Donald Trump has exposed 'evangelical' voters

[Danmark]

I was raised as an evangelical. I WAS an evangelical. It is clear that Trump is not an authentic evangelical; he knows next to nothing about the Bible and has lived and continues to live and promote a lifestyle that is antithetical to evangelical Christianity.
Yet he is doing very well, better than any other Republican candidate, among evangelicals.

My conclusion is that evangelicals care much more about secular politics than about true Christian values. Has Trump support among 'evangelicals' exposed the fact the 'evangelical voting block' is not based on Christian values, but on secular political values?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 39 by Elijah John]

Sadly too many evangelicals have historically regarded bringing democracy to other countries as an example of loving ones neighbour.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to WinePusher]

Even though Trump doesn't share my views on economics, foreign policy and even though he's not a devout Christian as I am, I will vote for him because he is destroying the political establishment (the career politicians, the donors, the tv pundits, etc).

Yes -- like Hitler destroyed the Reichstag in 1933. With Congress' approval rating at a near all-time low, Trump, as president -- and with His cavalier attitude -- might be tempted to pull a similar act to gain even more popularity with the non-thinking bloke.

So what does Michael Bloomberg have on Trump? He's the only person that Trump hasn't bad-mouthed. Is it because being ten times wealthier and having a cleaner record, he might be scared lest Bloomberg enter the race if Hillary falters? Obviously Bloomberg is not happy with the likes of Trump OR Sanders in the pilot seat. Of course Bloomberg IS the establishment but I think it wise at this juncture to go with the devil you know rather than with the devil you don't know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islam is ALL that a religion can be!

[Danmark]

From an Anglican Priest on why, as a Christian, he will not vote for Trump:

"I do not believe that Donald Trump has the best interest of our country in mind. Rather, I believe he has shown concern only for himself and his personal advancement. His focus on himself as a “winner� and others as “losers,�...
I believe that Donald Trump holds and proclaims racist, sexist, and violent attitudes that are in direct opposition to the Christian message,....
I believe that Donald Trump is taking the Name of the Lord in vain. He is misusing the Faith by claiming to be “a great Christian� while his actions—... cynical pandering to evangelicals, ownership of a strip club, his hatred for Muslims and others—belie this claim.... I believe he will use military force in ungodly ways. He could make America into a true villain on the world stage, which will only raise up countless new terrorists and destabilize an unstable world. "
http://www.thomasmckenzie.com/blog/this ... nald-trump

Excluding some specifics in that quote which politician can't that be said about? If sexual immorality is such an issue is Hillary electable?

When Madeleine Albright was asked about the dead in Iraq she said that the price was worth it.

Trump is the only one that is anti war in the republican field that I can tell. He would not have invaded Iraq.

One more reason not to appreciate M. Albright who is also a rampant, unrepentant sexist "There's a special place in hell for women who don't support Hillary."
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... ry-clinton
I don't think either Clinton or Rubio or Obama or Sanders are racists. Hillary appears to be less comfortable around blacks than Sanders is.

What other presidential candidates throw the F-word around in public? Then pretend to be shocked when others use it? Obama, Sanders, Jeb Bush, even Cruz appear to be monogamous, faithful, not have serial 'trophy wives.'* I haven't heard other candidates talking about people who should be killed or whom they would like to 'punch in the face.'

One of the things I respect about true Christians, as well as many secularists, is that they believe in things and causes more important than themselves. With Trump I just see self aggrandizement, self promotion. Doesn't the constant bragging bother you? Doesn't his use of personal invective disturb you? I see a level of discourse in Trump I do not see in any other candidate from either party. Both Trump and Sanders seem much more Christlike in their demeanor than either Cruz or Trump, who wear their religion on their sleeves.

I've had considerable success in trials in part because I have had good luck in picking juries [actually de-selecting potential jurors] Neither Trump, Clinton, nor Cruz, or anyone with their demeanor would ever sit on one of my juries. Some of this is just gut instinct of course, not science. With HRC, frequently her body language and facial expression when answering tough questions, screams "liar!" to me. With Trump I see the opposite. He appears to be truthful even when he is obviously lying. I find the latter phenomenon much scarier than HRC's 'tell' when she lies. To my amateur judgment, Trump is an obvious narcissist and also comes across as a sociopath. He actually seems to delight in being rude.

