Patterico's Pontifications

4/27/2019

Evangelical Problem: Sacrificing Integrity To Support Trump While Pointing The Moral Finger At Democrat Candidate

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:10 am



[guest post by Dana]

Republicans for the Rule of Law recently posted a spot-on video of Sen. Lindsey Graham rightfully taking a sitting president to task, saying:

“This is about a person out of control. He took the law, turned it upside down. Every time there was a crossroads, he put his personal and legal interest ahead of the nation. He is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the land. He encouraged people to lie for him. He lied. I think he obstructed justice. I think there’s a convincing and compelling case that he has in fact engaged in conduct that it would be better for him to leave office than to stay in office.”

One might think that Graham is talking about our current president because the words are so fitting. However, as you can see in the video clip below, he’s talking about Bill Clinton in 1999.

Unfortunately, Graham, who once said that Trump was “unfit for office” has transformed into a cynical politician whose priority is making the shrewd calculations and calibrations necessary for reelection. And if that means sidling up to someone he once labeled a “kook,” then so be it. While he also believes that the country benefits by his working with President Trump, he offers no apologies in his admittance to playing the hard-edged game of politics. After all:

If you don’t want to get reelected, you’re in the wrong business.

To Graham, and many other Republican leaders, offering their allegiance to Trump (even if for show) is a prerequisite to seeing another term. And to them, the choice is worth it. But for the politician who claimed to stand upon a moral and principled foundation, a willing compromise to retain power has been made. Sadly, this flip-flopping hypocrisy in order to get reelected is unsurprising, yet troubling. It’s especially troubling when the unfolding slow roll toward moral compromise is committed by those elected officials who once roared their disapproval of Trump’s dishonesty, lack of morality, and deceitful nature. Clearly the drive for power is irresistible to far too many. But how to explain the moral compromise by those whose bread and butter isn’t politics but is instead serving in the house of God? One would think that these individuals would be free from any need of approval by President Trump, or any need to be in his good graces. After all, shouldn’t loyalty to God and the principles He lays out for believers supersede all else? With that, the past two years have been a season of having it repeatedly driven home that we all have feet of clay. Yet it’s not just the elected officials of faith who have meekly fallen in line while clutching the levers of power, it’s also those who stand in pulpits across the nation, telling us how to live while speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Like Franklin Graham:

Franklin Graham, who is the son of the late evangelist Billy Graham and a prominent supporter of President Trump, slammed Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg for being gay, Christian and married. In a series of three tweets Wednesday, he assailed Buttigieg for remarks he has made about being a gay Christian.

“Presidential candidate & South Bend Mayor @PeteButtigieg is right—God doesn’t have a political party,” Graham wrote. “But God does have commandments, laws & standards He gives us to live by. God doesn’t change. His Word is the same yesterday, today & forever.”

Then, Graham added, “Mayor Buttigieg says he’s a gay Christian. As a Christian I believe the Bible which defines homosexuality as sin, something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized. The Bible says marriage is between a man & a woman—not two men, not two women.”

Here’s the thing: It’s just a bit rich when an evangelical pastor uses his bully pulpit to point out one man’s sin, while ignoring another man’s sin because that other individual is the guy he’s put his reputation on the line for and thrown his support behind.

In other words, it’s easy to point the finger at homosexuality, while ignoring the painfully obvious:

“I’m not knocking for Buttigieg for sinning,” Graham would presumably say. “We’re all sinners. I’m knocking him for flaunting his sin.” But Trump flaunts his sin too. His apartment in Trump Tower is decked out like Versailles, a monument to gluttony. His sexual boasting over the years contributed to the alpha-male image that helped win him the presidency. What else was his conversation with Billy Bush on the “Access Hollywood” tape except “flaunting sin”? We’re talking about a guy who allegedly posed as his own publicist when he dialed up the tabloids in New York to whisper to them about how much he was getting laid. There may be no single person more synonymous with “the good life” in the popular imagination since the 1980s than Donald Trump. He’s practically a national spokesman for greed, right down to continuing to receive revenue from his businesses while he holds the most powerful job in the world.

(I would have included the sin of pride, selfishness and self-worship.)

As David French reminds us, Franklin Graham, like Sen. Graham, also condemned Bill Clinton with equal fervor:

In 1998, at the height of Bill Clinton’s sex scandals, the younger Graham wrote a powerful op-ed in the Wall Street Journal combating Clinton’s assertion that his affair was a “private” matter. Clinton argued that his misdeeds were “between me, the two people I love the most — my wife and our daughter — and our God.” Graham noted that even the most private of sins can have very public, devastating consequences, and he asked a simple question: “If [Clinton] will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?”

Graham was right: Clinton, it turned out, wouldn’t just lie to mislead his family. He’d lie to influence courts, Congress, and the American people.

Fast-forward 20 years. By 2018, Donald Trump was president — and helping to win important policy victories for religious conservatives — and Graham’s tune had changed dramatically. He actively repudiated his condemnations of Clinton, calling the Republican pursuit of the then-president “a great mistake that should never have happened,” and argued that “this thing with Stormy Daniels and so forth is nobody’s business.”

Graham was wrong: Trump, it turns out, doesn’t just lie to mislead his family. He lies all the time to influence courts, Congress, and the American people.

Instead of giving in to a double-standard of judgment, Graham should have exercised restraint in calling Buttigieg to repentance lest he expose his own hypocrisy and weaken the cause of Christ:

Yes, marriage is the union between a man and a woman, but Trump married a woman, then married his mistress, then married a third woman, then had an affair with a porn star while that third wife was pregnant with his child. Yet Graham says, “God put him” in the presidency and we need to “get behind him and support him.”

The thing is, political expediency and the favor of man should not be the dominating influence in the life of a believer, whether an elected official or a leader in the church who reaches millions in the name of Christ. Maybe especially for the church leader… The calling for all believers is more than that, as the Immeasurable Sacrifice makes clear:

The proper Evangelical position toward any president is not hard to articulate, though it is exceedingly difficult to hold to, especially in polarized times when one party seems set on limiting religious liberty and zealously defending abortion: We should pray for presidents, critique them when they’re wrong, praise them when they’re right, and never, ever impose partisan double standards. We can’t ever forget the importance of character, the necessity of our own integrity, and the power of the prophetic witness.

In other words, Evangelicals can never take a purely transactional approach to politics. We are never divorced from our transcendent purpose, which always trumps political expediency. In scripture, prophets confronted leaders about their sin. They understood a core truth, one clearly articulated in the Southern Baptist Convention’s 1998 Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials: “Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”

(emphasis added)

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

210 Responses to “Evangelical Problem: Sacrificing Integrity To Support Trump While Pointing The Moral Finger At Democrat Candidate”

  1. On one hand, while disappointed in Graham (Franklin), I believe his Samaritan’s Purse organization does some great work around the world.

    Dana (779465)

  2. I often see Trumpistas complaining that Trump is held to standards that “no one else” is judged by, while they refuse to admit how they themselves have scrapped the standards they’ve applied to others, just so they can keep saying that none of Trump’s glaring faults are of any consequence. And if you mention any of Trump’s faults or errors, it proves that you are deranged.

    Radegunda (9a5cd5)

  3. Show me the man who says, “I’m no hypocrite” and I’ll show you a hypocrite.

    JSkorcher (79e881)

  4. The Trump side of things DOES NOT go out of their way to sully or attack the Catholics, Evangelicals and other conservative Christians…thus the continued support

    Mark Kaczmarek (2cb70a)

  5. Buttigieg’s sexuality does seem to be his only campaign issue. As principally illustrated by his campaign (and I mean “campaign”) against Pence. “Dude, is that all you have on your mind?”

    nk (dbc370)

  6. Moreover, if I may link a post by The Other Dana, he seems to be the one who unprovokedly but provocatively brought God into it.

    nk (dbc370)

  7. Buttigieg brought God into it, I mean, not The Other Dana.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. Trump defiles everyone and everything that embraces him.

    There are no exceptions.

    Dave (1bb933)

  9. The Jewish people were critical of Jesus because he didn’t liberate them from the Romans and because he didn’t criticize the Romans. He was way harsher on religious leaders who lived by the “law” as they defined it.

    Current leaders of Christianity who back Trump seem to be doing so because he is seen as protecting Christian people’s rights to worship, believe, and act without government interference.
    Some of the leaders are probably delusional about Trumps level of piety, but thats normal human behavior.

    steveg (e7a56b)

  10. So Graham is called out here for his defense of Trump but not his vigorous defense of Kavanaugh.

    “And why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye, but not notice the beam in your own eye?”

    Munroe (b1fc19)

  11. Ah, now we see the hypocrisy inherent in the system!

    Bloody Peasant!

    Ooh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That’s what I’m on about! Did you see him lying? You saw it, didn’t you?

    frosty48 (cde3e1)

  12. Why cloak the players on the bench: “Republicans For the Rule Of Law” is a faction of the ‘Defending Democracy Together’ group headed by the likes of NeverTrumpers =drum roll= Bill Kristol, Mona Charen, Linda Chavez and Christine Todd Whitman- all on the outs, now on the bottom of the deck, irrelevant or simply ‘discarded’ – thanks to the glorious triumph of the Trump Revolution.

    Today, the remains of the Reagan ‘religious right’ – the ‘necessary evil’ culled into the fold – Falwell et al.,- back in the day, has morphed into a hypocritical serpent; one of those famed ‘snakes’ Trump verses about at his rallies; an inconvenient tolerance out of step with changing times. Welcome to 1964, kids.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  13. The southern babtist and southern methodist churches broke away from their northern churches because they had no problem with slavery. See the slave bible. If slavery for evangelicals is o.k. so is trump.

    lany (1bf48f)

  14. So Graham is called out here for his defense of Trump but not his vigorous defense of Kavanaugh

    The fact that most people here think Kavanaugh is innocent of the charges proffered against him has more than a little to do that. Compared to Trump, who seems to view the Seven Deadly Sins as a daily to-do list.

    But people don’t usually criticize people for defending lies if they don’t think the “lies” were in fact lies.

    Kishnevi (2717fb)

  15. “The fact that most people here think Kavanaugh is innocent of the charges proffered against him has more than a little to do that.“

    Innocent, eh? A decision not to prosecute after an investigation, limited in time and scope no less, confers innocence here — starting when exactly?

    Munroe (a6c620)

  16. Actually Sen. Graham and most of the other Republicans senators have NEVER believed in the rule of law. They don’t believe in enforcing the immigration laws and have done ZERO in making sure employers hire legal immigrants and American citizens – despite it being THE LAW.

    Tell me the last time Turkey McConnell demanded we enforce the immigration laws. Of course, the Democrats have NEVER Believed in enforcing ANY law, that they don’t like. But somehow I’m supposed to care that Trump is a HYPOCRITE. Y’know – like everyone else.

    Sorry, No Sale.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  17. Well, they think Kavanaugh is innocent because they believe his accusers were all liars. So there is no hypocrisy on the part of Graham or those who defended Kavanaugh here when it comes to Kavanaugh.

    The hypocrisy comes when L. Graham defends Trump for doing what Clinton did and for which L. Graham demanded back then that Clinton leave office.

    I don’t think the double standard should be levelled against F. Graham, who at least acknowledges that he criticized Clinton for what he now excuses in Trump. But F. Graham now says he shouldn’t have criticized Clinton that way

    He actively repudiated his condemnations of Clinton, calling the Republican pursuit of the then-president “a great mistake that should never have happened,”

    (From the larger quote from David French Dana included in the main post)

    Perhaps we can say F. Graham is at worst an honest hypocrite.

    Kishnevi (2717fb)

  18. starting when exactly

    It’s not so much a start/stop thing. It’s an us/them thing. Or a light most favorable to the pleading party thing.

    frosty48 (cde3e1)

  19. Sigh. Another post attacking people for refusing to attack Trump while ignoring the left trying to destroy society.

    Who do you think does a better job defending religious freedom, Trump or the left?

    NJRob (42d760)

  20. rcocean (1a839e) — 4/27/2019 @ 2:33 pm

    So you are saying the way to curb the current group of hypocrites and liars is support a hypocrite and liar?

