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?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 10 by Wootah]

I reject everything you've just written. You're promoting the same platitudes we've been hearing for the last 8 years. They ignore the economic recovery we've experienced since W. Bush put us in a hole. Mexico and Mexican immigration is absolutely no threat to us whatsoever. Study after study has shown Mexican labor has been a net plus for our economy.

What HAS been harmful to an extent is the GOP insistence on allowing businessmen to hire people who are undocumented and pay them in cash violating labor laws. Then these same people turn around and publicly criticize the very labor they effectively import illegally. Yes, the hypocrisy of the GOP rivals that of the pharisees. The very people who hire them complain about the laborers being here. The GOP is the most anti Christian group I have ever seen. Bernie Sanders, a Jew, is the most Christlike.

BTW, I love Obama. He's the greatest public speaker we've had since FDR or Kennedy. I'd vote for him for a 3rd term if I could.

We're just arguing politics, but what I see as absurd is the Christians who vote for Cruz or Trump BECAUSE of what they claim are 'Christian' values. I don't consider lying and mistreating the poor, being just plain mean spirited, or being biased against Mexicans and Muslims to be Christian.

[WinePusher]

They ignore the economic recovery we've experienced since W. Bush put us in a hole.

What recovery would that be? Oh, might you be referring to the weakest economic recovery we've experienced since the great depression? Here are the facts Danmark:

1) The rate of GDP growth during the post 2008 recession is approximately 20% lower than the average of GDP growth rates during all postwar recoveries.

2) Other important economic indicators, such as consumption spending and investment spending along with payroll and the unemployment rate, have grown at far slower rates during this current so called "recovery" than they have during all of the previous postwar recoveries.

Nobody, other than Obama lovers perhaps, thinks this current economic recovery is something to be praised.

Mexico and Mexican immigration is absolutely no threat to us whatsoever. Study after study has shown Mexican labor has been a net plus for our economy.

Whether or not Mexican immigration adds or subtracts from our economy is questionable. In some aspects it does, and in some other aspects it doesn't.

What HAS been harmful to an extent is the GOP insistence on allowing businessmen to hire people who are undocumented and pay them in cash violating labor laws.

Again, you really need to start getting your facts right. Most Republican party leaders and members support e-verify, while most democrats oppose it, along with other sensible immigration measures. So your claim that the GOP insists on allowing businesses to hire illegal immigrants and pay them under the table has no merit.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 12 by WinePusher]

Slicing thru your claims, in what way is the economy not better today than it was in 2008? It is laughable that your attempts at "facts" have to resort to a version of:
"Well... well... well, yes the economy recovered after the typical Republican policies and wars of the Bush years, but the economy did not recover fast enough."

That is a pathetic response to the obvious recovery from the disastrous GOP policies under the last administration.
"The U.S. economy is currently emerging from a period of considerable turmoil. A mix of factors, including low interest rates, widespread mortgage lending, excessive risk taking in the financial sector, high consumer indebtedness and lax government regulation, led to a major recession that began in 2007. The housing market and several major banks collapsed in 2008 and the U.S. economy proceeded to contract until the third quarter of 2009 in what was the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression. "
http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/united-states

Yes, the recovery has been slow, but steady. The alternative is a return to the disaster of the GOP policies that caused a major recession in 2007, the longest downturn since the Great Depression, which was also caused by Republican policies.

So you are eager for a repeat of their disasters? This is what ideology over factual analysis concludes.

[WinePusher]

Slicing thru your [strike]claims[/strike] facts, in what way is the economy not better today than it was in 2008?

The economy is actually worse off today, but not because of anything Obama has done. I only blame Obama for passing through inordinate amounts of fiscal stimulus after the recession, but most of the blame lies with bad monetary policy spearheaded by Bernanke and Yellen.

It is laughable that your attempts at "facts" have to resort to a version of:
"Well... well... well, yes the economy recovered after the typical Republican policies and wars of the Bush years, but the economy did not recover fast enough."

