To all those fawning over the Christianity Today article

[stopbush]

Does no one have a problem with this gratuitous lie and slur that heads the article?:

“Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.”

Absolute bullshit on every level.

Fuck them.

[Bettie]

1. That also lends more credibility

to the article with those who need to hear it.

Is the publication one I think is good, decent, above board? Nope. That isn't the point.

The point is that HIS people are starting to turn.

I'm taking it as a positive sign that even the worst out there are starting to say "This isn't OK".

[stopbush]

5. Yes. CT needs to first establish its anti-D cred with its readers. It does that by lying.

But then, lying for Jesus is a time-honored tradition in the church.

[GoCubsGo]

8. Yep. This isn't "fawning over" the op ed.

It's enjoyment of watching all these right-wing assholes finally turning on each other over that corrupt sack of shit currently squatting in the White House.

[Bettie]

14. I have zero expectation of truth in anything

by a religious publication.

That is why this whole thing was a surprise. He's finally gone too far for some of the right wing religious folk. That's news.

[stopbush]

11. I imagine there are some Ds who read CT. Are they sitting at home agreeing that

yes - that’s what the Ds have been doing. Guilty as charged! Their actions make me question the facts that were presented BY TRUMP’s OWN APPOINTEES.?

[Cosmocat]

34. Meh

how about just be honest ...

Yeah, we hate them cause we are told we have to hate them, but maybe the heathen liberals saw this POS for what he was all along.

The origional sin here isn't 45, it is 30 years of these people being brainwashed to think than any liberal is the spawn of satan, THAT is why they got behind the more immoral, least christian human being imaginable.

[Girard442]

46. I grew up among Evangelicals. I was told every day to love them.

I never loved them like I was taught but I didn’t hate them before Trump. Now I do.

[uponit7771]

62. They're not starting to turn, they got their judges and now they're done with him. IT's not like

... they give a shit about kids being abused via his policies or Trump being a whore for Putin or some other crap

[StarfishSaver]

2. It doesn't bother me at all

It's probably what makes the people who need to see it more likely to keep reading until they get to the good part.

Not mad at them.

[stopbush]

6. See my reply #5.

[ScratchCat]

3. Eh, the last sentence is nonsense

But the rest is generally true.

After the way the right acted over Obama, its easy to see why many would think the way the left is acting over Trump is just "the same thing", er, "both sides".

Of course we were "out for him" from day one; it was already known that he was involved with Russia and there were a dozen things that should have already been "disqualifying". The only "problem" I have with people saying "the Democrats were out for him from day one" is that they pretend that it wasn't warranted. But I don't "blame" anyone from the right for having suspicions initially over the Democrats actions. But we are way past that point now and it has to be obvious to anyone with a brain that Trump has to go.

[wnylib]

47. Totally agree with your comment on people

say the D's were out to get Trump from the start but conveniently skip the fact that there was good reason for going after him from the start. As if nobody heard of the Russian connection BEFORE the election. As if nobody heard of the Access Hollywood tape, Trump University, the racism in his initial declaration to run, etc, etc, etc.

No rational person can believe that a corrupt, immoral person is going to be a champion of morality and of fighting corruption. Delusional fools.

But I can see other posters' point that the author probably established his creds with his readers through the quoted paragraph. I remember being taught that a good persuasive essay or speech addresses the reader/audience where they are at, anticipates and addresses objections, and then argues the point.

[grantcart]

49. Exactly 100% out for all birthers

[The Mouth]

55. People who say "not my president"

have a harder time establishing credibility with the other side.

I saw people saying that about GWB, and about Obama and lots of people saying it about Trump right from the beginning.

Right or left, if you have already stated you hate someone and regard them as illegitimate, your subsequent opinions about them and attacks on them are suspect and subject to a much higher standard of proof from the neutral or middle ground.

We had Tea Party idiots question Obama's citizenship (and, to be fair, people who don't understand the Constitution saying Trump was illegitimate because he only won the EC ),who the hell on the other side is going to pay any attention to what such people subsequently accuse the President who they regard as illegitimate of?

As much as I dislike Drumpf, it is utterly true that MANY on our side have looked for any possible way to get him out of the presidency since the night of the election results.