    Kishnevi (2717fb)

  21. 19. Donald J. Trump would sell out his own mother if he thought it would help his brand. That is so obvious as to be virtually self-evident.

    Gryph (08c844)

  22. And the idea that David French has any “Integrity” is laughable. If French was honest, he’d turn Democrat. Instead he pretends to be some sort of “principled conservative” who mysteriously always gives the Democrats a pass, and attacks Trump. Who is he going to support in 2020? In 2016, he was A-OK with “conservative” Liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton – that towering mountain of ethics and Christian behavior and her husband Bill (you get 2 for the price of 1) – getting elected.

    Attack a liberal – and David French gets upset. Attack a Conservative and French is just “Meh”. But he’s a Conservative. Or so he claims.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  23. 20. Sure looks like it, eh Kish?

    Gryph (08c844)

  24. Rob, Trumpism is merely a different way of destroying society.

    Kishnevi (2717fb)

  25. So you are saying the way to curb the current group of hypocrites and liars is support a hypocrite and liar?

    No, I’m saying that if you spend all your time attacking Hypocrite X and no time attacking Hypocrite Y and Z, your so-called “disgust at Hypocrisy” is questionable in the extreme. And its obvious that anyone with a brain that you’re not disgusted at “Hypocrisy” but just dislike X and opposed to Y and Z.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  26. “Buttigieg’s sexuality does seem to be his only campaign issue. As principally illustrated by his campaign (and I mean “campaign”) against Pence. “Dude, is that all you have on your mind?””

    As we’ve seen with the Drag Queen Story Hours (and Community Service For Minor-Attracted Persons), the issue is not ‘who’s a bigger hypocrite,’ it’s ‘who has power to make their twisted personal morality , narrative, and and lifestyle accepted by the kids. The Gay Acceptance Movement led immediately to the Trans Acceptance movement, where we’re supposed to pretend that rich degenerate once-great men who use a ‘sexual awakening’ as an excuse to force public acceptance of their ugly fetishes and rewrite all public records the way they want them to. Same people, same judges, same personnel, same PR department, same consequences.

    “But Trump flaunts his sin too.”

    (Author then proceeds to list a bunch of events that happened long before Trump actually got serious about running for President, hiding his affairs rather than bragging about them, and actually ordering his life hypocrisies to pay tribute to virtue rather than just scorning it openly like the rest of the Democrat party.)

    Contrariwise, like all true degenerates, Buttgieg flaunts his sin, talks about it constantly as a thing to be admired, and declares that God himself accepts his lifestyle as a virtuous one.

    Anil Kali Yuga (e792c4)

  27. Question(s) (for anyone):

    Do you think the impeachment case against Trump is stringer of weaker than the one against Bill Clinton?

    Does the failure of the case against Clinton tell you anything about the charges people make against Trump?

    Who is more hypocritical, someone who wanted to impeach Clinton, but defends Trump, or someone who defended Clinton but wants to impeach Trump?

    Is it possible to live a completely consistent moral life AND be a politician AND serve your constituents well? (And should you attempt to serve constituents who are less moral than you?)

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  28. GAH!

    *stronger

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  29. “The hypocrisy comes when L. Graham defends Trump for doing what Clinton did and for which L. Graham demanded back then that Clinton leave office.”
    Kishnevi (2717fb) — 4/27/2019 @ 2:35 pm

    So, when will Trump be brought up on charges of perjury?

    The accusations of Trump Russia collusion are very different from the accusations against Kavanaugh (which you call lies) in that only the former have been totally repudiated.

    Graham has taken stands against show trials based on false accusations. He is the consistent one in all this.

    Munroe (7a2d4e)

  30. He’s practically a national spokesman for greed, right down to continuing to receive revenue from his businesses while he holds the most powerful job in the world.

    Why is this sinful? When did we become Communists?

    I am going to bet that every President with investments “continued to receive income” from them. Or they wrote books. Or they had a family business. It is only when they use their vast power to steer larges amounts of business to their own companies that there’s an issue.

    I don’t begrudge Trump from wanting to stay at Mar-a-Lago, even if this gives him some marginal bucks (and I bet that the hotel loses money on his stays due to unreimbursed security costs and people not wanting to deal with the hassle). I would have a BIG problem if he said that all federal travel had to be to his hotels, or on airlines he’s invested in.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  31. A decision not to prosecute after an investigation, limited in time and scope no less, confers innocence here — starting when exactly?

    From birth until shown differently. In the law anyway. In the tabloids, I dunno.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  32. Mr. Ocean (#22):
    The Democrat who tells NeverTrumpers to “ish” or get off the toilet is the one I hope makes it to the general.

    urbanleftbehind (72eba6)

  33. Let’s say that I view the current Democrat Party as a clear & present danger. Given power, they would attempt to destroy the free-enterprise system and replace it with Big Government running everything at the point of a gun.

    Why is it hypocritical for me to support someone I don’t particularly approve of, who is a moral midget in many ways, against the hypocritical attacks of these would-be Stalins? (If you think that’s over-the-top, go back and read AOC’s Green New Deal, which much of the Democrat Party agreed with.)

    So, yeah, I support Trump, not because he’s particularly moral, but because he’s far more moral than the Democrat opposition, who not only lie and cheat, but want to take my freedom, too.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  34. Now, show me a better, practical, choice and I’ll consider it. But when the choice is amoral or the Visigoths, the choice isn’t hard.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  35. Off-topic: Border Patrol is now releasing migrant families directly in Tucson

    TUCSON — Border Patrol officials have begun releasing migrant families in Tucson because they lack the space to detain them and immigration officials are unable to take them into custody.

    The practice has been going on for about a month, according to the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector, which covers most of Arizona’s border with Mexico.

    It was a central topic of a meeting Border Patrol officials in Tucson held Friday with local law-enforcement, elected and community leaders.

    The number of migrant families released in Tucson has surpassed the ability of local nonprofits to house them. This past week, the city of Tucson and Pima County opened temporary overflow shelters to house migrants, although those shelters are once again empty, at least for now.

    https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2019/04/26/border-patrol-now-releasing-migrant-families-directly-tucson/3593532002/

    Tuscon is NOT a sanctuary city and AZ law precludes such activity. Hopefully they are prioritizing detention of the MS-13 types.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  36. I would summarily execute on sight of tattoo, but part of deterrence-by-death might be fast tracking obvious MS 13s to a Central American enclave where they “take out” some 2 – 3 other undocumented youth,though this would never be explicitly promised. Unlike the drunk driver contingent and the incident with the 2 girls in L.I., the MS 13 body count is largely other aliens and first gen co-ethnics.

    urbanleftbehind (72eba6)

  37. @33. Better idea- before slamming the ‘New Green Deal’ and dissing proposals on general content and direction “go back and read” some of the proposals to meet the Soviet challenge in the ‘Space Race’ days. Everything was entertained and considered- some seemgly outlandish thinking– from ‘nuking the moon’ to display power to constructing spacecraft powered by detonating atomic bombs, to flying people around Venus to something incredibly costly and compled called… Project Apollo. What came to pass is history, along with the seeded technologies that grew out of it, but don’t be so quick to dismiss discussions on ideas to meet challenges for the future from younger minds w/fresher points of view– they have to live in that future– we don’t.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  38. ^ seemgly = seemingly

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  39. @37. typo again: compled = complex

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  40. 26 butty has to figure out his answer to the question “Have you ever had sex with an under age boy???”

    lany (e3370e)

  41. 36 what goes around comes around. I wouldn’t be advocating summary executions if I were a conservative as aoc and ilan omar might agree with you on summary executions just not on who will be executed.

    lany (e3370e)

  42. “Everything was entertained and considered- some seemgly outlandish thinking– from ‘nuking the moon’ to display power to constructing spacecraft powered by detonating atomic bombs, to flying people around Venus to something incredibly costly and compled called… Project Apollo.”

    Yeah, but almost all of the contestants in the race back then were actual scientists and honorable men who had made a history and living off of the cutting edge science, instead of managers and PR consultants repeating global pop-science ‘climate change’ talking points lifted mainly from Buzzfeed and other vapid nerd sites and mainly designed to generate jobs and revenue streams for their cronies.

    (In the same way their trillion-dollar ‘infrastructure’ bill paid for next to no roads, bridges, or construction workers but an army of Powerpointers, secretaries, and ‘spokesmen’.)

    Anil Kali Yuga (66c665)

  43. I knew some of those people. An uncle of mine was an assistant director at JPL in the 50s and 60s. Steely-eyed rocket man if there ever was one. AOC is not a steely-eye rocket gal. It’s not even acceptable as science fiction.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  44. (In the same way their trillion-dollar ‘infrastructure’ bill paid for next to no roads, bridges, or construction workers but an army of Powerpointers, secretaries, and ‘spokesmen’.)

    See this article about how all the Jerry Brown Choo-choo money was sent to Dogbert.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  45. London Buttiplug’s Calling

    Buttiplug’s calling to the faraway towns
    Now war is declared you can send in the clowns
    Buttiplug’s calling to the talking heads
    Come out of the closet, leave the lives you led
    Buttiplug’s calling, now don’t look to us
    Phony Betomania has bitten the dust
    Buttiplug’s calling, see he ain’t got no cred
    But feed ‘im they must, that monkey must be fed

    The ice age is coming, we got just 10 years
    Meltdown expected, they’ll prey on their fears
    Engines stop running, but I‘ll shed no tears
    ‘Cuz Buttiplug’s calling, and I, I need a new liver

    Colonel Haiku (951ecf)

  46. @43. Then you should know better; neither was JFK. Or LBJ. Or Jim Webb… an so on. Point is, don’t be so quick to diss fresh ideas and perspectives just because you frown on the messenger. 90% might be dismissed — like nuking the moon; 10% just might not, like going there instead.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  47. @42.’Honorable’??? Many key personnel were old Nazis from Dora days w/scrubbed files; most were young engineers [the average was 26 in the Apollo MOCR] but the managers and politicos steering and financing it through academia, industry and government over the administrations involved were chiefly politicians w/a constituency and savvy bureaucrats– along with the middle-aged moms stitching spacesuits together. They were not ‘scientists’– but skilled seamstresses; ordinary Americans. ‘Scientists’ were the ones most often frustrated; many left.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  48. Show me the Evangelicals endorsing serial divorce and adultery.

    Show me the Evangelicals who suggest it is morally OK for Donald Trump to commit adultery with porn stars because he’s Donald Trump, but for everyone else its a sin that should be condemned.

    Show me the Trump quotes where he lauds and excuses his adulterous behavior. I’m looking for something like, “Adultery is good,” or perhaps “look, if you have a problem with my adulterous behavior, you don’t have a problem with me, you have a problem with the God who created me.”

    What Never Trumpers don’t get, and never have gotten, is that Presidents aren’t saints, moral people aren’t required to be single issue morality voters, and even if they were, presidential general elections are binary choices. Binary. Choices.

    I care about the economy. Economic issues are not the only calculation in my vote choices. I care about abortion. Abortion is not the only calculation in my vote choices. I care about national security. National security is not the only calculation in my vote choices.

    It’s easy to throw the “hypocrite” charge around without actually showing demonstrable hypocrisy. And it is really easy when the hypocrisy is built on a straw man depiction of Evangelical voters. Isn’t it?

    D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (270456)

  49. Every human wears the hypocrisy cloak at some point… usually the best clue is when the individual in question doesn’t think the cloak can possibly be on he or she

    steveg (e7a56b)

  50. Anarchy in the L.A.

    Right now ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
    They want the anti-Christ
    They want the anarchists
    They’ll get what they need
    And they know how to get it
    They want to destroy the bizness man
    ‘Cause they want to be anarchy
    A dog’s breakfast

    Anarchy for the L.A.
    Needles on the beach, poop in the sand
    You drive the wrong time, stop a traffic line
    Your future dream has sure been seen through

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6966735/Sex-Pistols-Johnny-Rotten-complains-homeless-crisis-LA-neighborhood.html

    Colonel Haiku (951ecf)

  51. I don’t like the joke around Buttplug.. I get it, ha ha homophobia… even as I prefer ButtKeg. As in his ideas remind me of someone who has a keg of beer up his ass

    steveg (e7a56b)

  52. NeverTrumpers need a Hero, just like that bad 80’s song…

    Colonel Haiku (951ecf)

  53. Der Fuehrer is buttering up the cheeseheads; says Reagan’s ‘ “Let’s” make America Great Again’ was too complicated– his is better by droping the “let’s”… cheers preacher’s lying daughter then calls her out to lie more on camera. Memo to Sarah- fat women should never wear stripes, especially on TeeVee.

