False Idol: Why the Christian Right Worships Donald Trump

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Isn't that exactly what they're doing though? Abortions make them uncomfortable, but they don't affect the quality of their lives. It's the best course of action for many other people's lives, and it's none of their business, but instead of simply choosing to not abort pregnancies themselves, they vote to make it illegal because they feel it's wrong and equate it to murder.

Anyhow, you asked if they'd be better off voting for Democrats, and the answer is yes...unless they're wealthy and want the biggest tax breaks they can get.

It's not rational, but it is what it is. Some illegal getting deported doesn't impact a lefties life, but they'll cry about it all the same.

And I guess I should rephrase my question to "would they be better off *based on what appears to be important to them*"

When I see evangelicals talk, it's not usually to cry about tax cuts.

Lol, Surt. To say all politicians participate in the same level of pandering and corruption as Trump is to be damn near blind.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Anyhow, you asked if they'd be better off voting for Democrats, and the answer is yes...unless they're wealthy and want the biggest tax breaks they can get.

see attached

Who said the same? It shouldn't *need* to be the same. Either corruption bothers you or it doesn't. Choose. "My guy is less corrupt than yours" is a shitty defense.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Lol, Surt. To say all politicians participate in the same level of pandering and corruption as Trump is to be damn near blind.

see attached

See: Equalization Tactics

-Blindly support X
-X does something bad
-Claim: "they're all bad!"
-Blindly support X

It's the way they justify the unjustifiable.

Originally posted by Robtard
See: Equalization Tactics

-Blindly support X
-X does something bad
-Claim: "they're all bad!"
-Blindly support X

It's the way they justify the unjustifiable.

^Only the unintelligent agree with this

Lol, Surt. I don't support semi-corrupt candidates either. Bernie Sanders doesn't take corporate handouts. So he's actually trying to represent The People.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's not rational, but it is what it is. Some illegal getting deported doesn't impact a lefties life, but they'll cry about it all the same.

And I guess I should rephrase my question to "would they be better off *based on what appears to be important to them*"

When I see evangelicals talk, it's not usually to cry about tax cuts.

When you word it like that, sure, the evangelicals will feel better represented by Republicans, at least on the surface. They'd be better off under Democrats, not because they're Democrats, but because they're generally more progressive than Republicans, which tends to benefit non-wealthy people more.

And yes, you are using an equalization tactic.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
And yes, you are using an equalization tactic.

He literally did it in his reply to you...

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Lol, Surt. I don't support semi-corrupt candidates either. Bernie Sanders doesn't take corporate handouts. So he's actually trying to represent The People.

That's fine, but people tend to think whining over a behavior Trump does and supporting someone who does the same(even to a lesser extent) is okay. It is not. I'm glad you don't do that.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
And yes, you are using an equalization tactic.

No I'm not.

Originally posted by Surtur
That's fine, but people tend to think whining over a behavior Trump does and supporting someone who does the same(even to a lesser extent) is okay. It is not. I'm glad you don't do that.

Here you're saying that if a given candidate accepts one shady donation of $50, it's no different than a candidate that accepts forty shady donations of $1,000,000.00.

When in reality, the latter is much worse. See: Equalization Tactics

I'm saying you either whine over both or neither. Only a piece of shit would think shady donations are okay as long as they are under a certain price.

Not equalizing isn't excusing the behavior, no matter how hard you try.

Good, don't excuse it. And if you feel taking shady donations means someone should not be in power you feel that way about *anyone* taking those kind of donations, no matter if it's 50 bucks or 50 million.

Hell the best part? You can do that while *still* thinking taking the 50 mil was worse. Awesome.

Equalization Tactic sandwich.

So tell me how much money in shady donations a person would have to take before you give a shit 🙂

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Evangelicals would lean more Democrat if they actually followed Jesus's teachings.

My personal stance on government largely derives from more pacifistic-leaning and peace upholding values in my faith, an aversion I have towards the use of violence and threat of violence, save for the preservation of human rights against violent actors, and I find the state to inherently exist as an institution of violence. Thus I am convicted towards a more classical liberal political philosophy, as while I believe in caring for the poor and and believe in a certain standard of sexual ethics beyond mere consent, I do not view these goals as justification for the leveraging of the violence of the state over other people.

Jesus probably wouldn't appreciate people who don't believe in him pulling this "what would jesus do " shit tho.

Originally posted by Surtur
So tell me how much money in shady donations a person would have to take before you give a shit 🙂

I'd have to know the specifics and context, as not everything is either black or white so to speak in reality, no matter how hard you try with your tactics.

eg if Buttigeig took $1,000.00 from the anti-Abortion lobby, I'd think that's shit, but he'd not lose my vote on that alone, as $1,000.00 effectively buys zero political pull. I'd also want to know why he did.

Same question to you. Go.