Trump and racism

[carpedm9587]

I'm not sure why it being dated a month before Cruz drops out matters. At any rate, as noted, the margin was the much larger 16% among the regular churchgoing white evangelicals which are more the group in question. So again, this claim that Trump was the choice of the evangelicals doesn't add up.

The dating matters because it suggests a month during which a shift in evangelicals could have put Cruz over the top. Don't get me wrong, I would have found Cruz a somewhat frightening choice, much as I would find Pence a frightening choice. But both men are at least consistent (AFAICT) in their adherence to their faith and its associated moral demands. Actually - scratch that. Both of them have exhibited a willingness to pander to Trump for political expediency, so perhaps they are not as consistent as all that.

And I'm not sure why cherry-picking the largest margin matters. The fact is 38% of self-identified white evangelicals supported Trump over the other Republican candidates a month before the primaries were wrapped up and the nomination went to Trump. Clearly the morality and character of the candidate did not matter to this large segment of evangelicals as much as the policies they were hearing.

Are you sure the "nonsense" you refer to isn't your own post? As noted, Trump was not the one chosen by evangelicals; had it been up to the evangelical vote, Ted Cruz would have been the candidate. As for the claim they chose Trump over the rest of the candidates because of this pandering... well, as noted, the underlying assumption is false, but even if it were true, the claim still seems wrong. As far as I can remember, Trump barely even mentioned "LGBT rights" (certainly less so than Ted Cruz) and while he was opposed to abortion, I don't recall him being any stronger on that issue than the other candidates.

The point is, Terra, that this large body of white evangelicals gave (and give) Trump a pass on his clear moral complicity, and his obvious character flaws. Clearly they were hearing (and are hearing) something from him that attracted them. Anti-immigration? "The left hates you?" Maybe they just liked his name calling and "in your face" style. But you cannot get away from the rather large block of support that came from, and continues to come from, white evangelicals - with little/no pressure for him to actually exhibit conventional Christian values. Indeed, when he flaunts those values, they continue to give him a pass. Things most parents would NEVER tolerate from their children, for Trump it's "telling it like it is."

I have to admit that the 2016 election process significantly lowered my level of respect for conservative Christian groups. I'm sure that dismays you a great deal.

I try to take individuals on a case-by-case basis; but as a group the conservative Christian body has shown it will set aside it's vaunted morality if it achieves their policy ends. In a sense, they are not all that different than Trump - who has made it clear he approves of lying if it achieves his ends, and even boasts of it.

[Zymologist]

How libertarian of you.

[guacamole]

He might be a reptillian nazi alien from Nibiru who went to work wearing a KKK outfit and being carried around by slaves.

Are you trying rudeness as a debate tactic now?

You are the one proposing all this happened and can't produce any evidence other than "the guy is racist so there probably is proof somewhere that he is racist because he is racist"

I never argued anything of the sort. Try again with your strawman.

That is the argument from silence. An argument without evidence. The fact that there is no footage of him being racist is not evidence that he is racist.

No crap--and happily, not my argument. And the fact that there is no footage of him being racist is not proof that he is not racist--also an argument from silence, which is what I directed my comments on Trump and his producer about.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Sparko]

You can review the "Embedded" podcast series in which this was a major focus, Sparko. And you can do a little digging for yourself.

Or you can just write it off as "liberal attacks."

My guess is you will do the latter.

You are one of the ones making the assertions and it is up to me to prove you are right?

Pardon me while I laugh at you.

[Sparko]

Actually, there is significant evidence. You (and others) seem to confuse "evidence" with "proof."

So far just some rumors. Not very significant.

[Sparko]

Are you trying rudeness as a debate tactic now?

Just sarcasm at what I consider an idiotic argument on your part.

I never argued anything of the sort. Try again with your strawman.

But that is pretty much what your argument boils down to. You think Trump is a racist, heard some rumors about him being racist on the Apprentice, and believe them despite not seeing any actual evidence.