    What. A. Show.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  54. Gooch: “Show me the Trump quotes where he lauds and excuses his adulterous behavior..”

    Trump: “I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything……Grab them by the pu$$y. You can do anything.”

    Binary question: is this a leader with character?

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  55. @51. “Buttafuoco.” – David Letterman

    ‘Nuff said.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  56. @54. Reagan knocked up Nancy w/Patti. “Is this a leader with character?” – 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  57. “Then you should know better; neither was JFK. Or LBJ. Or Jim Webb… an so on.”

    Again, no one on AOC’s staff or the staff of Democrats local or national is anywhere near the caliber of them.

    “Point is, don’t be so quick to diss fresh ideas and perspectives just because you frown on the messenger.”

    ‘Fresh ideas and perspectives’, i.e., literally anything you could have read on Buzzfeed, Upworthy, Nowthis, Vox, or a hundred other lefty sites.

    “90% might be dismissed — like nuking the moon; 10% just might not, like going there instead.”

    Edward Teller was actually a scientist with an actual resume.

    “’Honorable’??? Many key personnel were old Nazis from Dora days w/scrubbed files”

    How about you ditch the forced and unctuous outrage over people who still did more for America than you ever did or will, Commie. We haven’t picked up anything from your socialist project countries but various ugly internal surveillance programs.

    “most were young engineers [the average was 26 in the Apollo MOCR] but the managers and politicos steering and financing it through academia, industry and government over the administrations involved were chiefly politicians w/a constituency and savvy bureaucrats”

    AoC is NOT General Leslie Groves.

    “along with the middle-aged moms stitching spacesuits together. They were not ‘scientists’– but skilled seamstresses; ordinary Americans.”

    Yes, stitching is yet another useful skilled trade that Democratic women of pallor wouldn’t be caught dead doing in public today, to say nothing of traditional non-single motherhood. Such is the degredation brought about by Leftist disdain for tradition.

    “‘Scientists’ were the ones most often frustrated; many left.”

    ‘Not all soldiers pass boot camp, therefore ‘soldier’ is a suspect profession!’

    I could tell you to quit stealing valor from far better people to prop up your eternal failure of a leftist philosophy, but then what would you post?

    Anil Kali Yuga (c51fcb)

  58. never trumpers are demanding farm to table restaurants in every town. Can these morons be any dumber?

    mg (8cbc69)

  59. @57. Hindsight from an Anil; poor.

    Thanks for playing; what do we have for him, Johnnie…

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  60. @54

    That was a private conversation surreptitiously caught on tape. And none of that, by the way, says what he is doing is OK. He says it is easy. I am talking about a public, defended position that the behavior is moral and endorsed by God himself. Because that was what Franklin was talking about. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (270456)

  61. I wanted to like Pete Buttagieg, but something about him bothers me. I think it’s a certain Clintonesque tendency to say what he thinks his audience at any given time wants to hear. I think he’s a bit pf a poseur. His gayness and his marriage on the other hand don’t bother me in the least. As for whether God makes people gay or not that’s obviously a hotly debated issue, but Christians are increasingly on the side of mayor Pete on the issue.

    JRH (52aed3)

  62. American Christians I should say. I guess it’s different in other places.

    JRH (52aed3)

  63. Here you go, Gooch.

    DRJ (15874d)

  64. Point is, don’t be so quick to diss fresh ideas and perspectives just because you frown on the messenger. 90% might be dismissed — like nuking the moon; 10% just might not, like going there instead.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 4/27/2019 @ 5:26 pm

    Except for conservative ideas. You seem fine with ignoring them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  65. Another link for Gooch.

    DRJ (15874d)

  66. Then you should know better; neither was JFK. Or LBJ. Or Jim Webb… an so on. Point is, don’t be so quick to diss fresh ideas and perspectives just because you frown on the messenger. 90% might be dismissed — like nuking the moon; 10% just might not, like going there instead.

    Blah, blah, Galileo, blah. Not every crackpot is the next Galileo. Jim Webb was at least an accomplished manager; JFK was listening to some real smart people, and most of the heavy lifting on NASA had already been done by Ike (another major-league organizer). It wasn’t JFK who thought up going to the moon in 8 years; it was a consensus of folks at JPL and Huntsville who thought it could be done if we really wanted to. It was also supported by the Pentagon as a clear demonstration that the Russians should count on our missiles working.

    AOC has NOTHING behind her. Just a pot-induced list of untested wishes. Rebuild every structure in the country? Eliminate cars, meat, air travel, etc and rely on trains? This is beyond stupid; not only will it not work, but it will cost 20 WW2’s to try, and can ONLY be done if you abandon democracy during the emergency because you are going to have to win a civil war first (and, oddly, that’s not a major part of the cost).

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  67. Graham, who once said that Trump was “unfit for office” has transformed into a cynical politician whose priority is making the shrewd calculations and calibrations necessary for reelection

    I think he always was, although I think he’s probably making a mistake in thinking this all is needed for re-election. Maybe to avoid a serious primary contest.

    I always thought he was more liberal than his constituency, and also, even when he agreed with what he doing, he didn’t have quite the same feelings as his tone made appear. We also saw that with his outburst of outrage in the Brett Kavanaugh hearing.

    He probably didn’t think what Clinton was accused of in the impeachment proceedings in 1998/9 was quite that serious.

    And in fact, Lindsey Graham made the core issues that:

    1) Bill Clinton had an opportunity, in his grand jury testimony, to “get right with the law” and he didn’t. (for his original lies, he wouldn’t have voted for impeachment, in other words, or so he wanted some people to think.)

    2) When caught, Bill Clinton began trying to harm Monica Lewinsky’s reputation. (as a stalker and fantasist and so on like that) That’s different from the normal reasons for keeping this kind of indiscretion secret. He said that showed you what kind of person “our president” was.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  68. As far as Dana’s post, since I do not regard homosexuality as immoral, I find much on both sides offensive. As far as Buttigieg’s claim to be a gay Christian, I wasn’t aware that there was more than one requirement to call yourself a Christian (namely accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior).

    I’m sorry that Dana cannot find a way to support someone who is right on many issues against folks who are dangerous on most issues. Yes, he’s a sleaze. But so what? Many evangelicals support Netanyahu who may be less trustworthy than Trump, except where it counts. And he’s not even Christian.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  69. By sleaze I was referring to Trump, not Dana, who’s a “she” anyway.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  70. BTW, did you know that Galileo’s theory that the earth went around the Sun was rejected primarily on what appeared to be rigorous scientific evidence? And when the problem was pointed out to Galileo, he could not explain it? It was NOT because the Pope didn’t understand, it was because he did.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  71. What else was his conversation with Billy Bush on the “Access Hollywood” tape except “flaunting sin”?

    That was just one-on-one, and probably contained some lies, about the ability to get away with things at least.

    What better fits that description is what he used to say on the radio.

    Clinton argued that his misdeeds were “between me, the two people I love the most — my wife and our daughter — and our God.”

    I don’t believe Hillary didn’t know, certainly by the time this became public, in the beginning of 1998. She knew, at the latest, at the time when Clinton was breaking it off, in 1996.

    but Trump married a woman, then married his mistress, then married a third woman, then had an affair with a porn star while that third wife was pregnant with his child.

    That he had an affair with a porn star while that third wife was pregnant with his child was the story that was touted to the press in 2016, but it wasn’t true. There is probably ansignificant reason why an untrue version of the story was being leaked. I guess that was one way it could be retracted, if blackmail was paid or something like that, but it was probably something more devious than that.

    It wasn’t an affair – it was a one-night-stand that the porn star refused to repeat unless he got her onto his television show “Celebrity Apprentice” and it was after his child was born, not while his wife was pregnant.

    But he did have a affair, that started at the same tine, that lasted ten months, but with another woman, who had been a Playboy something (Playmate of the Year whatever that is.). She broke it off after Trump kept trying to get her acquainted and friendly with Melania. It had started after Trump had tried to pay her money, being under the impression she was a prostitute.

    Somebody at Lake Tahoe evidently had been trying to set Trump up with some women and was lying to both Trump and the women and we still don’t know who did that.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  72. And you can be sure that Melania went into that marriage with her eyes wide open, after she read the prenup and the behavior she was supposed to tolerate.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  73. It would also be interesting to see whatever prenup Jackie signed. JFK was hardly faithful.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  74. @64. Their track record is decidedly poor. Lest you be reminded; Ike wasn’t keen on a moon race and Goldwater opposed Apollo. Thankfully, they were ignored and you have the gadgetry of today as a thank you from the more progressive minded.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  75. 70. Kevin M (21ca15) — 4/27/2019 @ 7:49 pm

    70.BTW, did you know that Galileo’s theory that the earth went around the Sun was rejected primarily on what appeared to be rigorous scientific evidence? And when the problem was pointed out to Galileo, he could not explain it?

    Tes, this was covered by Analog a few years ago, and there were books and articles written a few years earlier.

    The problem was that the stars all appeared to have a visible disk, but had no parallax.

    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/9-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-from.html

    •If the earth were whipping around the sun, we should see parallax among the fixed stars, but do not. The Copernicans answered, “Well, yeah, but maybe the stars aren’t just far away but really really far away.” But you cannot save an unproven hypothesis by asserting a second unproven hypothesis. The stars had to be relatively close because otherwise their observed diameters would mean they were ginormous entities. Some Copernicans embraced this and said “Goddidit!” Who cared how enormous the stars were, since God was infinite…

    …The “key arguments against which the Copernicans had no good response” are the lack of parallax and Coriolis effects. Graney states, “Today, a new theory which predicts observable effects that are not observed, while requiring the ad hoc creation of an unprecedented new type of object [gigantic stars], would have limited appeal, even were it mathematically elegant.” The Tychonic model fit the data better. It predicted all the same phenomena as the Copernican, plus it explained why there was no visible parallax or Coriolis.

    Galileo was also wrong about the tides.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  76. @68

    I wasn’t aware that there was more than one requirement to call yourself a Christian (namely accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior

    This statement reflects a profound ignorance of both what that means in the Evangelical context, as well as the interdenominational diversity of Christendom. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (2d5812)

  77. @63

    I don’t see how the article linked does anything more than recapitulate the argument I refuted. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (2d5812)

  78. @66. Blah, blah, blah… hell of an argument. You’re deep in a hole; stop digging.

    “The moon? Impossible!” – Jim Barnes [John Archer] ‘Destination Moon’ 1950

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  79. Trump: “Adultery is not a sin.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  80. @ Gooch: You’re not making a binary choice today, are you? There’s no election this year. When you show up on a website like this one and defend Trump — when you pretend that he’s fit for office, that he’s a decent human being, that he’s no hypocrite but someone worth your personal allegiance, which you demonstrate over and over again — you’re not casting a vote against any Democrats. You’re not casting a vote. You. Are. Not. Making. A. Binary. Choice. You’re just putting up a big blustery front, as your best effort to help Trump continue his con-job. You’re not just a voter, you’re a shill for his con.

    BELDAR.

    Hmm. Turns out signing my name, redundantly but in all caps, doesn’t make me any more convincing, I think.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  81. 48 if evangelicals separated over slavery and founded the southern babtist church to support slavery. don’t tell me about morality and evangelicals.

    lany (9b6ecd)

  82. Trump: “Adultery is not a sin.

    Well, of course it’s not. The world is full of adults. They’re the ones who run things.

    nk (dbc370)

  83. Lindsey Graham saw what happened to Mark Sanford, a guy who said something that Trump didn’t like, and it didn’t matter that Sanford voted with Trump 71% of the time, he paid for it getting primaried. Graham is up for reelection in 2020 and he traded out principle for ambition. Franklin Graham is just a partisan hypocrite and bad spokesman for the evangelical Christian community. If I were a guessing man, I’d say his dad in heaven is shaking his head in shame at what his son is trying to pull.

