did not. Therefore there is no military action to be taken. Sanctions are as good as we can get.


The real point is that Mr. Trumps statements concerning foreign policy makes the world less stable and less safe.

I do not know about you but I can tolerate some corruption and a functioning government over conflict and a nonfunctioning government.

 

[Ignatius J]

No I am not confusing the design with our obligations. The design of NATO creates the obligation. I know one thing for sure, hinting to the Russians that we may no support our allies is a sure way to to have a conflict.


And really you should read the article. He was quite clear that NATO members had needs in the Ukraine while NATO did not. Therefore there is no military action to be taken. Sanctions are as good as we can get.


The real point is that Mr. Trumps statements concerning foreign policy makes the world less stable and less safe.

I do not know about you but I can tolerate some corruption and a functioning government over conflict and a nonfunctioning government.

Oh, yeah. No conflict with Hillary. Only her policies helping to create an incubator for ISIS. Let's take out Gaddafi. What is the worst that can happen?

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/obama-clinton-libya-mistake

http://www.newsweek.com/understanding-rise-islamic-state-isis-libya-437931

 

[deepstate2016]

Oh, yeah. No conflict with Hillary. Only her policies helping to create an incubator for ISIS. Let's take out Gaddafi. What is the worst that can happen?

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/obama-clinton-libya-mistake

http://www.newsweek.com/understanding-rise-islamic-state-isis-libya-437931

You seem to forget what happened, the American people demanded we do something, do you remember the ridicule the GOP poured on the administration for not doing more? Do you really think us troops would make it better, assuming we could find them?

If we had done nothing there would still be civil war in Libya. Do you have any context in your views or are they all single isolated incidents with no connections to other administrations and decisions?

 

[deepstate2016]

BTW Isis is not an existential threat. They are not going to change the balance of power. Unlike the loss of Europe or Japan.

 

[Ignatius J]

You seem to forget what happened, the American people demanded we do something, do you remember the ridicule the GOP poured on the administration for not doing more? Do you really think us troops would make it better, assuming we could find them?

If we had done nothing there would still be civil war in Libya. Do you have any context in your views or are they all single isolated incidents with no connections to other administrations and decisions?

What are you talking about? Taking out Gaddafi completely turned Libya upside down and created a vacuum for ISIS. And guess who spearheaded this one- Hillary (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1020705.html). Are you denying this? And then you follow that up with saying that a worldwide terror threat who has killed hundreds of thousands of people throughout the Middle East and the whole world is not an existential threat? Really? And your defense is a rambled sense of - "well, well, Republicans and the American people wanted it!" C'mon, man. You are all over the place.

Is that her built-in excuse for these disasters when she is President? She is just giving the American people what they wanted?

More reading: https://newrepublic.com/article/121...uld-take-blame-disastrous-libyan-intervention

 

[deepstate2016]

What are you talking about? Taking out Gaddafi completely turned Libya upside down and created a vacuum for ISIS. And guess who spearheaded this one- Hillary (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1020705.html). Are you denying this? And then you follow that up with saying that a worldwide terror threat who has killed hundreds of thousands of people throughout the Middle East and the whole world is not an existential threat? Really? And your defense is a rambled sense of - "well, well, Republicans and the American people wanted it!" C'mon, man. You are all over the place.

Is that her built-in excuse for these disasters when she is President? She is just giving the American people what they wanted?

More reading: https://newrepublic.com/article/121...uld-take-blame-disastrous-libyan-intervention

Isis has not killed "hundreds of thousands" of people. The point was Libya was already unstable and in the middle of a civil war, remember?

 

[Ignatius J]

Isis has not killed "hundreds of thousands" of people. The point was Libya was already unstable and in the middle of a civil war, remember?

Someone doesn't like to read articles.....