Danmark, this is just typical, misinformed leftwing propoganda that you're spouting off, which is expected though since you seem to derive most of your info from disreputable leftwing blogs like Salon and the Huffington Post. Once again, here are the facts:

1) Deeper recessions that are associated with downturns in financial markets are generally followed by STRONGER recoveries. This FACT is the result of rigorous data analysis and modelling, a skill that requires advanced mathematics and as such probably eludes those leftwing bloggers over at Salon.

The recession in 2008 was the most severe decline in GDP since the great depression, AND the recession originated in the financial markets (primarily the housing market). Because of this, the ensuing recovery under Obama should have been one of the strongest in terms of GDP growth. But instead, it was the weakest due to the disastrous policies under Obama.

2) If you really think the war contributed to the housing bubble that led to the financial crisis and subsequently the great recession, well then there's really nothing else left to say.

That is a pathetic response to the obvious recovery from the disastrous GOP policies under the last administration.
"The U.S. economy is currently emerging from a period of considerable turmoil. A mix of factors, including low interest rates, widespread mortgage lending, excessive risk taking in the financial sector, high consumer indebtedness and lax government regulation, led to a major recession that began in 2007. The housing market and several major banks collapsed in 2008 and the U.S. economy proceeded to contract until the third quarter of 2009 in what was the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression. "
http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/united-states

I don't disagree with any of this. But if you understood how the government works you would realize that Bush had no control over interest rates just as Obama has no control over interest rates, which is why I don't blame Obama for anything other than the stimulus bill and the passage of Dodd-Frank. Most of the blame for our current economic woes lies with Greenspan, Bernanke and now Yellen.

Yes, the recovery has been slow, but steady. The alternative is a return to the disaster of the GOP policies that caused a major recession in 2007, the longest downturn since the Great Depression, which was also caused by Republican policies.

Again, next time you should really try including some facts in your posts. The movement that called for increasing home ownership and more lax lending standards originated in the Clinton administration, under Attorney General Janet Reno who strong armed more and more banks to extend mortgages to those who were financially unqualified. This problem was exacerbated under Bush along with democrats in Congress such as Barney Frank who granted more authority to the housing government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and who essentially promoted the expansion of the mortgage backed securities market.

So as you can see, if you cared at all about the facts you would've said that the great recession was the result BOTH democratic and republican policies.

[Danmark]

Danmark, this is just typical, misinformed leftwing propoganda that you're spouting off, which is expected though since you seem to derive most of your info from disreputable leftwing blogs like Salon and the Huffington Post.

WinePusher, "this is just typical misinformed" rightwing "propaganda that you're spouting, which is expected though since you seem to derive most of your info from disreputable leftwing blogs like Breitbart and Fox "News" and worse. I get none of this from the blogs you mention; however I did quote or http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/united-states .

That is a pathetic response to the obvious recovery from the disastrous GOP policies under the last administration.
"The U.S. economy is currently emerging from a period of considerable turmoil. A mix of factors, including low interest rates, widespread mortgage lending, excessive risk taking in the financial sector, high consumer indebtedness and lax government regulation, led to a major recession that began in 2007. The housing market and several major banks collapsed in 2008 and the U.S. economy proceeded to contract until the third quarter of 2009 in what was the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression. "
http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/united-states

I don't disagree with any of this. But ... you should really try including some facts in your posts.

You appear to contradict yourself... repeatedly.

[Danmark]

"1. Cruz is more fanatical. Sure, Trump is a bully and bigot, but he doesn’t hew to any sharp ideological line. Cruz is a fierce ideologue: He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, believes the 2nd amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns. He doesn’t believe in a constitutional divide between church and state, favors the death penalty, rejects immigration reform, demands the repeal of Obamacare, and takes a strict “originalist� view of the meaning of the Constitution.

2. Cruz is a true believer. Trump has no firm principles except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. But Cruz has spent much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views."
....
http://robertreich.org/post/139677457615

ROBERT B. REICH is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fourteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock, “The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "Saving Capitalism."

[WinePusher]

Danmark, this is just typical, misinformed leftwing propoganda that you're spouting off, which is expected though since you seem to derive most of your info from disreputable leftwing blogs like Salon and the Huffington Post.

WinePusher, "this is just typical misinformed" rightwing "propaganda that you're spouting, which is expected though since you seem to derive most of your info from disreputable leftwing blogs like Breitbart and Fox "News" and worse. I get none of this from the blogs you mention; however I did quote or http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/united-states .

