Christians, Romney and the "establishment"


Ringo

A WATCHMAN
Establishment Republicans are trying to stop the "people" from choosing a specific candidate. After spending over 16 years as a high level political consultant in the 1980s and 90s, I know the "establishment Republicans" well. They are essentially moderate Democrats, generally pro-abortion, common ground-oriented with the Democratic Party. They vehemently dislike Christian conservatives, while demonstrating their "Christianity" by showing up for church on Sundays. They fought against Ronald Reagan at every juncture. They used visceral language and tactics against Christian conservatives, but like their track record in electing presidents (Dole, McCain, Romney), they were often ineffective.

Their tactic is to hold the "establishment" base by parading their last losing puppet to center stage-Mitt Romney-and say bad things about the non-establishment candidate--even after that candidate had endorsed and worked for Romney's failed election bid in 2012. Christian conservatives, then ultimately Christians in general, couldn't swallow their religious objections and vote for a Mormon. So the Islamic Marxist got another term, and America fell deeper into a socio-economic black hole. The "establishment Republicans," following the example of Christians in 2012, are obviously pursuing another such folly. To them it's better to scuttle a candidate they don't agree with rather than defeat a clear and present danger.

Romney had the chance to knock out a sitting "president" and went soft on him, which is the hallmark of the "establishment Republican." On January 30, Romney said he wasn't going to run again. He said, "I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well-known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started, may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee." The NY Times reports that Romney Thursday called Donald Trump a "phony," "a fraud," and said he is "playing the American people for suckers." But that's what the establishment GOP did by running Dole, McCain, and Romney.

Romney held no credibility with Christians four years ago as indicated by their non vote. What has changed? Just that Romney said what is on the minds of a lot of people, so all of a sudden that makes him credible? Romney says Trump doesn't have the judgment to be president. Remember Romney wouldn't even make the current "president's" lack of judgment an issue. Establishment Republicans would rather have four more years of evil in the Oval Office than have someone who threatens their power. They are like the scribes and Pharisees of old. That should speak volumes to any discerning person. Jesus said in Matthew 24:4, "Take heed that no man deceive you." Good advice for this political season. There is going to be a lot of noise, charges and counter charges. Take heed of what is at stake. Pray and act.

Bill Wilson - Daily Jot -
 

It befuddles me how a large number of Christians couldn't vote for Mormon Romney but they could vote for heathen Trump. That seems inconsistent.
 
Romney held no credibility with Christians four years ago as indicated by their non vote. What has changed?

Excuse me, but I must trim the wall of stolen text, but single out this one statement it contained.

Do you loons (christians of your ilk) see Trump as a knuckle dragging bible beating christian? You guys will buy anything, as long as the huckster says they are a christian. He is as much a christian as I am, except he lacks the character to be honest about it.
 
It befuddles me how a large number of Christians couldn't vote for Mormon Romney but they could vote for heathen Trump. That seems inconsistent.


Trump is of the Presbyterian church (Christian Faith), therefor, not a "heathen."

HEATHEN-An individual of a people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible.

Romney is of the Mormon church (Religion), therefor, is "accursed".

"But though we, or an angel from heaven (Moroni), preach any other gospel (Mormonism) unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed".

It "befuddles" me how any Christian could vote for anyone cursed by God.
 
Trump is of the Presbyterian church (Christian Faith), therefor, not a "heathen."

HEATHEN-An individual of a people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible.

Romney is of the Mormon church (Religion), therefor, is "accursed".

"But though we, or an angel from heaven (Moroni), preach any other gospel (Mormonism) unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed".

It "befuddles" me how any Christian could vote for anyone cursed by God.

Well numb nuts, this heathen knows a number of people that are as you say "is of the __________ church" and they are no more a christian than I am, and are typically the most dishonest unscrupulous people I have ever had the displeasure of knowing.
 
Trump is of the Presbyterian church (Christian Faith), therefor, not a "heathen."
As you know, church membership does not make one a Christian.

A person is a Christian if that person has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That relationship begins when any person confesses to be a sinner, repents, and accepts the finished work of salvation thru the blood of Jesus as his/her redemption. When Trump was asked outright if he ever asked God for forgiveness, he replied, "No." He further stated that he had never done anything that needed forgiving.

I John 1:

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

So, his own words declare him a non-Christian. His behavior and more words (mostly the profane ones) show his heathen nature.

HEATHEN-An individual of a people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible.