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

What are you talking about? Taking out Gaddafi completely turned Libya upside down and created a vacuum for ISIS. And guess who spearheaded this one- Hillary (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1020705.html). Are you denying this? And then you follow that up with saying that a worldwide terror threat who has killed hundreds of thousands of people throughout the Middle East and the whole world is not an existential threat? Really? And your defense is a rambled sense of - "well, well, Republicans and the American people wanted it!" C'mon, man. You are all over the place.

Is that her built-in excuse for these disasters when she is President? She is just giving the American people what they wanted?

More reading: https://newrepublic.com/article/121...uld-take-blame-disastrous-libyan-intervention

Couldn't you say the same about Bush taking out Hussein and leaving a power vacuum in Iraq? I'm not a big fan of instability, but I'm also not a huge fan of homicidal dictators just because they bring "stability." I have no problem with "Clinton" taking out Qaddafi (even though she was Secretary of State), just like I had no problem with Bush taking out Saddam.

 

[deepstate2016]

Someone doesn't like to read articles.....

No I am very much aware of her support for the intervention. The point I am trying to make is that this intervention alone did not make Libya the way it is now. It was the Arab spring uprising that had its birth in the freedom initiative by the Busch administration. Compounded by the Libyan form of government that dismantled every civic institution.

Just as one cannot look at one part of the human body and say "this is the cause" but as we all know all systems interconnect and effect each other.


So while the actions of the United States, albeit heavily endorsed by Mrs. Clinton had an impact they are not the sole cause of the Libyan problem. Your inability to look beyond one actor or circumstance in these actions demonstrates a trumplike understanding of the world.

 

[Ignatius J]

Couldn't you say the same about Bush taking out Hussein and leaving a power vacuum in Iraq? I'm not a big fan of instability, but I'm also not a huge fan of homicidal dictators just because they bring "stability." I have no problem with "Clinton" taking out Qaddafi (even though she was Secretary of State), just like I had no problem with Bush taking out Saddam.

The aftermath and millitary presence in those countries were night and day. Not that I am a yuge fan of Bush, nor is he in this election.

 

[Ignatius J]

No I am very much aware of her support for the intervention. The point I am trying to make is that this intervention alone did not make Libya the way it is now. It was the Arab spring uprising that had its birth in the freedom initiative by the Busch administration. Compounded by the Libyan form of government that dismantled every civic institution.

Just as one cannot look at one part of the human body and say "this is the cause" but as we all know all systems interconnect and effect each other.


So while the actions of the United States, albeit heavily endorsed by Mrs. Clinton had an impact they are not the sole cause of the Libyan problem. Your inability to look beyond one actor or circumstance in these actions demonstrates a trumplike understanding of the world.

I can look beyond one actor, but you understand, there is only one actor amidst your listed causative factors that is currently running for position of the Leader of the Free World, correct? If you want to bash Bush or whoever, go ahead, but he isn't running for President and should get similar scrutiny if he was.

Your original statement implied that Trump was dangerous in foreign affairs and Clinton would not be. I gave you an instance in which Clinton's endeavors and support of policy indeed ended very disastrously. In fact, as Secretary of State she had a questionabke track record with very few successes and accomplishments to speak of.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ood-secretary-of-state-john-kerry-2016-100766

If you see, that is an older article so she would no doubt get dinged even further for her Middle East policies nowadays. She was not very good. Closer to a disaster than a positive performer.

 

[deepstate2016]

I can look beyond one actor, but you understand, there is only one actor amidst your listed causative factors that is currently running for position of the Leader of the Free World, correct? If you want to bash Bush or whoever, go ahead, but he isn't running for President and should get similar scrutiny if he was.

Your original statement implied that Trump was dangerous in foreign affairs and Clinton would not be. I gave you an instance in which Clinton's endeavors and support of policy indeed ended very disastrously. In fact, as Secretary of State she had a questionabke track record with very few successes and accomplishments to speak of.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ood-secretary-of-state-john-kerry-2016-100766

If you see, that is an older article so she would no doubt get dinged even further for her Middle East policies nowadays. She was not very good. Closer to a disaster than a positive performer.