    Paul Montagu (7968e9)

  84. 80. Thank you, Beldar. I couldn’t have said it any better myself.

    This whole “binary choice” thing has always bothered me anyway. There was a third choice on the ballot in all 50 states in 2016. That is a provable take-it-to-the-bank self-evident fact. And in saying “I did not and will not vote for Trump,” that is also a provable fact bordering on the self-evident.

    Gryph (08c844)

  85. @81. Once upon a time “The Bible was clear” on slavery, also. Until it wasn’t.

    JRH (52aed3)

  86. So Graham is called out here for his defense of Trump but not his vigorous defense of Kavanaugh.

    Graham wasn’t a hypocrite when it came to Kavanaugh.

    Paul Montagu (7968e9)

  87. “In a tweet after the massacre of Muslims in New Zealand, she wrote that her heart broke for “the global Muslim community.” But in her latest tweet, not a word about Christians or the global Christian community.

    Obama similarly wrote in his tweet about New Zealand that he was grieving with “the Muslim community” over the “horrible massacre in the Mosques.” But in his tweet about Sri Lanka, there is no mention of Christians or churches.

    The reason neither of them mentioned Christians or churches is that the left has essentially forbidden mention of all the anti-Christian murders perpetrated by Muslims in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and of all the Muslim desecration of churches in Europe, Africa, and anywhere else.

    This is part of the same phenomenon—that I and others have documented—of British police and politicians covering up six years of rape of 1,400 English girls by Muslim “grooming gangs” in Rotherham and elsewhere in England.

    Essentially, the left’s rule is that nothing bad—no matter how true—may be said about Muslims or Islam and nothing good—no matter how true—may be said of Christians or Christianity.

    Clinton’s post-New Zealand tweet also included these words: “We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped”

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/04/23/why-obama-and-clinton-tweeted-about-easter-worshippers-not-christians

    harkin (58d012)

  88. Beldar (or BELDAR!): “You’re just putting up a big blustery front, as your best effort to help Trump continue his con-job. You’re not just a voter, you’re a shill for his con.”

    Well stated. It’s one thing to assert that to save the nation and world from Hillary, we had to hold our collective noses and vote for Trump. It’s another to now pretend that there was never anything to hold your nose about….that Trump doesn’t behave like a petulant child….is impulsive…reckless….and ignorant of policy and Constitutional limits to the office.

    Some here complain that such observations disproportionately ignore the Democrat Party’s warts….and despicable behavior….and indirectly helps an opponent that is perhaps worse…because they are also wrong about policy and national values. The problem is that the GOP is ceding the moral high ground….and it is becoming only about acquiring and keeping power. That norms no longer matter…character is a luxury….self control is being low energy and not fighting. You need to realize that not all of us believe that and believe the battle to win back the GOP is more important than one election result.

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  89. 88. AJ_Liberty (165d19) — 4/28/2019 @ 8:35 am

    You need to realize that not all of us believe that and believe the battle to win back the GOP is more important than one election result.

    So you shouldn’t always vote for the lesser of two evils, but sometimes vote for the worser of two evils.

    The question is when, and how much worse?

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  90. 85, JRH (52aed3) — 4/28/2019 @ 7:37 am

    Once upon a time “The Bible was clear” on slavery, also. Until it wasn’t. </blockquote The Bible was very clear. Slavery was not a good thing for the slave, (contrary to what John C. Calhoun argued) but it remained legal under certain circumstances, and it supported amnesty for escaped slaves, (Deut. 23:16-17) even though to some people that might sound like a contradiction.

    And not only that, but it contrived to make escapes effective: The last article of the code of Hammurabi mandates the boring of an ear of a slave who escapes, while the first article of the code of laws at Exodus 21 states it is the slave who wants to stay whose ear it is which gets bored..

    Meaning that bounty hunters from Babylonia who went to Israelite territory to look for escaped slaves and looked for people with bored ears would find there slaves who didn’t want to leave.

    And it is this I think that Moses was pointing to in his first farewel address when he said (Deuteronomy 4:6)

    https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0504.htm

    וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם–כִּי הִוא חָכְמַתְכֶם וּבִינַתְכֶם, לְעֵינֵי הָעַמִּים: אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן, אֵת כָּל-הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה, וְאָמְרוּ רַק עַם-חָכָם וְנָבוֹן, הַגּוֹי הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה. 6 Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’

    That is the law which everyone would notice.

    Later on, I think, centuries after the Babyolonian law had lapsed, the true reason for that provision in Exodus 21 was forgotten.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  91. Sammy: “…but sometimes vote for the worser of two evils…”

    The extent of assumed evil is always speculative…..and generally colored by short-term partisan thinking. The GOP does not need to re-nominate Trump…but there seems to be no interest in finding a candidate without the ethical baggage, with some policy competency, and with a more disciplined and professional demeanor. The majority of the GOP has deemed Trump that best we can offer…..and is openly hostile to even the mention of an alternative. Wouldn’t Haley…for instance… better serve GOP interests and create a party with broader appeal? What stops people is that they have let the Tazmanian Devil into the China shop…and need to rationalize it.

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  92. If God wanted us to vote he would have given us candidates

    The Conservative Curmudgeon (c118b3)

  93. I have a question for Buttigieg: Does he think that God also made Michael Jackson the way he was?

    If not, why not?

    Barbara Streisand had another alternative in addition to his DNA: Michael Jackson might have been sexually abused as a child. But in no case, she holds, was it a choice at any point in his life.

    Because that’s dogma. (even if you could say a person is not old enough to make a proper decision about sexual orientation at the time when they make it, so they should be excused; they still wouldn’t want any element of choice because that would put the onus on the parents and teachers.)

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  94. 91. AJ_Liberty (165d19) — 4/28/2019 @ 9:26 am

    Sammy: “…but sometimes vote for the worser of two evils…”

    The extent of assumed evil is always speculative…..and generally colored by short-term partisan thinking.

    Yes, you can say sometimes which is the lesser or the worser of two evils isn’t clear – and it can also be affeceted by the prospects for impeachment if elected. (Experience tells me it takes longer than you think. It took more than five years for Clinton)

    But who is going to run in the next election and the election after that, and the ones after that is also kind of speculative.

    The GOP does not need to re-nominate Trump…

    Does not legally have to, but that’s one of thsoe predictable things. If you’re strategically trying to figure out the effects in the coming elections, that’s one of the things you wold bake into your calculations.

    but there seems to be no interest in finding a candidate without the ethical baggage, with some policy competency, and with a more disciplined and professional demeanor.

    What’s really bad is that we don’t have anybody good running asan independent. There are not enough qualified multi-millionaires and billionaires around, and campaign finance laws prevent anybody else from really trying.

    And another big problem is that the gadfly candidates who run probably aren’t good, either.

    The majority of the GOP has deemed Trump that best we can offer…

    Probably not so. But the media and politicians consider him unstoppable there.

    and is openly hostile to even the mention of an alternative.

    That night be the case.

    Wouldn’t Haley…for instance… better serve GOP interests and create a party with broader appeal?

    But going against Trump, she’d alienate 30% to 60% (anybody’s guess) of the Republican voter bloc.

    What stops people is that they have let the Tazmanian Devil into the China shop…and need to rationalize it.

    Nobody with a shot at it running happens often with presidential incumbents.

    We really truly need to be able to draft people. Difficult at any time but especially now with all the financial disclosure laws.

    They’re planning for 2024. Trump has no successor who is like him.

    The thing is to make it more difficult, not easier, to win a major party’s nomination.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  95. In lieu of a Bach Cantata, here is the Greek Easter Hymn.

    nk (dbc370)

  96. Anyone care to comment on the communist Pope funding the illegal invasion caravans?

    NJRob (4d595c)

  97. And as for my last comment, directly from the source.

    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-04/pope-francis-central-american-migrants-aid-peters-pence.html

    Money for the invasion.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  98. In lieu of a Bach Cantata, here is the Greek Easter Hymn.

    Not in lieu of! In addition to. The Bach cantata post is up!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  99. Unless the $ is funding ladders, hammers, , weapons, or aid and comfort at a u.s. parish/archdiocese that’s a mischaracterization. Let “Guanajuato Bebo” take on that mantle against his padre.

    urbanleftbehind (72eba6)

  100. Can I just add: what a great post this is! Yet another reminder of how blessed we all are to have Dana posting here.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  101. I’m sorry that Dana cannot find a way to support someone who is right on many issues against folks who are dangerous on most issues. Yes, he’s a sleaze. But so what? Many evangelicals support Netanyahu who may be less trustworthy than Trump, except where it counts. And he’s not even Christian.

    Kevin M,

    I’m not sorry. I’m very happy that she can’t and proud to have her posting here. You’re entitled to your support for sleaze, but please don’t use my Web site to attack my guest poster for not sharing your view. Find a less personal way to express your opinions.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  102. Anyone care to comment on the communist Pope funding the illegal invasion caravans?

    False premise. It’s not an “invasion”.

    Paul Montagu (7968e9)

  103. Sure it is Paul. Go down to the border and see for yourself.

    NJRob (1f2e82)

  104. This statement reflects a profound ignorance of

    Nope. I’m throwing a flag on that.

    You’re not just a voter, you’re a shill for his con.

    While I’m trying to avoid having people phrase things in a personal way, and this might seem personal at first blush, I’m not throwing a flag on this comment. However, I think I owe readers this analysis of why I am not throwing the flag. When a commenter comes on here and makes an inaccurate statement about his own behavior (“all I am doing is x” where he is actually doing y), whether explicitly or implicitly, I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to note: “no, you’re actually doing y.”

    Patterico (115b1f)

  105. Find a less personal way to express your opinions.

    I am constantly reminded that this is a very limited form of communications, and inflections not intended are often perceived. It was not intended as a slam.

    Clearly we have different views on what is, or is not, acceptable, but if stating that we have differences and wishing we did not is some kind of attack, there’s not a lot that can be said here. Stating that I find a poster’s stated views inflexible is arguing about the view, not the poster. Most of the time I can agree with Dana, just not this time.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  106. For those who don’t click links:

    Pope Francis has donated 500,000 dollars to assist migrants in Mexico. The funds, from the Peter’s Pence collections, will be distributed among 27 projects promoted by sixteen Mexican dioceses and religious congregations, which requested assistance in continuing to provide food, lodging, and basic necessities to the migrants.

    It’s the kind of thing churches do all the time. The Communists!

    nk (dbc370)

  107. 106. I’m not going to automatically assume pure intentions on the part of this pope. Even if that is the case, how can we know that the money isn’t being used to funnel migrant workers north of the border illegally? It’s not an unfair question.

    Gryph (08c844)

  108. Sure it is Paul. Go down to the border and see for yourself.

    I don’t have to, because words mean things.

    the act of entering a place by force, often in large numbers

    These are civilians trying to enter the US, and not to conquer. The word that comes to mind with your comment is hyperbole. The GOP has truly morphed into The Emotional Party.

    Paul Montagu (7968e9)

  109. Clearly we have different views on what is, or is not, acceptable, but if stating that we have differences and wishing we did not is some kind of attack,

    I think it’s a close call, but it’s the nature of the Internet that most opinions seem to follow the following formula:

    A + B

    Where

    A = the substantive view

    B = some expression of disdain for the opponent for not sharing view A

    Example:

    Trump is a huge liar, not that people like you ever seem to notice this.

    or

    Trump may not be perfect, but at least he’s doing good stuff, not that NeverTrumpers like you ever seem to notice this.

    Here, A = “Trump is a huge liar” or “Trump may not be perfect, but at least he’s doing good stuff”

    B = “not that people like you/NeverTrumpers like you ever seem to notice this”

    B is really not necessary and is generally counterproductive, but most seem to think B is a necessary flourish to give their comment that extra oooomph. Trust me, I’m guilty of this. In spades.

