Christianity Today, influential evangelical magazine, says Trump 'should be removed from office'

[Absalom]

@sneakypete
No, he has put number of REPUBLICAN judges in place - That is a different thing.
Whether they are Conservative is yet to be determined.

-----------------------
Per usual, on the mark!
After their 159 year tenure in our politics it is astounding why so many
simply cannot/will not differentiate between Republicanism and Conservatism.

[skeeter]

Agreed @skeeter
Sadly, when I proclaim "I could not live with myself voting for either candidate in 2016," I fear it gets interpreted by some as ragging on their choice.

If that’s all you posted I doubt you’d get much blowback here.

[roamer_1]

I'm puzzled by this characterization (generalization, actually) of evangelical Christians. I don't know anyone among my evangelical friends and acquaintances who considers Trump anything other than the current President - certainly not the Messiah. We're all quite aware of who the true and only Messiah is.

I encourage you to listen to the Tump propaganda flooding the Christian Right. Nearly every Christian media is promoting this kind of crap... to include Mark Taylor's prophecies, Trey Smith and others hawking the Kim Clement prophecies, The Tump/Cyrus shtick... It is an orchestrated campaign within the Christian Right, not limited to Graham and Falwell and White.

And it is a sucker play.

[roamer_1]

-----------------------
Per usual, on the mark!
After their 159 year tenure in our politics it is astounding why so many
simply cannot/will not differentiate between Republicanism and Conservatism.

I would submit that conflation is purposeful. And nefarious.

[don-o]

@don-o
You should wander around the evangelicals and pentecostals to get a taste of the messianic flavor being hawked wrt Trump. A mere prophet? Hardly.

Go find a guy on Youtube named Mark Taylor and listen to his shtick. He won't be hard to find. And he is by no means the only one. Then perhaps you will understand my visceral reaction.

Took me about very little time to lose interest in that guy. These free lance "God appeared to me" bozos are the false prophets I disregard with extreme prejudice. But, back to the original topic...do you believe that Trump should be removed from office? Would a genuine conservative HoR find constitutional grounds to impeach and a genuine conservative Senate remove, based on any official act he has done in office, like CT apparently does?

[libertybele]

Took me about very little time to lose interest in that guy. These free lance "God appeared to me" bozos are the false prophets I disregard with extreme prejudice. But, back to the original topic...do you believe that Trump should be removed from office? Would a genuine conservative HoR find constitutional grounds to impeach and a genuine conservative Senate remove, based on any official act he has done in office, like CT apparently does?

Back on topic.  Based on what the House has brought up as grounds for impeachment, no, I don't think he should be impeached, nor removed.  I also listened off and on to Glenn Beck's research and the real concern should be Biden.  I feel that is why the left went after Trump; they saw it as an opportunity to bury the corruption on their side.  That is what the left does best; deflect and accuse the other side and while the other side defends, the left buries their corruption.  Pelosi calls it the "wrap up smear".


www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMJdDwQlcc8

[Formerly Once-Ler]

-----------------------
Per usual, on the mark!
After their 159 year tenure in our politics it is astounding why so many
simply cannot/will not differentiate between Republicanism and Conservatism.

I need definitions for Trumpism, Republicanism, and Conservatism.  Are Trumpism and Republicanism the same now?  Sure they both love reckless borrowing and spending, but are trade wars and tariffs now Republicanism?

I have no idea what Conservatism is today.  Smaller government?  Fiscal restraint?  International engagement?  Pro-trade? America as a beacon of hope?  Strong military?  Today's conservatism sounds a lot different to the conservatism Rush Limbaugh used to espouse.

[roamer_1]

Took me about very little time to lose interest in that guy. These free lance "God appeared to me" bozos are the false prophets I disregard with extreme prejudice. But, back to the original topic...do you believe that Trump should be removed from office? Would a genuine conservative HoR find constitutional grounds to impeach and a genuine conservative Senate remove, based on any official act he has done in office, like CT apparently does?

No. I am on the record here opposing the articles as they stand.

But I do not support Tump in it either, nor defend him. Rattle your sabre, cry havoc! ... and I will stay right here on the porch.

Like I said before. I got no dog in this hunt.

[Smokin Joe]

That's it?   That's all?   Castle lost.   What Conservative(s) are you voting for and supporting now that have actually done something Conservative for the country?   I'm open to supporting Conservatives still... but only if they actually have a chance of winning and/or of being able to DO something Conservative for America.  If all they have going for them is 'talking Conservative values'....I'll opt for the realistic option.

"but only if they have a chance of winning."

If every person who even claimed to be "conservative" voted for the most conservative candidate, they would have more than just 'a chance' of winning. Somewhere in the process, though, the spectre of "electability" causes people to abandon principle for what looks shiniest in the media. THey settle for the lesser evil, happy because they are "electable" and don't choose what they really wanted.
It's a self-fulfilling prophesy, that someone isn't 'electable',because voters abandon that candidate and their principles wholesale over someone telling them they'll not be elected.

