Anti-Trump Christians, Would You Prefer a President Who Supports Secular Social Agend

[NorrinRadd]

I'm on page 8, and amused to see the fighting has moved beyond politics to a bunch of chest-thumping and "manhood" measuring about computer skills.

[NorrinRadd]

They absolutely can and should totally refuse to cooperate until the Court rules on each and every individual person and document subpoenaed.

Then pretty much every President should have been impeached. Certainly both Bush 43 and Barry Soweto should have been impeached for abuse of power.

-----------

Wow. I read this back after I posted it, and it looked like I typed it with my butt. I got slammed by some flu-like crud Saturday, and apparently my functioning is even worse than I realized.

[NorrinRadd]

I generally agree. But there could conceivably be a problem in the case of impeachment of a jurist. Since the Judicial branch is normally the "tie-breaker," so to speak, who takes on that role when they are one of the actual parties in the dispute?

[NorrinRadd]

No. Jim. They're afraid the Senate will conduct themselves in the same extremely partisan manner the House did. Payback is heck.

Several D. Senators are on record talking about how criminal and removal-worthy is Bad Orange Man. Why expect the R. Senators to be fair and unbiased?

[Leonhard]

Getting back to the op. I don't see people discussing it at all.

I once challenged conservatives on this forum whether they would make a trade of a repeal of Roe vs Wade, with the 2nd ammendment getting nullified and gun rights being strongly restricted.

I did this, thinking this would be a no issue. Gun laws, while important to conservatives, must obviously be a secondary issue when measured against the rights of the unborn.

Yet in that thread the majority of people would not sacrifice their gun freedom, for pro-life values being advanced. Some discussed their rationalizations for this, but it was near universal. The right to having a gun, was not something to be given up, not even for a repeal of Roe vs Wade and abortion being criminalized. In light of that, I'm tempted to say that if you would not make compromises on secondary values of your political system, then why do you ask of a democratic Christian (like me) to make compromises on his political values for the sake of the unborn?

[demi-conservative]

Getting back to the op. I don't see people discussing it at all.

I once challenged conservatives on this forum whether they would make a trade of a repeal of Roe vs Wade, with the 2nd ammendment getting nullified and gun rights being strongly restricted.

I did this, thinking this would be a no issue. Gun laws, while important to conservatives, must obviously be a secondary issue when measured against the rights of the unborn.

Yet in that thread the majority of people would not sacrifice their gun freedom, for pro-life values being advanced. Some discussed their rationalizations for this, but it was near universal. The right to having a gun, was not something to be given up, not even for a repeal of Roe vs Wade and abortion being criminalized. In light of that, I'm tempted to say that if you would not make compromises on secondary values of your political system, then why do you ask of a democratic Christian (like me) to make compromises on his political values for the sake of the unborn?

This is a failed 'gotcha'. The belief is that guns are necessary for self-defense, so your scenario is life vs life. It's clear that gun rights to them is a primary value.

[seanD]

Getting back to the op. I don't see people discussing it at all.

I once challenged conservatives on this forum whether they would make a trade of a repeal of Roe vs Wade, with the 2nd ammendment getting nullified and gun rights being strongly restricted.

I did this, thinking this would be a no issue. Gun laws, while important to conservatives, must obviously be a secondary issue when measured against the rights of the unborn.

Yet in that thread the majority of people would not sacrifice their gun freedom, for pro-life values being advanced. Some discussed their rationalizations for this, but it was near universal. The right to having a gun, was not something to be given up, not even for a repeal of Roe vs Wade and abortion being criminalized. In light of that, I'm tempted to say that if you would not make compromises on secondary values of your political system, then why do you ask of a democratic Christian (like me) to make compromises on his political values for the sake of the unborn?

It's not the same scenario. Giving up pro-life policy for the second amendment is not at all equivalent of giving up pro-life policy AND pro-gun rights (because you'd essentially be giving up both -- and I'll throw in the first amendment to boot -- voting for any one of the top potential democratic nominees) in exchange of not having to vote for Trump.