    In your case, B was very mild. Your formulation was essentially:

    A: Trump is a sleaze but he does good stuff

    B: I’m sorry Dana can’t see her away to agreeing with me about A

    It’s mild, but it’s still an unnecessary rhetorical flourish.

    What you did is far milder than many examples that could easily be found by me, many of them very recent and very pointed, and some directed at you. This is not a “I’m holier than thou” comment. Far from it.

    And I think these sorts of discussions are extra tough where the subject of the post is hypocrisy. Dana is not calling out anyone here personally, but if you agree with anyone she is attacking it might feel that way.

    All I’m really asking for is awareness and charity.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  110. 108. I think the council of La Raza might disagree with you, Paul. Go look up the word “Reconquista” in a Spanish-language dictionary and then you might want to reconsider your complacency.

    Gryph (08c844)

  111. Nk,

    They could ship them to the Vatican or help their home countries if that’s what they wanted. The commie Pope wanted to make a show of supporting the invaders.

    NJRob (1f2e82)

  112. Nope. I’m throwing a flag on that.

    Patterico, calling someone “ignorant” is often the best description of a situation. Not, I think here, but that’s his opinion. I’m not a particularly religious person, so I may have simplified something he cares far more about. I could argue it (e.g. https://billygraham.org/story/what-is-a-christian/ ) but I don’t care enough.

    But, well, I admit to being ignorant of most of Bach’s work. If you called me that, it would not be insulting. If I called you that, it would be. Context matters.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  113. Paul,

    Your own definition doesn’t say anything about conquering, but does say using force and large numbers which is exactly the case.

    NJRob (1f2e82)

  114. I think the council of La Raza might disagree with you, Paul.

    They’ve either backed away or never officially held that position (link). I’m seeing them as a advocacy group, not an agent for an Hispanic takeover or some kind of threat to our sovereignty.

    Paul Montagu (7968e9)

  115. How are they using “force”, Rob? That implies they’re using violence or the threat of violence. We have armed Border Patrol. They don’t have a chance in any sort of confrontation.

    Paul Montagu (7968e9)

  116. Patterico, calling someone “ignorant” is often the best description of a situation. Not, I think here, but that’s his opinion. I’m not a particularly religious person, so I may have simplified something he cares far more about. I could argue it (e.g. https://billygraham.org/story/what-is-a-christian/ ) but I don’t care enough.

    But, well, I admit to being ignorant of most of Bach’s work. If you called me that, it would not be insulting. If I called you that, it would be. Context matters.

    All lovely sentiments in the abstract, but if we’re talking context, the comment is from GOOCH. He recently said of me: “Patterico on Candice Owens is…well…that moment when you realize rationality, logic, facts, and reasoned argument has gone completely out the window.” He signs his name in all caps. So there’s your context for GOOCH.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  117. Trump may not be perfect, but at least he’s doing good stuff, not that NeverTrumpers like you ever seem to notice this.

    I am pretty sure I did not ever and would not ever say this. (Yes, I know it was a hypothetical, just saying its well outside my boundaries). BTW, I don’t see either you or Dana as #NeverTrump, but as more critical than seems justified to me. YMMV. We don’t all think alike, thank God.

    I admit to being more willing to defend Trump when he is being attacked by worse people than he, such as Pelosi or Sanders (both of which I find to be moral lepers, in that they will use the power of government to steal from, control and generally subjugate other people). I will not take their side, even if I share some concerns.

    For all his faults, Trump is not a control freak, at least outside his immediate circle. That’s a big plus to me. HE does not tell me what to do. The plastic straw banners are far more dangerous. I see politics not as left/right but as statist/free and the difference between the GOP — even Trump’s GOP — and the Democrats is striking. So I make common cause with folks I abhor a lot less.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  118. 114, in my most face to face experience, they (Natl Council of LaRaza) were a bunch of grabby lawyers whom I had to beat off from my then-girlfriend with a stick, think of Villar and Nunez x1000 on some sort of Wedding Crashers challenge.

    urbanleftbehind (8087f3)

  119. INVASION (Wikipedia): “An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory owned by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof.”

    Yes, there are more generalized definitions…but in the context of foreign affairs and border security…this one seems apt. Illegal aliens are no engaged in a military offensive, they rarely enter (if ever) by aggressively killing or wounding border security personnel, and their objective….is to secure work…not to de-throne the government, annex land, or force concessions. Using invasion is just hyperbole…to justify some policy that is languishing…like say a wall

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  120. You need to realize that not all of us believe that and believe the battle to win back the GOP is more important than one election result.

    What battle? If there was one, we would see a serious contender against Trump, not a recycled Libertarian Party VP candidate. Cruz, Ryan, Romney, even SfB Kasich. Even Jeb! might get some traction this time.

    But failing that, one does not “change the party” by putting the other party in power. People who do that are just kidding themselves, on their way to switching parties.

    To change a party, you run candidates in primaries against candidates you want to replace. That’s what works. If you vote for the other bunch, everyone will think it’s ’cause you like them.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  121. 119. You do know what “Reconquista” is, right? It is the stated goal of certain Mexican nationals to invade America bloodlessly and reclaim the land that they believe is theirs. That is not the way I am describing them; it is how they are describing themselves.

    118. Doesn’t matter. The National Council of La Raza represents a segment of the Mexican populace that seeks Reconquista. The idea that it is not an invasion because it is bloodless plays right into their hands.

    Gryph (08c844)

  122. You might have a case for the last two (altering composition of the government, gaining concessions from). That said, I think the big money whether its Soros or Vatican might be pacifying the narcos and coyotes who lose 5k 7k x # migrants.

    urbanleftbehind (d0ddaa)

  123. 107. Gryph (08c844) — 4/28/2019 @ 12:41 pm

    how can we know that the money isn’t being used to funnel migrant workers north of the border illegally? It’s not an unfair question.

    All the migranst till now didn’t need that money till now, and if they are not suplying large amounts of case that’s not what they are doing. You want to blame anyone – go attack Facebook and interbnational teelephone carriers.

    Meanwhile the Mexican government, possibly under U.S. pressure, is arresting a certain number of migrants, especially focusing on Cubans, whom they treat really badly.

    https://www.foxnews.com/world/cuban-migrants-escape-in-mexico

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/04/26/thousands-cuban-migrants-flee-mexican-detention-center/3587750002/

    The following article has a map that shows the roundabout way Cubans now go to the United States (now that Obama eliminated the instant amnesty if they successfully managed to hit dry land in Florida)

    http://time.com/cuba-the-long-way-to-america

    Fly to Georgetown, ride a van 18 hours to the border of Brazil (Venezuala is now too dangerous to travel through) and cross into Brazil by canoe. Proceed to Manaus, take a plane to southwest Brazil, and a taxi to the border of Bolivia, cross Bolivia into Peru, take a bus over the Andes to Lima for $150. Cost so far: $2,300. The total to the U.S. will be $8,000. Not clear if yjis i tghe price for one or two.

    Go to Ecuador, cross on horseback into Columbia, guided by smugglers, (the smugglers separate people by natioality) and board a bus into Panama. And later a boat and a horse and buggy. Some other Cubans came directly to Panama from Havana.

    Cross a meandering river from one side to the other over and over again. Get smuggled into Costa Rica (under U.S. pressure Costa Rica stopped allowing Cubans to enter Costa Rica legally)

    A boyfriend from Chicago (who met them on a visit to Havana) of one of two women chronicled here had paid for it. The 25-year old girlfriend had deliberately set out to find a male toutists and was something in between an escort and a genuine girlfriend with them. The 53 year old had made $5 a day working in cafeterias, hospitals and, for a time, an asylum.

    At this point the girlfriend’s much older friend separates after arguing with the smugglers about money. She eventually makes it to the U.S. also (12 days behind her friend) but TIME chronicles only the gitlfriend from this point on

    Go into Nicaragua on horseback, travel by SUV to the river border with Honduras, which she crosses on foot, and the group she is with also crosses a river into Guatamala by wading through it. To get to Mexico a raft is used. Two airplane flights to Mexico City and then Matamaros and then go to Brownsville. Texas where she asks for permission to the enter the United States, which she gets, having arrived in the United States by land and not by sea.

    But they can be stopped from reaching the finish line by the government of Mexico.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  124. As someone who is not Christian, I cannot comment on Christian morality. However, there is something about this sentence I find disturbing:

    In other words, Evangelicals can never take a purely transactional approach to politics. We are never divorced from our transcendent purpose, which always trumps political expediency.

    So, therefore, what are Evangelicals supposed to do when you have a choice between two morally flawed candidates, one of whom will enact deeply flawed policies, some of which will weaken religious commitment and indeed impinge on religion itself, while the other one won’t? Is it immoral to say, this is the better of the two choices — better for the country — even if that candidate is personally deeply immoral?

    This sounds to me like unilateral disarmament. (Yes, I am dating myself — a child of the 80s). It is noble in theory, but in practice it would have meant the Communists would take over. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, here.

    Bored Lawyer (423ce8)

  125. 123. So what I get out of that screed is that “Mexicans aren’t invading us” is merely a statement of normalcy bias.

    Gryph (08c844)

  126. “To change a party, you run candidates in primaries against candidates you want to replace.”

    I agree….but it’s been made infeasible by a Party base that gives Trump 85% approval. He has FNC running cover…most of Talk Radio is also catering to those 85%. People are too busy whooping up new conspiracy theories…treating Trump as the poor victim….that they can’t objectively look at who they are really rooting for. No one will challenge Trump because they want to avoid the buzz saw that is this administration and its enabling media. Trump just doesn’t care what he says…or what he does….we saw that in him going low on most of his primary opponents…and Megyn Kelly. The Trumpistas have no problem in throwing people overboard…our best candidates can read the tea leaves.

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  127. 126. Trump’s #1 consideration can be summed up in one word: brand. If it helps his brand, it’s good. If it harms his brand (or if he thinks it does), it is bad. Only looking through that prism does any of Trump’s public life (in or out of government) make sense.

    Gryph (08c844)

  128. ‘@117. For all his faults, Trump is not a control freak, at least outside of his immediate circle.’

    Flag on the play; clipping:

    “Donald Trump’s Old Barber Says He’s A Total ‘Control Freak.'”

    https://www.nypost.com/2018/04/07/donald-trumps-old-barber-says-hes-a-total-control-freak/

    “Only her hairdresser knows for sure.” – Clairol advertising tag, 1956

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  129. Kevin M (21ca15) — 4/28/2019 @ 1:19 pm

    a recycled Libertarian Party VP candidate.

    William Weld is somebody who was both close to Clinton and to Bulger Brothers maybe.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Weld

    He resigned as governor in 1997 to focus on his nomination by President Bill Clinton to serve as United States Ambassador to Mexico, but because of opposition by the social conservative Senate Foreign Relations committee Chairman Jesse Helms, he was denied a hearing before the Foreign Relations committee and withdrew his nomination.

    https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/politics/bill-weld-rachel-maddow/index.html

    http://bulger.wbur.org/story/1977/?location=27923

    Winks and nods for the Bulger brothers
    By James Carroll
    Globe Columnist / September 21, 1999

    …In the magical curl of William Bulger’s wit, James Bulger emerged as a figure of fun. Rumors of his underworld activities were an apparent source of pride, not shame. William Bulger was almost always discreet about such manifestations, but, as if to be sure that everyone in government knew what attitude to strike, there was a series of rare public occasions in which the politician brother celebrated the criminal. Those, of course, were the annual St. Patrick’s Day breakfast roasts over which William Bulger presided.

    At the 1992 breakfast, Governor William Weld asked for the microphone. “You can have that,” Bulger said. “You can have anything you want. You’ve got everything anyway. You inherited it. My family has to win the lottery.” This was a reference to James Bulger’s money laundering scheme, built around an obviously fraudulent claim to have won the lottery. The audience loved the joke

    A Globe report on the breakfast the next day said, “Bulger and others repeatedly made reference to his younger brother James (Whitey) Bulger, a reputed South Boston gangster, and to a lottery win by one of his associates last year.” But the masterpiece riff on James Bulger’s lottery scam was delivered by Governor Weld, who sang a ditty composed for the occasion.