Now, listen up, because I want everyone to realize something. Where, but in a Party which supports its people no matter how crazy or stupid, would the likes of AOC, Maxine Waters, Shiela Jackson Lee, and a host of other people who we look at and wonder how in the world they got elected, unelectable all, not only elected, but return to office time and again?

Because the people backing them don't believe in "Unelectable", it's only those who are tossing their beliefs for that will-o-the-wisp, who are so afraid of losing they won't ever truly win.

If YOU won't vote for what you believe in, who will?

[roamer_1]

for a candidate that has a chance of winning.

Pyrrhic Victory... It's all the rage...

Rah Rah!

 

[roamer_1]

"but only if they have a chance of winning."

If every person who even claimed to be "conservative" voted for the most conservative candidate, they would have more than just 'a chance' of winning. Somewhere in the process, though, the spectre of "electability" causes people to abandon principle for what looks shiniest in the media. THey settle for the lesser evil, happy because they are "electable" and don't choose what they really wanted.
It's a self-fulfilling prophesy, that someone isn't 'electable',because voters abandon that candidate and their principles wholesale over someone telling them they'll not be elected.

Now, listen up, because I want everyone to realize something. Where, but in a Party which supports its people no matter how crazy or stupid, would the likes of AOC, Maxine Waters, Shiela Jackson Lee, and a host of other people who we look at and wonder how in the world they got elected, unelectable all, not only elected, but return to office time and again?

Because the people backing them don't believe in "Unelectable", it's only those who are tossing their beliefs for that will-o-the-wisp, who are so afraid of losing they won't ever truly win.

If YOU won't vote for what you believe in, who will?

Absolutely brilliantly said Joe.
Three beers for you!

 
 

[roamer_1]

Pyrrhic Victory... It's all the rage...

Rah Rah!

 

And that was a marvelous pun, even if I do say so myself 

[don-o]

No. I am on the record here opposing the articles as they stand.

But I do not support Tump in it either, nor defend him. Rattle your sabre, cry havoc! ... and I will stay right here on the porch.

Like I said before. I got no dog in this hunt.

Will you answer my other question? Would genuine conservatives
 impeach and remove?

[roamer_1]

Will you answer my other question? Would genuine conservatives
 impeach and remove?

On what I know now? No.

[don-o]

On what I know now? No.

Very good. Thanks

[EdinVA]

"but only if they have a chance of winning."

If every person who even claimed to be "conservative" voted for the most conservative candidate, they would have more than just 'a chance' of winning. Somewhere in the process, though, the spectre of "electability" causes people to abandon principle for what looks shiniest in the media. THey settle for the lesser evil, happy because they are "electable" and don't choose what they really wanted.
It's a self-fulfilling prophesy, that someone isn't 'electable',because voters abandon that candidate and their principles wholesale over someone telling them they'll not be elected.

Now, listen up, because I want everyone to realize something. Where, but in a Party which supports its people no matter how crazy or stupid, would the likes of AOC, Maxine Waters, Shiela Jackson Lee, and a host of other people who we look at and wonder how in the world they got elected, unelectable all, not only elected, but return to office time and again?

Because the people backing them don't believe in "Unelectable", it's only those who are tossing their beliefs for that will-o-the-wisp, who are so afraid of losing they won't ever truly win.

If YOU won't vote for what you believe in, who will?

Yes.... The snag in all of this is those folks that claim to be social/religious conservatives are not worried about the money and those that claim to be financial conservatives are not concerned with the social issues.  If a candidate does not feed their specific mission, then they do not vote at all, which is actually a vote for the left.

[Smokin Joe]

Yes.... The snag in all of this is those folks that claim to be social/religious conservatives are not worried about the money and those that claim to be financial conservatives are not concerned with the social issues.  If a candidate does not feed their specific mission, then they do not vote at all, which is actually a vote for the left.

Not that again.

Actually, only a vote for the left is a vote for the Left. They only count votes by illegals, dead people, people who travel all over and vote early and often, and those who actually vote for them, despite their penchant for fraud.

Not voting is just not voting. It doesn't add to the count on the Left.

Otherwise, the Left could claim their voters who don't vote are voting for the Right....etc.

So let's keep the tally down to actual votes and quit trying to divide people with that "If you don't vote for Trump you're voting for Hillary" type bullshit.

[sneakypete]

-----------------------
Per usual, on the mark!
After their 159 year tenure in our politics it is astounding why so many
simply cannot/will not differentiate between Republicanism and Conservatism.

@Absalom

Yeah,it's clear to see why you hate Trump,alright! After all,he has been a Republican now for what,15 minutes?

BTW,don't let the FACT that both the DNC and the RINO's hate him worse than you do because he not only didn't kiss their rings,he told them to kiss HIS ass.

[Absalom]

I need definitions for Trumpism, Republicanism, and Conservatism.  Are Trumpism and Republicanism the same now?  Sure they both love reckless borrowing and spending, but are trade wars and tariffs now Republicanism?
I have no idea what Conservatism is today.  Smaller government?  Fiscal restraint?  International engagement?  Pro-trade? America as a beacon of hope?  Strong military?  Today's conservatism sounds a lot different to the conservatism Rush Limbaugh used to espouse.