[WinePusher]

The US offers one of the worst countries for inequality (edit: of developed countries) on many measures. The question of mobility is tied to the question of inequality.

Actually, the level of income inequality is irrelevant so long as the country in question offers high levels of inter-generational mobility. You're right that the United States has a relatively high level of inequality, but the level of inequality in the United States is offset by the high level of mobility.

Here is a TED talk by Richard Wilkinson. Wilkinson is Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology at the University of Nottingham. I trust his qualifications meet WinePusher's approval.

Don't have time to listen to his talk. If you can summarize what he's saying I'll respond.

As Wilkinson point out in this video, if American want to live the American dream they should go to Denmark.

Countries with higher populations will have more diverse demographics, while countries with smaller populations along with lower levels of multicultural infusion will have more of an exact demographic.

Notice that the value of all elasticities are heavily impacted by the total number of individuals in the market. The inter-generational income elasticity is not different. The more people that live in a country, the more erratic the inter-generational elasticity is going to be.

Thus, the size of the population is inversely correlated with aggregate inter-generational mobility, meaning that countries with smaller populations are expected to have above average mobility rates. This isn't due to any "socialist" policy, but rather the size of the population which is a largely exogenous (uncontrollable) factor.

If you think that Denmark's success is due to "socialism" can you provide a coherent explanation of how socialism contributes to economic mobility and a means to test it?

The most equal countries in the world with the best social mobility according to Wilkinson are Japan and the Nordic countries. Using a wide set of data Wilkinson points to a general social dysfunction related to inequality.

Wilkinson compares Sweden to Japan. Sweden has wide difference in earning but it redistributes with taxation, Japan has much lower difference in earnings before tax.

This does not exactly answer WinePusher's demand for a connection between socialism and social mobility. However we look at the data it is clear America followed by the UK are not the models to follow.

You wrongly think that the economic "models" in the United States and the United Kingdom are the same when they aren't. The economy of the United Kingdom is far more socialized than the economy of the United States, but as you keep repeating the UK has a high level of inequality and a low level of mobility. Can you not see how you're contradicting yourself?

[Wootah]

[Replying to Danmark]

What are we even debating here? You think someone is racist. Great. This is just opinion.

I think your thread would be good if an evangelical agreed with you and I could hear from them.

[Furrowed Brow]

but the level of inequality in the United States is offset by the high level of mobility.

That is not what Wilkinson's data shows on the side @8.19. Compared to other developed nations the US has poor social mobility hence the quip Americans should move to Denmark in search of the American dream.

Poor US social mobility also backed up by this report:
http://the-sra.org.uk/files-presentatio ... ac2009.pdf

And this report:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/resear ... ll_ch3.pdf

The first figure in this report shows the US has a perception of higher mobility.

]Don't have time to listen to his talk. If you can summarize what he's saying I'll respond.

inequality bad: leading to poorer health, mental health school drop outs, larger prison populations, social mobility, etcetera.

Conclusion: start with lower income differences like Japan, or have larger income differences and redistribute like Sweden.

Countries with higher populations will have more diverse demographics, while countries with smaller populations along with lower levels of multicultural infusion will have more of an exact demographic.

Let's get this straight. A larger data set skews the result? And if we draw an average from a large data set with more variations the average figure is less useful? That is the implication of what you are saying. It is true an average cannot give us a nuanced pictures but it still tells us something.

What I am not seeing any evidence for is good or better social mobility in the US than other developed nations. And direct comparisons to more socialistic European countries the US comes off worse including the UK.

Notice that the value of all elasticities are heavily impacted by the total number of individuals in the market. The inter-generational income elasticity is not different. The more people that live in a country, the more erratic the inter-generational elasticity is going to be.

And yet there is still an average figure of how likely a son's income follows their father's income. Which by itself might be meaningless if it were not heavily correlated with so many other negative indicators.

Thus, the size of the population is inversely correlated with aggregate inter-generational mobility, meaning that countries with smaller populations are expected to have above average mobility rates. This isn't due to any "socialist" policy, but rather the size of the population which is a largely exogenous (uncontrollable) factor.

If this were true Europe with a population of 740 million would compare poorly to the US. That does not appear to be the case. I can find no direct comparison US vs Europe, but country by country US does not compare favourably to Europe. The UK being the most comparable to the US, and the majority of Europe has better mobility than the UK.