    “Hello, Billy Bulger, you’re the king of old South Boston / but a duke on Beacon Hill,” it began. The Weld song included this verse; “Remember last year, Billy, when your brother won the dough? / He said he had to split it up with so-and-so./ But things could have been so much worse in splitting up his game. / If he had made the score the year before, he’d have had to split with Crane.”

    At the end of the song, Weld, according to the Globe report, “held up pictures of himself shooting a gun and a group of men who appeared to be firing back to illustrate what he says was his first `secret’ meeting with Bulger.” The joke here, of course, is that Weld, in his run for governor, had attacked William Bulger as an emblem of all that was wrong with Massachusetts politics. No more. And the guns proved it.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  130. That last link should be:

    http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/1999/09/21/winks_and_nods_for_the_bulger_brothers/

    William Weld’s obvious goal in planning to run for the Republican Preidential noiation is to suck the oxygen out of any attempt to replace Trump with a better candidate so a corrupt or Clinton smear machine Democrat (which we don’t know we will have) can win.

    Kevin M:

    But failing that, one does not “change the party” by putting the other party in power.

    The thing is, in either case, whoever wins in 2020, there’ll be a better Republican nominee in 2024. But not a better Democrat if the Democrat wins. In 1992, we were headed to Dan Quayle in 1996 if GHWB won.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  131. 2020 is a real opportunity for a third party candidate. he political system might very well cry for it.

    As for the Democratic field, if he ran this year, Jerry Brown, aka as Governor Moonbeam aka as Governor Methuselah, would probably beat them all unless he did and said something really stupid.

    If it’s not too late for Joe Biden, why not him, too?

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  132. Was the bridge to Agnew as dreaded as the bridge to Quayle? Did that plus Ford as VP correspond as a precondition for the acceptance of a Nixon resignation? That might be why we’re seeing the Anon-sense about Pence recently.

    urbanleftbehind (d0ddaa)

  133. “Illegal aliens are no engaged in a military offensive, they rarely enter (if ever) by aggressively killing or wounding border security personnel….”
    AJ_Liberty (165d19) — 4/28/2019 @ 1:17 pm

    If the Visigoths could’ve entered Rome by gaming asylum laws and Flores, do you think they would’ve bothered with sacking it?

    Munroe (8cb21f)

  134. Patterico,

    So, calling someone ignorant of X is some kind of personal attack, but calling someone a shill isn’t?

    Uh huh.

    Being ignorant of something isn’t necessarily bad. It isn’t bad character, it is literally the state of not knowing. Ignorance is corrected by informing the ignorant. To suggest that Christianity is defined by a personal decision to accept Jesus Christ as your savior is simply an ignorant statement. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the various forms of Christianity that do not, in fact, define Christianity that way, and those which see it as much more.

    A shill, on the other hand, by definition has explicit negative connotations.

    Your referring is demonstrably biased. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  135. @116

    All lovely sentiments in the abstract, but if we’re talking context, the comment is from GOOCH. He recently said of me: “Patterico on Candice Owens is…well…that moment when you realize rationality, logic, facts, and reasoned argument has gone completely out the window.” He signs his name in all caps. So there’s your context for GOOCH.

    That is not context. That is just directing ad hominem towards me, ineffective ad hominem since you haven’t quoted anything worthy of discounting my character. The worst you could accuse me of in the quoted section is rhetorical flourish. I made a substantive argument there. If you’d like to respond to it, I’m all ears. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  136. @112

    Kevin, thanks, yes, that was my point exactly. I didn’t even really disagree with the main point of your post. But I was bothered by the idea that Christianity can be summed as a personal recognition of Jesus Christ as one’s savior. The ideas of a personal savior, of needing to demonstrably accept Him as such – all are consistent with some denominations of Christianity, particularly many of the Protestant denominations, but that would be a stark distortion of, say Catholicism. I won’t bore the readers with any kind of treatise on the topic, suffice it say that you are correct both as to my meaning, and my disposition towards you.

    D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  137. The invasion of California turning a purple state into a socialist one.

    NJRob (1f2e82)

  138. On the argument, offered by a couple of posters, that voting for Trump, which is binary, doesn’t mean continued support for Trump as president. I am for the purposes of this response on the merits, going to ignore the ad hominem directed my way and the straw man depictions of myself and my actions here. I will follow it with a brief defense against those attacks.

    While it is true that the decision to cast a vote for a candidate does not commit one to any future acts, the reasoning behind the vote certainly may be operative in later contexts. For example, if one decides to vote for Trump as a political actor who will convey conservative policies, it is likely that reasoning will continue to hold, in supporting that actor in their promotion and enactment of conservative policies once in office. That does not require any form of absolute support, but it certainly explains why voting for Trump for X reason or reasons may also undergird specific apologias.

    For myself, I defend Trump when he is deserving of defense, and I criticize him when he is worthy of criticism. I neither think him to be the monster NT would have us believe him to be, nor the saintly political genius some of his supporters seem to think he is. He was far from my first choice, and he is more flawed than I would have preferred, but I am happy to defend his record in many respects, and I am happy to come to his defense against false, malicious partisan attacks, when that is necessary. If that makes me a Trump shill, so be it.

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  139. 138. I did not vote for him in 2016, and I will not vote for him going forward. Period. Full stop. End. Of. Story.

    Gryph (08c844)

  140. @139. Great. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  141. GOOCH looks like he is trying harder.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  142. @Patterico

    BTW, I have been signing my name this way since I was participating in email lists in the 1990s. As someone who deals with mild OCD, it is one of the persistent patterns I cope with. As far as those goes, this one wouldn’t be that bad, except for the ridicule it exposes one to for daring to adhere to obsolete norms. Thanks for the reminder. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (2d5812)

  143. @Patterico

    When a commenter comes on here and makes an inaccurate statement about his own behavior (“all I am doing is x” where he is actually doing y), whether explicitly or implicitly, I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to note: “no, you’re actually doing y.”

    Feel free to demonstrate I’m a shill for Trump. I’ll wait. D.GOOCH (and btw, your “analysis” amounts to “if I agree with the personal attacker, it isn’t a personal attack.” That’s…an interesting standard.)

    GOOCH (2d5812)

  144. @ Gooch, who wrote (#138):

    For myself, I defend Trump when he is deserving of defense, and I criticize him when he is worthy of criticism.

    After spending about 10 minutes using a google search on your comments, I can’t find an example of your criticizing Trump. Can you point us to any?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  145. Let me be more specific: In #48 above, you issued a challenge:

    Show me the Trump quotes where he lauds and excuses his adulterous behavior.

    DRJ took up your challenge and provided the quotes. If you were indeed someone who criticizes Trump when he is worthy of criticism, you’d have acknowledged that DRJ had done so, and that Trump does indeed laud and excuse his adulterous behavior (among other misbehaviors). Instead, you went into a variation on the “Well, we’re all hypocrites to one degree or another” defense of Trump.

    While we’re waiting, then, for example of your having criticized Trump, I offer this as a specific example of shilling for him.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  146. Oh, and “binary choice” along with “we’re all hypocrites.” That’s more shilling, viewed with any kind of objectivity, given that our last such “binary choice” on Trump was in 2016 and we won’t see another until 2020.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  147. And (sorry for the string comments): Pointing out that Trump lauds and excuses his adulterous behavior is hardly a “false, malicious partisan attac[k]” — especially when it’s done with quotations from Trump’s mouth.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  148. @144

    Beldar,

    You could have saved yourself a google search, as you can find criticisms of Trump by me in this very thread. Or do you think calling Trump “flawed” is a compliment? Or how about when I referred to him as a serial adulterer and divorcee? If you thought those were compliments, they weren’t.

    But more importantly – this sets up a false choice. I’m not obligated to voice every criticism I have of Trump, nor am I obligated to voice them at all, here. This standard would have labeled Patterico a “shill” for Bush during Rathergate…because of his inordinate time spent talking about…Rathergate and dearth of posts criticizing Bush. This standard would also fail to distinguish between a shill and an apologist – two very distinct concepts. Let’s talk about where the word shill comes from:

    “an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.”

    A shill is inherently dishonest and attempts to deceive people for the purpose of graft.

    Here is the full treatment of wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

    Failing to criticize Trump on a blog is not being a “shill” for Trump. Mic drop. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  149. @145

    DRJ took up your challenge and provided the quotes. If you were indeed someone who criticizes Trump when he is worthy of criticism, you’d have acknowledged that DRJ had done so, and that Trump does indeed laud and excuse his adulterous behavior (among other misbehaviors). Instead, you went into a variation on the “Well, we’re all hypocrites to one degree or another” defense of Trump.

    While we’re waiting, then, for example of your having criticized Trump, I offer this as a specific example of shilling for him.

    If you are referring to Trump’s private comments caught on tape while he was in a bus, I clearly distinguished that reference, and my answer was most decidedly not “well, we’re all hypocrites to one degree or another.” I would appreciate it if you would quote or paraphrase me accurately. Thanks. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  150. @147

    Pointing out that Trump lauds and excuses his adulterous behavior is hardly a “false, malicious partisan attac[k]” — especially when it’s done with quotations from Trump’s mouth.

    Again, this post falsely attributes to me an argument I did not make. This time, while the words in quotes are mine, they are juxtaposed as a response to something they were -not- a response to. Again, I would appreciate it if you would quote or paraphrase me accurately. Thanks. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  151. Trump:

    Donald Trump has become defined in his presidential campaign by his misogynistic language and a recent downpour of accusations of sexual assault against him. But it’s not exactly a recent phenomenon. One of the defining characteristics of his personal life over the last three decades has been his seemingly insatiable lust for women and a kind of laissez-faire attitude about marital status. He has boasted of courting married women in the same breath as suggesting that because he is a celebrity, he is entitled to kiss women whenever he pleases.

    This worldview is not new for Trump; in fact, it took shape almost three decades ago.

    During the early months of 1990, Donald Trump was a frequent presence in the tabloids of New York City, often gracing the cover of The New York Post with new details of his ongoing separation from his first wife Ivana.

    As he deftly tried to juggle the split while courting Marla Maples—who went on to become his second wife—Trump gave a revealing interview to reporters Esther Pessin and Bill Hoffmann for the February 23, 1990 issue of the Post. In it, he declared that adultery is not a sin and hinted at his own extramarital affair, almost urging the tabloid to reach the obvious conclusion. It colors Trump’s impression of himself in the 90s and onward as a playboy who could have any woman he wanted, no matter their marital status or desire for his attention.

    DRJ (15874d)

  152. 48. D. GOOCH:

    Show me the Trump quotes where he lauds and excuses his adulterous behavior. I’m looking for something like, “Adultery is good,” or perhaps “look, if you have a problem with my adulterous behavior, you don’t have a problem with me, you have a problem with the God who created me.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  153. @DRJ

    The problem with both the Vox and Baptist Times articles is that neither actually shows where Evangelical leaders are excusing or even minimizing Trump’s moral transgressions. It quotes out of context Tony Perkin’s “mulligan” statement to leave the reader with the impression that Perkins was excusing Trump’s adultery. He was talking about Evangelical voters, and he was specifically talking about them supporting Donald Trump for president. Supporting Donald Trump for president does not mean you endorse or excuse everything he has done. Perkins point is simply that evangelical voters aren’t considering his previous immoral behavior to be disqualifying – with the caveat that it must be past (not current or future) behavior. Whether or not one agrees with Perkins or his description of the rationale of Evangelical voters, it is most certainly not in any range of the ballpark of “adultery is OK now” or “adultery is OK when Trump does it.” And that’s precisely where the top post fails in its effort to describe criticism of the mayor from Indiana by Evangelicals as hypocritical. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  154. If you insist on that no quotes from Trump means he is not a scandalous lech, you are most truly in denial. In the interest of maintaining Pat’s good graces, I won’t call you delusional.