---------------------------
Once:
* Trumpism is a cliche' for a coupla sentiments from a politician labled Trump;
as was Hooverism, Deweyism, Trumanism, Clintonism and all the rest.
Collectively they add up to zero and a big minus for the taxpayer!!!
* Republicanism are the political notions that began around 1850 fostering
centralized government, protected trade for "infant industries" as well
as judicial activism; among its multiple notions of governance.
* Principled Conservatism is a body of timeless principles dealing w/the attitudes
and behaviors necessary for Man to survive and thrive; being independent of
economics, politics and religion. These appeared in the writings of the wise of the
Fertile Crescent, then in Plato's Republic, followed by the Scholastics and later
those such as Edmund Burke and T.S Eliot.
It you're serious get a copy of the 'Conservative Mind' by Russell Kirk.

[Absalom]

@Absalom
Yeah,it's clear to see why you hate Trump,alright! After all,he has been a Republican now for what,15 minutes?
BTW,don't let the FACT that both the DNC and the RINO's hate him worse than you do because he not only didn't kiss their rings,he told them to kiss HIS ass.

---------------------------
Er......................... I don't hate Trump since he's very useful.
To those who despair at the condition of our culture, I simply point to Trump
and assert; if a society wants to survive and thrive, don't elect the likes of him.

[TomSea]

Here is another take on the CT article...

How Trump Lost an Evangelical Stalwart

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/christianity-today-trump-removal/603952/

Though I don't agree with everything here... it is nice to see some Christian sites actually owning up to Trump's behavior... Oddly they first focus on things political (of which I don't fully agree with)... then actually delve in his personal behavior (something they have been blind to report earlier for the most part after he was elected).

And I own up to having the most pro-life president ever.  Abortion clinics have been shut down,  defunded. Powerful statements made, that's Christian if anything is.  Pro-life judges nominated and appointed to courts.

It may come down to actually saving the lives of the unborn. So, there's that as much.

And those complaining, well,  don't tell us how holy you are. You didn't do these things. Better to get results, not just talk.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Which is why I went to the Constitution Party.  You get more of what you vote *for*

Why is difficult, if not impossible, for so many to understand that the vast majority who cast a vote for Donald Trump in 2016 were voting *for*?

[roamer_1]

Why is difficult, if not impossible, for so many to understand that the vast majority who cast a vote for Donald Trump in 2016 were voting *for*?

No one I know. I literally have not met a rabidly pro-Tump fan. Never seen a red hat, never seen a bumpersticker. Hell, I can't remember seeing a Tump yard sign.

I know some that held their noses, and voted for the big rhinestone 'R', but the likes of you are few and far between out here.

[TomSea]

And I own up to having the most pro-life president ever.  Abortion clinics have been shut down,  defunded. Powerful statements made, that's Christian if anything is.  Pro-life judges nominated and appointed to courts.

It may come down to actually saving the lives of the unborn. So, there's that as much.

And those complaining, well,  don't tell us how holy you are. You didn't do these things. Better to get results, not just talk.

Same thing with Rubio, sponsored, passed pro-life bills, signed by Gov. Jeb Bush.  Good works done, not like some  uninformed people name-calling others.   Can't put a value on these things.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Somewhere in the process, though, the spectre of "electability" causes people to abandon principle for what looks shiniest in the media. THey settle for the lesser evil, happy because they are "electable" and don't choose what they really wanted.

Actually, in 2016 it was more than the spectre of "electability" it was about the spectre of "doing", of "accomplishing".  I never heard anyone wearing the conservative label tell me what he would accomplish, actually DO as President.  I heard a lot about bad Donald Trump, American history, Ronald Reagan, Christian principles, but precious little about anything else.

Trump was different.  He saw a problem, he had a plan to fix it.  He promised he would not let us down.  And he hasn't.  President Trump has accomplished more in three years than any conservative candidate running in 2016 even considered in the entirety of his/her political career.

For instance, which conservative candidate running in 2016 would have pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accords, the Iran "deal", renegotiated trade deals around the globe to secure mutual benefits for American workers, gotten our allies to open their wallets for their own defense because American taxpayers deserved not to be taken advantage of? 

Which conservative candidate running in 2016 would have negotiated with Mexico to keep asylum seekers until we were ready for them, negotiated agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras requiring migrants on their way to the US to apply for protections in those countries first or face immediate deportation back to their home countries --- essentially ending catch and release?  Which conservative candidate running in 2016 would be building a wall along our Southern border by using every creative means available to secure the money to fund it?

Which conservative candidate running in 2016 would have the economic acumen to put the pieces together to usher in an economy and jobs environment that left even CNN gobsmacked?

And name the conservative candidate running in 2016 who would accomplish all of this, and more, by plowing through an unrelenting resistance from the opposition party, his own party and the media?

No, @Smokin Joe 2016 wasn't just about winning. It wasn't about shiny objects. 2016 was about finding the right man who could "do" and turn this ship around.  And we did.  We found Donald J. Trump.  This is why we voted FOR him, and will do it all over again in 2020.