[Starlight]

I once challenged conservatives on this forum whether they would make a trade of a repeal of Roe vs Wade, with the 2nd ammendment getting nullified and gun rights being strongly restricted...

Yet in that thread the majority of people would not sacrifice their gun freedom, for pro-life values being advanced. Some discussed their rationalizations for this, but it was near universal.

That's quite amusing given what the evangelicals on this forum pretend to care about. The mental illness of gun-love outweighs their supposed religious views I guess.

Though I would note that getting rid of Roe v Wade doesn't necessarily achieve a whole lot. If it were to be repealed, then Red states would pass anti-abortion laws, but there would still be abortions in Blue states. And most Red states have already forced most abortion clinics in them to close down anyway, due to 'TRAP' laws designed to put so many burdens on abortion providers as to make them nonviable.

[Leonhard]

It's not the same scenario. Giving up pro-life policy for the second amendment is not at all equivalent of giving up pro-life policy AND pro-gun rights (because you'd essentially be giving up both -- and I'll throw in the first amendment to boot -- voting for any one of the top potential democratic nominees) in exchange of not having to vote for Trump.

So you'll gladly ask me to trade 'sine qua non' issues for me, for something you consider essential, but you wouldn't do the same?

Until conservatives here declare that prolife outweighs gunrights, I don't see why I should cast a vote for Trump, despite being a Democrat and sell out on all my values.

[Leonhard]

This is a failed 'gotcha'. The belief is that guns are necessary for self-defense, so your scenario is life vs life. It's clear that gun rights to them is a primary value.

Failed argument, the amount of unborn killed in abortions, so vastly outnumber the ones saved by self-defense by several orders of magnitude.

[demi-conservative]

So you'll gladly ask me to trade 'sine qua non' issues for me, for something you consider essential, but you wouldn't do the same?

Until conservatives here declare that prolife outweighs gunrights, I don't see why I should cast a vote for Trump, despite being a Democrat and sell out on all my values.

What are your sine qua non issues that are anywhere close in body count?

[seanD]

So you'll gladly ask me to trade 'sine qua non' issues for me, for something you consider essential, but you wouldn't do the same?

Until conservatives here declare that prolife outweighs gunrights, I don't see why I should cast a vote for Trump, despite being a Democrat and sell out on all my values.

I'm just saying your analogy of Christians choosing pro-gun over pro-life is not the same as choosing a democrat socialist in the running (where you'll give up BOTH) over Trump. If you feel a social democrat is better than Trump in keeping your values intact, that's fine, but your analogy doesn't hold the same weight.

[demi-conservative]

Failed argument, the amount of unborn killed in abortions, so vastly outnumber the ones saved by self-defense by several orders of magnitude.

This is just bad.

a) You forget to factor in the deterrent effect, which probably saves multiple orders more lives
b) You live in a fantasy world where just 'outlawing abortion' will make it go away. Best case scenario, there will be 'sanctuary states', black market pills, DIY videos and other nonsense

You make this vague talk about 'outlawing' and assume it will reduce the problem by even 10%, without discussion of penalties and enforcement? This is like using stock indices as a measure of economic growth without even correcting for inflation, your analysis is so shallow.

[Leonhard]

I'm just saying your analogy of Christians choosing pro-gun over pro-life is not the same as choosing a democrat socialist in the running (where you'll give up BOTH) over Trump. If you feel a social democrat is better than Trump in keeping your values intact, that's fine, but your analogy doesn't hold the same weight.

If that is all you meant I agree, but then you're missing the point of the analogy. Conservatives here are not willing to give up secondary issues, for something that should be a primary issue, so I can't see why they would expect me to.

I don't think I could vote Republican, if I was American. If I vote Republican, I'd be voting against all my core values, if I vote for a Democrat I'm voting for an anti-life position. Neither is tenable.

[Leonhard]

a) You forget to factor in the deterrent effect,

The deterrent effect is real but miniscule in comparison. Abortion is far worse.

You live in a fantasy world where just 'outlawing abortion' will make it go away.

Outlawing works. If outlawing abortion did not work, it would not make sense for Christians to argue for the outlawing of it. A reduction even of ten percent, would reduce the number of deaths far below what gun right save.