You wrongly think that the economic "models" in the United States and the United Kingdom are the same when they aren't.

I did't say they were the same, only they were models not to follow.

The economy of the United Kingdom is far more socialized than the economy of the United States, but as you keep repeating the UK has a high level of inequality and a low level of mobility.

The UK scores poorly and has been scoring much worse since the 1970s. Many reasons for this, including a class structure based on "public" schools and family ties reasserting itself after the socialist heydays of the the late 1940s to 1970s. (As an aside: it is a tad sinister how many of our top politicians are related. For example Boris Johnston Major of London and David Cameron are 9th cousins descended from George III, both attended Eton and were members of the same "Clubs" with strange and sadistic initiation ceremonies). The 1970s marks the start of a move towards neo-liberal policies and the acceptance that market forces are king. Presently we are towards the tail end of the process of dismantling the National Heath Service and the Welfare state.

For social mobility we are one of the worse examples in Europe. That said the UK still scores better than the US.

Can you not see how you're contradicting yourself?

No I can't. Explain that to me again. I did not give full support to Denmark's point regarding Socialism, and I shifted the ground on to the question of inequality and how countries achieve or do not achieve better equality. Despite its class structure the UK still scores better than the US, and ability in the UK is getting worse as we abandon socialism.

[JLB32168]

I was raised as an evangelical. I WAS an evangelical. It is clear that Trump is not an authentic evangelical; he knows next to nothing about the Bible and has lived and continues to live and promote a lifestyle that is antithetical to evangelical Christianity.

I was raised an evangelical and no longer am one – still Christian – but not evangelical. Trumps speech is simply hateful. I marvel that my evangelical brothers and sisters can flock to him so easily.

My conclusion is that evangelicals care much more about secular politics than about true Christian values.

I can’t judge motives but I can offer that Trumps platform seems founded upon invective bullying and such claptrap is generally considered inimical with Christianity.

[Danmark]

I was raised as an evangelical. I WAS an evangelical. It is clear that Trump is not an authentic evangelical; he knows next to nothing about the Bible and has lived and continues to live and promote a lifestyle that is antithetical to evangelical Christianity.

I was raised an evangelical and no longer am one – still Christian – but not evangelical. Trumps speech is simply hateful. I marvel that my evangelical brothers and sisters can flock to him so easily.

My conclusion is that evangelicals care much more about secular politics than about true Christian values.

I can’t judge motives but I can offer that Trumps platform seems founded upon invective bullying and such claptrap is generally considered inimical with Christianity.

Yes, and I should have written "SOME" evangelicals. "CORE" Christian values should 'trump' political values. Even tho' I'm a non theist, I say that. Bernie Sanders, a Jew - sort of, preaches those core Christian values.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

What are we even debating here? You think someone is racist. Great. This is just opinion.

I think your thread would be good if an evangelical agreed with you and I could hear from them.

JBL just did, tho' he's not an evangelical he's a Christian.

Wootah, can you seriously see nothing anti Christian about Trump. Racism is only part of the deal. Hitler warned the people in Mein Kampf that he hated the Jews. Trump has warned us about his feelings for Mexicans and Muslims. A Christian should put Christlike values ahead of material, political ones.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Danmark]

What are we even debating here? You think someone is racist. Great. This is just opinion.

I think your thread would be good if an evangelical agreed with you and I could hear from them.

JBL just did, tho' he's not an evangelical he's a Christian.

Wootah, can you seriously see nothing anti Christian about Trump. Racism is only part of the deal. Hitler warned the people in Mein Kampf that he hated the Jews. Trump has warned us about his feelings for Mexicans and Muslims. A Christian should put Christlike values ahead of material, political ones.

I can see anti Christian things in all candidates, particularly Bernie and Hillary. Bernie is like the embodiment of jealous rage to me and Hillary the embodiment of selfishness. I feel squeamish listening to Cruz asking the other candidates to 'prayerfully consider' anything.

Border security isn't racism. It feels like self loathing when I hear people not argue for border security. Most of the immigrants I know want stronger borders because when you have stronger borders then the general population feel safer about actual immigration.

If you look hard enough there is a little bit of Hitler in everyone. If you think you have spotted the next Hitler and you do nothing you are a hitlercrite. - a new word invented right here on DC&R.

Sadly I Googled it and I am too late. I prefer my meaning. Someone whk identifies the next Hitler and does nothing about it.