    Gryph (08c844)

  155. @151

    DRJ,

    That reference, while seemingly damning, is actually self-refuting. If it were a contemporaneous view of Trump’s we wouldn’t have to rely on a singular quote from a nearly 30 year old article. What he said was nonsense: I don’t think its a sin, but I don’t think you should do it. If he had walked around saying such things on the campaign trail, or during the three years of his presidency, and Evangelicals still failed to rebuke him, you and Dana would have a point. He didn’t. You don’t. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  156. 155. Moving goalposts much? :-O

    Gryph (08c844)

  157. @ Gooch, who wrote (#148):

    You could have saved yourself a google search, as you can find criticisms of Trump by me in this very thread. Or do you think calling Trump “flawed” is a compliment? Or how about when I referred to him as a serial adulterer and divorcee? If you thought those were compliments, they weren’t.

    Yes, obviously you referenced those bad qualities; but you did it, Gooch, in bland terms while simultaneously minimizing and excusing them. If your comments on this thread are the best examples you can find of you “criticiz[ing] him when he is worthy of criticism,” then I am entirely comfortable characterizing your comments on this thread as “shilling”: You’re doing your dead level best to distract from and minimize the importance of Trump’s failings; no one reading your comments here is going to say from them, “Wow, that Gooch guy sure is a Trump critic!”

    Moreover: In my opinion, every attempted defense of Trump’s adultery is dishonest. I acknowledge that there are Trump supporters who attempt no such defense of him, who make no effort to minimize or deflect, who don’t engage in what-aboutism and claim everyone’s a hypocrite and we only had a binary choice — and I will readily extend to them a presumption of honesty. Those who defend the indefensible, however, forfeit that presumption. Instead, because they’re trying to divert the audience’s attention from the con man’s failings, I’d call that “shilling.”

    May we take it that other than this thread, you have zero examples to show us of your criticizing Trump when he deserves it?

    I’ve certainly not misquoted you, and I leave to the reader whether I’ve paraphrased you inappropriately; toward that end, I note that a CTRL-F search of this webpage confirms that the first reference thereupon to “binary choice” is yours. Likewise that you wrote (in #48):

    It’s easy to throw the “hypocrite” charge around without actually showing demonstrable hypocrisy. And it is really easy when the hypocrisy is built on a straw man depiction of Evangelical voters. Isn’t it?

    Hypocrisy has been demonstrated; Dana’s post is a magnificent demonstration of it, in fact. I have no idea what “straw man” you have in mind: Are you seriously arguing that it’s unfair and inaccurate to assert that evangelicals in general claim to be against adultery? That’s no straw man.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  158. @154
    Gryph,

    As I requested of Beldar, I would appreciate it if you would quote or paraphrase me accurately. That includes refraining from erecting straw man arguments and putting them in my mouth. Thanks. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  159. So, ironically, you agree with this:

    Many of President Donald Trump’s critics have raised concerns in recent weeks about his alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels. If the revelations are true, Trump’s infidelity is a serious matter between him, his God and his spouse.

    Quickly, so-called white evangelicals rushed to defend the president, urging the nation to “forgive” and move on. “All these things were years ago,” Jerry Falwell, Jr. told CNN. Another stalwart of Trump’s faith advisors, Tony Perkins, told Politico he and others are willing to give the president a “mulligan” on issues of personal morality because he champions an evangelical agenda.

    It is easy to point out the hypocrisy of men who have cried so loudly about character in public leadership, only to defend a man who has spent his life flaunting conventional morality. But the truth is, America has had to give every president a mulligan on some personal failing or another. If Trump’s pastoral advisors want to forgive him, that is their right. Infidelity generally has its own consequences.

    DRJ (15874d)

  160. Oh my gosh: To clarify, when I wrote above in #157 that —

    Hypocrisy has been demonstrated; Dana’s post is a magnificent demonstration of it, in fact.

    — I meant that Dana’s post demonstrates the hypocrisy on the part of Trump and of his evangelical supporters who defend him and his behavior. As I hope the context already made clear, I certainly did not mean that Dana’s post was itself hypocritical! Ay yay yay.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  161. That participle nearly dangled me into saying the opposite of what I meant!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  162. @157

    More straw men from Gryph. I neither minimized nor excused Donald Trump’s behavior. An analogy perhaps might serve to illustrate, since my actual arguments don’t seem to suffice. We may both agree that a young boy lying about having spilled his milk is moral wrong. However, if you advocate for ten years hard labor in a state prison as punishment for the offense, while I argue he should be sent to his room, despite the extreme disparity in our recommended punishments, I am neither minimizing or excusing the lying. The point of the analogy is this: recognizing a moral wrong is separate from a devised punishment, how we should treat the person who committed the moral wrong now and in the future, and what jobs we may or may not support that individual for at some later date. Just because someone doesn’t agree that X should be done to individual Y (i.e. disqualified from support for higher office) who committed offense Z, doesn’t mean that someone is “minimizing” or “excusing” the act of committing offense Z. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  163. 158. You asked for quotes demonstrating various stated aspects of Trump’s character (or demonstrable lack thereof). I simply accused you of moving the goalposts, which you did and continue to do. Trump’s lack of character is so blatant as to be practically self-evident, a truism which you obviously seem inclined to disagree with. And here we stand. One of us appears to be insisting that 2 + 2 = 5 and that somewhere out there is the truth. I can’t argue from a false first principle.

    Gryph (08c844)

  164. 162. I didn’t write post 157. Beldar did.

    Gryph (08c844)

  165. Show me where Trump committed adultery on Fifth Avenue in the last 30 minutes. Everything else is old news. NK

    PS “Old news” was a favorite Clinton defense too.

    nk (dbc370)

  166. @164

    Gryph

    My apologies for the misattribution. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  167. RIP Dick Lugar.
    Watch me duck flung poop from 40% of the readership.

    urbanleftbehind (d0ddaa)

  168. @163

    I haven’t moved any goal posts. There is no part of my original argument I do not stand behind. I will admit to being surprised Trump ever said something so ridiculous as he did in 1990, but the point stands – if he was saying any of that now, and Evangelicals were excusing it or even just staying silent on it, while rebuking the Mayor of Indiana for his statements justifying his homosexual behavior as God/Christianity endorsed and approved, THAT would be hypocrisy. Pointing to the fact Evangelicals supported Trump for president, despite past moral transgressions, while also rebuking the mayor’s assertion that homosexuality is not sinful / God endorsed, is. not. hypocrisy. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  169. May he rest in peace. He was Indiana’s face to me for a long time, and I expect to a lot of other people too, to a degree that neither Quayle nor Pence achieved.

    nk (dbc370)

  170. 168. Okay. With that “I haven’t moved any goalposts” assertion, I’m done with assuming good faith arguments from you. Your pretzel logic started as tiresome and is quickly moving toward annoying. Good night, GOOCH.

    Gryph (08c844)

  171. @170

    That’s your prerogative. I’m not sure how that will be different than what you have been doing (shills don’t make arguments in good faith by definition), but OK. Good night. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  172. @124 This isn’t limited to Evangelicals, or even Christians, but it is common. Its just an inversion of the one true scotsman argument. Someone claims to be an authority for a group and then describes what the group should do.

    I feel like, if Christians can develop a theory of just war, or even a theory of self defense or defense of others, dealing with messy political decisions shouldn’t be too hard of a theological knot.

    Frosty Th GfY (c141b1)

  173. Well, D. GOOCH, it has been 12 years (not 30) since we’ve seen public reports of Trump engaging in extramarital affairs. Maybe he has been faithful to Melania most of that time, except when she was pregnant, or maybe his more recent partners have been more discreet. Of course, we also know the male libido after 60 isn’t as strong as it was at 30, especially with overweight men who eat a bad diet.

    DRJ (15874d)

  174. In fairness, let’s go with the lost libido as opposed to the discreet partners.

    DRJ (15874d)

  175. @172

    Do you mean the “no true Scotsman” informal fallacy? I’m curious how you think it applies here (also, I don’t think it is a real fallacy, but that’s another debate). D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  176. @173

    Sure. It’s possible Trump is currently engaging in the behavior he had in the past. Stripes not changing and all that. If so and it becomes public, and the aforementioned Evangelical leaders fail to rebuke him, then they will be acting hypocritically. And if it becomes public and he recapitulates this view (and really, I’m not even sure we could call it a view – I think he was bullshitting with the interviewer there – but let’s go with the idea this was an actual, considered belief of his in 1990), and they fail to rebuke him, then up, it’ll be rank hypocrisy. And I’ll be happy to describe it as such. If.

    But that’s not the facts we have here.

    D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  177. Is the time limit on hypocrisy for everyone or just Trump?

    DRJ (15874d)

  178. GOOCH (138): “He was far from my first choice, and he is more flawed than I would have preferred, but I am happy to defend his record in many respects, and I am happy to come to his defense against false, malicious partisan attacks, when that is necessary.”

    Heraclitus: “Character is destiny”

    Is Trump a man of good character (attributes that James Q. Wilson might list as decent, polite, self restrained, committed, honest, cooperative, and empathetic)? Everything many here go on and on about spring from character: Trump’s praise for dictators, his disdain for the 1st amendment, his contempt for judges that rule against him and senators that legitimately call him out, his disdain for the legal process, his failure to listen to good advice and keep good advisers, his inability to let any negative comments or disagreements go, his willingness to create controversy, and his irresistible urge to fabricate history. At some point, probability portends that this all ends poorly. It’s why we examine politicians’ records, their personal dealings, and even their private conduct….because in part past behavior predicts future behavior….and if someone is serially untrustworthy…..why should we assume that anything will have changed? I just wonder at what point does it matter…and at what point will your opinion be too little, too late…..

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  179. @177

    There isn’t a time limit on hypocrisy. The reason the date is relevant is: in 30 years, people change. Even if it was a real view and not some off-the-cuff nonsense he spewed and immediately forgot he spewed it, there is nothing to say that’s what Donald J. Trump, political candidate in 2016, or Donald J. Trump, POTUS, believes. 35 years ago, I believed in Santa Claus. You probably shouldn’t assume I believe in him today.

    It’s also relevant because there’s no reason for Evangelicals or Evangelical leaders, today, to respond to that 30 year old statement. I’m not an Evangelical, but let’s say I was. Until this thread, I didn’t even know that statement existed it. I googled it and got all of one other article mentioning it. So assuming silence on that quote by contemporary Evangelicals is a tacit endorsement / minimization / form of excuse of it is simply not tenable. You would need to ask them what they thought about it. Until you did, you can’t assume they’re being hypocritical, because the Indiana Mayor’s statements are contemporaneous – indeed, they are part of his stump speech. Odds are, they will rebuke that statement exactly as they did the Mayor’s: God makes it very clear that adultery is a sin.

    As for Trump himself being a hypocrite – who said he wasn’t? D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  180. In fairness, let’s go with the lost libido as opposed to the discreet partners.

    An old man is out fishing in his boat when he heard a voice say: “Pick me up!”

    He looked around and did not see any one. He thought he was imagining things, but them heard the voice again: “Pick me up.”

    The old man looked in the water and there, floating on a lily pad, was a frog. The man said: “Are you talking to me?”

    The frog replied: “Yes, I’m talking to you. Pick me up. Then, kiss me and I’ll turn into the most beautiful woman you have ever seen. I’ll make sure that all your friends are envious and jealous because you will have me as your bride.”

    The man looked at the frog for a minute, reached over, picked it up carefully, and placed it in his front pocket. The frog screamed: “What, are you nuts? Didn’t you hear what I said?? I said kiss me and I will be your beautiful bride!”