My point is that Mrs. Clinton was not the cause of the problems in Libya. Just one part. Her record consists of much more then Libya. Just as Mr. Trumps extends further then his bankruptcies. The fact that this is the only foreign policy issue that you can cite referring to Mrs Clinton demonstrates that you are simply looking for evidence to support your opinion. Not basing an opinion on evidence.

 

[deepstate2016]

And once again Isis has not killed "hundreds of thousands" nor are they an existential threat. Neither mistreatment you have attempted to answer. You have not really replied in any way to the evidence other then say, "mrs. Clinton did this"

 

[deepstate2016]

Someone doesn't like to read articles.....

Clearly you did not read the new republic article. It backs up most of what I say.

 

[Ignatius J]

And once again Isis has not killed "hundreds of thousands" nor are they an existential threat. Neither mistreatment you have attempted to answer. You have not really replied in any way to the evidence other then say, "mrs. Clinton did this"

Ask me a specific question and I'll give you a specific answer. Here's one: can you name one accomplishment other than using the Clinton Foundation as a lucrative slush fund that Secretary Clinton accomplished during her tenure?

We will agree to disagree on ISIS death tolls as body counts within Iraq and Syria are difficult to ascertain between Yazidis, Christians, hostages, Shiites, etc. And this doesn't factor in the even larger amount of refugees fleeing their homes. However, I'll walk back my original statement of definitely acting like I know. Because we don't and no one does. (http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/isis-syria-death-casualty-count)

Nevertheless, proclaiming ISIS is not an existential threat is absolutely laughable, and downplaying Clinton's heading the Gaddafi charge as a significant lapse in judgement is also.

You have given no evidence that Clinton is a competent or even reasonable foreign affairs leader. So on top of being unreliable to her job, she is a corrupt, immoral hack who deserves to be in jail and not the Leader of the Free World?

 

[ProfMD]

Ask me a specific question and I'll give you a specific answer. Here's one: can you name one accomplishment other than using the Clinton Foundation as a lucrative slush fund that Secretary Clinton accomplished during her tenure?

We will agree to disagree on ISIS death tolls as body counts within Iraq and Syria are difficult to ascertain between Yazidis, Christians, hostages, Shiites, etc. And this doesn't factor in the even larger amount of refugees fleeing their homes.

Nevertheless, proclaiming ISIS is not an existential threat is absolutely laughable, and downplaying Clinton's heading the Gaddafi charge as a significant lapse in judgement is also.

You have given no evidence that Clinton is a competent or even reasonable foreign affairs leader. So on top of being unreliable to her job, she is a corrupt, immoral hack who deserves to be in jail and not the Leader of the Free World?

Can you name a qualification that Donald Trump has to be President, other than "not Hillary Clinton?"

He is a rich guy who started out life rich thanks to his father. He won't release his tax returns, so we do not really know how rich. However, based on what he has said, economists have reported that he would be richer than he is now if he had simply put his money in an index fund and sat on his hands for his entire life.

He did have a reality show. An Trump University. And, he has marketed his name to some ventures that he is otherwise uninvolved in.

He went bankrupt a few times. There are several reports that he screwed the little people out of money he owed them.

Anything else?

Clinton and Trump are both terrible choices. I don't see either of them helping to improve this country, but I see Mrs. Clinton hurting it less. Especially since the Republicans will probably maintain control of Congress, guaranteeing gridlock for the next 4 years so not much chance for a Democrat President such as Mrs. Clinton to really screw things up.

 

[Ignatius J]

Can you name a qualification that Donald Trump has to be President, other than "not Hillary Clinton?"

He is a rich guy who started out life rich thanks to his father. He won't release his tax returns, so we do not really know how rich. However, based on what he has said, economists have reported that he would be richer than he is now if he had simply put his money in an index fund and sat on his hands for his entire life.

He did have a reality show. An Trump University. And, he has marketed his name to some ventures that he is otherwise uninvolved in.

He went bankrupt a few times. There are several reports that he screwed the little people out of money he owed them.

