Christianity Today Op Ed

[Watermelon]

CT have said that while they lost subscribers over this they also gained three times as much new subscribers.

[Cow Poke]

I find the continual blasphemy of Trump supporting Christian's, like the majority of people on this website, absolutely giggle inducing, personally.

After I heard about the stance of CT and NR I thought they might have found themselves shocked out of their stupor, but unfortunately they seem to keep failing to recognize themselves.

Oh well, lol

Merry Christmas, J.

[Tassman]

I find the continual blasphemy of Trump supporting Christian's, like the majority of people on this website, absolutely giggle inducing, personally.

After I heard about the stance of CT and NR I thought they might have found themselves shocked out of their stupor, but unfortunately they seem to keep failing to recognize themselves.

It their standard reaction to, as MM put it, a publication like the "far left magazine Christianity Today".

[demi-conservative]

I find the continual blasphemy of Trump supporting Christian's, like the majority of people on this website, absolutely giggle inducing, personally.

After I heard about the stance of CT and NR I thought they might have found themselves shocked out of their stupor, but unfortunately they seem to keep failing to recognize themselves.

Oh well, lol

Здравствуйте.

[NorrinRadd]

found an interesting take on CT's article by someone who was anti trump in 2016. Here I agree with Dr. Everret Piper. those Christian's who are attacking the rest of us because we don't believe like they do that the bad outweighs the good should reflect on this article

I wonder why it won't let me log in to comment with my existing Disqus account.

[Terraceth]

I find the continual blasphemy of Trump supporting Christian's, like the majority of people on this website, absolutely giggle inducing, personally.

After I heard about the stance of CT and NR I thought they might have found themselves shocked out of their stupor, but unfortunately they seem to keep failing to recognize themselves.

Oh well, lol

What did National Review do?

[Tassman]

found an interesting take on CT's article by someone who was anti trump in 2016. Here I agree with Dr. Everret Piper. those Christian's who are attacking the rest of us because we don't believe like they do that the bad outweighs the good should reflect on this article

Basically this is just a take on "the ends justify the means". Machiavelli said the same. Machiavelli also said that "politics have no relation to morals" - well he was spot-on there when it comes to Trump. Is this a good thing you think?

[simplicio]

What did National Review do?

Probably this editorial which was supportive of Christianity today: https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...christmas-too/

Pretty hard to call National Review a far left magazine! But they have had some difficulty getting behind Trump, Trumpism is not exactly their brand of conservatism.

In other news, an editorial from the Babylon Bee called for the resignation of everyone in Washington.

[Starlight]

Basically this is just a take on "the ends justify the means". Machiavelli said the same. Machiavelli also said that "politics have no relation to morals" - well he was spot-on there when it comes to Trump. Is this a good thing you think?

I don't quite get what the ends are when it comes to Trump, since the man doesn't seem to have goals or be achieving anything.

The only things he's actually done that are noteworthy are:

• Separated families and put kids in cages.
  
• Signaled intention to abandon the Paris Agreement.
  
• Appointed a lot of unqualified judges because they had strong ideological views. So in the unlikely event that one of them gets given a 'culture-wars' law-suit, they'll probably rule in favor of the current conservative position. In the vastly more likely event that their cases are normal legal cases and have nothing to do with culture wars, they'll probably just be incompetent.
  
• Not vetoed Republican legislation to lower taxes for the rich.
  

I genuinely don't get why those things, which any half-baked half-drunk Republican President could equally have achieved, would be grounds for any sort of conservative loyalty to Trump. Pence could do them equally if he were to replace Trump after impeachment.

Why conservatives would see those ends as being something that justifies having someone at the helm who defiles the offices of the Presidency with his immoral person and makes the country an international laughingstock, I genuinely just don't get. Why not instead have someone who doesn't steal from charity, who doesn't sexually assault women, who doesn't constantly funnel government money and campaign donations and foreign bribes into his own businesses and pocket, who doesn't run con schemes and fake universities, who doesn't rave like a lunatic in person and on twitter, who doesn't get laughed at by America's closest allies, and who doesn't love to cosy up to the world's dictators while disparaging democracy?

It's not like Trump is actually doing anything that any other Republican President couldn't equally do. There don't seem to be actually any ends to justify the means, and that's what's so baffling. Republicans have aligned themselves behind one of the most corrupt and immoral people in history... and for what? Nothing they couldn't equally get from pretty much anyone else.

[Jaecp]

Probably this editorial which was supportive of Christianity today: https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...christmas-too/

Pretty hard to call National Review a far left magazine! But they have had some difficulty getting behind Trump, Trumpism is not exactly their brand of conservatism.

