Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Whoa! I am a white evangelical and I have rejected him.

C'mon man, you understand demographics better than that, right?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

C'mon man, you understand demographics better than that, right?

Apparently better than you. They try to smear Christians by saying they support Trump. But the reality is it is primarily rural whites, poor whites, and unemployed whites. Christianity has little to no basis. If you filter out those who are voting for him for ethnic reasons and economic reasons, then religion doesn't play a role.

Obviously since the majority of hispanics are catholic you would not get a high % of Catholics supporting him. Also, the vast majority of minorities that are not Catholic would be considered evangelical, muslim, or Jews. So they don't talk about Brown or Black evangelicals, only White.

Don't blame Christians for Trump.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Apparently better than you. They try to smear Christians by saying they support Trump. But the reality is it is primarily rural whites, poor whites, and unemployed whites. Christianity has little to no basis. If you filter out those who are voting for him for ethnic reasons and economic reasons, then religion doesn't play a role.

Obviously since the majority of hispanics are catholic you would not get a high % of Catholics supporting him. Also, the vast majority of minorities that are not Catholic would be considered evangelical, muslim, or Jews. So they don't talk about Brown or Black evangelicals, only White.

Don't blame Christians for Trump.

Are you among those who believe that the USA is a Christian nation?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Are you among those who believe that the USA is a Christian nation?

Depends on your definition.

Nominally yes.

In comparison to decidedly non Christian countries like Saudi Arabia and India, yes.

But based on some kind of NT definition, no.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Apparently better than you. They try to smear Christians by saying they support Trump. But the reality is it is primarily rural whites, poor whites, and unemployed whites. Christianity has little to no basis. If you filter out those who are voting for him for ethnic reasons and economic reasons, then religion doesn't play a role.

Obviously since the majority of hispanics are catholic you would not get a high % of Catholics supporting him. Also, the vast majority of minorities that are not Catholic would be considered evangelical, muslim, or Jews. So they don't talk about Brown or Black evangelicals, only White.

Don't blame Christians for Trump.

Did you even read the article? The sociologists found "that Americans’ religious beliefs, behaviors and affiliation did not directly influence voting for Trump. In fact, once Christian nationalism was taken into account, other religious measures had no direct effect on how likely someone was to vote for Trump. These measures of religion mattered only if they made someone more likely to see the United States as a Christian nation." Your allegation of "blame" appears unfounded.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Did you even read the article? The sociologists found "that Americans’ religious beliefs, behaviors and affiliation did not directly influence voting for Trump. In fact, once Christian nationalism was taken into account, other religious measures had no direct effect on how likely someone was to vote for Trump. These measures of religion mattered only if they made someone more likely to see the United States as a Christian nation." Your allegation of "blame" appears unfounded.

So now you and ZNP need to realize that demonizing your opponent is not a way to reconcile the country.

But I do think ZNP has made some needed points. The country is extremely polarized. (The real Russian collusion is intended to fan these flames.) By posting and siding with media articles, the conflicts just spread further.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So now you and ZNP need to realize that demonizing your opponent is not a way to reconcile the country.

But I do think ZNP has made some needed points. The country is extremely polarized. (The real Russian collusion is intended to fan these flames.) By posting and siding with media articles, the conflicts just spread further.

I have supported an investigation, that is not the same as siding with media articles and fanning flames of conspiracy nuts.

I don't believe in rushing investigations on one hand and on the other feel that after a reasonable amount of time (a year is certainly a reasonable amount of time) you need to have demonstrated a valid reason to continue. I think Mueller has certainly demonstrated a valid reason to continue. I think he has also justified his intention to question the president.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have supported an investigation, that is not the same as siding with media articles and fanning flames of conspiracy nuts.

I don't believe in rushing investigations on one hand and on the other feel that after a reasonable amount of time (a year is certainly a reasonable amount of time) you need to have demonstrated a valid reason to continue. I think Mueller has certainly demonstrated a valid reason to continue. I think he has also justified his intention to question the president.

I have posted numerous articles that debunk the notion that the Mueller investigation is at all fair. Nothing about the investigation is right, honorable, or above the table. Sure the Russians are bad actors, but the overwhelming evidence of collusion for the last decade points to Hilary, Obama, and certain bad actors our intelligence community. Uranium One sellout is exhibit number one.

Quick example of media bias. Why no sympathy for Flynn, a career civil servant, who was illegally unmasked, deceptively interviewed by Strzok, illegally wiretapped by the FBI, bankrupted by Muller's team of crooked investigators like Weissmann, convicted of a "process" crime which will be overturned here shortly.

