USA "EVANGELICALS" - What's Behind the Huge Support of Trump?

[MoreCoffee]

Ah, American " Evangelicalism." In regards to Donald trump, I think you'll find so many followers among the American Evangelical base because Trump has made it clear more than once that he was solidly on their side against the more secular- inclined liberals. I put " Evangelicals" in quotes because it really describes a movement that went full force with the Moral Majority in the 1980s. Evangelical outside of the quotes will generally be a description of the Gospel emphasis you find in Evangelical Lutheranism. His own private morality doesn't seem to factor in. He calls himself a Christian and publicly stands for the values associated with American " Evangelical Christianity." That's why his die hard fans will remain loyal to him, no matter how outrageous his conduct may be.

Yes, his conduct and his words are almost uniformly outrageous.

 

[psalms 91]

Pesonally I am a mix and mingle of many issues. I am Democrat but will vote eiher way. Economically it is in my intersts to vote Democratic, I am pro-life, I beleive in reasonable gun control, so I fall on both sides depending on the issue. Republicans, at least the ones that get elected are not on the side opf the poor and want to do away with health care and a variety of other programs that benefit the less fortunate, so am against them on that and cant vote for most of them. The ones I could support never get to run. I would have supported Huckabee, or even Rubio, as for the Democratic side I would have loved to see Sanders get it. I will not vote for Trump and didnt because it was obvious what he would be and he is.

 

[Albion]

But you would vote for a Revolutionary Socialist and admirer of the Soviet Union (Sanders)...or, alternately, for a Conservative and Baptist minister (Huckabee). I never fail to be amazed at how voters come to their conclusions about which candidates will serve their best interests. whew.

 

[hedrick]

Don't evangelicals who campaign under the slogan of "moral values" vote according to their moral values or is that a sham that they put forward to fool gullible people?

Trump reflects the moral values of many evangelicals in the US.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Trump reflects the moral values of many evangelicals in the US.

I imagine that Donald's moral values really do reflect the moral values of many evangelicals in the USA. Both in the outward support for "good things" and in the private acts of wickedness but such hypocritical words and conduct are not unique to Donald nor to Evangelicals it is the common lot of humanity. Yet it has been the practise to hide private wickedness more carefully when one campaigns for high political office because giving the public the illusion of moral rectitude was considered important but now it seems that one's moral turpitude is to be shouted from the housetops and that is one sign of the times that makes me think that the end may well be nigh.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But you would vote for a Revolutionary Socialist and admirer of the Soviet Union (Sanders)...or, alternately, for a Conservative and Baptist minister (Huckabee). I never fail to be amazed at how voters come to their conclusions about which candidates will serve their best interests. whew.

Perhaps friend Psalms 91 would vote for a man who campaigned for taxes to redistribute accumulated wealth into the hands of people who have little or nothing now. God gave Israel laws to prevent accumulated wealth in the hands of a few leading to the oppression and slavery of his people. I think it is not such a bad thing to think through what current laws and taxes are leading capitalist cultures to become.

In the past death duties were used to prevent the aristocracy from passing on ownership of the land and the wealth it can produce and so dispossessing the working population and the poor until they were little more than serfs and servants. Then in the post Great War world and more so in the post World War II world income taxes were stepped so that low income earners paid little while very high income earners paid a lot and the funds derived from that kind of taxation were used to pay for pensions and hospitals and universal education for children. These things achieved much that was good at a cost of very little that was wicked.

 

[psalms 91]

But you would vote for a Revolutionary Socialist and admirer of the Soviet Union (Sanders)...or, alternately, for a Conservative and Baptist minister (Huckabee). I never fail to be amazed at how voters come to their conclusions about which candidates will serve their best interests. whew.

MC hit a major reason for me wanting him and for your information this country has been socialist since social security and perhaps even before that, it is nothing new to this country, we havent been a democracy or a Republic for a very long time.

 

[Albion]

MC hit a major reason for me wanting him...

What was that major reason? Hooray for socialism??

 

[Josiah]

Each soverign nation can govern itself...... In most, there are elections and representative government. What countries (and the citizens thereof) may NOT do is participate in the decisions and governments of other free soverign nations.

I think it is a popular SPORT among some NON-USA citizens to rebuke the USA (although accept its money, its military protection, its heavy UN and NATO subsidies, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.) rather than deal with the issues and problems of their OWN country. You'd think other nations have no problems at all (or maybe the citizens of them can't do anything about it so no reason to mention them).... or maybe it's just more fun "dump" on the USA. I've been to several other countries and when I hear this "game" of "Let's dump on the USA" being played, I often think of Jesus' "log/speck" point.... I think of the millions who LEFT those countries to come to the USA.... I think of the Marshall Plan and the resolution of the last two huge European wars.....


Now, it's true - American voters in BOTH parties - Catholics and Protestants alike - often don't vote their moral convictions. Citizens of other nations might or might not but that's none of my business. My focus - as a citizen and resident of the USA - is on addressing OUR issues. I wonder why it's not the focus of some non-USA citizens in the nations where they live and are a citizen (perhaps because they feel shut out and powerless in their OWN country??? I don't know; not my concern).



- Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

All true, but we should also point out that this is not a theocracy and it does have a Constitution. It does not have an established church.

Therefore, it's a question whether or not a voter can always vote his moral convictions. In addition, there are innumerable considerations facing the average voter. Some of them fit a moral preference but others are practical, such as whether or not to leave NAFTA. That really isn't a question that's easily decided by consulting one's religious beliefs.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

Each soverign nation can govern itself...... In most, there are elections and representative government. What countries (and the citizens thereof) may NOT do is participate in the decisions and governments of other free soverign nations.

I think it is a popular SPORT among some NON-USA citizens to rebuke the USA (although accept its money, its military protection, its heavy UN and NATO subsidies, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.) rather than deal with the issues and problems of their OWN country. You'd think other nations have no problems at all (or maybe the citizens of them can't do anything about it so no reason to mention them).... or maybe it's just more fun "dump" on the USA. I've been to several other countries and when I hear this "game" of "Let's dump on the USA" being played, I often think of Jesus' "log/speck" point.... I think of the millions who LEFT those countries to come to the USA.... I think of the Marshall Plan and the resolution of the last two huge European wars.....


Now, it's true - American voters in BOTH parties - Catholics and Protestants alike - often don't vote their moral convictions. Citizens of other nations might or might not but that's none of my business. My focus - as a citizen and resident of the USA - is on addressing OUR issues. I wonder why it's not the focus of some non-USA citizens in the nations where they live and are a citizen (perhaps because they feel shut out and powerless in their OWN country??? I don't know; not my concern).



- Josiah

Despite the strong temptation to segue into what I might think other countries' problems are ( and they are many and manifold), I'll just stick to topic ( respect being another American trait). No, Americans don't generally vote their moral convictions because each individual might have several moral convictions that may conflict when they consider what candidate they want to vote for. Ultimately, I think people vote for the candidate who they believe they, personally, will benefit the most by. Altruism might be a consideration when people step into the ballot box, but generally, they'll vote for the person they think represents them.

This is the latest detested president in a long line of detested presidents. I think even as far back as Franklin Roosevelt, people from other parts of the world expressed disdain for our Commander in Chief. Bush Junior wasn't much cared for when he pushed the Iraq invasion and people insulted what they saw as Obama's stupidity when the rumors flew that when he met the Queen of Great Britain for the first time he gave her an iPad with a bunch of his speeches in it. People vote their own interests, that's it. At the end of the day, the only ones whose opinions of the president of the United States matter are those who he represents. The American people, represented by Congress, are the only ones who have the power to insist on an impeachment and possible removal from office.

 

[Albion]

Despite the strong temptation to segue into what I might think other countries' problems are ( and they are many and manifold), I'll just stick to topic ( respect being another American trait). No, Americans don't generally vote their moral convictions because each individual might have several moral convictions that may conflict when they consider what candidate they want to vote for.

That's true and an excellent point.

This is the latest detested president in a long line of detested presidents. I think even as far back as Franklin Roosevelt, people from other parts of the world expressed disdain for our Commander in Chief. Bush Junior wasn't much cared for when he pushed the Iraq invasion and people insulted what they saw as Obama's stupidity when the rudmors flew that when he met the Queen of Great Britain for the first time he gave her an iPad with a bunch of his speeches in it.

Yes, but if we make a different kind of comparison--Trump vs. other world leaders as opposed to Trump vs. himself--an interesting fact shows itself. While President Trumps favorability rating is in the low to mid 40s (percentage), the favorability rating of the UKs Theresa May, Germanys Angela Merkel, Abe of Japan, and Emanuel Marcon of France also fell drastically in recent months. This appears to be more of a phenomenon of our times than anything affecting Trump in particular.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ronald Regan, George Bush snr, and George Bush jnr were all regarded as poor choices for USA president and all of them proved themselves to be poor choices in their 8, 4, 8 years of office. Barack Obama was regarded as a good choice by many but proved to be disappointing - though he was not a poor choice he was unable to achieve the promises that his speeches gave - and now we have Donald who was regarded as an impossibly bad choice and is living up to the impossibly low expectations of many.

 

[Albion]

There's quite a LOT that's wrong with that armchair analysis.

 

[tango]

Ronald Regan, George Bush snr, and George Bush jnr were all regarded as poor choices for USA president and all of them proved themselves to be poor choices in their 8, 4, 8 years of office. Barack Obama was regarded as a good choice by many but proved to be disappointing - though he was not a poor choice he was unable to achieve the promises that his speeches gave - and now we have Donald who was regarded as an impossibly bad choice and is living up to the impossibly low expectations of many.

It's hard to argue that Reagan and Bush Jr proved to be poor choices, given the country re-elected them.

I won't comment on Bush Sr given he wasn't re-elected.

Obama was regarded as a good choice by many, mostly on the Democrat side of the spectrum. Some Republicans voted for him, I suspect many of them regretted it. Donald is regarded as a hugely bad choice by many but frankly it doesn't say much for Hillary Clinton that she lost to the guy that so many consider to be a joke. It reminds me of the window sticker typically found in old slow cars that says "this car may not be fast but it's paid for and it's in front of you".