[Qutzupalotl]

65. His win was the result of a coordinated foreign attack

from an adversary who considers itself at war with the United States and acts accordingly. Influencing our elections and our discourse to our detriment is their goal.

Putin’s FSB is creating instability worldwide wherever it can, with weaponized psychographic techniques such as those pioneered by Cambridge Analytica. Brexit is one such victory. Trump’s election was another. We have a willing subject of the Kremlin in the White House, unconcerned about the damage he causes to our national security, public wellbeing, and treasury. Anyone who is not suspicious of Trump is either misled by propaganda or being deliberately disingenuous.

Since the day he took office, Trump has violated the Constitution by refusing to divest from his business interests. He is unfit for office, and his subsequent behavior bears this out. Those who opposed him since day one are correct. If saying so annoys those who worship him, that is to be expected.

[captain queeg]

4. Of course the orange abomination released his usual tweet attack on the magazine

The world is so unfair to the poor snow flake

[stopbush]

9. Indeed. Life is generally unfair to billionaires. The rest of us need to have pity

on them and their plight (we really can’t have empathy).

[tavernier]

42. Excellent.

More readership.

[question everything]

7. Right. And now that they got their judges for the next 30 years

they can turn pious.

[wnylib]

50. But if we can get Supremes appointed,

we will have the chance of a higher court reversing lower court rulings. Win in 2020 and RBG can retire if she wishes to. Gain in the Senate and there is at least one Supreme who deserves impeachment and removal.

A hard uphill battle, but it's what we've got right now and for years to come.

[maxsolomon]

10. You know, Trump had it out for Obama for YEARS before we

"Had it out for him".

The GOP "had it out for" HRC for 30 years.

The GOP "had it out for" WJC over a consensual affair. THEY IMPEACHED HIM FOR IT.

So, I agree, fuck them. Broken clock, 2X/day, whoop de doo.

[wnylib]

54. They were out against Bill long before the

Monica business. Whitewater, phony troopergate, murders, etc.

I remember a woman I worked with then who was married to a fundamentalist minister. She ranted to me about all the 'evil' things the Clintons had done. Nearly went hysterical when I said I was going to a Dem rally for Hillary when she was running for her first term as a NY senator. Accused me of enabling sex crimes and murder by supporting Hillary.

[treestar]

60. Yep, they have no sympathy here

McConnell said on Obama's inauguration night he wanted to make him a one-term President.

[Hortensis]

12. Oh, I noticed it. I always notice gratuitous insults aimed at me.

Sadly, aside from gratuitous insults on political forums of course, nothing's more common than seemingly obligatory smearing and false equalization of Democrats with whatever's being complained about. It comes from every direction constantly.

There are many good and important articles, though, that move on from their SOP of ass-covering introductory smears of Democrats to make truthful points. Like this one. These people obviously felt they had to draw people in reassuringly before focusing on condemning Trump. At length.

This hit the news and got Trump's notice because it's an important article, and maybe you should go back and read it. Their circulation isn't huge, but Christianity Today is widely discussed and quoted, including by ministers and pastors of many Christian denominations.

[JustAnotherGen]

13. They want Pence in Office

They wrote not ONE word about Pence.

[redstatebluegirl]

33. Pence is an evangelical's dream.

He is the second coming of Jesus as far as the right is concerned.

[tavernier]

43. I think you may have something there.

This might be the orchestral introduction before the curtain rises and Pence and Mother slowly enter stage front out of the shadows.

[ProfessorGAC]

63. And Then?

Not criticizing Tag. You & I are highly sympatico.
But, Pence is nothing.
A tool? Yep.
A pious twit? Yes
But, nobody(!) voted for him. Not even the 'gelicles.
And a Veep taking over for a disgraced prez is irrelevant.
He's irrelevant now, and would be so even as POTUS.

[Fullduplexxx]

15. Because from day one he was guilty of violating the emoluments law

[Mme. Defarge]

16. It was a courageous move on the part of CT

and I am grateful for it. My hope is that it will provide moral support for some in that community who are wavering it their support for the FM.