No crap--and happily, not my argument. And the fact that there is no footage of him being racist is not proof that he is not racist--also an argument from silence, which is what I directed my comments on Trump and his producer about.

fwiw,
guacamole

I never claimed that no footage of him being racist proves he is not racist. The lack of footage certainly doesn't mean he IS racist. And rumors don't make him racist. So usually people get the benefit of the doubt if there is no actual evidence of them being some evil immoral racist, right. Innocent until proven guilty and all that?

[Littlejoe]

I think the answer to why Trump is receiving support is found in the old saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

[guacamole]

Just sarcasm at what I consider an idiotic argument on your part.

At an argument I didn't make? You're being sloppy.

But that is pretty much what your argument boils down to.

This is getting ridiculous. What argument? I made a comment on your use of the argument from silence.

You think Trump is a racist, heard some rumors about him being racist on the Apprentice, and believe them despite not seeing any actual evidence.

I think everyone is racist. I don't think Trump is special about this. I never said anything about the lack of any exculpatory evidence proving Trump's racism.

I never claimed that no footage of him being racist proves he is not racist.

I watched the Apprentice and never saw Trump be racist.

Ergo, not racist, right?

The lack of footage certainly doesn't mean he IS racist.

Right. I noted that pages ago.

And rumors don't make him racist.

Correct.

So usually people get the benefit of the doubt if there is no actual evidence of them being some evil immoral racist, right.

No recorded racist speech on a show =/= no actual evidence of them being some "evil immoral racist."--Again with the strawman, btw.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that?

This is not a court of law. Inductive reasoning doesn't require the same certainty to render a reasonable conclusion.

fwiw,
guacamole

[carpedm9587]

So far just some rumors. Not very significant.

Eyewitness testimony is not considered "rumor," at least not in most courts of law. Rumor, or "hearsay" occurs when someone reports what someone else said - rather than observing it themselves.

[guacamole]

Eyewitness testimony is not considered "rumor," at least not in most courts of law. Rumor, or "hearsay" occurs when someone reports what someone else said - rather than observing it themselves.

Good point. Good thing none of us rely on eyewitness testimony about events that form the spiritual basis of our lives.

[One Bad Pig]

I think everyone is racist.

In that case, you calling someone in particular "racist" is utterly meaningless, and one wonders why you're bothering to push this particular narrative.

[carpedm9587]

Good point. Good thing none of us rely on eyewitness testimony about events that form the spiritual basis of our lives.

That is, I believe, MM's point about my so-called "double standard." Except what is forgotten is that we have insufficient evidence to believe any of the evidence we have is anything other than hearsay. We do not know, definitively, the authors of most of the NT. We know Paul's letters were written by Paul, but Paul was not an eyewitness to Jesus' life/resurrection, and does not claim to be (AFAIK). The gospels were written well after the events they report, and we know the communities within which they were likely written. We know Acts and Luke were likely written by the same author and the author was likely a physician.

So most of the NT is actually hearsay - and not demonstrably eyewitness testimony. It is someone writing down what they heard from those who claimed to be eyewitnesses, or (sometimes) those who heard the preaching of eyewitnesses (which makes it even one-more removed).

At least, that is what I recall of my (somewhat dated) scripture studies. And that is why I have said repeatedly, the NT tells us about the beliefs of the communities within which they were written. They cannot tell us about the accuracy of the historical claims they make.

[Mountain Man]

I think the answer to why Trump is receiving support is found in the old saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

For me, I think Trump can do and has done a lot of good regardless of his moral failings

[carpedm9587]

For me, I think Trump can do and has done a lot of good regardless of his moral failings

Even Mussolini and Hitler "did some good." That's not a very high bar.

[Sparko]

Eyewitness testimony is not considered "rumor," at least not in most courts of law. Rumor, or "hearsay" occurs when someone reports what someone else said - rather than observing it themselves.

So far just one person's claim with zero evidence is enough to convince you?

Yet multiple eye witness accounts in the bible were not enough to keep you a Christian?