Compare this to the outpouring of sympathy for crooked McCabe, whose investigator Strzok interviewed Hilary without oath, who exonerated her even before interviewing her, who lied to Congress, who deceived the FISA court, who hatched the "insurance plan" to take down a sitting president. His "lack of candor" is FBI-speak for lack of honesty or integrity.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have posted numerous articles that debunk the notion that the Mueller investigation is at all fair. Nothing about the investigation is right, honorable, or above the table. Sure the Russians are bad actors, but the overwhelming evidence of collusion for the last decade points to Hilary, Obama, and certain bad actors our intelligence community. Uranium One sellout is exhibit number one.

Quick example of media bias. Why no sympathy for Flynn, a career civil servant, who was illegally unmasked, deceptively interviewed by Strzok, illegally wiretapped by the FBI, bankrupted by Muller's team of crooked investigators like Weissmann, convicted of a "process" crime which will be overturned here shortly.

Compare this to the outpouring of sympathy for crooked McCabe, whose investigator Strzok interviewed Hilary without oath, who exonerated her even before interviewing her, who lied to Congress, who deceived the FISA court, who hatched the "insurance plan" to take down a sitting president. His "lack of candor" is FBI-speak for lack of honesty or integrity.

I have not shown any bias towards Flynn. I have only stated the facts which may or may not indicate a hidden agenda and bias.

I have also stated repeatedly that I am all for investigating any and all corruption. But Al Capone claiming the trial is unfair because Dillinger killed more people is an apples and oranges argument.

The sympathy for McCabe has nothing to do with him being fired. I don't know the details of that and they have not yet been released to the public. So your claim to be in possession of all the facts is not true. What I do know is the investigation was rushed so that he could be fired 2 days before being able to retire with his benefits. This was done at the behest of the President who tweeted about this months before any legitimate investigation could have been performed.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Did you even read the article? The sociologists found "that Americans’ religious beliefs, behaviors and affiliation did not directly influence voting for Trump. In fact, once Christian nationalism was taken into account, other religious measures had no direct effect on how likely someone was to vote for Trump. These measures of religion mattered only if they made someone more likely to see the United States as a Christian nation." Your allegation of "blame" appears unfounded.

You said "Despite porn stars and Playboy models, white evangelicals aren’t rejecting Trump. Why? Christian nationalism".

You did not qualify "white evangelicals" as specific to those for whom "Christian nationalism" was taken into account. That sounds like a very small sliver of evangelicals. You smeared "white evangelicals". That is what I was taking issue with.

White evangelicals who have "Christian nationalism" as a core value is just a very long way of describing nazis or brown shirts or white supremacists. To equate evangelicals with that fringe group is slander.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You said "Despite porn stars and Playboy models, white evangelicals aren’t rejecting Trump. Why? Christian nationalism".

You did not qualify "white evangelicals" as specific to those for whom "Christian nationalism" was taken into account. That sounds like a very small sliver of evangelicals. You smeared "white evangelicals". That is what I was taking issue with.

White evangelicals who have "Christian nationalism" as a core value is just a very long way of describing nazis or brown shirts or white supremacists. To equate evangelicals with that fringe group is slander.

I didn't say no white evangelicals are rejecting Trump and I linked the article so any interested party could see that among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants continue to be solidly supportive of the president’s job performance: 78% approve today, while just 18% disapprove. Your accusation of slander is unfounded.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't say no white evangelicals are rejecting Trump and I linked the article so any interested party could see that among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants continue to be solidly supportive of the president’s job performance: 78% approve today, while just 18% disapprove. Your accusation of slander is unfounded.

the article says "78% approve of Job performance", you said despite porn stars and playboy models, evangelicals approve. Regardless of whether or not those accusations are 100% true, they are not "job performance". If the question was "lifestyle" or "sexual behavior" then that would be relevant.

Your statement took the response to one question and applied it to a very different one. I completely disapprove of the allegations of Trump's behavior with porn stars and playboy models. However, if I answered a survey about his job performance as president I would not put my disapproval of his personal behavior prior to being president as being relevant.

Accusation of slander is well founded.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

the article says "78% approve of Job performance", you said despite porn stars and playboy models, evangelicals approve. Regardless of whether or not those accusations are 100% true, they are not "job performance". If the question was "lifestyle" or "sexual behavior" then that would be relevant.

Your statement took the response to one question and applied it to a very different one. I completely disapprove of the allegations of Trump's behavior with porn stars and playboy models. However, if I answered a survey about his job performance as president I would not put my disapproval of his personal behavior prior to being president as being relevant.

Accusation of slander is well founded.

You seem to be taking the article personally when it isn't saying anything about you. It's a statistical finding. Just read the article and you'll see. They found that the more someone believed the United States is a Christian nation, the more likely they were to vote for Trump. "Americans who agreed with the various measures of Christian nationalism were much more likely to vote for Trump, even after controlling for other influences, such as political ideology, political party and other cultural factors proposed as possible explanations."