[dchill]

52. I, personally, do not trust the motives...

...of ANYONE who makes their living being a Professional Christian. This outfit very likely is angling for a Pence Dominion. I could be wrong, but why chance it?

[wnylib]

56. You are probably right about the Pence angle.

He might replace Trump if we can get the traitor convicted. But Pence's own state didn't want him. It would take a LOT of fraud to get him elected to the WH since so few people would ever vote for him.

[NBachers]

17. I won't even waste my fucking time . . . But, call me a "fawner." I'll cop to it.

[Mr.Bill]

18. I've "had it out for him"

since about 1975.

[Vogon_Glory]

19. I was hardly fawning earlier

I was hardly fawning over the editorial staff of Christianity Today on an earlier thread when I noted that they’d had an epiphany about the behavior and true character of Donald J. Trump.

I still find the fact heartening and worth noting. I also hope more Evangelicals have similar Road-to-Damascus moments between now and when the polls close on November, 2020 and that they act on them—either by voting Democratic or simply by staying home and not voting for Trump-Pence like they did in 2016.

EDIT: Four years is still an awfully long time to wise up.

[standingtall]

20. So what if Democrats have had it out for him from day one

Trump has been committing impeachable offenses sense day one. The part about him not have a serious opportunity to offer his before the House hearings on impeachment is absolute bologna. He was offered his chance to do so and he refused to participate.

[panader0]

32. I had it out for him before day one.

trump* has been an asshole and a crook for decades.
He did and said enough in the R primaries to think he should be impeached.

[ChazInAz]

35. Exactly

And since the CT and its ilk are the self-appointed arbiters of public morality (Especially for the beliefs of us shady Liberals!), you'd think they would have noticed his character years ago and said something then.

[MarcA]

58. +1,000 n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

21. "Cops and prosecutors have had it out for criminals from day one

and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of suspicion"


Is that it?

[ancianita]

22. Talking out of both sides of their christian mouths.

[Pacifist Patriot]

23. I have pointed out that egregious lie on numerous sites today.

[bitterross]

24. Yep, that pissed me off when I read it.

None of that is true. Not to mention, this only seems to be an issue with Dems and Trump. Nothing about Moscow Mitch and his ilk meeting on Obama's inauguration evening to plan on how to obstruct Obama and make him a one-term President.

As I told a friend on FB. Don't think they've seen the light all of a sudden. It's a win-win for them if Trump goes. They get Pence, who will continue pursuing their agenda. They also get to stop all the bad PR associated with defending a lying, misogynist, adulterer, xenophobe, Nazi-Supporter, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

[zentrum]

25. The point here is that

....the Evangelical base may be leaving him. Of course they are not going to say good or honest things about Democrats.

It gives some permission to the rest of these types to defect from the cult. It names him as Immoral.

It's huge.

[Chakaconcarne]

26. This is enough for me...

"Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don't reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come?"

It speaks to all of his behaviors and not just those related to impeachment.

[Azathoth]

27. I'm glad they said it. It shows they are genuinely trying to deprogram the cult

You have to establish some kind of common ground with your audience before you can begin to chip away at their beliefs. Otherwise, they will just tune you out.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

28. Remember how they came down on Republicans

when they said their one goal was to make sure Obama was a one term President?

Oh, wait. They didn't.

[nolabear]

31. Wrong forum.

[nolabear]

30. Accept the help. Just take it. It doesn't matter.

[Kaleva]

37. For some reason, people like to break up Repub circular firing squads

Never understood the rationale for attacking those who are attacking Trump or being critical of him. Let them fight.

[RelativelyJones]

36. I'll take the help where we can get it.

[DallasNE]

38. My Thought When First Reading

Was that ghost written by Mike Pence?

[Gore1FL]

39. I am just happy they are turning on Trump.

I recognize they are still full of shit concerning most things.

[wnylib]

40. I can't imagine anyone at DU "fawning" over

an article in Christianity Today. I sure hope nobody took my mention of it in an earlier post as approval of or fawning over the article. I was typing a response to another post while listening to an NPR interview with him and mentioned the interview in my post.

I personally have not read the article and did not even know the magazine existed until the fuss was stirred up about it.