Anything else?

Clinton and Trump are both terrible choices. I don't see either of them helping to improve this country, but I see Mrs. Clinton hurting it less. Especially since the Republicans will probably maintain control of Congress, guaranteeing gridlock for the next 4 years so not much chance for a Democrat President such as Mrs. Clinton to really screw things up.

Yes, he has been successful in the private sector for 40 years now in a cutt-throat industry. In a day and age when the average S&P corporation exists for 13 years, that is pretty impressive. He has seen politics from the "other side" and is not in Big Money's back pocket line Clinton.

Also, he isn't Hillary. See: the Encylcopedia of Corruption and Cronyism.

Global debut of Clinton Cash last night- take a look!

By the way, he never went bankrupt. That is an overplayed, ignorant statement. A venture within his conglomerate did. And he restructured a great deal for himself.

 

[ProfMD]

Yes, he has been successful in the private sector for 40 years now in a cutt-throat industry. In a day and age when the average S&P corporation exists for 13 years, that is pretty impressive. He has seen politics from the "other side" and is not in Big Money's back pocket line Clinton.

Also, he isn't Hillary. See: the Encylcopedia of Corruption and Cronyism.

Global debut of Clinton Cash last night- take a look!

By the way, he never went bankrupt. That is an overplayed, ignorant statement. A venture within his conglomerate did. And he restructured a great deal for himself.

Your point about the S&P has been refuted by others - he runs a privately held company, not publicly traded, so the comparison is apples and oranges. There are plenty of S&P companies that are longer lasting and more successful.

If you measure success by survival, you are right. However, when indexed to the stock market, he is poorer now than he was when he started - is this still as successful as you imply?

And you are right - he didn't go personally bankrupt. The company he ran went bankrupt. He was still the man in charge. Just like Mrs Clinton didn't overthrow Ghadaffi.

I am not going to apologize for Clinton - I am just going to point out the myriad ways in which Trump is entirely unqualified to be President.

 

[Ignatius J]

Your point about the S&P has been refuted by others - he rubs a privately held company, not publicly traded, so the comparison is apples and oranges. There are plenty of S&P companies that are longer lasting and more successful.

If you measure success by survival, you are right. However, when indexed to the stock market, he is poorer now than he was when he started - is this still as successful as you imply?

And you are right - he didn't go personally bankrupt. The company he ran went bankrupt. He was still the man in charge. Just like Mrs Clinton didn't overthrow Ghadaffi.

I am not going to apologize for Clinton - I am just going to point out the myriad ways in which Trump is entirely unqualified to be President.

And I can take issue with several of your points, but ultimately for me this is an issue of not letting evil triumph and taking a stand against longstanding political corruption in the US. I am more anti-Hillary than I am pro-Trump. Didn't vote for him in the primaries.

 

[ProfMD]

And I can take issue with several of your points, but ultimately for me this is an issue of not letting evil triumph and taking a stand against longstanding political corruption in the US. I am more anti-Hillary than I am pro-Trump. Didn't vote for him in the primaries.

Well, on that we can agree, kind of.

I am in the opposite category - more anti-Trump than pro-Clinton. I do not have much reason to vote for Clinton other than that she is not Trump.

Still waiting for a good third party candidate who has a chance.

 

[Ignatius J]

Well, on that we can agree, kind of.

I am in the opposite category - more anti-Trump than pro-Clinton. I do not have much reason to vote for Clinton other than that she is not Trump.

Still waiting for a good third party candidate who has a chance.

We are pretty much the same, only opposites. I get criticism of Trump. However; I have loathed the Clintons long before Trump entered the picture. An 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' type thing.

 

[deepstate2016]

Ok so we all voting against someone, not FOR someone. Christ what an election season.

 

[pgg]

Ok so we all voting against someone, not FOR someone. Christ what an election season.

Yep.

I think I might just choose to be a glass-half-full kind of guy for this election, and plan to celebrate the loss of whoever loses.