In other news, an editorial from the Babylon Bee called for the resignation of everyone in Washington.

This, actually

https://www.nationalreview.com/magaz...hment/#slide-1

It's from the 19th and lays out the 4 hurdles that should be cleared to justify impeachment and removal and how Trump's actions clear them.

[simplicio]

This, actually

https://www.nationalreview.com/magaz...hment/#slide-1

It's from the 19th and lays out the 4 hurdles that should be cleared to justify impeachment and removal and how Trump's actions clear them.

Thanks.

An eye opening column.

[simplicio]

I don't quite get what the ends are when it comes to Trump, since the man doesn't seem to have goals or be achieving anything.

The only things he's actually done that are noteworthy are:

• Separated families and put kids in cages.
  
• Signaled intention to abandon the Paris Agreement.
  
• Appointed a lot of unqualified judges because they had strong ideological views. So in the unlikely event that one of them gets given a 'culture-wars' law-suit, they'll probably rule in favor of the current conservative position. In the vastly more likely event that their cases are normal legal cases and have nothing to do with culture wars, they'll probably just be incompetent.
  
• Not vetoed Republican legislation to lower taxes for the rich.
  

I genuinely don't get why those things, which any half-baked half-drunk Republican President could equally have achieved, would be grounds for any sort of conservative loyalty to Trump. Pence could do them equally if he were to replace Trump after impeachment.

Why conservatives would see those ends as being something that justifies having someone at the helm who defiles the offices of the Presidency with his immoral person and makes the country an international laughingstock, I genuinely just don't get. Why not instead have someone who doesn't steal from charity, who doesn't sexually assault women, who doesn't constantly funnel government money and campaign donations and foreign bribes into his own businesses and pocket, who doesn't run con schemes and fake universities, who doesn't rave like a lunatic in person and on twitter, who doesn't get laughed at by America's closest allies, and who doesn't love to cosy up to the world's dictators while disparaging democracy?

It's not like Trump is actually doing anything that any other Republican President couldn't equally do. There don't seem to be actually any ends to justify the means, and that's what's so baffling. Republicans have aligned themselves behind one of the most corrupt and immoral people in history... and for what? Nothing they couldn't equally get from pretty much anyone else.

Highlighted the last paragraph. The political situation is presented as a dichotomy, either Trump or the Dems, such as Hillary. But few remember that Trump emerged from a field of a dozen candidates, some of which were pretty darn good. And he has pretty much strengthened his hold on the Republican party discipline.

The irony is that I bemoaned the lack of party discipline and a strong Republican party leadership just a few years ago, now we have something similar to the machine politics of a century ago

[Tassman]

I don't quite get what the ends are when it comes to Trump, since the man doesn't seem to have goals or be achieving anything.

Agreed. Apart from the one overriding goal of Trump promoting and benefiting himself.

The only things he's actually done that are noteworthy are:


[*] Separated families and put kids in cages.

Which plays to the racism of his base.

[*] Signaled intention to abandon the Paris Agreement.

Which plays to the eschatological expectations of his base, i.e. bringing about the ‘end times’ and preparing for Jesus’ arrival on a cloud of glory.

[*] Appointed a lot of unqualified judges because they had strong ideological views. So in the unlikely event that one of them gets given a 'culture-wars' law-suit, they'll probably rule in favor of the current conservative position. In the vastly more likely event that their cases are normal legal cases and have nothing to do with culture wars, they'll probably just be incompetent.

True but the “ideological views” re abortion and allowing for LGBT discrimination are all important to this bigoted lot.

[*] Not vetoed Republican legislation to lower taxes for the rich.
[/LIST]

Yep. “Money, Money, Money, It's a rich man's world …”

I genuinely don't get why those things, which any half-baked half-drunk Republican President could equally have achieved, would be grounds for any sort of conservative loyalty to Trump. Pence could do them equally if he were to replace Trump after impeachment.

You’re right. But I was actually commenting on the link posted by RumTumTugger namely:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-donald-trump/

[rogue06]

Not sure if it has been mentioned but the Christian Post, an online Christian news publication, has published an editorial in support of Trump in response to CT's editorial calling for his removal from office. The MSM studiously ignored it until one of CP's editors (an avowed Never Trumper) announced his resignation in protest. Only then did the MSM become interested.

[rogue06]

This, actually

https://www.nationalreview.com/magaz...hment/#slide-1

It's from the 19th and lays out the 4 hurdles that should be cleared to justify impeachment and removal and how Trump's actions clear them.

I see wormtongue is back.