Heathen | Define Heathen at Dictionary.com


Romney is of the Mormon church (Religion), therefor, is "accursed".

"But though we, or an angel from heaven (Moroni), preach any other gospel (Mormonism) unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed".

It "befuddles" me how any Christian could vote for anyone cursed by God.
My point is, if Christians said they didn't vote for Romney because he was a Mormon, how can they vote for Trump who is not a Christian? To be consistent, they should either vote for neither or both, if their criteria is the candidate's relationship with Jesus.
 
...Jesus said in Matthew 24:4, "Take heed that no man deceive you." Good advice for this political season. There is going to be a lot of noise, charges and counter charges. Take heed of what is at stake. Pray and act.

Bill Wilson - Daily Jot -

I usually enjoy reading Bill/Daily Jot, but I'm a bit put off by this piece. Since he didn't specify otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt he understands that Matt 24:4 doesn't apply equally to warning Christians not to be deceived by the ilk of Donald Trump as much as any other politician, but the confusing part is that everything preceding that last paragraph seems to hold Trump up as some paragon of virtue far exceeding Hitlery's or anyone else's claims of high virtue.

I'm enjoying the tweaking the Republicans are suffering because of Trump's successes thus far, but I sincerely pray that no Christian seriously believes his shtick will serve to restore or promote Christian values in this nation. I can't tell if Bill Wilson believes that or not, but I do know his seeming willingness to accept Trump as a good choice for Christians is way far removed from any acceptance of him as such that I could offer in good conscience. My problem with Trump is hardly any different than I have with Romney, McCain, Dole, McConnell, Ryan, or any of the rest of the establishment Republicans - they're all liars - they're all phonies - they're all suffering under delusions of grandeur in thinking that they're qualified in any way to rule over so many people concerning so many varied and personal issues for which The Constitution grants them zero authority to rule over. It has almost nothing to do with any of their "godliness" for me, because none of them are "godly" any more than I am or any other human being is. Trump is among the least godly people I ever hear from or see on TV, and so is Romney, so I don't get someone like Bill Wilson going out of his way to juxtapose one's more "godly" status over the other's. Vote for a sinner, and you'll get a sinner. Vote for evil, and you'll get evil installed in office. Put any name behind the word "sinner" or "evil" you wish, and those two sentences still mean the same thing. Bill should not be encouraging Christians to vote for Trump on the basis of Trump's adherence to Christianity, because said adherence is not evident when Christians critically evaluate him when we hear from him or see him on TV.

Blues
 
My point is, if Christians said they didn't vote for Romney because he was a Mormon, how can they vote for Trump who is not a Christian? To be consistent, they should either vote for neither or both, if their criteria is the candidate's relationship with Jesus.

I agree, Christians should vote for neither or both if their criteria is the candidate's relationship with Jesus. There's no question concerning Romney,however, the problem with Trump is that he claims to be a Christian and too many Christians believe what he says.
 
It befuddles me how a large number of Christians couldn't vote for Mormon Romney but they could vote for heathen Trump. That seems inconsistent.
You need not be befuddled because it isn't true. While there were some people who wouldn't vote for Romney due to his religion, the number was very small. Most of those who refused to vote for him did so purely on political grounds. The man had a history of flip-flopping almost as much as John Kerry, and had taken some very moderate, or even downright liberal, stances during his political career. Trump, mainly due to the fact that he isn't a politician, doesn't have that kind of baggage.
 
You need not be befuddled because it isn't true. While there were some people who wouldn't vote for Romney due to his religion, the number was very small. Most of those who refused to vote for him did so purely on political grounds. The man had a history of flip-flopping almost as much as John Kerry, and had taken some very moderate, or even downright liberal, stances during his political career. Trump, mainly due to the fact that he isn't a politician, doesn't have that kind of baggage.

That might've been true before he announced, but it definitely ain't true now. Trump has flipped on very nearly every issue one can conceive of, and in some cases he's flopped back to his previous position within the same speech, Planned Parenthood funding being the prime example of that.

Everybody can legitimately be said to have the metaphorical type of baggage once they pack up their real baggage and hit the road for a national campaign.

Blues
 
Doesn't voting based on religion fly in the face of the separation of church and state doctrine?

Especially in the context of all you self-ascribed constitutionals? How do you reconcile this obvious contradiction in your devout, yet constitutionally strict minds?

Link Removed
 
Doesn't voting based on religion fly in the face of the separation of church and state doctrine?
Not at all. If a citizen wants to use religion as one of the criteria for making a choice among candidates there's nothing unconstitutional about that.