 

[_atlas]

Adding more information for discussion

(1)Trump recently stated that he was considering expanding immigration reform restrictions to any country/region that was "compromised" by terrorism (including European countries such as France and Germany).
I do not see this going well in terms of our relationship with allies, moreover, curious to see how this will affect families that have relatives abroad.

(2)Trump threatened to pull the United States out of the WTO. He hardly gives any insight into why it would prove advantageous to the United States other than that the organization is a "disaster".
He never gives any compelling arguments and it seems as though he has no knowledge in anything he ever talks about.

 

[_atlas]

.

 

[chfo]

Adding more information for discussion

(1)Trump recently stated that he was considering expanding immigration reform restrictions to any country/region that was "compromised" by terrorism (including European countries such as France and Germany).
I do not see this going well in terms of our relationship with allies, moreover, curious to see how this will affect families that have relatives abroad.

(2)Trump threatened to pull the United States out of the WTO. He hardly gives any insight into why it would prove advantageous to the United States other than that the organization is a "disaster".
He never gives any compelling arguments and it seems as though he has no knowledge in anything he ever talks about.

It's a negotiating tactic.

Read Art of the Deal to understand.

Trump wouldn't have made the billions he did if he didn't understand negotiations.

 

[deepstate2016]

It's a negotiating tactic.

Read Art of the Deal to understand.

Trump wouldn't have made the billions he did if he didn't understand negotiations.

No it is not. That is bigotry that he has used to appeal to his voters.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

No it is not. That is bigotry that he has used to appeal to his voters.

Call trump a bigot all you want. Just be sure to admit to Hillary being as big of a bigot as well.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Yep.

I think I might just choose to be a glass-half-full kind of guy for this election, and plan to celebrate the loss of whoever loses.

Yes! And I won't be watching the acceptance speech of whoever wins.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Call trump a bigot all you want. Just be sure to admit to Hillary being as big of a bigot as well.

Please no one feed the troll. People have a hard time ignoring dumb statements, when it's really not necessary to respond

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Adding more information for discussion

(1)Trump recently stated that he was considering expanding immigration reform restrictions to any country/region that was "compromised" by terrorism (including European countries such as France and Germany).
I do not see this going well in terms of our relationship with allies, moreover, curious to see how this will affect families that have relatives abroad.

(2)Trump threatened to pull the United States out of the WTO. He hardly gives any insight into why it would prove advantageous to the United States other than that the organization is a "disaster".
He never gives any compelling arguments and it seems as though he has no knowledge in anything he ever talks about.

Ther was a presidential historian on MTP talking about how unrecognizable and unacceptable the Trump candidacy would be to the founding fathers. They obviously believed VERY strongly in diverse political views, but they assumed political folks would be articulate, very knowledgable, and would use real data/history to debate and defend their positions in a reasoned way. We've never seen a candidate with less ability to reason and use real facts and history. Trump relies almost completely on emotions, (especially fear and anger), to defend his thoughts. When he cites statistics, they're usually completely incorrect (i.e. the crime stuff, criminal aspect of immigrants, unemployment, etc...). He seriously doesn't ever seem to know what he's talking about, and worse, doesn't care. Definitely NOT what the brilliant guys that created the system had in mind.

There'll be a lot of books written about this one when it's over, however it turns out.

 

[_atlas]

Ther was a presidential historian on MTP talking about how unrecognizable and unacceptable the Trump candidacy would be to the founding fathers. They believed VERY strongly in varied political views, but they assumed political figures would use real data/history to debate and defend their positions in a reasoned articulate way. We've never seen a candidate with less ability to reason and use real facts and history. Trump relies COMPLETELY on emotions, especially FEAR, to defend his thoughts. When he cites statistics, they're usually completely incorrect (i.e. the crime stuff, criminal aspect of immigrants, unemployment, etc...). Definitely NOT what the brilliant guys that created the system had in mind.