Not surprising, though, to find that those sentences in the actual article sound more like a defense of Trump than a criticism of him, considering where they are printed. The editor made no mention of his position on the hearings in the interview.

Thanks for posting this so that we are aware of the tone of the editor's claim of "criticism" of the impeached one.

[scarytomcat]

41. I thought the rethugs made Trump's side of the story

basically bullshit and obstructive comments and childish name calling same as dump would have if he could have thought of it himself which he can't.

[meow2u3]

44. My tweet in response to this nonsense that Dems had it in for Trump

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Ms. Toad]

45. Aside from the last sentence, what about it is untrue?

The fact that Democrats have had it out for him from day one does not legitimize his behavior. And we have been - for good reason.

Of course everything is under a cloud of partisan suspicion - things have been getting more partisan for years, and this is worse than I've seen it. Again - it does not legitimize his behavior - nor does it change fact into opinion or fake news. But the reality that the investigation is fact-based does not remove the partisan suspicion that it is not.

[grantcart]

48. Not only that but those sentences that we object to will only increase the impact to

Those on the other side of the aisle.

I have had it out for Trump ever since he went birther.

[Mickju]

51. Like most Christians I know,

They are completely full of shit.

[ooky]

53. If I hear that lie about how he didn't get a chance to defend himself

one more time I'm going to throw up. I dare a MAGAt to try telling me that.

[zaj]

57. Well, if it established credibility for the main point of the article, then...

... it's a net positive.

[onecaliberal]

59. But but but....

The GOP saying their #1 priority is to make Obama 1 term.

https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=video+of+mcconnel+saying+his+priority+is+to+make+obama+fail&fr=iphone&.tsrc=apple&pcarrier=Sprint&pmcc=312&pmnc=530

[live love laugh]

61. We can't grasp at crumbs...from this rag or

the other right wingers who occasionally crawl from under their rocks and display signs of lucidity.

[roamer65]

64. Fake Christians are still our enemy.

Fuck them.

[FiveGoodMen]

71. They are real Christians

They're just fake followers of Jesus.

[UTUSN]

66. K&R

[herding cats]

67. He's damaging their brand.

That's how I read this editorial and it's still what I'm seeing as true.

It's not that they have a true belief and are speaking out, it's that others out there are starting to link them (their evangelical faith) to Trump and his toxicity. It exposes them as hypocrites, charlatans and hucksters. Some are rightly concerned.

It's not a pretty look and some are seeking to distance their public face from Trump and his extremely unchristian rhetoric and actions from their political brand. And, yes, their brand is a political one. They know it is and they're worried of the ramifications Trump might well bring down on then in the future. They're trying to develop distance while they still can.

I'm less than apathetic to their plight, but if it helps us with saving democracy, fine.

Enemy of my enemy, and all that. I welcome them dividing amongst themselves, personally. I'll be more than willing to use Trump against them (Evangelicals) down the road all the same.

[eppur_se_muova]

68. Evangelicals favored 45 because they like his "pro-life" and "pro-religious freedom" views ...

... which, of course, he doesn't actually have, but he's willing to claim he has to get their votes. In other words, he wants to oppress the same people they want to oppress, and deny the same rights they want to deny, so he's useful to them. Whether he's profoundly flawed or not doesn't matter too much, apparently.

The author of the editorial was interviewed on NPR this morning and made it sound like he was really taking a principled stand, until you reflected on what he actually said. If he had only added that he turned away from 45 because of the obvious hypocrisy and cynicism, he might have qualified for the Putzer Prize in Unconcious Irony.

[bucolic_frolic]

69. yeah i saw that too

Democrats knew Trump would be a nightmare on policy, and that election 2016 was as stolen as election 2000. Trump had evry opportunity to provide witnesses to the House hearings. Trump can only blame himself.

[radical noodle]

70. I can't speak for other Democrats

but I have been out to get him from day one because I understand just how dangerous he is to our democracy and the world.

[MyNameGoesHere]

72. I have had it out for trump* before day one

He is and has always been a vile human being. I am not ashamed nor do I apologize for wanting to get him.

(*) Received more impeachment votes than any human being in the history of the universe.