Voters use all kinds of criteria in their selections. It could be religion, race, sex, age, appearance, horoscope, throw of the dice, which college they attended, military service, political offices held, good vibes, whatever.

Especially in the context of all you self-ascribed constitutionals? How do you reconcile this obvious contradiction in your devout, yet constitutionally strict minds?
There is no contradiction between the Constitution and a person's individual vote. It would only be a contradiction if the government forced a religious requirement on candidates.
 
....There is no contradiction between the Constitution and a person's individual vote. It would only be a contradiction if the government forced a religious requirement on candidates.

Or if the government imposed restrictions of the kind that Nadir Point and others around here would like to see upon the free exercise(s) by the citizenry.
 
Not at all. If a citizen wants to use religion as one of the criteria for making a choice among candidates there's nothing unconstitutional about that.
Technically no - not at face value. But it's also obvious it is done with the implication you anticipate your candidate, if elected, will support church-friendly policies and so forth in your favor.
 
Or if the government imposed restrictions of the kind that Nadir Point and others around here would like to see upon the free exercise(s) by the citizenry.
Will you please either link to an example of where I said that sort of thing on this forum or retract your statement?
 
Doesn't voting based on religion fly in the face of the separation of church and state doctrine?

or common sense. Some of the most corrupt and unethical people refer to themselves as 'christians', a meaningless term for 90%+ of those that so label themselves.
 
Technically no - not at face value. But it's also obvious it is done with the implication you anticipate your candidate, if elected, will support church-friendly policies and so forth in your favor.

"Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion." Cornell Univ. School of Law.

When voting for a candidate, for any office, it stands to reason that one would vote for the person who has similar values as the voter. Otherwise, what would be the incentive to vote for the person? There is nothing wrong in desiring a candidate to hold religious beliefs, along with other traits and characteristics, with which you agree. After all, elections boil down to the same thing, a popularity contest between candidates. No person in their right mind will vote for a candidate who is opposed to everything they stand for. To require otherwise by government fiat would be unconstitutional. Really, there is no problem here.
 
That might've been true before he announced, but it definitely ain't true now. Trump has flipped on very nearly every issue one can conceive of, and in some cases he's flopped back to his previous position within the same speech, Planned Parenthood funding being the prime example of that.
That's still very true in the eyes of those supporting him. Many of them don't know of the flip-flops, don't care, or accept his explanations for them. And as I said, due to the fact that he isn't a politician that stuff just doesn't affect his popularity among the people supporting him. He is well deserving of the label, 'anger candidate', with the word "anger" describing the mood of the people voting for him.
.
Everybody can legitimately be said to have the metaphorical type of baggage once they pack up their real baggage and hit the road for a national campaign.
I think you and I agree on this, but we aren't those people supporting Trump. They are blind to so many things. Otherwise most of them wouldn't be supporting him.
 
Technically no - not at face value. But it's also obvious it is done with the implication you anticipate your candidate, if elected, will support church-friendly policies and so forth in your favor.
Non sequitur. Theoretically, practically any policy would have the support of at least SOME religion or religious group somewhere, so your attempt at connection here would fall flat even if it were applicable to the government rather than to voters, which it obviously isn't.
,
I don't believe I've had the pleasure of a discussion with you before. Since you apparently have difficulty understanding at least some of the basic principles behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, should I assume that you're an immigrant to the United States and still learning how this country works?
,
or common sense. Some of the most corrupt and unethical people refer to themselves as 'christians', a meaningless term for 90%+ of those that so label themselves.
And all of them claim to be human. So according to your logic we should demonize all humans. Which of course shows your logic to have absolutely no logic at all. Or common sense for that matter. Hate much?
 
Link Removed
That graphic is incorrect by the way. Adams never said that. Those words were in the treaty, but the words after the ... will demonstrate that they do not mean what you apparently think they do. You should study the history of the Barbary Pirates and our conflicts with them. Those words are in there because those Muslim pirates insisted that they be in there, and they were put there simply for the expediency of protecting our shipping in the Mediterranean.
.
Countdown host says Founding Father reached out to Muslims | PolitiFact
.
There are plenty of other links. Just use Google.
.
Using treaty language to support a 'non-religious America' claim might not be a good idea.
.
The Treaty of Paris of 1783, which is a formal recognition of our independence from Great Britain, which was negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams. Its first words are, “In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.”
https://w3nws.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/john-adams-did-not-say-this/
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top