The fact that he's made it this far is more of a sociological question than a political one. As clear as his modus operandi is, he's made it this far. How did that happen? Even EVANGELICALS support this guy, are you kidding me?!

There'll be a lot of books written about this one when it's over, however it turns out.

Yeah, was reading when I stumbled across an evangelist named Joshua Feuerstein speaking about why Christians must vote for Donald Trump. I was shocked to see how flawed and one-sided their argument is when justifying many of Trumps proposals and condemning Clinton for going against Christian values.

It will definitely be interesting to read about this election years from now when mostly everything comes to light.

 

[deleted162650]

Definitely NOT what the brilliant guys that created the system had in mind.

I think that's true of our entire political system nowadays. Hell, many of the founding fathers including Washington were adamantly against official political parties.

 

[bashwell]

I was very much against Trump during the primaries, but now that he's the nominee I might actually vote for him because I gueeeeess he's better than Hillary. Or maybe I'll vote for Gary Johnson. Or maybe I'll just do nothing, not vote, but complain about everything. That's probably the most American thing I can do.

 

[bashwell]

Trump appeals to poorly educated blue collar workers in a similar way to how Hillary appeals to pretentious liberal elites.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Yeah, was reading when I stumbled across an evangelist named Joshua Feuerstein speaking about why Christians must vote for Donald Trump. I was shocked to see how flawed and one-sided their argument is when justifying many of Trumps proposals and condemning Clinton for going against Christian values.

Christians and members of any religion have an absolute right to support whomever they want for whatever reason.
But it floors me 1) that anyone in their right mind believes that that guy gives a sh1t about Christianity and 2) that anyone believes that "America first" is a platform compatible with what Jesus was supposed to have preached.

Think about Jesus. Then think about a (supposed) multi-billionaire arguing to deport millions of desperately poor immigrants whose family relies on the pittance they receive here. And put up a literal wall to keep them out. And the millions of desperate people trying to escape starvation and violence elsewhere who want relief, and who this billionaire says he doesn't trust.

We're all hypocrites in some way or another. But most Christians will say Jesus' philosophies are the most important thing in their lives. And there are millions of Christians who immediately contort or forget those very fundamental philosophies if they don't fit the political positions of their candidate.

This is a good article about the subject.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_578b037be4b0e7c873504a05

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Trump appeals to poorly educated blue collar workers in a similar way to how Hillary appeals to pretentious liberal elites.

Hillary doesn't "appeal" to all that many people. She's just kind of fills a spot, and not that well.

 

[bashwell]

Christians and members of any religion have an absolute right to support whomever they want for whatever reason.
But it floors me 1) that anyone in their right mind believes that that guy gives a sh1t about Christianity and 2) that anyone believes that "America first" is a platform compatible with what Jesus was supposed to have preached.

Think about Jesus. Then think about a (supposed) multi-billionaire arguing to deport millions of desperately poor immigrants whose family relies on the pittance they receive here. And put up a literal wall to keep them out. And the millions of desperate people trying to escape starvation and violence elsewhere who want relief, and who this billionaire says he doesn't trust.

We're all hypocrites in some way or another. But most Christians will say Jesus' philosophies are the most important thing in their lives. And there are millions of Christians who immediately contort or forget those very fundamental philosophies if they don't fit the political positions of their candidate.

This is a good article about the subject.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_578b037be4b0e7c873504a05

To be fair, you could say similar things about many other groups (religious or not). Lots of groups will compromise their ideals in favor of more pragmatic choices.

The better question to ask is whether it's necessarily wrong to compromise one's ideals in order to make more pragmatic choices.

In this particular case, is it wrong for these Christians to compromise their ideals in order to vote for Trump? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that this is definitely hypocritical, at least not without further investigation as to their motives, reasoning, etc. (My guess is there's no single monolithic answer).

Hillary doesn't "appeal" to all that many people. She's just kind of fills a spot, and not that well.

I don't disagree, but it wasn't my point of comparison.