    And the old man said: “At my age, I’d rather have a talking frog.”

    nk (dbc370)

  181. @178

    While I appreciate the James Q. Wilson quote (I’m a big fan of is – met him once at a talk at my university at the time – he autographed his book on Bureaucracy for me), and agree that’s a workable description of character, I think this gets very much to the heart of the matter. No, I do not think Trump is a man of good character. In fact, I suspect that, even for a politician, he is probably worse than average on the character front. I wish we had a Cincinatus who could win the presidency and carry forward the conservative banner. But reality is – our political system tends to produce leaders of decidedly bad character. While there are many good people in politics, I think they are outnumbered greatly by those without it. I would prefer a virtuous, limited government which protected the borders, the rule of law, and the liberties of the people. But I’m a realist, and so I act as a citizen to preserve as much liberty as can be preserved. And if that means voting for and supporting flawed candidates with bad character profiles who support liberty-protecting policies versus flawed candidates with bad character profiles (or even relatively good ones) who support liberty-crushing policies, then that’s what I will do. And I will sleep like a baby, dreaming of a land where such calculation is unnecessary. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  182. @178

    Here’s another thought on the question of character – character is unquestionably a good unto itself, but is there anything to think it is a necessary or sufficient condition for an effective and even “good” leader / president? This, I think, was the ultimate failing of James Barber’s work on presidential character (in the aptly titled book, “Presidential Character) – the idea that we could identify (perhaps even quantify) character for presidential candidates – and use that as a predictive model for effective presidencies. But outside of Nixon, there isn’t a strong empirical case for it. Sure, we’ve had the occasional George Washington or Abraham Lincoln (who had their own character flaws and failings, even still)…but history is replete with amazingly effective leaders who were outright terrible people by most metrics of good character. And even still an assortment of leaders who seemed to be of good character, but who were utter failures. I have no doubt that Nevil Chamberlain would have scored better on Wilson’s criteria than Churchill did. And we all know who of the two was the better leader. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  183. Gooch, I’m trying to follow your argument. Am I correct that in #181, you’re saying Trump is of worse character than average even among politicians, more of whom are of bad character than of good character?

    Can we agree, then, that in terms of character, he’s among the worst of the worst? I think that is indeed a useful metric, albeit an approximation.

    You seem to me to then go on (in #181) to say that as a realist, rather than considering character, you’ve chosen instead to focus upon whether a candidate is supporting liberty-protecting policies (which last phrase I don’t understand, but it’s not important for purposes of my questions).

    Moreover, you are suggesting as a serious possibility (#178) that character is immaterial to political leadership, if I’m following your gist. If so, would you go so far as to say that there is an inverse correlation?

    Is that paraphrase unfair in any respect?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  184. Sorry, that last reference ought to have been to Gooch’s comment at #182 (not #178).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  185. Can we agree, then, that in terms of character, he’s among the worst of the worst? I think that is indeed a useful metric, albeit an approximation.

    So, would you say a man who wants to double the taxes on America to turn a working private system into a giant government monopoly is a good person? How about a lady who wants to ban cars, airplanes, meat, air conditioning, have government rebuild every building and assign us all good, clean insustry jobs? Is she better than Trump?

    For all his faults, Trump does not threaten to make people do stuff and tax them out of their socks to pay for it.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  186. In 1992, we were headed to Dan Quayle in 1996 if GHWB won.

    Yeah, thank GOD we got Bob Dole!

    /sarc

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  187. I’m curious. People say they won’t back Trump (if he’s the nominee) in 2020, because he’s so bad, and look to 2024 for right things. A couple questions:

    1) Of the 20-some-odd Democrat candidates, which are morally superior to Trump — not fault for fault (they probably don’t lie so stupidly) but overall. Note that Trump does not hate America or want to set up government monopolies.

    2) What makes you think this will help the GOP? It could get worse.

    3) Would not the best plan be to replace Trump as the nominee? Anyone who puts their career over that won’t be the person you’re hoping for in 2024. Trump is eminently beatable within the GOP — many of his supporters just don’t see an alternative. Give them one.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  188. I agree that the Presidency is not just about being an altar boy….you must couple character with wisdom and experience….that’s the trifecta for leadership….and I would agree that having all three still does not necessarily guarantee a successful Presidency (there will be cyclical economic downturns, tough wars, hostile oppositions, and stubborn crises that tilt perception)…but I would argue it certainly improves the odds. And that’s my beef with Trump….at least for a GOP candidate, he is historically low in all three categories….and eventually….probability dictates that poor decisions will accumulate and lead to crises that then magnify the deficiencies in character, wisdom, and experience. Trump’s default plan is to scapegoat, lie, attack, and distract….which makes it difficult to align with someone even when you might give them the benefit of the doubt in a situation or with a policy.

    Yes, Democrats have issues with the wisdom of many of their plans….and in many cases lack genuine executive leadership experience….but I don’t align with their political values….I align with the GOP. That’s the brand that I care about and wish to influence for the better. Nixon may in fact have been “better” than McGovern in some binary world…but ultimately we saw where deficiencies in character landed him….and the GOP. HMS Trump has not yet hit its iceberg…but isn’t there some sense of inevitability on the question….do we care? Is it time for a new Captain?

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  189. @175 Yes. The standard version is something like no true X would do Y. In this case we’re seeing all true X would do Y. So, it’s an inversion. I suppose the original version would cover it if for different values of Y. For example, no true Christian would support trump.

    Frosty, Th GfY (c141b1)

  190. @183

    I’d say he is worse than average among presidential politicians on the character front. It’s probably too strong to include all politicians, or even all elected federal officials, given the utter malfeasance that some of them have been guilty of. As a realist – it isn’t that I don’t consider character, it is that it takes a lower priority behind policy and effective leadership. I think character correlates rather poorly with effective leadership, whether there is a causal mechanism at work or simply because one has little to do with the other, I’m not sure. There are good character qualities which I don’t think help much with leadership, and may actually hurt. Humility, for one. Which is why most effective leaders are often described as arrogant and egotists – because they are, and that helps them be effective leaders. Humility can lead to fatal indecisiveness.

    Which isn’t to say that I think character and leadership are entirely unrelated – I think some aspects of character help with leadership. There are certainly leadership deficiencies that Trump exhibits that I think are rightly tied to his character deficiencies. His egoism leads him to ignore good advice, for one. But then, he has some good character qualities that I think help him with leadership. Trump, for example, I think, exhibits above average commitment to his commitments to his constituents. That is one aspect of his presidency that has surprised me, as I expected him to be below average there. That exhibits a certain amount of good character – loyalty. In fact, in some ways, I think Trump has an overdeveloped sense of loyalty – which have bad outcomes as well. I think it leads him to retain incompetents and bad personnel longer than he should. It makes him vulnerable to sycophants ingratiating themselves into his orbit. And I think it leads him to lash out at those who he believes have been disloyal to him (see for the most recent example, Don McGann). But, it also means he isn’t satisfied with merely holding office – he sincerely wants to deliver on his promises to his constituents. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (59ab0b)

  191. Whether you call it character or habit, Trump has done questionable things over and over in his adult life. He is a bully, a philanderer, financially reckless, ignorant about the American Constitution and government, egotistical, and IMO disloyal (because he only cares about other peoples’ loyalty to him). These are lifelong qualities that don’t preclude him from being successful, but make success harder. America is strong but it isn’t invinceable. We need good leadership.

    DRJ (15874d)

  192. I think whatever success he has had as President has come from picking two or three signature issues and pounding them daily — immigration, the courts, FAKE NEWS. He cuts through the noise of daily life and gets our attention.

    DRJ (15874d)

  193. 193. He’s been doing that for decades, even as he’s been fleecing contractors, cheating on his wives, and sheltering his personal wealth from the consequences of his bad business decisions up to and including bankruptcy. Donald J. Trump knows a thing or two about effective branding and makes an excellent retail politician (no, that is not a compliment).

    Gryph (08c844)

  194. The economy is doing so well only because Trump (or his secretary of the Treasury) scared the Federal Reserve Board that he was going to wreck the economy (because of his trade policies mostly) so they didn’t raise interest inerest rates this year and did less than they planned last year.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  195. Whether you call it character or habit, Trump has done questionable things over and over in his adult life.

    As have others. Bernie Sanders chose Brezhnev’s Moscow for his honeymoon, and supported Chavez and Castro. Is a man better simply because he’s principled, or do those principles matter?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  196. @196

    Kevin,

    Exactly. Kamala Harris has literally worked to keep innocent people in jail (and in at least one instance, succeeded). Where do we rate that on the character scale? D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (270456)

  197. Gooch: “I think character correlates rather poorly with effective leadership… Humility can lead to fatal indecisiveness.”

    This is just counter to every experience that I’ve had with big organizations…corporate or government….I found the following paragraph from Ivey Business Journal that I thought was pretty insightful:
    “Nowhere was this more obvious than in the financial crisis of 2008 – 2009, in which boldness or instant gratification triumphed over temperance. People who knew that bad risks were being taken did not have the courage and/or confidence to speak up, and people without integrity sold mortgages to those who could not pay them. They then bundled these mortgages into securities that were fraudulent and sold to others. People with large egos, lacking in humility, oblivious to the harm they may have been be doing to others or the societies in which they operated, became very rich at the expense of millions who were the victims of the financial crisis and subsequent recession. Yet, to this day, these same people seem unable or unwilling to accept any degree of responsibility for their actions. Leaders of large, global companies knew about these types of practices yet did nothing to stop them.”

    Few people I know want to work for someone who lies, cheats, steals…and is not trustworthy…who only talks about how great he is…and how his legitimate detractors are only losers. Maybe we are talking about different forms of leadership….

    Gooch: “I think Trump has an overdeveloped sense of loyalty”

    His wives, Sessions, Cohen, business partners, et al might think differently

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  198. 192. OTOH, you may find several of those ‘characteristics’ you note in the personality mix of successful fellas like Douglas MacArthur, Henry Ford, William Randolph Hearst, William S. Paley, Carnegie, Mellon, Morgan, Rockefeller and any number of assorted ‘robber barons’ and industrialists who ‘made America great.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  199. @193. Short list w/tested terms and simplified messaging– just like Reagan.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  200. A blustering blusterer blustered. Big surprise. Nothing was acted on, nothing done. Stop pretending there was obstruction, it’s ridiculous.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  201. So let me see if I get this:

    1. Things Trump did years ago are to be condemned today just as strongly as things that other politicians are doing right now.
    2. Sexual sins and bragging about them is as bad as a deliberate and coordinated attempt to change society so that sexual sins are no longer even considered sins (keeping in mind that this social change includes the sexualization of children, encouraging them to be gay or trans).
    3. Christians are not allowed to distinguish between sinners who are no danger to Christians and those who are working to make traditional Christian beliefs illegal.

    Does that about cover it?

    David Gudeman (fd21bc)

  202. “Stop pretending there was obstruction, it’s ridiculous” says Col. Haiku

    Please tell me what constitutes obstruction if firing the FBI director because of “the Russia thing”, repeatedly demanding that the AG “un-recuse” and ordering that the Special Counsel be removed don’t qualify?

    Perhaps these exceed the definition of obstruction… is that your loophole?

    noel (e07fb0)

  203. @203 So far reality is the loophole. Mueller didn’t conclude that the President committed a crime. We can rehash everything but so far everything comes down to ‘this should be’ vs ‘meh’.

    frosty48 (c141b1)

  204. Trump’s problem is that he’s a scaredy-cat wussie boy. Investigation or impeachment, a man with spine would say: “Bring it on, you Deep State limpwrists!”

    nk (dbc370)

  205. 205. On the other hand, the man(?) in the Oval Office just says “Witch hunt! WITCH HUNT!”

    Gryph (08c844)

  206. 205, so what does he do if he hears a pistol fired within arm’s reach, not at him, but lets just say for example, the coach of one of those championship college teams really dug the McDonalds and BK provided and wanted to demonstrate his 2nd amendment bonafides.

    If DCSCA is correct on diet and health, might it go down like Niedermayer’s horse?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  207. “Hah! Iz nice to know that under his sinister exterior, beats a heart of pure chicken.” — Boris Badenov

    nk (dbc370)

  208. Interesting to think how this strain of moral profligacy has always been with us in American politics: one thinks of Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin. Later, Kennedy, Clinton. These dudes would basically schtup anything that looked good to them. Republicans have long held the moral high ground of being the party which prized personal sexual morality (at least in Presidential politics). “If he can’t be true to his wife, how can we trust him in other matters?” Is something I heard a lot during the Clinton years. Trump marks a departure for the GOP, no matter how you want to rank him against former Presidents.

    JRH (52aed3)

  209. JRH, I considered that line of questioning “over” by the time of the 2012 GOP primaries, when “scoundrel” Newt Gingrich was able to get a lot of traction in SC and FL versus saintly Romney and Santorum. It didnt help that FL and increasingly SC are home to a lot of what others might consider trophy wives and homewreckers.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9251 secs.