That is a pathetic response to the obvious recovery from the disastrous GOP policies under the last administration.
"The U.S. economy is currently emerging from a period of considerable turmoil. A mix of factors, including low interest rates, widespread mortgage lending, excessive risk taking in the financial sector, high consumer indebtedness and lax government regulation, led to a major recession that began in 2007. The housing market and several major banks collapsed in 2008 and the U.S. economy proceeded to contract until the third quarter of 2009 in what was the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression. "
http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/united-states

I don't disagree with any of this. But ... you should really try including some facts in your posts.

You appear to contradict yourself... repeatedly.

Sigh. Is that it? No comment on the FACT that deeper recessions are followed by stronger recoveries? No comment on the FACT that 2008 recession was the most severe since the great depression, and yet it was followed by the weakest recovery since WWII? No comment on the FACT that the policies that led to the housing bubble and the great recession were bipartisan implementations by BOTH the democrats and republicans? Just face it Danmark, you have no rebuttal because the facts aren't on your side. Too bad.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 17:

...
No comment on the FACT that deeper recessions are followed by stronger recoveries? No comment on the FACT that 2008 recession was the most severe since the great depression, and yet it was followed by the weakest recovery since WWII?

From my chair, I gotta wonder how political tactics may have influenced such, as in government shutdowns, wasting time repeatedly voting to remove the ACA, and various other attempts to "ensure Obama is a one term president".

The Republicans have no answers, beyond "less taxes", and "trickle on". That's it.

My own fortunes were built on the back of the Clinton Presidency. Under Bush Jr I saw my wages stagnate, to the point of 'em not keeping up with inflation. Fortunately, I was mowed down by a stack of concrete blocks, and have the financial resources to whether the current storm.

No comment on the FACT that the policies that led to the housing bubble and the great recession were bipartisan implementations by BOTH the democrats and republicans?

Agreed. The way I see it...

Illegal immigration was allowed to continue so that rich folks / business / farms could have their cheap labor. This in turn led "the poors" to put pressure on the Dems, because "the American Dream" was no longer affordable, owing to the downward pressure on wages.

So, ya introduce housing policies that allow for folks to buy houses they can't afford and ya don't regulate the banks, as opposed to implementing policies that help raise incomes, and the bubble was as predictable as the pretty thing's smile.

Just face it Danmark, you have no rebuttal because the facts aren't on your side. Too bad.

Don't be too shocked, but your assumption of victory is unwarranted, even as I find a point of agreement.


The man's handled your arguments, it's just you can't tell how well he has.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 17 by WinePusher]

You're way off here with your claim of [shouting] "FACTS." You're also way off topic. The topic is the demagoguery of Trump [which I admit is being rivaled by Cruz and Rubio] and how he has taken in gullible 'evangelicals' with his phony claims of being a 'Christian.' But Trump is in a class by himself. The parallels between him and and Adolf Hitler are frightening. More frightening is the support he receives. My guess is that 100% of Trump supporters would join the Milgram subjects in applying fatal electric shocks to victims. Today he was wildly cheered for saying he'd like to punch in the face someone who disagreed with him. He should start wearing a brown shirt.
What's next, a book burning?

When those who claim to be evangelicals support Donald Trump they reveal their interest is jingoistic nationalism and hatred, not the ethics of Christ.

“We certainly have a more robust political system than 1930s Germany,� they wrote. “But Trump’s racist rhetoric should be viewed in the repugnant tradition of Hitler. When you call all Mexicans rapists, criminals, losers, and the source of disease (that last claim was an old Nazi favorite), when you disparage Mexican-Americans at every turn as the cause of all the country’s woes, and when you have the money to get you message out, journalists should take you seriously.�
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/p ... z412unKuaR

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 19 by Danmark]

Of course I don't read everything Trump said. Where did he say all that?

I think there is some onus on us to accept that anyone that is anti-Trump might be willing to use exaggeration.

Right now you are siding with a lot of vested interests on the left and the right that are keen to not discuss policy but to write ad hominems. I'm still trying to understand the policy reasons to be anti-Trump.