 

[Ignatius J]

Christians and members of any religion have an absolute right to support whomever they want for whatever reason.
But it floors me 1) that anyone in their right mind believes that that guy gives a sh1t about Christianity and 2) that anyone believes that "America first" is a platform compatible with what Jesus was supposed to have preached.

Think about Jesus. Then think about a (supposed) multi-billionaire arguing to deport millions of desperately poor immigrants whose family relies on the pittance they receive here. And put up a literal wall to keep them out. And the millions of desperate people trying to escape starvation and violence elsewhere who want relief, and who this billionaire says he doesn't trust.

We're all hypocrites in some way or another. But most Christians will say Jesus' philosophies are the most important thing in their lives. And there are millions of Christians who immediately contort or forget those very fundamental philosophies if they don't fit the political positions of their candidate.

This is a good article about the subject.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_578b037be4b0e7c873504a05

1.) I don't think you have much evidence that Trump doesn't care about Christianity. It's a binary choice from a logical standpoint, so there shouldn't be any explanation needed given the Supreme Court positions up for grabs as to why someone as a Christian would vote for Trump. Here is an article from Politico yesterday: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-christian-leaders-226075

2.) I don't understand how Chris Matthews is a far left pundit who is pro-choice but a staunch Catholic either, but in this great country of ours we have separation of church and state and many people seem to separate their personal beliefs from their governmental beliefs. Some don't. Not that large republics/democracies like the United States even existed in Jesus' time. Really not an appropriate assumption. I can assure you there was not enough democracy in Jesus' time for him to give us his particular political beliefs. Taking care of your own and buying into promoting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would seem like a goal Jesus would have.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I forgot about this gem

 

[Pooh & Annie]

To be fair, you could say similar things about many other groups (religious or not). Lots of groups will compromise their ideals in favor of more pragmatic choices.

100% true. But not all "compromise" is created equal. When one claims to practice a religion that's most basic tenet is love, acceptance, and servitude to all, ignoring the plights of millions of desperate people is a 9-10/10 on the hypocrite scale.

The better question to ask is whether it's necessarily wrong to compromise one's ideals in order to make more pragmatic choices.

In this particular case, is it wrong for these Christians to compromise their ideals in order to vote for Trump? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that this is definitely hypocritical, at least not without further investigation as to their motives, reasoning, etc. (My guess is there's no single monolithic answer).

I don't believe there's a monolithic answer. I just think the motives of the VAST majority of these people, whatever the "pragmatism" involved, would somehow involve money and personal security. And "wrong" or "right", while subjective to me, are presumably pretty clear to the religious. Turning one's back on the needy is clearly wrong to a Christian, and the reasons to do so I think would need to be very compelling to that person. In my own opinion there have not been compelling, fact based reasons for such a radical departure from among the most important aspects of Jesus' philosophy.

I don't disagree, but it wasn't my point of comparison.

I'm that case, you forgot "east-coast"

 

[bashwell]

100% true. But not all "compromise" is created equal. When one claims to practice a religion that's most basic tenet is love, acceptance, and servitude to all, ignoring the plights of millions of desperate people is a 9-10/10 on the hypocrite scale.


I don't believe there's a monolithic answer. I just think the motives of the VAST majority of these people, whatever the "pragmatism" involved, would somehow involve money and personal security. And "wrong" or "right", while subjective to me, are presumably pretty clear to the religious. Turning one's back on the needy is clearly wrong to a Christian, and the reasons to do so I think would need to be very compelling to that person. In my own opinion there have not been compelling, fact based reasons for such a radical departure from among the most important aspects of Jesus' philosophy.

On the one hand, you say wrong or right are subjective to you. But on the other hand, you judge Christians for being hypocrites according to your self-confessed subjective standards of right or wrong.

On the one hand, you agree you don't believe there's a monolithic answer. But on the other hand, you broadbrush and make generalisations about Christians.

I'm that case, you forgot "east-coast"

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And besides pretentious liberal elites aren't confined to the East coast.